I no longer see the allure of the glossies

I was caught without reading material one night last week, so I picked up a copy of Allure and read it on the ferry and later into the night. It was the first time since Blueprint went under that I've picked up a magazine specifically aimed at the ladies, so I think my system was kind of unprepared for the shock*.

After a few minutes of leafing through, all I could think was, I just paid four bucks for a publication that does nothing but tell me how ugly I am. Good lord, I used to subscribe to these things! And I did. I used to justify it with arguments like, "It's mind candy." Swear to God -- every semester at finals time, I'd load up on Cosmo, Glamour, Mademoiselle, Vogue and Self and binge on the glossies between study sessions. All summer, the other lifeguards and I would bring in fresh issues and flip through them on breaks.

Have these things gotten more negative? Have the standards for women's appearances been stealthily climbing up for the last ten years? Or has my tolerance for this crap dropped because I'm no longer exposing myself to it on a regular basis? I don't know. Evidently, the spring issue of Ms. tackles this question, determines that chick media can lead to women's low political efficacy, and according to Jezebel, concludes:

"My research with college age women indicates that the less women consume media, the less they self-objectify, particularly if they avoid fashion magazines. [Emphasis ours.] By shutting out media, girls and women can create mental and emotional space for true self-exploration."

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I'd like to explore this thesis more in-depth. It seems sort of weird that any article blaming the media for making women less engaged in the world around them would also advocate dropping media consumption. How are women supposed to get involved in the world when they don't know anything about it? Something's missing -- either in the article summary or the article itself.

My most consistent media exposures at this point are NPR, Comedy Central and the WSJ. Given my recent reaction to Allure, I'm clearly out of touch with whatever pervasive media is sending negative messages about women's appearance. But I am wondering: anyone else notice their reactions to ads changing after upping or lowering their chick-media consumption?

* It's also worth noting that Blueprint and Allure are similar only in that they're aimed at carbon-based lifeforms who assume a female gender identity.

I found the former publication to be very focused on a proactive message -- you can do awesome crafty things! You can make delicious food! You can look pretty stylish! You can have a rockin' social and professional life! Who doesn't enjoy a take-charge-of-your-own-fabulousness message?

Allure, on the other hand, has a little how-to section devoted to an eclectic collection of skills ("How to bluff your way into an A-list restaurant") and plenty of features detailing how important it is to compensate for whatever shortcomings you may have aesthetically. And I know that Allure is explicitly focused on the premise that beauty is a legitimate ideal to which we can aspire, it's just that their definition of beauty is so narrow. There's no room for DIY punk or athletes or any ethnicity beyond white-n-WASPy. So I object to the overall message that there's only one beauty standard and it's defined by uncontrollable external forces.

Comments

[Maggie]

I do feel like the beauty standards have been creeping up in terms of time and money spent, especially during the last five to 10 years. It's not enough to just get regular haircuts/color and do your makeup every day. Now you have to have a Pilates body (whatever that means-- I'd rather have a deadlift body, thanks), wax all the hair off your body, tan (or fake tan), have mani/pedis, wear eyelash extensions (seriously!) and partake of the various services of the medi-spa to fit in. That, and wear the latest in overpriced designer fashions.

I was out with my fiancé the other day, and there was a whole gaggle of girls who looked like they were barely out of high school hanging out at Coldstone. All of them had that extremely groomed look that costs hundreds of dollars per month (if not thousands, counting clothing/accessory purchases) to maintain. It kind of shocked me. Back in my day, we were low maintenance! It was the grunge era, and we could get away with wearing thrift-store duds, combat boots and drugstore lipstick and no one cared.

[Mary-Lynn]

I feel sort of disconnected from them now too but I think for me it's for a different reason: I've read glossy fashion mags since I was in my early teens (I was a particular fan of Elle back in the day) but now that I'm grown up the difference is that, for the most part, I could buy what they sell.* It's no longer aspirational reading. I could buy all of those $400 per pair Lucky shoe guide shoes. I could buy all of the fancy Allure Best Of moisturizers. But now that I can I think it's all really a stupid waste of money. When I couldn't afford $400 shoes looking at $400 shoes was fun because it was so out of my reach that it didn't matter** that I was too fat for it or would look stupid in it, it was just fun to think about putting an outfit together with those items. But now the idea I had then about how "If I had those shoes, I'd wear them to the benefit gala that my doctor/model husband and I put together to benefit his old money family's pet charity." is sort of painful instead of just ridiculous in the level of fantasy required.

* I've never been small enough to fit into anything in any fashion magazines so I've never been that bothered by their thinness requirement.

** This is why French Vogue is actually still fun because I'll never ever be able to buy anything from that.

[Kate the M]

In college, I analyzed Glamour issues a few different times for different class papers. Then I ignored the magazine until I got a subscription this year (lousy magazine fund drive). For me, there's no question about it: reading these types of magazines consistently makes me incredibly dissatisfied about my appearance, love life, fashion sense, etc.

[Polly]

I think it's your tolerance for it that's changed, Lisa. I read Allure all through college and for some years after, and after many years of not reading it, I re-subscribed (for old time's sake and to use up some frequent-flyer miles). Most of the articles have not changed a whit--I find it kind of comical. (Foundation used to be cakey! Now it's light and sheer! Nude lipstick used to make you look dead! Now it's light and sheer! Perfume used to be cloying! Now it's light and sheer!)

I've always enjoyed experiementing with makeup (and I used to do stage makeup in college), so I tend to regard Allure in that light--look what weird things you can do with contour! But like most if not all the Conde Nast magazines, it is also clearly aimed at women with a lot of money, a lot of time, and no self-esteem.

[drunken monkey]

I picked up that same issue of Allure this week, when I needed to kill time at the laundromat. One thing I have noticed that has changed with Allure -- and many other magazines -- is that they are consistently putting younger and younger celebrities on the cover, instead of those in their late 20s or 30s or models. I'm expecting to see them put Miley Cyrus on the cover next, that's how stupid it's gotten. Does Duff really appeal to their readership in any way? Or has their demographic shifted downwards to the point where most of their readers are about her age? And if that's the case, where does that leave women in their mid-to-late-20s, 30s and 40s who might like to read an article about new beauty products now and then, but would prefer to do that without having to skip over a fawning interview with the starlet-du-jour? (Like, say, me.)

[Stephanie]

For some reason my mom banned the whole glossy/teen magazine genre. (Not real reading? Too appearance based? Other values she didn't want me picking up? Too expensive?) The first time I read more than the covers was on a company retreat a few years ago when a co-worker brought a selection to read on the beach. I provided *much* amusement to several friends with my wide-eyed wonder at what the articles said and the prices of the products they were pimping.

[Julie]

When I was in college, I got a good deal on magazine subscriptions so I subscribed to Cosmo. I renewed after the first year, but then I realized that it's all the same copy every year.

Spring: Color is back!
Summer: Here's how to not sweat off your makeup. Don't forget your sunscreen!
Fall: Ooo, tweeds and woolens!
Winter: Don't forget your moisturizer!

Every once in a while, I pick up one of the glossies, usually because there's a celeb I like on the cover. But other than the celeb interview, I don't end up reading most of the rest of the magazine, because I'm just not interested in being sold the latest eye shadow that will change my life.

Part of it is probably that, as you get older, you know your skin and hair and the products that already work for them, and you've already wasted money on products that promised and didn't deliver, so you're less easily swayed by the newest thing.

[Kyle]

"My research with college age women indicates that the less women consume media, the less they self-objectify, particularly if they avoid fashion magazines. By shutting out media, girls and women can create mental and emotional space for true self-exploration."

That's really interesting to me, and kind of disturbing. I work in a college library, and we subscribe to some of these magazines (I think right now we get Glamour, Vogue, Shape, and possibly Allure). We're only giving them what they already want, right? Or are we aiding and abetting them in self-objectification?

Cancelling Glamour for the the kids' own good wouldn't be completely unprecedented -- we do make value decisions about the materials we have in our leisure reading collection (although they're kind of odd ones -- we don't subscribe to Cosmo because according to my boss it's got too much sex, but right next to the magazines are some fairly steamy novels).

[Kip]

I stopped reading glossy magazines after a few months of working at Large Media Company. I was in the book division, but knew plenty of folks in the magazine division -- and lord, our values did not align. I did not value their opinions on anything, from appropriate shoes to summer reading to the qualities of a desirable life partner. And everything -- including all the "editorial" content -- was an outright ad or synergistic property (pimping something that another division of the parent empire was selling).

I'm so happy for the internet, where I can dig up my own reads and looks. Makes it easier to treat glossies for what they are to me: dispatches from an alien planet.

[Kerry]

It's not just beauty magazines--it's all consumption based media. Think about house and decor magazines. How many times have you looked at that and then looked at your home and thought along the lines of "Shit! No one will ever buy this place--it looks like crap!" when it might in fact have a lot of charm and be reasonably priced, but not reflective of the world of the glossies? (In the normal world, I mean, before the current downturn.)

Cooking magazines do the same thing, but at least there's somewhat more information in them.

As for the beauty mags, I read them throughout high school and college but managed not to absorb the messages as I never really wore makeup and have underdeveloped fashion sense from wearing an atrocious uniform for grade school. Oh, and i just realized I'm fat. Damn it.