This is trash and we're not going to take it any more readers were outraged by the magazine's treatment of the Duchess of Cambridge this week, writes Wendy Tuohy. THE lowest common denominator that Australia's glossy women's mags must be aiming for sank even further this week. You may have thought the trash mags had hit the bottom of the barrel in February when Woman's Day massively outbid Chrissie Swan for paparazzi snaps of her smoking while pregnant and ran them despite her obvious distress. But its arch rival, New Idea (also a bidder for the Chrissie pics), went one worse this week; not by publishing a true and damaging story a loved personality desperately didn't want released - but one it made up. Johanna Griggs featured on New Idea's cover with the line "My shock news at 40!," a headline that suggests she at least gave them an interview. Which she hadn't. Or that she had something surprising for a 40-year-old to reveal; for example, a baby on the way. "Hitting the big 4-0 is a challenging time for many women, but the landmark birthday has coincided with some big news even the star admits she once could never have imagined," trilled the tag line. "Shock news" is well-known pointer-bait code for "unexpected pregnancy" in glossy magazine land. It was a shock that was never going to happen, as New Idea well knows, because an emotional Griggs wrote for them in 2009 announcing she and her new husband had been dealt the blow of being told they couldn't have more children. Back then the well-liked former Olympian wrote: "Why am I doing this? To end all the 'are they or aren't they?' discussions. While we fully accept what life has dealt us, to talk about it endlessly is incredibly painful and deeply personal. New Idea simply lifted some quotes from the 2009 article and some more from a couple of newspapers. But Griggs stood up and called the magazine on its trickery via Twitter this week. It was a brave move many celebrities would hesitate to take, given the popularity power the magazines want you to think they wield. But do they, still? It feels like the patience of loyal readers for nasty-glossy tricks, hoaxes and stunts may, at last, be running out. Social media support for Griggs, and anger with New Idea, was the second big hit in two days to the notion that these "women's" magazines are really friends to women. Or even for them. Woman's Day readers were outraged by the awful treatment of the Duchess of Cambridge, of whom the magazine asked in its cover story, "What's happened to Kate?." It ran side-by-side images of the duchess looking red-carpet sparkly earlier this year, and "wilting" under the strain of new motherhood. "A succession of tough challenges" has "left her emotionally drained" and "begging Wills to make drastic changes," the magazine alleges under a picture of Kate not quite as vibrant-looking as we're used to but still looking fab for a new mother. "The highs and lows of motherhood are taking their toll on the Duchess of Cambridge, whose exhausted appearance is worrying her inner circle," Woman's Day sounded cheerful to report. Readers, I'm pleased to say, were not going to have a bit of it. Their anger soon hit critical mass, with stories about their responses on Woman's Day's Facebook page and website soon hitting papers and blogs. "Disgraceful," "disgusting," "appalling" were words used by women readers. To which I'd say: good on you, girls. It is high time women rebelled against the idea that whatever cheap, woman-bashing rubbish these magazines serve up, we'll just sit back and absorb. And pay for. It's time readers asked: "Just what kind of women do these editors think we are?" Dumb enough not to question the veracity of fabrications, jealous enough to want to relish the "struggles" of well-known women who have done nothing to deserve such disdain, nasty enough to buy into gossip that seems to get crueller with every passing week? I don't believe these magazines like women, it certainly appears they don't want us to be happy. The messages they send on high rotation are that women are always too fat ("stars get cellulite too"), too plain ("stars without make-up"), too thin ("frighteningly thin stars") or not good mothers ("Angelina's kids out of control"). Oh, and don't forget how we're so unlovable: single stars over about 30 are treated with faux sympathy for being so "unlucky in love," divorcing people are tragic and married celebrities are constantly reminded to look over their shoulder for their very likely cheating spouse (it must be true, we bought a picture of your husband talking to someone else at an Oscars after-party). Playing to our lower natures is not a New Idea. But it finally appears readers have realised that buying one of these magazines can wreck a Woman's Day. Blog daily with Wendy at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/theperch/