Women's Magazines Still Waging War on Our Wallets
I know, I know, money has become a regular topic around here. Here’s my pledge: I promise I’ll quit ranting about it as soon as the fashion magazines stop conflating luxury goods with sound investments. (So, probably never.)
Here’s the latest communiqué in the battle to separate women from their cash, from the “Editor’s Note” in
September’s InStyle:
And yet there’s that tiny voice—OK, it’s a booming foghorn—in the back of your head telling you now’s not the time to shop. The economy seems dicey, at best, and any fiscally savvy woman worth her mutual funds (bad example, but go with me) knows that the sensible thing to do is bank that money for the inevitable rainy day. Or is it? After all, you don’t have to make all the trends your own, only the ones that work for you.
Oh, so I’ve been getting it all wrong! Buying a closetful of stuff you don’t need is profligate, but buying just a few things you don’t need is as good as earning interest.
I’m not saying women shouldn’t spend their money as they please on shiny consumer goods. (I certainly do!) But trying to pass off the purchase of luxury goods as financially prudent behavior is an untenable position—not to mention more than a little patronizing. It's more important to look on-trend now than to have an adequate nest egg? Really, InStyle? I need a pencil skirt more than I need those “rainy day” funds?
Apparently so! In the table of contents, they chirp that a $1,950 Prada bag is “worth it!”
Sigh. And over on Marie Claire’s “Diary of an MC Fashionista,” they helpfully deconstruct the appeal of ostrich skin.
Here’s why to invest in this hard-wearing luxury instead! (Hint: It lasts 30 years)
Well, there is an upside to buying ostrich: it’ll endure as long as the Visa bills do! (Slight exaggeration: If you charge Marie Claire’s recommended $6,500 Bottega Veneta bag and make minimum payments at 11% interest, that bag will be yours in just 25 years.)
And now, we can talk about something else, like how Jessica Simpson appears to be posing for her 11th grade yearbook portrait on the cover of Lucky. Is it just me?


As if anyone on the staff of that mag is going to use a bag for 30 years. There's no such thing as investments in fashion, except at the highest reaches of couture.
I understand the aspiration and escapism of fashion magazines, but to keep pushing readers to spend, spend, spend is rather like urging them to have sex w/o protection.
Posted by: KateCoe | September 13, 2008 at 09:19 AM
not just you, but Uma is totaly hot though
Posted by: Jebediah | September 13, 2008 at 10:06 AM
totally*
because i'm strong AND sexy AND can type, too.
Posted by: Jebediah | September 13, 2008 at 10:07 AM
ITA with you on this. I've been less and less inclined to really read InStyle, my favorite mag because of this. Hmm the "perfect" dress pants are $200. Who are they talking about here? And the stuff they put in from affordable stores is never available by the time you get there.
Posted by: Jessica | September 14, 2008 at 03:30 PM
I'd like to know where you find a credit card that charges less than 18% interest.
Posted by: Charlene | September 15, 2008 at 03:09 AM