So in like twenty minutes of scrolling through the British Cosmo, I found around two articles that were relevant to actual real-life problems.

But I found like ten articles about being a Disney princess, glitter, what the shape of my vagina can tell me scientifically about my orgasms, and what is the optimal position for period sex. Oh and Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, Kim and Kanye, as well as the new Royal baby.

There was a single article about difficulties with infertility which would've been something I would read.

There are so many more things that affect women other than glitter and having to choose between the two most expansive skin cream on Net-a-Porter.

There's no mention about the Irish trying to achieve a punishment of abortions with 14 years of prison time. Nothing about: child marriages, genital mutilation, women treated as property, or the difficulties mothers might face or why, for example, less and less women want to have children, or why the age at which women decide to do so has increased dramatically.

I have noticed a tendency of the media treating women as delicate flowers who can't decide anything for themselves. We are being patronized and groomed into caring about squats, carbs, Prosecco, brunch, and what nail polish to get next instead of reading something about real-world problems.

Goddamn Jim Jeffries made a segment about the Irish abortion law claim and I haven't seen a single mention of anything like that in a while on Cosmo, or in Marie Claire or all the other dumb and watered-down sources aimed at young women.

I would love to see articles, in this strongly feminist era, when women open their mouth really wide to voice their opinions even if they're wrong, that isn't a cringefest.

I want to hear what different generations of women think, I want them to reflect on the changing world and not complain about it. I want journalism to bring people closer not drive them apart. If we're there, just because a magazine is aimed at women and is allegedly fighting against the alleged oppression of women in the first world, we should not exclude men from the conversation. Constructive dialogue is what should be the point of everything, however, most people cannot entertain a thought they do not agree with, neither can they surpass their own egocentrism, a phase we, as humans, should overcome by the age of seven—at least according to Piaget.

I had enough—and I can't be alone in this—of everything conditioning women against men or more precisely the world ruled by men. Trust me, if you want to hate the world there's plenty of reasons to do that. There's no need for males to be involved.

I want to hear about how a bunch of middle-class teenagers were taken to hear stories of how little girl's mother, at the age of 12, held her down and allowed two other men to deprive her of ever enjoying sex because they mutilated her with a rusty knife. I want to hear about the Irish woman who had to go overseas to have an abortion because the child would not have been able to live a full life and she saw it as kinder and saw it as the Christian thing to do to end its life.

I want to feel the power in women because we stick together and not just on matters like the Royal Wedding.

I want to hear stories about how these magazines instead of preaching DO. They go and represent women, regardless of political views, nationality, or age; without bias. There's so many things one could do given the power.

These magazines: they have the reach, they have the power, and they have the means. Yet they fail to report things that are meaningful.

If I am so bothered about this why don't I read something else?

Because there's nothing else.

The only relatively constantly reliable news source I managed to find that was not politically biased was Philip DeFranco's YouTube channel.

I want more Stacey Dooley's behind the facade of journals and far less Hannah Smothers, who can predict whether your significant other is cheating on you by their favorite pizza toppings...