Magazine FAIL!

Rubens couldn't get designers to send him size 12 samples either

What is it about women’s magazines these days that makes me want to set fire to something? Or, you know, write a great big angry blog post. They used to be a welcome diversion after a hard day at work but these days, the few times that I still read them, usually on long flights, they just irritate me.

In its November issue, US Glamour magazine tells us they care about women’s body issues and describe how they lead the mag pack in presenting a varied, healthy image of women in their magazine.  It was them, after all, that published the now-renowned picture of model Lizzie Miller with a bit of belly overhang – aka. a normal-looking waistline – that inspired an outpour of collective emotion around the world. Five successful “plus-sized” models are featured in a long article that champions Glamour’s efforts over the years to celebrate women of all shapes, colours and sizes.

But let’s be honest: Glamour don’t really care about all this stuff. They’re riding a wave of media hype against the fashion and cosmetics industry over the extreme skinniness that seems required for models to reach the top of their profession on the one hand, and the excessive airbrushing of images on the other. It’s true, models in make up or skincare adverts these days look like aliens more than real people, all expression and every feature having been erased by the magic photoshop wand.

If Glamour really cared, the models would not be posing naked in some weird modern Rubenesque idylle. They would be wearing clothes and romping around the fashion section on the preceding pages. But no, the clothes are on the back of a very pretty but teeny-sized model. I don’t care if designers won’t send samples in bigger sizes. If Glamour and its publishers Condé Nast are half the powerhouses and bastions of creativity they claims to be, this is simply not a problem.

If Gamour really cared, they would not tell us with pride that “Glamour has been on this wavelength since the early nineties. We’ve put Queen Latifah on the cover twice”. Wow. And still no Nobel Peace Prize? And why do the covers always have to be graced by celebrities, actors or singers? What about politicians, athletes, scientists, entrepreneurs? They too deserve front-page recognition and can be just as beautiful.

If Glamour really cared, they would not have run a 2-page advert for Ralph Lauren inside their cover. Ralph Lauren was criticised and ridiculed in recent weeks for running a freaky-looking advert in which the model’s head is larger than her waist and hips. The model in question, Filippa Hamilton, who worked for the company for 4 years, has since gone on record to say that she was fired by RL earlier this year “for being too fat”.

If Glamour really cared about the fashion industry showing more respect to women an their bodies, they should have pulled the ad – and I hope they do or say something for the next issue. (by the way, a second Ralph Lauren photoshopping disaster is now circulating on the internet, rubbishing the company’s claims that it was “a one-off incident”).

This, to me,  is the worst feature of todays’ representation of fashion and beauty in the media: the relentless removal of every imperfection, wrinkle and skin fold in the media. Every distinguishing feature of the model is just wiped away. As a result, we’ve come to equate “youth” and “skinny” with “perfection”. Without this manipulation, the “skinny vs. normal vs. fat” issue would automatically come down a notch, as people would be able to see that actually, even Brazilian supermodels don’t look like Brazilian supermodels without airbrushing!

And let’s not kid ourselves that this is about women either: men today face the same kind of pressures as women. Clever marketing professionals have spotted an untapped market in male fashion and cosmetics, and they are now too bombarded with unrealistic images of what sexy is supposed to look like.

If Glamour really cared, they would not be giving advertising space to weight loss programs of dubious merit. Tip: If a weight loss pill advises you to exercise more and eat less, and you lose weight, it’s probably not the pills that did it. If a pill makes you lose weight without any additional efforts, it’s probably not very good for you. And don’t even get me started on the anti-depressant ads.

And this is the sticking point: for magazines like Glamour, editorial content is becoming increasingly irrelevant as they act simply as vehicles to deliver advertising. Fashion labels, cosmetic brands and pharmaceutical companies pay for advertising space, and the magazine in turn tries hard to convince the readers that they really need this stuff. Fat is beautiful! Love your fat! (but on p. 35 are some handy pills to help you shed it if you want to fit into the sexy clothes on p. 78).

Magazines like Glamour really need to start waking up to the fact that its readers can see through this act, and that their mixed messages just make matters worse. Quit treating us like we’re stupid. If you really care about how women feel, and about how women are depicted in the media, you have the power to make a difference. So stop patronising us and do something real.