More Boundless Hilarity From Go Fug Yourself

Yes, the title to this post would indeed be sarcasm. I avoid Go Fug Yourself because I think it is meanly misogynistic, and I thought I’d said about everything I had to say with respect to the Great Feminist Fug Off (see e.g. this, this, this, this, and this and this) but the link to the GFY post below came from an irate and persuasive Sarah Jessica Parker fan, so here it is, with a bit of angry, humorless commentary afterwards:

July 11, 2006
Fug the Cover: Sarah Jessica Parker

Here at GFY HQ, we’d gotten a few emails over the past month regarding Sarah Jessica Parker on the cover of Good Housekeeping. There was a lot of, “SERIOUSLY. She looks TERRIBLE,” and “No, for real. Someone at GH HATES her.” And it wasn’t that we didn’t believe you, because we did, but the true horriblosity of the cover can not be truly appreciated until you see it in person. I mean, here it is:

It’s not good, but it’s not like she looks like death refried or anything.

OR SO YOU THINK. Because last weekend, Heather and I went down to the newsstand to pick up our usual selection of periodicals (you know: Soap Opera Digest, Lucky, Entertainment Weekly, Juggs, Vogue — the usual), and we stumbled across this very magazine and OH MY DEARS. It is much worse than you can tell from the scan. So very much worse. For one thing, the picture appears to be totally out of focus. So that’s not good. For another, the person responsible for SJP’s make-up has clearly been harboring a terrible grudge against her dating back to Square Pegs, because she looks O-L-D old. Old, and weird, and just not attractive (and, for the record, although I know a lot of people think Sarah Jessica isn’t good-looking, I disagree. She’s not CONVENTIONALLY good-looking, but she’s interesting looking, and she makes it work. I admire her for not making her face look like everyone else in town, and I actually think that’s helped tremendously when it comes to her career longevity. She’s unusual and original, and there’s something to be said for that. Anyway.). And as for wardrobe, that pink washes her out, and the cut of the dress does nothing for her great body. She just looks ROTTEN.

I can’t imagine there was a great, thrilled fanfare in the Parker-Broderick manse when this arrived in the mail, either. Instead, I’m imagining that someone may have referenced the Sex and the City episode where Carrie is under the impression she’s going to be on the cover of New York Magazine’s “Single and Fabulous!” issue, when, in fact, she is the hung-over, makeup-less cover of an expose titled, “Single and Fabulous?”. I suspect someone may have made a bad Bad Housekeeping pun.

Which I appreciate, actually, because now I don’t have to do it.

So Sarah Jessica Parker “looks O-L-D old. Old, and weird, and just not attractive” and “ROTTEN” but this is all couched behind the instrumental pretense that GFY isn’t knocking Sarah Jessica Parker personally, because they are really blaming Good Housekeeping for her appalling ugliness: The folks at that magazine hate her, though why they hate is not discussed. Because they hate her, they did a terrible job with her make-up, and they put her in a pink dress that “washes her out” and “does nothing for her great body.” Well, here’s the thing: Parker was born in 1965. The rather unsubtle subtext here seems to be that the make-up just wasn’t pancaked on thickly enough to hide her odious 41 year old wrinkles.

Note that the GFY writer announces that “I know a lot of people think Sarah Jessica isn’t good-looking,” and proclaims that “she’s not CONVENTIONALLY good-looking,” but then artfully screens these insults behind vaguely complimentary assertions that Parker is “interesting looking…unusual and original, and there’s something to be said for that.” Ah, plausible deniability: Mean? Misogynist? Not us! We’re just criticizing Good Housekeeping’s aesthetics! We are just pointing out that Parker’s make-up and dress are inappropriate! We said she was interesting looking! What could be more perfectly feminist or riotously amusing than that?

Ugh.

And what other celebrities does GFY find too old in appearance? Here are excerpts from GFY posts about 24 year old Kirsten Dunst, whom GFY refers to as “Dr. Sunkentits”:

From here:

British Glamour published its best-dressed list recently, and sneaking in at No. 10: Kirsten Dunst.

The magazine apparently thinks she is “quirky” — with which we agree, if by “quirky” you mean “either saggy, or geriatric/homeless.”

and from here:

We knew Kirsten Dunst was making a scary transition into a geriatric, but we didn’t realize it was going to be so permanent… Judging by this reader-submitted photo, Granny Dunst is getting ready — sartorially speaking — to buy a condo in Naples, Florida, where her braless breasts can finally complete their frantic surge toward her knees. She will don her flowery frock over her jazzercise leggings, grab her bermuda purse, and shlep to bridge, not bothering to shower because Eau d’Old Lady is potent enough that the rest of the foursome won’t smell the sweat.

And here is GFY commentary about Tara Reid:

Hot Mess of the Decade Tara Reid is getting messier, although absolutely not hotter… This is just not…it’s just…not….this is just so bad. And it’s not bad in, like, a fun, dumb, chaps-wearing, fur-turban-sporting, Posh Spice way. It’s bad in like a bad, tacky, sad, I Have To Stop And Pick Up Some Ointment, Barefoot in the Esso Bathroom Britney way. Tara, honey, there’s a reason no one is hiring you anymore. It’s because you’re too old — and look way too rough — for teen roles, and you haven’t fixed yourself up to look like you’re suited for any kind of Rom-Com roles at all.

And as an added bonus, here is how Go Fug Yourself is informing liberal political discourse. Because what could be more important than a woman’s appearance.

–Ann Bartow