The right to bare arms

While recently enjoying a vanilla latte (and not a quarter strength caramel latte, like the woman in front of me. Whether it was the caramel or the coffee that was at quarter strength, remains a Gloria Jeans mystery akin to their enviro-friendly non-recyclable cups), I decided to flick through Grazia magazine. Poor old Grazia hasn't had much of a welcome since launching a year ago (this week's issue is their birthday issue and actually reasonable value, with less carbs then a muffin, at $2.50) and I must say I find it hard to warm to. Flitting between waiting-room trashy celeb gossip and $700 shoes makes me queasy. But then I stumbled on an article on Michelle Obama - god forbid, she has been nicknamed Mobama. Michelle O takes up too much space apparently. Grazia isn't exactly Marie Claire when it comes to reportage, but this particular article just took the cake - the only interesting thing to report on the First Lady was the fact she has toned arms. Yes, despite being an accomplished woman and the wife of the most influential man on the planet, the whole double page spread was devoted to how you too can get toned but not muscly arms, just like Mobama. OH. MY. GOD. It's easy to see why glossy mags are in decline, with women growing increasingly disenchanted with thinly disguised advertorial, repetitive content and ridiculously unnattainable wardrobes/figures/lifestyles. This post from Liz Jones on the UK's Daily Mail site says it all:

"And don't get me started on the fashion pages. Remember that notorious feature in Vogue a couple of months ago when it told you all about new ways - the 'Grab', the 'Twist' - to carry your handbag? I mean, come on! We have had The Female Eunuch, The Beauty Myth, the Equal Pay Act, and this is the sort of twaddle that is still being fed to us?
Isn't it time they all tried a little bit harder to be on our side, to help us through the mire of recession rather than trying to brainwash us into buying ever more stuff we didn't know we needed in the first place? "

We don't want to read about contstant doom and gloom. Reading about frocks and shoes and lippies is a way of escape, of girly pleasure, that most of us enjoy. But suggesting unwearable $1000 shoes are the must-have of the month, or that another "beach ready bikini body" special is something that we want or need is wearing thin. Women are tired of being told we're not good enough. I don't know anybody who can afford mountains of expensive handbags or wants to wear those must-have gold sequinned harem pants. Even the rehashed same-same covers, a result of limited and dwindling budgets, aren't inspiring women to even pick the magazines up off the shelves. Check out this month's varied and inspiring offerings (pics from Girl With A Satchel):

The last few months have been a constant Cameron/Kate/Scarlett overload (this month, it's all Cameron). IT'S BORING! I would rather see an anonymous model with an interesting face/outfit/pose and a catchy coverline than another celeb. I would like to put it out there that most of us have more important things going on in our lives then getting toned pinkie fingers. I'd bet you a Balenciaga bag Michelle Obama does. While I do stop to admire her outfits, I admire her person much more. Who seriously gives a fig how she gets away with sleeveless tops - when the American Contsitution was drafted, I would dare say this was not the Right to Bear Arms they were talking about.

Baby or Balenciaga?

September is a really busy month for all the gorgeous S/S 08/09 deliveries, so forgive me for not having a spare minute to scratch myself, let alone write the blog. It will be back up and running as usual in about a week! Added to that, for once nothing has really got my goat enough to warrant a daily rant. Except for a little excerpt from Grazia magazine I noticed the other day over at GWAS.....

To Baby or Not To Baby is a genuine issue among women today. And men, probably, but who cares. None of the articles I've read in the last few months have asked a male opinion. In the one camp are the women who love the idea of motherhood, and the goal of having a family is one they hope to achieve. On the other side of the trench are the career-oriented people who can't see why you would give up your career, lifestyle, time and body for motherhood. In the middle is the fading argument "we all have a choice"; even though it's true. Every female does have the choice to choose career or family or whatever they like. There isn't a right or wrong answer, really. Just alot of strong opinions. Obviously I fall into the pro-baby group, to be perfectly honest I didn't intend to be a mother so young, but the best things in life are often unplanned. Like most, I thought travel, career etc etc until perhaps my late 20's when hopefully I would be in a stable relationship, financially secure and all that. That would've been fine, but the experiences and opportunities of having Charlotte in my early 20's have been worth it; I wouldn't change it for the world, and I've definitely not misse dout on anything except a lot of hangovers.

It's not for everyone, and I don't think anybody should have a baby just because they "have to", in the same way they "have to" have the latest shoes or bag. If you're not ready, then don't. It changes literally everything, and from many of the opinions I've read there are many women out there who have worked really hard to achieve their lifestyles and they don't want to give it up. Without sounding rude, I think that is an awfully selfish and materialistic way to put things (an honest Vogue columnist recently said she'd prefer Balenciaga to baby bags, props for being so bold as to admit to it but it still seems a bit crude). They complain because their friends with kids don't have as much time for them as before, or aren't as interested in them. That should be a pretty obvious given, really; if you're a high achieveing 30-something presumably you don't need looking after as much as a newborn. The best response to the issue has been good old Frankie magazine, which sensibly went along the lines of "I'm not read for a baby, but my friend gave birth to the most gorgeous little bundle of joy you could imagine, and even though our coffee dates are structured around naptime, we both give a little to make it work." Jetting off to Rio on a whim sounds glamourous, but sometimes good old fashioned family time, fattening as it may be, is much better for the soul. And probably the environment, even though the comments in Grazia that really pissed me off was; "the carbon footprint created by a single child is enormous,"; "having children is selfish, it's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,"* say two childless-by-choice women. I'm sorry but that is mildly ridiculous. If nobody had kids in order to save Mother Earth the human race would have about 100 years left to exist, no? And I think the carbon footprint created by a stilettoed old bag would be bigger than a toddler's....again, I have to add, it is about choice. If one of my friends told me they never wanted to have kids, I wouldn't agree but it is their choice and I would respect it. I don't agree with people who would rather have designer bags then a child, by choice not by circumstance (I always feel so sorry for women and men depserate to start a family but can't when I read about this issue, how much must it hurt them to hear about people that can, but won't?), but it is up to them and it's not really my business how they choose the lead their lives. I hope they would have a better reason then a grand plan of rescuing the planet, but we should be thankful that we live in a society where we can choose such things.

*Gets off high horse*!

*courtesy of GWAS