The Vagenda

Five Issues I Have With Louise Mensch’s “Feminist” Fashion Blog

- them’s some fuck ugly shoes
On paper, Louise “Louise Mensch” Mensch is cool (apart from when she leaves comments on blogs accusing us of being Labour supporters for not liking her – Ed) She did English at Oxford, interned at MTV, worked in EMI’s press department and then gave up being cool and instead decided to change the world by doing some politics, or change politics by being quite hot, or something. And we all know the only thing cooler than being cool is giving up being cool because you don’t care about being cool even if all you’re really doing is trying to look cool in a less cool environment so it’s actually easier to be cool, but whatever, we know you don’t really care about being cool, do you Loulou?
But when you actually sit down and think about it, Louise Mensch is a ridiculous human being.


Here are five reasons:
- She wrote a book called “Glamour”, which is about three school friends (one of them has both brains AND beauty!!!!1!!! OHEMGEE CAN’T BELIEVE IT, ETC) who open a super glam book shop together and make loadz of dolla.
- She wrote a book called “Passion”, which is about a man who loves a woman, but then the woman gets a bit chubbs so he doesn’t love her anymore, but then she goes to the gym (natch) and then he does love her again and they all live happily ever after.
- She wrote a book called “Desire”, which is about a woman who wakes up after her wedding to find her husband dead, but it’s all OK because she ends up dating the FBI agent who’s investigating the case. PHEW, MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN.
- She wrote a book called “Destiny”, which is about a girl who marries into money and learns (wait for it) that money isn’t everything. Got that, ladies? MONEY ISN’T EVERYTHING.
- She wrote a book called “Glitz.” Glitz? Glitz. I can’t even bring myself to Google what that one was about.
Let’s put her shitlit aside though. Let’s forgive Louise’s contribution to the literary world. Let’s assume she did it ironically or something, and let’s give her new fashion blog the time of day. lol, jk… let’s make fun of it.
But here are five reasons it’s the worst thing in the world:
1. Her first post is called “The Holy Grail of Heels.” In it, she praises a pair of shoes for being both high-heeled AND comfortable. Got that? High-heeled? Yes. Comfortable? Yes. Both? JESUS CHRIST, IT’S A YES. She goes on to claim that high heels are the “sine qua non” (what the fuck is that?) of “looking hot in a dress” and encourages women to wear high heels more because “your man wants you to swing it.” Swing what? Wearing high shoes requires no swinging? Unless I’m doing it wrong? I’m not doing it wrong; Louise Mensch is doing it wrong. Besides, some men are very short and they specifically would not like it if you were to wear high heels in their presence, whether or not you’re swinging this elusive “it”. So there, Mensch.
2. Her second post is called “What Men Want: Face” in which she talks primarily about the facial preferences of men and offers the following insight into the male mind: “Everybody’s tastes differ,” (no shit, Sherlock), “but men do like to see a confident, groomed woman who’s relaxed in her own skin.” To clarify, which helpful Louise does, when applying make up, you should aim for a “smooth” (but not “done”) finish. Why? Because that’s what men want: face. Obv.
3. Hang on, I have just noticed something. The slogan of Louise Mensch’s fashion blog is “a lazy girl’s guide to gloss.” Just. Too. Good. That’s reason three.
4. In “What Men Want: Figure” (it’s basically quite similar to “What Men Want: Face”, except it focuses on figure, not face), she says “men like curves.” Louise has really got them sussed, these men. She knows what they want. To recap: smooth (not done) face, and curvy bod. Still confused? Don’t woz, fashionista Louise Mensch (sorry, unfashionista Louise Mensch) gives us a good, old e.g. On the subject of Kim Kardashian, she muses: “there was a collective sigh of relief from men fed up to the back teeth with the constant diet of stick-thin, sexless models; no hips, no breasts, no fat anywhere to curve at the waist.” Oh Louise. Oh dear, sweet Louise. Three points:
i) No one looks like Kim Kardashian except Kim Kardashian (and Khloe Kardashian and Kourtney Kardashian and the other Kardashians). Kim Kardashian is not a realistic example of a “curvy woman”. That’s why she dates Kanye West and other “curvy women” don’t’ date Kanye West.
ii) Lots of women have different bodies and, although they may be different, they can all be smokin’ hawt. Kim Kardashian? Hot. Kate Moss? Hot. The difference: Kate Moss doesn’t have curves. Generalising will get you nowhere, Mensch.
iii) You can’t describe men as being “on a diet” of women. That’s insane.
5. Veering on parody, she writes: “men say they want a girl in a mini-skirt and heels but actually date and marry very differently.” Right. So if you want to date, go for the mini-skirt and heels, but if you want a marriage, ditch the mini-skirt but keep the heels (see: Point 1, feat. Holy Grail Heels).
I’ve got to stop. I’ve got to leave this website. I’ve wasted too much of my life on it. And, much as I do love a good generalisation, Louise Mensch is making me want to remove my heels (which, incidentally, I’m swinging in), and use them to hack at my computer screen and vow to never read the news or go on the Internet again for fear of seeing her face. And that would be a terrible result because the Internet and the news are very important things. So instead, I will leave you with a few more stonking generalisations from everyone’s favourite fashion blogger, Louise Mensch. Sit back, relax and enjoy:
“Men have terrible double standards.”
“[Men] don’t want to see other guys leering at you.”
“Essentially men are simple creatures.”
And my personal fave: “[Men] love you to wear colour.”
So, in other words, Susie Bubble isn’t quaking in her boots quite yet.
- TL

14 thoughts on “Five Issues I Have With Louise Mensch’s “Feminist” Fashion Blog

  1. Why can’t people just accept that everyone does indeed have different tastes, and that some people like some things, and others don’t?
    Hell, let me put forward this revolutionary idea: sometimes, a trait that a person likes in one person, they don’t like in another. Because personality?
    She just talks like a frigging women’s magazine.

  2. Heaven help me, Kim Kardashian isn’t hot! Getting peed on to get noticed is one of her many unattractive traits.

    And I’m glad that you don’t know “sine qua non”. Not that I use it as my password anywhere, or anything…

  3. Posts like this make me feel really uncomfortable. Yes, I dislike Louise Mensch as much as the next person – she is a bit of an idiot and she writes stupid crap like this that I don’t want to read. BUT I dislike her as a PERSON – not as a feminist.
    At the end of the day, she’s still been incredibly successful – her books are obviously rubbish but clearly some people out there want to read them and I just think it’s a bit dangerous to spend our time ripping into successful women.
    In the film ‘Miss Representation’ (which is awesome, btw!), Condoleeza Rice tells us ‘You can’t be what you can’t see’. Granted, I might not want to be Louise Mensch, but I’m thankful for there being a successful woman in politics at all, and I truly believe that the reason she quit was due to all the antagonism she had to face, particularly from women.

    • Exactly, it’s like saying you can’t criticize former PM Thatcher and her disastrous economic and military decisions on the grounds that she’s a successful female politician.
      That arguement is quite invalid.
      There is a difference between Thatcher and Aung San Suu Kyi, as there was a difference between Ghandi and Adolf (content).

  4. This does not make me uncomfortable, it makes me laugh out loud (LOL) and snort tea through my nose in public.

    Thank you, Louise, for consistently providing such excellent material for LOLs, long may it continue. Comedy gold.

    Everything and everyone can have the piss taken out of them – obviously tact is sometimes necessary, but I don’t see why successful women should be exempt. There’s a difference between cruelly undermining someone’s success, and ‘poking fun’ as someone else has already said.

  5. ‘I need to go to the eyebrow/ eyelash dying place as I’m close to completing my book and have a touch of the Noel Gallaghers*, but that’s another story.

    *No disrespect Noel, it looks great on blokes.’

    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

  6. I could write a fashion blog, it would only have one entry though: Wear the same clothes for so long that a) your parents/friends can’t stand the site of them and buy/give you new ones, or b) they start to fall off you in chunks, E.G when jeans disintegrate you get new shorts, or a skirt depending how low the crotch was.

    Oh waitaminute. Entry number two: Tie Dye.

  7. Love the article as always, and thanks for the little shout-out to women who have had a short partner, in my case since we were 15, and therefore never got into wearing heels. I didn’t like towering over him, so always wore flats out. It always annoys me that some people think you can’t look sexy without heels. I’ve got no problem with women wearing high heels of course, each to their own, but my best friend only does it because it’s what she thinks the men want. My female friends all assume they won’t get any male attention without wearing heels, and it saddens me. If a person is only interested in you for your footwear, forget ‘em! No big loss!
    And don’t look down on me as less sexy or less feminine because I’m out in my flats!

  8. Ha! She replied to me on Twitter once with ‘I don’t think Beyonce is slim’ and informed me that women can change their shape (pro-tip: shape and size are not the same – if you wanted to stop me being an hourglass you’d have to hack off bits of bone, not instruct me to do the 30 day shred)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>