Friday, December 16, 2005

Why I'm not renewing my Cosmo subscription

I've been a subscriber to Cosmopolitan magazine for several years. It offered mindless entertainment month after month, without fail- hair and makeup tips, fashion spreads, funny "I can't believe I did that" stories, and the requisite juicy celebrity gossip.

Now, however, as Glamour magazine did a few years ago, Cosmo has lost its lustre to me in more ways than one.

I ended my Glamour subscription because I was tired of seeing article after article telling me about how I need to protect my right to abortions. As I am a staunch supporter of life and the right to it, these articles stuck in my craw enough to make me put down the magazine. I had subscribed for the proclaimed purpose of the magazine - fashion and glamour - and that was not what I got. If I had wanted a politically charged/liberal magazine, I'd not have chosen one named Glamour; I'd have gone with something a little more overt, like Abortion Times, or perhaps Baby Killer Weekly.

Cosmo has become trite to me with their oversexed attitudes. Every cover has the word "sex" or some variant no fewer than 4 times. On the December cover: "The Sexiest Things to do Before Sex," "Guys' Sex Drive," "Your Sexual Health," "Girl On Top: These 9 Pleasure-Maxing Sex Positions Will Send You Both to the Moon."

Give me a fucking break. (No pun intended.) This magazine makes 20 to 30 somethings look like a bunch of nymphomaniacs. Again, if I'd wanted a magazine dedicated to sex, I'd have chosen something else.

My January issue arrived yesterday. I did my normal flip-through of the whole thing, removing the loose subscription cards that inevitably drive me crazy. (Yes, I am a nutjob. This has already been well established in previous posts.)

An article in the middle was nothing out of the ordinary; one of their trademark assemblies of shocking or funny mini-stories from various women. This one is titled, "Naughty Nannies: Busted."

The tagline reads, "Naughty nannies have been making headlines lately. Here, Cosmo rounded up salacious stories from young moms scorned by their misbehaving babysitters." The women telling the stories are ages 30, 27, 33, 26, 31, and 31. Their stories run the gamut from attempted husband stealing to jewelry theft to on-the-job sleeping.

"Oh my," you, the concerned reader, may think. "Those nannies are awful! Those poor parents, hiring someone so rotten!"

Nay, nay, dear reader. The nannies are not the ones to blame.

I blame the women telling these little stories.

When you hire someone to come into your home and do YOUR job of raising your child/children, what do you expect?

Naturally, the nanny is already playing the part of mother. So why should you begrudge her the job of wife as well?

If you can afford to have someone live in your house and raise your child full time, while you gallivant off to whatever career or other time waster you see fit, then dammit, you can afford to stay home and raise your child your damn self.

Kids are not a hobby. They are not a distraction. They are not a part time, evenings, and Sundays responsibility.

Having children is a full time, 24/7/365, no sick days, no paid holidays, no time off, no substitutions responsibility.

I haven't waited 29 plus years for kids just so I can farm them out to a live-in babysitter or outside daycare facility for them to be raised. Why would any parent want to miss out on all the wonderful "firsts?" First word, first step, first self-feeding, first sit-up, first roll over, first smile. Seems like a damn shame to miss that stuff.

Careers can wait. Jobs with a paycheck can be performed by anyone.

No one can replace a mommy or a daddy.

1 Comments:

At 7:37 PM, December 17, 2005, Blogger catlover926 said...

You should send this to Dr. Laura.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home