Why There Are No Good Answers to Glamour's "Am I Normal?"

Maybe I missed the announcement, but is Glamour now being aimed at teen girls? In the years I’ve been reading it, it’s transformed from a level-headed publication that was a truly a source of inspiration to one that includes features called “Am I Normal?” and “Hey, It’s OK…” every month, obsessively declaring what’s “normal” in an attempt to reassure me that my behavior is Glamour-approved! It’s like the opposite of aspirational.

I might care about the magazine’s approval if I were still 14 and desperately trying to please the entire planet by being pretty, polite, and otherwise unremarkable. But when these articles are ostensibly written for adult women, declaring what’s acceptable for all of us is simply patronizing. Just because Glamour has the inside track on new eyeshadow colors doesn’t make it an oracle about anything else.

For instance: According to the April issue, it’s normal to marry a man for money…as long as he’s worth at least $1.1 million! And it’s okay for construction workers to leer at us on the street, because we women secretly enjoy it! While the magazine intends these as reassurances, it has the opposite effect: instead of convincing me that other women feel the same way, I have to wonder if I’m the only one who is enraged by catcalls. Am I? Go on, expel me from the sorority now.

(Never mind the totally hypocritical focus on normalcy when this issue also canonizes women who were decidedly extraordinary, like Amelia Earhart and Dolores Huerta. But then, Glamour’s idea of a tribute to these women is to dress actresses like Hayden Panettiere in crazy expensive clothes. Because, you know, Rosie the Riveter went to work so that she could buy herself some Dolce & Gabbana.)

This overweening harping on normalcy is even more insidious than the thinly veiled insults that pepper the pages of Vogue and Bazaar—the women in those magazines, with their jutting rib cages and designer ensembles, inhabit a completely different universe than I do. But Glamour’s attempt to reinforce its perceptions of the average woman’s everyday behavior marginalizes us in an equally significant way. It’s one thing to be told to “invest” thousands in a Balenciaga bag; it’s quite another to be told that your views on sex or money or work, topics you deal with every day, are unusual or wrong. The magazine’s efforts to reinforce what is “normal” becomes just another box for us women to squeeze into, just another set of unreasonable standards we’re supposed to adhere to. I don’t see how the encouragement to live up to everyone else’s expectations helps any woman exceed her own.

Comments

[Luey]

the worst part about the "extraordinary women" photoshoot is that Rosie the Riveter was imitated by a scrawny, skinny little girl! I'm glad that Rosie is looked up to, but the whole point is that she is powerful and strong - not a size 0. Just ridiculous.

[Rio]

Oh, don't worry, they don't really care about genuine normalcy. To them, "normal" is simply code for "likely to buy into this shit."

For the record, I hate catcalls AND rich men.

[Jaci]

Bravo! I love reading your posts on these ridiculous magazines.

[Becca]

I get Glamour and I will admit that I like the "hey, it's ok" section. Sometimes they're kind of dumb, but more than once they've been something that I do and feel kind of silly about. It's not like I need Glamour to validate me but it does make me laugh usually. I don't think of it as anything other than "hey, you might think you do weird things but other people do them too. quit worrying about it.". I don't think it's some conspiracy or anything to make me fit into the box that Glamour defined.

And I liked the photoshoot of the inspirational women. I didn't know who all of them were so it was kind of educational (moreso than a normal issue anyway), and I thought the photos were well done.

I can't believe I'm defending Glamour, but there you go.

[Bee]

This issue was my last subscribed issue and I'm not going to renew. I seriously didn't even look at it. I grabbed it, saw the cover, then passed it along to my mom. Sigh.

[Jessica M.]

I'm surprised we haven't mentioned the "extra pretty beauty tricks that anyone can do." *Sigh of relief* Now I can pick up a few more insinuating stares at the bus stop.
Do they really say that women secretly enjoy the cat calls? That's something that I've struggled with...I have learned for myself and from other women that ignoring it is the best way to deal with it in terms of avoiding any "situation," but there is always a part of me that screams, "I shouldn't have to put up with/'ignore' this shit!" I'd pick up a copy of this to see exactly what they said, but, you know.

[Lara]

Thank you for your wonderful posts... I really enjoy them!

That being said, I thought I'd chime in as a feminist and as a magazine reader and say that if I ever got catcalls, I would be flattered.

I'm a big girl, and even though my friends tell me I'm attractive, I've never been heckled, jeered, catcalled, propositioned... It would be a compliment to me, but that's only because I have terrible self esteem. I can understand why some women might enjoy them.

/my $0.02

[Jessica M.]

Lara,

I find catcalling, at least in the places I've been, doesn't have so much to do with "norms" of attractiveness as it does simply being female (and thus have seen women who could hardly be identified as such due to being wrapped up in heavy winter gear, jeered at shamelessly). I have also lived in areas where I've never seen it occur.

If you do end up getting leered at or "propositioned," see if you don't also feel a sense of frustration. There are different levels of this behavior, but I find it infuriating when I feel as though the instigator is not mainly intent on expressing interest, but rather, in making me feel uncomfortable and exposed. This is often the case as there is a significant difference in "expressing interest" in a way that would realistically lead to a positive encounter with the woman, and in simply trying to break a person's sense of comfort and countenance as they, say, stand at a bus stop with no where to go and you leer at them for 5 minutes while you sit in traffic.

Though, I appreciate the fact that you at least don't engage the idea that the women who claim they don't like such behavior secretly do.

[Lauren]

I thought a man had to be worth 1.3 million dollars to justify being with him just for the money. I guess the economy is lowering the standards. Good to know I don't have to dump someone for only being worth 1.2 million anymore. Thanks Glamour!!

[5ft0]

I love your insights about women's magazines! I wish you could post these up on a regular basis.

[Catherine]

Tell 'em, girl. I usually love Glamour, but it has really become ridiculous. Words like 'gotta' and 'gonna' and 'sitch' are making me crazy. it is becoming entirely too Cosmo for its own good, not to mention really cutesy. The new graphics and design are terrible, too.

Or perhaps, I'm just getting older. One way or another, I don't think I'll renew. I love Marie Claire, however.

[leeds glamour models]

Hey there! This is a really interesting post and I must say that how this magazine perceived the "real women" in the "real world" must have been seen in an imagined and unreal world that they seem to wrap themselves around in. It's sad that media is still to blame for some misconceptions about what is wrong and what is right. Though, we also have to bear in mind that it's also up to us whether to believe it or not.

[Elle]

I thought the wheels fell off Glamour when Ruth Whitney retired as editor and Bonnie Fuller took over (and I think that's the last time I ever bought a copy), but it sounds like it gets ever worse.

Back in Ruth W.'s days, Glamour actually published real articles about real issues, not just fashion and sex. And even the fashion stories were sometimes realistic; for example, they would buy a trendy item in three different sizes, such as 6, 10, and 18 (yes, you read that right - double-digit sizes!), and have three women wear the garment for a day and report on whether it was practical and comfortable for real life. And there were pro-choice editorials.

I miss Ruth. Are there any ladymags doing stuff like that today?