Glossed Over

Lowest Common Denominator: Lucky, October

1: Estimated number of photos shot of Kristen Bell for the cover. Why would they use this awkward-looking one if they had any others?

10: Days’ worth of foundation Estee Lauder will supply for free, according to their ad, which also notes that the makeup must be “right for the way you live”

Under 20: Approximate number of remaining celebrities without their own fragrance collections now that Kat Von D has one (advertised on page 56)

$2,495: Price of a Chanel bag featured in “Lucky Editors Answer: What’s your no-apologies splurge?” Also, note how Lucky makes it sound like buying a Chanel purse is an act of self-empowerment. Because you need a designer bag to fulfill your potential as a human being!

80: Page on which editor Jenny Kang describes the “corpse bride” as her fashion inspiration in “What I Want Now”

All of them: Individual hairs on my head I will remove in frustration if a fashion magazine glamorizes death one more time

$79, $50, and $30: The actually affordable price tags of the jeans Lucky calls “affordable” on page 92

100: Page which recommends a $23 skort from Land’s End

6,731: Since reading that, instances I've wondered whether we're really doing skorts again, and if so, WHY?

4,529,023: Including the one on page 132, estimated number of mentions on Cover Girl’s Outlast lipstain pen in women’s magazines in the last few months

2: Number of Cover Girl lipstains I’ve purchased in those same months

“Lots”: According to photographer Mario Testino, the amount of “very good sex” model Carmen Kass has enjoyed. Jean Godfrey-June reports that Testino reportedly described Kass to Michael Kors by saying, “Zees leg…you only get a leg like zees by having lots of very good sex.”

3: Products required to create the “disheveled ponytail” in “Hair Styles We Love Now”

$575: Price of a purse Lucky describes as “so rich” on page 160

Not a single bit: Discretion about advertorial displayed by placing an ad for the YSL fragrance Parisienne in the middle of a spread about Parisian style. Subtle!

Vogue Liveblog 2009: The Real September Issue

The cover of this year's edition says it's "the REAL September issue," as opposed to The September Issue. It's a differentiation that doesn't make much sense for most of us, since the movie's only opened in one city. But it just wouldn't be Vogue if it were accessible to everyone!

Before I begin the liveblog, the rules: I have not read any part of this issue—in fact, I haven't even opened it. I have not read any commentary from other blogs about this issue. All I've seen are the front and back covers.  And I'll be blogging in real time—just refresh this post to see the latest.

On with the magazine!

Marie Claire: Sorry, Ashley Olsen, You're No Astronaut

The September issue of Marie Claire is rife with fascinating women. There’s “Danger Junkies,” about an astronaut, a Kenya-based wildlife conservationist, and three other women with unusual professions; there’s “Nightmare in the Jungle,” about Clara Rojas, a political prisoner held captive in Colombia for six  years.

And then there is Ashley Olsen...who’s never left Earth’s atmosphere, but who was stuck on Full House for eight seasons. Close enough!

“Ashley Olsen Puts it All Together” is six pages of photos and two pages of text that couldn’t possibly be more pedestrian—Ashley is actually quoted saying “I love scaffolding.” Scaffolding! It’s as if the interview was conducted with a tacit acknowledgment that no one had to try very hard because celebrities are inherently interesting, although anyone who’s read the millionth iteration of Jennifer Aniston’s single-and-satisfied manifesto knows that’s decidedly not the case.

So what is the point of this profile, exactly? Your guess is as good as mine. Let's start with this:

…gazing at some hideous flowered overalls she was put in at age 6 or 7, she has to admit, “I remember really loving these.”

You don’t say! A 6-year-old loved clothes that she would never wear as an adult? Stars are just like us!

But only a celebrity could deliver this statement so utterly lacking in perspective that it’s borderline offensive:

“It was almost like I was in the army,” Ashley says. “School, work, homework, fly to New York, get in at 2 in the morning, do a morning show at 5 a.m., then another one at 7, then a radio interview at 10, you know?”

Yes, Ashley, that’s almost what it’s like serving in the army. Remember that time enemy troops opened fire on your convoy when you were headed to Good Morning America?

But at least Ashley shares some thoughtful commentary about fashion, right? Wrong!

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, September

3: Number of exclamation points in the coverline touting the Jessica Simpson story

$13,000: Value of “stuff you want” that Glamour is giving away, per page 64

1: Number of days editor-in-chief Cindi Leive’s assistant spent dressed as Lady Gaga for the “Dare of the Month”

3.5: Time, in minutes, before most women would be sent home from the office if they showed up in fishnets and a leotard

So, so much: Amount I covet the Hugo Boss bag in the ad following page 78

12: Size clothing worn by model Crystal Renn, whose book, Hungry, is reviewed in “Do Get the Season’s Stylish Reads Here,” complete with an excerpt of a “moment we love”

Perhaps 1: Number of size-12 models photographed by Glamour for this issue (keep reading)

2009: Year in which Glamour apparently thinks red lipstick was invented, given their extravagant praise of the stuff on page 89

3: Pages of lipstick ads surrounding the aforementioned feature (1 immediately before and 2 right after)

Nil: Value of the advice given by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana to “play up your prettiest parts.” Really? I shouldn’t highlight my worst features?

100: Page on which Faith Hill recommends Coldplay. You know, they’re that obscure new band you might otherwise have never heard of?

100: Coincidentally, also the page on which I lost my patience with mega-rich celebrities sharing their “knowledge.” See also: why I don’t subject myself to GOOP

50: Percent of men surveyed by Glamour who told the magazine they “groom their privates”

15: Age, approximate, at which I last used the word “privates” non-ironically

1987: Year in which pleated high-waisted pants, like those shown on page 116, should remain. What’s next, paperbag waists?

Zero: Amount the use of “Kate Moss” as a verb, as in “11 Touches That ‘Kate Moss’ Your Wardrobe” on page 133, should be tolerated. Please stop. Now.

5: Number of “fantasies he’s having about you right now” and suggested “real way[s] to romance a guy,” as detailed in the “Men, Sex & Love” section

194: Page you should turn to right now to see a model who actually might be a size 12

+1: Points for featuring Robin Givhan in “Meet the Woman on Michelle Watch”

-10: Points for the article not actually being about Givhan, despite its title

35: Percent of survey respondents who think cover star Jessica Simpson should reunite with ex-husband Nick Lachey

Infinite: My astonishment that people actually have an opinion about who Jessica Simpson should date

0: Approximate number of Americans other than me who have neither read nor seen any part of the Twilight series. Four of the films’ stars appear in a beauty feature called—what else?—“Twilight Beauty”

+1: For including a same-sex pair in “Secrets of Happy Couples”

2,497: Estimated appearances of Clinique’s Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion in stories similar to “24 Best Beauty Buys Now”

36: Financial tips dispensed in “Your Money,” starting on page 268

Not surprisingly, 0: Recommendations in the aforementioned article to invest in clothes or shoes

4: Violent incidents mentioned in “Sex with a Stranger”

1: Number of men in the same article confessing to “really want[ing] to kill” a woman because she wouldn’t have sex with him

5: Meals actress Meryl Streep claims to get from a single chicken in “Hey, Glamour Readers! Julia Child is Making You Dinner”

Karl Lagerfeld in Bazaar: Feminists Are Ugly

From “What Would Coco Do” in the September issue of Bazaar, wherein designer Karl Lagerfeld was asked to “channel the original fashion wit,” Coco Chanel:

HB: Your clothing liberated women in the 1920s. Are you still a feminist?

CC: I was never a feminist because I was never ugly enough for that.

Did your jaw just drop in disbelief? Mine did, too.

So, according to Karl-as-Coco, feminists are ugly. And it’s not just that they’re unattractive—it’s their very lack of pulchritude that made them resort to feminism. What constitutes “ugly enough”? Who knows? When I decided to call myself a feminist, it’s not like I was forced to parade around in a bathing suit before a panel of judges who determined whether I was unappealing enough to do so.

In Monsieur Lagerfeld’s Magical Gender Equity Utopia, beautiful women apparently have no need for feminism. Which is an awesome fantasy for genetic-lottery winners, but I’d rather live in a world where my worth isn’t directly proportionate to how closely I conform to whatever happens to be in style this week. I know, I must be ugly and insane!

Other than being a blatant insult to feminists, Lagerfeld’s attitude is troubling because it forces women into a game we can’t win. Within this rubric, a gorgeous woman’s sole quality is her appearance; and an average woman’s intelligence or insight is nullified by her embrace of feminism.

The end result: our only worth is the way we look. How’s that for ugly?

The 20 Life-Changing Lessons in September's Cosmopolitan

Until I read this month’s issue, I thought Cosmopolitan was like the TSA: a mostly pointless institution that nonetheless will never go away.    

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. So, I’m just going to come out and say it: I’m a big person. The September issue was full of top-notch journalistic insight and information that will undoubtedly change my life—and yours, too!

Here are the top twenty things I gleaned from those precious 262 pages:

1.    “Hoo-ha” an acceptable word to print on a magazine cover. But is it better than “va-jay-jay”?

2.    Cosmo’s reporters doggedly pursue their subjects in a quest for truth. For instance: After a showdown that must have rivaled the Frost-Nixon interviews in tension, actress Kristen Bell finally admitted that—ready?—she eats no salad dressing except Bob’s Big Boy bleu cheese. Scandalous!

3.    Interacting with a male in the wrong way can have disastrous consequences. That’s why “Grab His Butt Like This” so painstakingly described four different ways of, well, grabbing a man’s butt. The stakes are high!

4.    At last, there is a cure for the dreaded football addiction that strikes so many men. And about time, too, because there’s no way we would enjoy watching football with them! (“The Guy Report,” page 76)

5.    The Rolling Stones are relevant in 2009, because a $44 Stones logo tee is a must for fall. Guess my New Pornographers t-shirt needs to hang unworn in the closet until I’m eligible for Social Security. (“8 Must-Have Items,” page 83)

6.    It’s possible to be “ballsy” and have a hoo-ha, and the best way to demonstrate that is by pairing socks with high-heeled sandals! Could this be the fourth wave of feminism? (“Ballsy Looks to Try Now,” page 86)

7.    Someone at Cosmo thinks “brond” is a word meaning a mix of blond and brunette hair. And I’d pegged “shootie” as this year’s ubiquitous portmanteau!

8.    Camilla Belle is more well-known than I thought. Cosmo surveyed 100 men to find out which shade of lipstick they prefer on her, and none of the responses were “Who’s Camilla Belle?”

9.    Actress Anna Faris is “ballsy,” just like socks and sandals! Good for her! She even has a hoo-ha. (“Fun Fearless Female,” page 120)

10.    Cosmo girls aren’t concerned with a man’s looks. That’s why the magazine devised a “Stud Meter” to inform readers of famous men’s physical charms. Among the findings: Ryan Reynolds and Chace Crawford are more attractive than a cross-dressing Mariah Carey or Coolio. Yes, Coolio. If the Stones are relevant now, his time is coming!

InStyle Makeover Needs a Makeover of Its Own

As I discovered this weekend, InStyle Makeover and Taco Bell are remarkably similar. They're both cheap and require a very strong gag reflex. 

What was it about this special issue that was so hard to swallow? Was it the $600 cosmetic case? The fact that some no-doubt-underpaid editorial assistant had to conceptualize the ways in which a purse can camouflage a “flawed” figure? Or that every woman made over in this issue didn’t really need a makeover?

Impossible beauty standards, you win again! And we lose.

Take a look at Vanessa Hudgens, who was given an “undone” makeover. This was the result:

According to InStyle, this is a “polished no-makeup look.” Don’t you roll out of bed sporting fake eyelashes and the exact right shade of nude lipstick? With a professional hairstylist and makeup artist at your disposal, this natural look is so easy to achieve!

A few pages later, “Plump + Go” features someone who actually isn’t wearing makeup. That’s because she’s a model preparing to be injected with four different substances—Botox, Perlane, Cosmoderm, and Restylane. So there are at least four reasons none of us look anything like the women we see in magazines.

Continuing the trend of making over people who don’t really need making over, “6 Weeks to Slim” pairs two magazine staffers with trainers who, naturally, impose ultra-strict quasi-scientific edicts. Do they lose weight? Yes. Did they need to lose it in the first place? Nope! Both have BMIs within the normal range.

Admittedly, the BMI is a flawed calculation. Fine. But this depiction of two slim women getting slimmer alongside a “Dress Yourself Thin” coverline and a food diary from manicurist Ji Baek, whose diet consists largely of champagne—it all sends a powerful message about our bodies.

It says that our bodies aren’t ours—they’re open for public comment. That they don’t exist for our pleasure or strength but instead that they are a source of shame. That starvation and sacrifice are the path to self-satisfaction.

As long as our bodies and faces belong not to us but to an ever-changing, ever-more-impossible standard, women will be going to war with themselves.

Wouldn’t it be a pleasant surprise to see a magazine emphasize being healthy and strong instead of slender and young? Wouldn’t it be great to see a magazine stop referring to “boyish” figures, as if those women somehow aren’t female enough, and stop altogether ignoring larger women? Wouldn't it be a positive change to see a fashion spread focus on flattery instead of camouflage?

Absolutely. But I’m not holding my breath. To accomplish anything other than selling insecurity, InStyle Makeover would need a makeover of its own.

A Rant: Miley Cyrus, Thigh-High Boots, and the Fetishization of Youth

Oh no! Miley Cyrus looks vaguely mature in the August edition of Elle—cue the outrage!

At 16, is Miley too young to be posing “provocatively,” as she does in this feature? Riddle me this,  universe: what is the proper age to don thigh-high boots and a push-up bra in a national publication? Can you imagine the uproar if Elle had photographed an older woman, say Helen Mirren or Judi Dench, in similar attire?

Our culture has fetishized youth. We worship it. Women undergo surgery and inject toxins into their faces to maintain lineless complexions. They wax their nether regions to a pre-pubescent smoothness. Youth and attractiveness are coveted and prized to an insane extent, but a young woman wearing form-fitting black clothes—you know, being youthful and sexy—is somehow crossing a line? Forgive me if I find Botox a far more insidious force than Hannah Montana’s cleavage. 

Sure, these photos aren’t exactly congruent with the squeaky-clean way she’s normally packaged. But so what? Is it so shocking that, at 16, she might want to be portrayed in the media in a more adult fashion? After all, she's been working full-time for years. In many ways, she is an adult. And didn’t we all spend significant portions of our teen years trying really desperately to be viewed as grown-ups?

I'd much rather see a teen star wearing sophisticated clothes in an attempt to look sexy and mature than following that time-honored tradition of posing in lingerie for Maxim. (Hello, double standard! Where are the pictures of Justin Timberlake stripping to prove his readiness to move beyond boy bands?)

All that said, I'm troubled by the pervasive conflation of sexuality with maturity. Can't we have the "not a kid anymore" story without the requisite trying-hard-to-be-risqué photo shoot? (Sorry, Elle. It's just so predictable.) Even so, the downright hypocrisy of a society that so treasures sex appeal but condemns women for cultivating it is far more damaging than a glimpse of Miley’s decolletage ever will be.

Naked Celebrities Show Their "Spirit" in Allure

So, let’s discuss the nude women in the May issue of Allure, shall we? It’s a photo spread called “The Naked Truth,” and it does not start off well:

Five celebrities shed their clothes and reveal not just their bodies, but also their  confidence and spirit.

Indeed. There’s no better way to demonstrate self-esteem than by posing nude in a national magazine!

I’m sure taking the pictures was a life-affirming experience for all involved, but sadly, these photos do not provide the same effect for the rest of us. If I have to look like Eliza Dushku (who has three—three—personal trainers) to feel good about my body, I never will.

Also, how does getting naked reveal their “spirit”? Despite what some people (okay, men) I’ve met seem to believe, my personality does not reside inside my bra, and I’d think a women’s magazine would be more interested in fighting that notion than in furthering it. Or have I not mastered Allure’s little lesson in confidence?

“Just being female means we know how to hide our flaws—but this is a nowhere-to-hide kind of thing,” said actress Sharon Leal of Limelight. “It’s about embracing your body and feeling good.”

We may know how to “hide our flaws,” but that knowledge is gender-related only in that being a woman means our “flaws” are continually pointed out.

And why does “embracing your body” require taking your clothes off? The answer:

 “It’s important to do this to show young girls that beauty doesn’t have to be perfect,” said Padma Lakshmi, host of Top Chef.

Lakshmi has a scar on her arm from a childhood car accident, so she would know! I understand her concern, and it’s a valid one. But instead of teaching young girls that beauty doesn’t have to be perfect, maybe we should teach them to value themselves and others for something other than beauty. Maybe we should teach them that they can love their bodies without the need to prove it by disrobing. Conflating self-confidence with nude portraiture only reinforces the idea that our value lies in our appearance and sexuality.

Of course, confidence is inextricably linked with how we feel about our bodies. But I fail to see how painstakingly lit, gratuitously retouched pictures promote self-acceptance for anyone other than the women in the photos. Surely there is something more notable about each of these celebrities than the precision of her bikini wax.

One of the actresses pictured, Lynn Collins, told Allure that “It’s hard not to focus on vanity in this industry, because such a large part of it is about how you look.”  If only the magazine had realized that such an undue emphasis on appearance exists not just in Hollywood—and that photo shoots like this only exacerbate the problem. Next time Allure wants to demonstrate an actress’ “confidence and spirit,” a simple interview will suffice.

Bazaar: You'd Like Yourself More If You Stopped Eating Solid Food

The April issue of Bazaar contains the usual assortment of ludicrously priced fashion tagged as “investments” and “smart buys.” But because much has been written about that—and, sadly, because it’s no longer surprising—I’m going to mostly ignore Derek Blasberg’s off-putting article, which helpfully explains that the super-rich can still handily afford couture. I’m so happy for them! Also, the reference to John Galliano’s “let-them-eat-cake euphoria”? Charming.

Instead, let’s talk about “Tracy Anderson Muscles In,” a profile of the woman Bazaar dubs a “fitness guru” and I would call a “fitness guru, but only if you consider magazines’ absurd ideas about women’s bodies to be absolute gospel.”

This past summer, she tinkered with a drastic 14-drink-a-day liquid menu she may also bring to market. There have been times in her life when she has all but subsisted on the kale lemonade… Her prodigious eating habits shock and awe: the 30 cookies she ate in a row one weekend, an entire apple pie.

14 drinks a day? And that’s it? There’s some shock for you. My awe is reserved for the fact that a woman whose diet vacillates between liquid fasts and junk food binges is considered a fitness expert.

Tracy has an opinion about everyone else’s trendy regimens: Spinning, and its gift of a manly butt and legs. Pilates, which regrettably builds out the stomach. Weights for women? You might as well shoot steroids.

Silly me, I thought it was a penis that made one’s lower body manly! And the problem with weight training? Apparently, we women are supposed to be delicate and small—or, in Anderson's parlance, “teeny-tiny dancer types” with “teeny tiny” muscles. (Never mind that, like, every magazine ever has explained why lifting weights is beneficial and how to do so without adding unwanted bulk.)

“Gwyneth wants to look great naked too. I mean, so does Madonna.”…The method turns out to be less about vanity than self-esteem.

But is wanting to look good naked vanity or self-esteem? Does it even matter? Claiming that potentially harmful fitness regimens—like, say, refraining from actual food—are about self-esteem doesn’t instantly render them innocuous, and unilaterally imposing the "teeny tiny" standard isn’t particularly conducive to anyone's self-esteem.

In fact, I’d say it’s precisely the opposite. If the only way to be “teeny tiny” is to subsist on 14 glasses of lemonade a day, well, I’d rather eat cake.