Magazine cover straight out of the 70s. So depressing

[EmilyDickinson]

I was shopping in the supermarket and stopped to look at the magazines. I bought my husband a running magazine recently and it had lots of useful articles in, so, as I run myself and I’m interested in getting healthier, I stopped to look at the Women’s Health magazine.

So shocked and depressed. It’s like something out of the 70s. The image seems designed purely to titillate any men looking at the magazine - why? No woman would actually exercise dressed like that. Highcut leotard? On a bike? Impractical and uncomfortable. Hair not tied back. Leg warmers?! And high heels, WTF? Plus, of course, the woman isn’t exercising, just posing for the male gaze. It feels like we’re just going backwards in the way women are perceived. We couldn’t possibly actually want to exercise like men do. We’re just sex objects.

This made me laugh, but yes - entirely plausible scenario and a sad state of affairs.

Well they are a business and I'm sure they have found that sales go up when they have a cover like this.

Oh to clarify, nothing wrong with the JL image - she's as glorious as she always is. But the coverlines overwhelm her and are terrible: a hideous mishmash of fonts and colours, and written as if for toddlers ('choccy eggs for everyone!')

Ugh.

Women in their 50's might remember the 70's but they would have been little kids for the most part. Their young womanhood would have been in the 90's.

This is a pic of Ekin Su, who was a love Island contestant last year.

Maybe they mean the articles listed which are all stereotypical. Cooking, ironing, home decor etc.? But it is called Good Housekeeping!

Sorry multivac just saw your post explaining.

'Physical' was a hit in the early 80s, not the 70s.

I stopped subscribing to WH it’s all just articles tied to celebrities! Ekin Su is a new low even for them. I have nothing against her but she’s a reality TV “star” and has nothing to do with fitness etc.

I used to love Zest back in the day and was hoping WH would be similar but it was awful. Full of celebs and articles about sex which wasn’t what I was buying it for!

As a side note, I'm glad to see at least a title named "The dark side of psychadelics". I'm fed up of seeing people suffering - usually with complex trauma - being sold the idea that if they just pop some MDMA or go in an ayehasca (spelled incorrectly but in this context don't care!) retreat and vomit for three days they can cure themselves. It's beyond dangerous as an idea to peddle. Clinical trials are looking interesting, but in controlled settings. If MDMA cured trauma, my generation would be all trauma free. Hint: we're not!

If the drink I can't spell worked, the new age hippies would all be trauma free too. They're sadly not either.

As for the cover, it looks like the creative team have run out of ideas. They're not basing new ideas on old concepts, they're straight recreating them!

Oh dear I must be rubbish because I looked at it and thought Wow Ekin is such a babe 😍

I agree usaully I like Retro stuff,

Obviously not this kind of 70s era, Retro way of thinking,

It's also very reminsant of the Lads magazines of 90s too

It's so boring predictable image as vanilla /Beige

Re thinking it it's more Retro 80s era cover mag stuff,
A follow on from 70s era sexist Attitudes

Boring 😴 that mag editors still come up with mainstream stuff like this in Supermarkets

I like to classy Artistique stuff,

But we are living in weird times in which Michangelo st David's classical sculpture model,
Is now been thought of by a couple of Conservative American as Pornographic

I used to buy a couple of magazines every week. I felt annoyed and pissed off by the photographs and articles, I just stopped buying them. I haven't purchased one for 23 years now. I often think, if it's not okay for men, why is it okay for women? E.g leg brushing for cellulite/make up for spots/lose 7lbs in 7 days/dress for your shape etc. We need good affirmations and empowerment not how to look better for males.

I'm in my forties and I'm depressed that you find this depressing. She looks stunning!

It's meant to be retro/ironic isn't it? The image styling, the strapline, the font...

She has a very aspirational body which no doubt has been achieved through good diet and many gym sessions , she doesn’t look starved at all but to me looks radiant. Now I Deffo dont wear heels and leotard in the gym but if i had a body like hers I may be tempted! She reminds me of the gorgeous 80s / early 90s strong bodied supermodels . I see it as a recreation of that kind of vintage aerobics aesthetic which is so popular on Instagram etc. Kitsch but, weirdly nostalgic.

Completely agree @multivac Joanna lumley is lovely but that magazine cover is awful. All crowded and JL looks like she's about to run away. Surely they had better pictures than that one

I'm in my forties and I'm depressed that you find this depressing. She looks stunning!

I wasn’t really thinking about whether the woman on the cover looks good or not. She looks great. It’s more that no woman actually doing that exercise (indoor cycling) would wear that. As other posters have said, the leotard would ride up and be really uncomfortable, a leotard isn’t what you’d wear on a bike anyway - maybe for aerobics. You’d tie long hair back and the heels are just ridiculous. It irritates me that a magazine supposedly about health isn’t really. It’s about reducing women to a stereotype that men find attractive.

TBH it’s not about the amount of exposed flesh either. I go running. Plenty of the better female runners wear vest tops / sports bras and shorts. But, crucially, they wear what is practical for doing that exercise.

It feels like the message is, this magazine is about how you can look more attractive to men rather than this magazine is about how you can be healthy eg eat well, exercise well. Etc. With a cover like that how could they seriously have an article inside on the best trainers for running on different surfaces.

It’s disappointing to see how much they have photoshopped her arm. She looks great as she is, she doesn’t need her arms reducing

Same here not bought “womens “ magazines for over 25 years just got sick of all the air brushed images of women. Ffs cellulite my mum who is 86 didn’t even know it existed when she was wearing a swimsuit in the 50s/60s/70s ! It’s not that I don’t bother about myself at all, I like to try and look my best but it’s souls destroying looking at unattainable images of faces or figures that have been photoshopped or surgically enhanced. Does nothing for your self esteem as a woman.
I am old enough to remember though when Cosmopolitan banned diet articles from its pages during the 80s and had serious articles about handling sexism at work etc.
It’s a shame OP that you want a fitness mag same as your husband but there is all this bullshit going on instead. They could at least feature someone who is known as an athlete or fitness professional. Nothing against Ekin-Sue btw.

@Goodread1
“But we are living in weird times in which Michangelo st David's classical sculpture model,
Is now been thought of by a couple of Conservative American as Pornographic”

This doesn’t surprise me at all, attitudes in USA about male nudity have always been very conservative if not alarmist they don’t like seeing penises on TV etc while at the same time being totally fine about female nudity. I think they’re all terrified of being compared and found lacking or finding out they actually like it ! This is of course referring to general attitude and not individuals but while things are still mostly run by old heterosexual white men it won’t change.

The lumley one is way worse

HOT CROSS FUN

CHOCCY EGGS

I agree, although sadly pretty much all magazines, billboards, advertising etc seems to be women sexualised for the male gaze (even of the target audience is women!), so nothing new or surprising