I have a theory: Esquire is on women’s side when it comes to the whole friendzone thing. Meaning, they get it. When a woman decides that she’s not romantically interested in one of her male friends, that’s kind of the bottom line. She’s drawn her boundaries in their relationship and that’s the end of the story. And that’s why they’re giving men terrible, terrible fashion advice to get out of the “friendzone.” Keep reading »
Tonight, the pre-show for Monday Night Football will feature a panel discussion about domestic violence. It will include, as Ben Collins points out at Esquire, the perspectives of 11 middle-aged-and-up men, and not a single woman. He goes on to dismantle Bill Simmons’ suspension from the network for calling Roger Goodell a liar and the network’s general posturing and censorship of dissenters and women.
What’s the point of this panel? It’s going to be a meaningless bummer. Hear me out: Everyone — everyone – knows that the only reason ESPN is bothering with it is to make it appear as if they’re “covering” the recent rash of domestic violence incidents and “addressing” their female audience, but it’s an empty gesture if their female audience isn’t even represented by a woman. What would happen if they didn’t bother and just had their normal pre-game show? It’s not like they’d get sued, and no one would say that they’re any more irresponsible than they’ve been demonstrating themselves to be with their crappy “coverage” of the issue anyway. I mean, hell, at this point, the better damage control would seem to be to just not address the issue at all and just let the rest of the world criticize them for that instead of making repeated and tremendous missteps like having Stephen Smith air his victim-blaming opinions about Janay Rice, suspending Bill Simmons for making an attempt at actual sports journalism, and now hosting an all-male panel on an issue that mainly affects women. Keep reading »
Have you ever played the game Two Truths/One Lie? The object of the game is to tell your audience three facts—two of which are true, and one of which is a lie. The audience must then distinguish which statement is false. I would like for you to play a modified version of the game with me now. Here are my three statements and I invite you to determine which one is false:
- I am a 43-year-old woman.
- I am completely “forgiving of a theater of men trying to get in my pants.”
- I have a dozen summer dresses in my closet.
Perhaps you noticed that I employed a quote in my second statement. Permit me to give you context—at least as much as I can. Recently, Tom Junod’s article, “In Praise of 42-Year-Old Women” was featured on Esquire.com. In his article, Junod discusses how according to Esquire’s “…occasional ranking of the ages … this year’s most alluring [woman] is not want you’d expect … No, this year it’s 42. Because it’s not what it used to be.” It’s not? Keep reading »
Megan Fox covers this month’s issue of Esquire, and she’d like you to know that she’s actually been religious this entire time.
“I’ve read the Book of Revelation a million times,” she told interviewer Stephen Marche. “It does not make sense, obviously. It needs to be decoded. What is the dragon? What is the prostitute? What are these things? What is this imagery? What was John seeing? And I was just thinking, What is the Antichrist? When war breaks out in the Holy Land, like it is right now, if that is a sign of the immediate end times, then where are the other signs? Is it possible that it’s the Internet or fame itself or celebrity?” Keep reading »