Ali left a comment to the effect that we ought to differentiate between stuff like Allure and stuff like Cosmo when we are talking about women’s magazines.
I actually disagree pretty strongly and, because I can *grin*, am turning my response into a post of its very own. I think women’s magazines are a large enough topic to warrant two posts.
I actually HAVE read through stuff like Marie Claire and Allure recently. I flip through magazines at Barnes and Noble when I go to just hang out. I don’t know why, but Bust and Bitch are both nestled between the more typical examples of periodicals for women. So I grab Vogue and remind myself why I stopped reading these magazines in the first place.
Even if you leave stuff like Cosmo out of the discussion, even if you look at the more liberated and feminist mags like Marie Claire, they are just as full of ads and articles that are designed to, in effect, keep women in their place. Marie Claire is still perpetuating the idea that women have to conform to a certain standard to be “real” women – to have value and meaning as a woman you have to be striving for male approval. They pay lip service to women being independent and self-determined but still write articles like this one where “women still seem bent on suffocating themselves with an endless supply of self-indulgent hot air” is meant to be empowering!
And it isn’t just skinny women in ads – there is nothing wrong with having thin women in ads; the problem is having ONLY thin women in ads. It’s ads that tell us it is unacceptable to age. It’s ads that tell us it is unacceptable to have a certain kind of hair. Ads that portray women of color as animalistic. Ads that put women in a passive role no matter what they are selling. Ads that continue to sell distractions to us.
It’s every story that perpetuates the diet culture that surrounds us.
Hell, it’s stories that delve into what men want out of sex and how to provide it rather than exploring what women want out of sex and how we can get it for ourselves.
So, no, I’m actually not going to differentiate between stuff like Allure and stuff like Cosmo. Gossip rags like Star aren’t even being discussed because they are gossip rags, not so much women’s magazines. It’s not just a matter of “if you are confident it won’t affect you.” Because, in many ways, it WILL.
Your confidence, I am sure, will carry you through the messages that say your fat body is unacceptable. But what about the rest of life? What about the way these magazines reinforce the current paradigm of power that put women in this position to begin with?
16 Comments
Solid post.
I’m curious what you think of ads such as Dove’s, which have been edging a lot more towards size diversity (and changing the definition of “beauty”) versus the fact that they’re owned by Unilever, a Giant Souless Corporation that also makes crap like Slim-Fast. (No need for a new post for this one, and I trust it’s not too too off topic – it’s tangental.)
Here here! I read Cosmo for ten years. Then one day I asked myself why. Why did I buy into their yearly “Bedside Astrologer” when all it told me was how/when/what I should do to find my “mate” or Mr. Right Now. It didn’t enrich me or teach me anything. I simply decided to stop it. It’s the same with gossip web sites. A friend got me all hooked on Perez Hilton and then one day I just stopped. I feel better for it. I’m not hungry for the “dirt” any more. I mean…who are we to judge?! I have read nearly every woman-targetted magazine and I only subscribe to one: BUST! The other two I sub to: Rollingstone & Juxtapoz! Why give your hard earned cash to a company that doesn’t value you or your lifestyle? Why subscribe to a mag that doesn’t support the gay community? Or the fat community? Afterall, I discovered the fat community through BUST’s article about the UK Chubsters. I am a better person for it, too.
We’re supposed to differentiate between Allure and Cosmo? Which one’s supposed to be the good one?
I have seen some decent articles come out of Glamour, and I like the idea that the poor fucks who feel compelled to consume that misogynist tripe are at least getting some stealth feminism. But while I find women’s magazines to be a fascinating anthropological study, I don’t actually fool myself that they’re the only or the best place for good reporting on issues relevant to women.
And personally, I’d like my decent reporting to come without the candy shell of “you’re not good enough” messages that are stuffed into every one of those rags, from the cover to the ads to the features to the perfume samples.
once again, i couldn’t agree more.
Of course that Marie Claire article is empowering — didn’t you notice that she mentions her vagina at the end?
That is an EXCELLENT point, bymeout. I mean, if she’s talking about her vagina, she MUST be empowered!
*snicker*
I love – and by love I mean something infinitely more complicated and colored by irony – the part of the article where she is talking about how she and the other fembots of her acquaintance give a cheer anytime they reject a stereotypically female behavior and instead “act like men.” As though that is in and of itself a desireable thing.
It’s also disturbing because it reinforces the idea that women cannot be real friends with each other and have meaningful relationships. Apparently, we are only good to each other for crying and eating bonbons – if we want meaningful contact, we have to turn to men.
*barf*
And, Paul, I am less concerned by the association with Unilever (because I really don’t expect souless megacorps to send consistent messages with all of their products – after all, they are in the business of profit) than I am with the still far too narrow image of beauty being presented. I love the commercials for providing alternate images and I do think they are a positive step. I just crave more and further and faster.
I guess I’ve been lucky in that women’s magazines and the advertising within have never really bothered me much on a personal level. Maybe it’s because I’m fairly secure in my body and I do like and (I guess) understand the craving of stereotypical male approval, and don’t feel marginalized by the articles and pictures as a woman. I read Cosmo and Glamour for their trash appeal only – the sex tips “I didn’t know about!” and the occasional product recommendations for makeup, haircare, etc. It’s mostly a bathroom thing, I guess. (What, Glamour didn’t know women read on the toilet, too?)
Still, I certainly don’t get my “male approval tips you didn’t know about!” from Cosmo – and don’t think anyone should. It’s no question that these magazines spread a bad message about bodies and women in general, and that people shouldn’t buy into them, and they’re pretty much worthless rags. I guess it’s just my very guilty pleasure to occasionally pick up one of these things for funs. It boggles my mind that some people read them like the Bible.
So, yeah, hear hear! I’m gonna send this one to a friend. Thanks TR
Ruth, I remember the first time I read Cosmo. I was 12 or 13 and my mom had a stash of them. We were living in Thailand and it seemed like a window back home. They blew my mind because the things they talked about were Just. So. Bizarre.
That’s why I still sometimes flip through them – just to boggle at their awfulness.
I agree, it’s all poison to me. A year or so ago I picked up a Jane magazine while waiting at the dentist or doctor and I was disgusted to see a teenaged model in the “what wrinkle cream should you use?” spread. And Jane was *supposed* to be for “older” women. WTF? That’s why I don’t look at any of it. It’s nuts.
There’s a terrific essay by Gloria Steinem called “Sex, Lies, and Advertising”…I think it’s in her book, Moving Beyond Words. That’s where I first learned how women’s magazines really work. “Complementary copy” is DEMANDED by advertisers – in women’s mags but NOT necessarily in other kinds of mags – so basically, most of the articles are designed to support and promote women’s “need” for products to “improve” themselves. And magazines make the bulk of their money from advertising, not from reader sales. This is why Ms. magazine went ad-free and upped its price for so long.
I think women’s magazines are glorified catalogues, and I can think of very few that DON’T fit this definition. All mags depend on their adverts, but women’s magazines are the worst of the lot, because they are wholly designed to make you feel bad about yourself so that you’ll buy the crap they’re advertising.
Don’t even get me started on the Glamour “every body” issue where the big girl outfits don’t come above a 12 or 16. And that awful airbrushed America Fererra cover out last month.
If you took out the ads and sill allerterations and fashion advice, leaving the articles the last fifteen years of Cosmo (and most other things geared at 20-somethings) boil down to this:
1. More blowjobs! Consantly!
2. Lose that last 5 pounds with ten minutes of squat thrusts a day! And celery!
3. ZOMG if you take that drink or walk alone or are independent, you’re going to get raped!!
Finding Bust and Bitch when I was about 19 blew. my. mind. I like to confuse the cashiers by buying those two with an O Magazine and maybe a romance novel, all of which I read and enjoy.
Uhm, I have NOT compared womens mags with serious publications like the New York Times. Obviously. For me womens mags are a frivolous passing of time on a hung-over Sunday morning. I am really into fashion and make up as an expression of yourself and I like to read about it. If you are not into that I totally respect that but for me fashion and make up are not to get men approval tips (or women). And yes, I do still make a difference between Cosmo and Glamour because I especially STOPPED reading Cosmo because I was sick of their “10 ways to make him want to marry you because of the sexual favors you give him” (I used to read British Cosmo which I think is even much much much worse than the American one).
There are adds of skinny models ALL OVER EVERYTHING.
Yes it sucks that there is no diversity but give them some credit for trying. I keep on saying it all over again – body acceptence, acceptence of other cultures and acceptence of diversity is a slow process. We can’t expect to go from the heroin chic 90s to a new millenium where all of a sudden everybody will be accepted for who he is.
Glamour recently had a ‘Jeans for everybody’ article where they featured actual plus-sized brands. Maybe it sounds like nothing special to you but for many plus-sized women who don’t know that there is something like Svoboda jeans, this article was a revolution of size acceptance.
I did stop reading the British Grazia after they brought an article on a girl who was like 200 pounds and lost about 80 of those pounds and they called the article something like “Obesity almost killed me”. The whole article was about how she was suffering because she was so incredibly fat. For me who weight about 80 pounds more than her at her heaviest and used to weigh about 150 pounds more than her at her heaviest I thought this was just plain ridiculous.
After that I pretty much stopped reading British magazines.
Ali, I am obviously not implying that you have compared women’s mags to Newsweek or anything like that.
I DO think it’s really kind of funny – you mention the Glamour Every Body issue but the commenter before you ALSO mentioned it and mentioned why it is bunk.
It definitely sounds like the British mags are even worse than the American ones but that doesn’t make the American mags any better for us to read. And, as I said in this post, it isn’t about skinny women appearing in ads.
And I also had to laugh because I am quite into fashion (even though I rarely follow trends) but I am MADLY PASSIONATELY IN LOVE with makeup. And the day I gave up Vogue and W were sad solely because they have amazing fashion spreads with fantastic makeup. However, the benefits from reading those magazines – the enjoyment of the awesome makeup work – was not worth the drawbacks. Now I get my fashion – even fat-specific fashion, whooo! – from a variety of other sources. I follow makeup trends and look for unique applications all over the place.
There’s a livejournal community called foto_decadent and it’s a lot of scans just of fashion spreads that are totally luxe in some way, shape, or form. I see more incredible makeup there than in any one women’s magazine and I don’t have to deal with, as rascoagogo put it:
1. More blowjobs! Consantly!
2. Lose that last 5 pounds with ten minutes of squat thrusts a day! And celery!
3. ZOMG if you take that drink or walk alone or are independent, you’re going to get raped!!
rascoagogo – BRILLIANT distillation, particularly the point about rape.
Here’s a link to Steinem’s “Sex, Lies, and Advertising” essay. I frequently assign it in my Gender & Communication classes (I’m a women’s studies professor), where one of the assignments has been to conduct a content analysis of a gender-specific magazine that includes a break-down of complementary copy. Students are usually shocked by the discovery of how much of their favorite magazines are really catalogs, and never look at Cosmo the same way again.
They find complementary copy in most magazines, by the way, but as Dorianne said, it’s pretty intense in women’s magazines. Those of you over 25 might be surpirsed at just how popular these magazines – especially Cosmo – are with college students.