Swiped from my personal blog
I know I already posted about this on my other blog, but it’s still grating on my nerves today so I figured I’d continue the rant over here. Not the kind of ranting that’s already going on, though; I mean, come on people–“Why does Vanity Fair Hate the Women of Twitter?” Really? According to this post, the article “paints them as attention seeking, pom pom wielding, phone sex operators for the internet.”
Excuse me but come on–not to be a bitch but pick one: either use your sexuality to get ahead or don’t. You can’t have it both ways; complain that “the media” is portraying women in a negative light while you have a website that looks like this. Granted the woman in the article who most resembles this remark, Adventure Girl, isn’t the one griping about how disappointed she is with the way she was portrayed–but before the masses continue whining about how Vanity Fair portrayed the lot of these women as flighty, leggy airheads, have a good look at Adventure Girl’s website. Oh, wow–you can become one of her “Sweet Tweets.” Then scroll down the page and check out the “fun gifts”–you can choose a mug or poster featuring her tits–complete with “XO, Stefanie Michaels”, or you can go with the cartoonized version of her in Daisy Dukes and huge porn star-esque boobs.
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not lumping all the women into the same category as Adventure Girl–but let’s call a spade a spade. If a magazine wants to feature you in a group of women that include, say, porn stars, and you accept–you can’t then complain that you’re being lumped into the same category as porn stars. You knew who else was being featured; you had the choice to pass on being glammed up, photographed in nothing but pumps and a trenchcoat and blithely described as a “tweetheart”….but you didn’t. I’m quite sure there were about a million other women who would have relished the chance to be featured in the article and enjoyed the resulting thousands of new followers.