Vogue's Power Issue Is Less Than Empowering

I have a terrible cold, and it won't go away. Still, there's an upside to being home sick: plenty of time to read magazines! If there’s one person who can shake me from my Nyquil-induced stupor, it’s Anna Wintour. In an attempt to distract myself from the vanishing likelihood of breathing through my nose before Labor Day, I decided to flip through the March issue of Vogue.

Wintour’s monthly “Letter from the Editor” is, predictably, the usual attempt to make the magazine seem relevant by employing the most tenuous of connections to link fashion to a prodigious list of the planet’s ills. For instance: did you know that refraining from buying clothes is indefensible? Your inability to afford designer clothing is why people are losing their jobs! I'm not making this up.

Then, explaining that this is the “Power Issue,” Wintour runs through the list of women who receive considerable space in its pages: Michelle Obama. Carla Bruni Sarkozy. Queen Rania of Jordan. Melinda Gates.

And, not mentioned by Wintour, but appearing in a lengthy profile shortly after her letter, Silda Wall Spitzer.

Notice anything about that list of women? They’re all primarily known for—and because of—the men they married.

In no way do I mean to downplay or diminish the individual accomplishments of these women, all of whom are intelligent and successful in their own right. And I’m not suggesting that there be never be any mention of profile subjects’ personal lives. After all, if that were the case, how would Vogue manage its annual Jennifer Aniston sobfest?

I am suggesting that they include more women whose notability is their own. (To be fair, this issue also contains an article about Twilight author Stephenie Meyer—significantly shorter than the other profiles—and the usual smattering of celebrities and fashion-world types.) When the majority of ink in the "Power Issue" is devoted to women whose renown and influence streams heavily from their spouses, Vogue is either making a cynical observation about the state of women today or telling us that a woman's greatest accomplishment is landing a successful husband.

Not that I expect Vogue to become a serious source of inspiration. But it could be worse—this issue also contains hundreds of words about the apparently transformative powers of Plum Sykes' haircut. I'll take a story about a famous wife over the tale of a woman whose life revolves around her own appearance any day.

Comments

[Rio]

"Your inability to afford designer clothing is why people are losing their jobs!"

That's one good thing that might come out of the financial crisis: so few people will be able to afford designer clothes that the entire high fashion industry will collapse upon itself.

Interesting that there are now FOUR women who are either heading federal Cabinet departments or preparing to (Clinton at State, Napolitano at Homeland Security, Solis at Labor, and Sebelius at HHS), and only one of them came to public attention because of her husband. Where can they be found in Vogue?

[Julie]

But see, there is a logic and truly humanitarian Weltanschaaung to Anna Wintour's chiffon ramblings and editorial choices: successful-thru-wedlock women do have more time to dedicate to public exposure than, say, Justice Ginsburg; it's actually part of the job. Therefore the ladies need more fancy clothes, therefore they actively contribute to save the fashion industry... in a nutshell, they are saving the world in the most efficient and active way.

The rest: underachievers, really...