Glossed Over

According to Allure and Michael Kors, I Am Not a Woman

Have you read Michael Kors' "Ten Things Every Woman Should Have," from the October issue of Allure? This list did not please me, and it’s not because I only own a single thing on it. 

For starters, there's the concept. Be real, Allure: This is a shopping list. Ninety percent of this list is stuff you can buy in a store--including, shockingly enough, multiple items bearing Kors' name! Presenting this as essential advice on womanhood is flat-out lying. 

Then you've got your standard being-a-woman-is-expensive song and dance. Apparently being female requires owning luxury goods. Oops! I guess I am not a woman!

Throw in the icky paternalistic implications of a man dictating how to be a woman and a smarmy, classist tone, and what do you get? 

Pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Here's the list:

1. A red T. Anthony duffel bag. What does the T. stand for? "The Owner of This Bag is Female," obviously, because there’s no better marker of womanhood than a $375 bag. Right?

2. Michael Kors python ankle boots. Indeed. Every woman should have $1,345 to spend on boots! And then she should take that cash and buy, like, 17 pairs of boots instead. 

3. The Audrey Hepburn Couture Muse collection of DVDs. Being a woman involves emulating another woman, apparently. (Also? This is "required viewing" for Kors' employees.)

4. White roses, which he says are the "LBD of flowers." At last, a fashion trope more annoying than "[color of the moment] is the new black"! Kors orders from a fancy florist, but allows that the "corner deli is fine" for the rest of us. Isn't that generous?

5. Clarins Radiance-Plus Golden Glow Body Lotion. Because real women look like they've just returned from a tropical vacation. Duh.

6. A Slim Aarons photography book. I had no idea what the picture of a 1960 Stowe, Vermont, ski lodge included in the article had to do with being a woman until I looked up Slim Aarons in Wikipedia and learned his modus operandi was "photographing attractive people doing attractive things in attractive places." Which sounds suspiciously like a fashion magazine, does it not?

7. A Michael Kors silver cuff, for the woman who "can’t afford an amazing piece of modern sculpture." Wow. Between the "corner deli" crack and this, he’s making a real case for a peasants' revolt (not to mention promoting that fashion-as-investment nonsense). But wait! It gets better worse!

8. An African safari. Kors says, "The circle of life is not just in a Broadway show." How would we plebeians know? Has this guy seen the price of Broadway tickets lately? But seriously: this is shocking, disgusting snobbery.

9. A sense of humor. Yes! I agree! I wish men had one too! Especially when they’re asked to make lists about how women should be!

10. Another $$$ Michael Kors product that I can’t even be bothered to type out.

You know, there's been a lot of talk about class war lately. I'm no economics expert, but I have to consider whether lists like this contribute to the growing divide in the United States between rich and poor. When it comes to Michael Kors, that divide goes beyond the stuff he's selling, the visible markers of affluence. Even allowing that his comments about the "circle of life" were surely intended to be cheeky and his note about deli flowers meant to be inclusive, condescension is a critical part of the package. He's positioning luxury items not as fashion accessories but as indicators of exclusivity, superiority, and sophistication.

Adding that to the "Things Every Woman Should Own" conceit only makes it worse. According to this article, being a woman requires buying luxury brands and looking down my nose at those who can't or won't buy the same. Is that really the best modern womanhood can aspire to? Michael Kors, I will never be your woman.

The Fifth Annual September Vogue Liveblog

Good morning! Welcome to the fifth annual liveblog of the September issue of Vogue. Five years! 

The rules: I have not opened this issue, nor have I read any blog posts/articles/embittered rants about its content. I will, however, admit to watching Racked try to smash snack foods with this sucker. It's heavy! The liveblog goes in chronological order; refresh the page to see the latest updates.

Oh, and one more thing. As I mentioned in the video, I will be tweeting during the day using the hashtag #vogueliveblog, and I would love for you to use that hashtag too! As a small token of my gratitude for all of you out there reading along with me, I'll be giving The September Issue on DVD to three randomly selected people who tweet a link to this site and the hashtag between 10 a.m. today and 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday. (This is not a sponsored giveaway, just me spending my own money to send three lucky people a movie. US and Canada only, sorry.) Remember, your tweet must include both a link--you can use http://bit.ly/vogueliveblog11--and the hashtag #vogueliveblog to be eligible to win.  [Contest now closed, winners declared.] Thanks for being here!

Now let's get going.

The 10 Worst Fashion Moments in September's Glamour

So much of Glamour’s content is smart: in this issue, the Hillary Clinton profile, the article about gendered workplace dynamics, and even the Rihanna interview are solid.

But when thoughtful articles meet impossible fashion, Glamour starts to seem less like a manual for a sophisticated adulthood and more like an anthropological study of an alien life form. Is this what women are supposed to be like? Am I supposed to be this way/want these things/care about this stuff?

I’m no fashion expert. I admit it! But I take issue with the way fashion is continually presented not as a way to express individual style but instead as a series of expensive, men-love-this-but-not-that necessities.

So here’s a list of the things in Glamour’s September issue that really chafed.

1. The Lancome ad touting “the first doll lash mascara”

Doll lashes: the new, impossible standard! When actual human lashes (or Latisse-enhanced lashes, or fake eyelashes, or the millions of existing mascaras) just won’t suffice.

2. This actual headline: “Clothes You Can’t Move In: Do or Don’t?” 

This is a real question? Glamour answers in a series of Johnnie Cochran-style rhymes, with the upshot being it’s cool to wear binding clothes if you have some bulky dudes to carry you around. Anyone know where I can get a few of those?

3. On page 154, Glamour asks Jennifer Lopez to provide style advice for a law student who wants to be taken seriously.

Like Jennifer Lopez would know how to dress for a conservative office environment? That makes as much sense as asking the Kardashians how to dress tactfully.

4. Oh, wait! Glamour did just that! (That’s page 190 if you’re following along at home.)

5. Here’s designer Rachel Roy on riding bikes: “I usually still wear dresses and my Indian thong sandals. Reserve sweats for working out.”

Yes, how dare you wear athletic clothes for an athletic activity! To paraphrase a friend, “My biking shirts wick moisture and have three pockets to keep my hands free. Why aren’t they perfect for everyday?”

6. The very concept of “This Man Will Make You Sexy” on page 162

Apparently sexiness is a quality bestowed upon you by a male fashion designer when you buy something incredibly expensive. 

7. And, on a similar note, “The Clothes I Love On Women Now”

What’s problematic here is not that a man is being touted as an expert--he is a fashion designer, after all--but the messages he assigns to clothes. A white collar for “preppy innocence”? Show “some skin, not too much”? Barf.

8. ...and still another in this series of Men Telling Women How to Wear Things They’ve Never Actually Worn Themselves! Page 170 brings us “How to Look Sexier in Your Heels.”

A story I could actually use is more like “How to Walk Comfortably in Your Heels So You Can Think About Maybe Trying to Feel Sexy Instead of Concentrating on Remaining Upright, With Extra Tips for Negotiating Subway Stairs in a Pencil Skirt and Heels” but no such luck. 

9. “5 New Things to Do With Your Eyes!”

In case you were getting tired of traditional ocular functions like seeing.

10. In “London Calling!” Glamour quotes a Kanye West lyric to describe a coat: 

Something about this classic always looks luxe. “Look at this peacoat, tell me he’s broke!”

The coat on this page is made by Gucci. Good thing they clarified it looks luxe, because I sure wouldn’t expect that from a $4K designer piece.

Lowest Common Denominator: Lucky, September

981: According to the cover, the number of “ways to look amazing this season”

Gazillions: Approximate number of words in this issue. For better or worse (and, in the case of the never-ending article about drunk shopping, it’s definitely worse), there is now actual text in this magazine.

24: Items retailing for less than $50 featured in “Classic Pieces for Every Day”

116: Page on which Jessica Alba’s “Post-Baby Shape-Up Plan” appears, almost entirely devoid of context. I know Lucky is new to this whole writing-complete-sentences-and-forming-paragraphs thing, but they couldn’t follow up on Alba’s statement that she drinks a lot of water because she’s “starving”?

$60: As listed in “City Guide,” the price of a “Carrie Bradshaw-style pink tutu” sold by a store in Los Angeles, like a “Carrie Bradshaw-style” anything is a good thing.

$375: Price of a satchel that is, according to “How To: Wear Color,” the “easiest way to add a shot of color.” 

Zero: Explanation of how “easy” it is to spend $375 on a neon bag.

1, apparently: Words left out of the headline “Dress Like a French Girl. No, Really, a Real French Girl.” That word? “Wealthy,” unless it’s being French that somehow enables one to purchase a $550 dress and an $860 jacket. In which case, vive la France!

$250: Price of a cat-ear hood that Lucky suggests wearing “with a dose of irony, for the downtown hipster.” Behold the amazingly awkward exchange that ensued when I tweeted @LuckyMagazine about this ridiculous headgear! Veronica, aka @duncandesign, joined in to keep the conversation on track.

3: “Stylish New Yorkers” plucked from “the sidewalks of Soho” to model fall fashions in “Style on the Street.”

100: Percent of those random New Yorkers who are conventionally slim and pretty! Surprise!

Not 2: According to Jean Godfrey-June, the number of people permitted in the dressing rooms at Gilly & Hicks, Abercrombie & Fitch’s lingerie store. She says:

(You can’t both go in [the dressing room]; the surroundings are so...provocative...that liaisons are rumored to have occurred in the dressing rooms, hence, a ban.)

Infinitely: How weird it is that Godfrey-June would mention this, considering that in the story she’s shopping with her daughter.

2: Cover lines on the issue of Lucky Kids stuck inside the back cover that are uncomfortably reminiscent of the controversy over 10-year-old model Thylane Blondeau: “Dresses So Pretty You’ll Wish They Came in Your Size” and “I Want My Kid’s Hair Color!” (Related reading: this article about fashion brands using child models to normalize eating disorders.)

0: Interest I had in pulling Lucky Kids out of the magazine--until I needed something to shield my laptop with during a sudden downpour. 

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, May

26, 22, 24: Ages of the actresses appearing on Glamour’s multiple May covers (Freida Pinto, Emma Stone, and Ashley Greene, respectively)

39, 40: Ages of Amy Poehler, who’s profiled on page 214, and Tina Fey, whose book is all-too-briefly excerpted on page 72

8: Women in swimsuits depicted on page 32 as the epitome of “total confidence we all envy”

50: Percent of those women who are professional actors or athletes

$45: Price of a dress from Express suggested for its similarity to the D&G dress Stone wore on her cover

$1,395: Price of Stone’s actual cover dress

2: Letters published complaining that size 12-14 model Robyn Lawley, whose photo accompanied March’s “97% of Women Will Be Cruel to Their Bodies Today,” was too “perfect”

Zip: Amount of acknowledgement from Glamour about the same readers’ pleas to include all shapes and sizes in their photos (though they did interview Lawley about the readers’ criticism, as if that’s Lawley’s fault)

98: Page on which Glamour recommends a $132 t-shirt screenprinted with a cat’s face 

5: Tricks cited in “What Helps Reese [Witherspoon] Look Like Reese”

0: Mentions of genetics in “What Helps Reese Look Like Reese”

10: Items writer Josh Aiello’s girlfriend carries in her purse, according to “Inside Her Bag: The Final Frontier”

8: Number of times Aiello busts out a girls-are-so-strange stereotype in his commentary. Women carry a lot of stuff! How do they find things in their bags? “I have hands. Do they need cream?” he asks about a tube of L’Occitane lotion. The aneursym-inducing conundrum of differentiating between lip balm and lipstick, he says, “boggles the male mind.” Sheesh.

$20: The “highly affordable” fee for a lap dance, according to “What’s Up with the Stripper Thing?”

None: Despite the claim on the cover and the NSFW tag on the article, actual photos of naked man parts in “The Ultimate Guide to His Man Parts” (There are two models with bare buttocks, but that’s hardly what Glamour’s trying to imply by boasting “with pictures!” on the cover.)

2: Couples who got engaged after the woman cooked “Engagement Chicken,” according to “7 Dishes to Get You Everything You Want in Life”

Thousands: Approximate number of Google users searching for the term “engagement chicken” who've landed on this blog since I first posted about it in 2006. Is my shameless ploy for Google traffic better or worse than believing that a chicken dish can compel a man to propose? You decide!

Magazine Masochism: Reading Lucky's May Issue

When I was sixteen, I went with two friends to see Merchant-Ivory’s The Remains of the Day. It was a poor choice for three teenagers shit-faced on Sour Patch Kids: much of the subtle period drama was lost on us. We sat in stunned silence until the end, when one of my friends turned to me in the dark and blurted, “WHAT WAS THAT?” 

That’s how I felt reading the May edition of Lucky. Admittedly, this most crass of magazines is nothing like the nuanced film. But my reaction to this issue was the same as my friend’s to the movie.

Everything about this issue just seemed off. I mean, exclamations like “best doorknob accessory ever!” (page 132) technically make sense, even if decorating doorknobs, let alone determining what sort of overpriced trinket could be crowned the best doorknob ornament ever, never occurred to me. Am I supposed to care about this stuff?

And sure, there’s at least one office on the planet where the denim blazer and yellow micro-shorts pictured in “Four Girls, One Lace Top,” deemed “perfect for work” by accessories designer Meghan Asha, are actually appropriate. That workplace is probably Lucky HQ, but it still counts, right?

But my most profound confusion came from the cover. Check out the lower right-hand corner: this image, from the Lucky Facebook page, says “Dress for Curves: Ginnifer Goodwin shares her styling know-how.” My newsstand copy says:

How to Dress for Curves by Ginnifer Goodwin

OH COME ON. Even allowing that “curvy” is a completely meaningless word, how on earth is Ginnifer Goodwin an expert on this?

Let’s go to the text! From “Southern Comfort,” page 58:

Goodwin’s comfort with her curves [this is where I paused to inspect the three photos of Goodwin on page 66 all Sherlock Holmes-like, seeking evidence of said curves] is largely due to her stylist, Penny Lovell, who introduced the star to tailoring. “I’m three different sizes,” says Goodwin, gesturing to her tiny waist, narrow shoulders and what she calls her “womanly” hips. “I buy things that are big and tailor them down.”

Where do I even begin?

First: Goodwin came to terms with her body “due to her stylist”? How fortunate for her! How unfortunate for the rest of us!

Secondly: being three different sizes doesn’t necessarily mean you’re curvy. It means you’re not a dressmaker’s mannequin. This is not an affliction limited to one particular body type, as anyone who’s tried on a Go International dress at Target well knows.

Next: Your hips are “womanly” because you’re a woman. They’re supposed to be that way.

Finally: Buying clothes to fit the largest part of your body and tailoring them down? This is neither revelatory advice (especially not to anyone who’s seen a single episode of What Not to Wear), nor is it exactly dressing to flatter your body. Also, it’s an utterly unhelpful tip if you’re a discount shopper. If I have to spend an additional $40 to tailor a pair of Gap pants, then I probably can’t afford them.

Now that her clothes fit better, Goodwin is braver about fashion… “Things look better when I embrace my body.”

Aw, what a lovely sentiment! Not so lovely? After recommending a Memphis specialty chocolate store, Goodwin says this:

“If I lived here, I’d be an elephant!”

Yeah, I’m having a little trouble reconciling all the curve-loving euphoria in the previous paragraphs with dehumanizing garbage like this. Eating chocolate—even eating chocolate every day—might make you heavier. It will not make you an elephant. People who weigh more than Ginnifer Goodwin are not the world’s largest land mammals.

The Goodwin article comes to an all-too-merciful end shortly thereafter, but I could go on for hours about this issue. There are the reader quotes that sound exactly like everything else in the magazine. There’s the “smoky-wood-floor” scent Jean Godfrey June describes. There’s the fact that a gainfully employed copyeditor considers “retro-ifies” a valid word, because it appears on page 112. And there’s my growing suspicion that only people with tons of money and zero taste could enjoy this magazine.

By the time I reached the final page, I was cranky, exhausted by the lengthy strings of hyphenated descriptors, and just plain numb. Lucky, please explain yourself: WHAT WAS THAT?

Vogue Liveblog 2010: The One with Halle Berry on the Cover

The other day someone asked me why I still do the liveblog. After all, I've done it three years in a row. Isn't it time to move on? To which I say: Definitely not! I've been so focused on my day job lately that I'm barely finding time to read anything. (Alas, snarking on fashion magazines does not pay the rent, though I'm willing to entertain offers.) If not for this liveblog, I might never read September Vogue. That page count is intimidating!

As always, the rules: I have not opened this issue of Vogue. I have not read what any other writers thought about this issue. I'll be looking at everything except the cover for the first time. The liveblog happens in real time, so just hit refresh on this post to see the latest entries. And I'll be posting periodic updates on Twitter and Facebook throughout the day, too.

Here we go!

Australia Introduces Body-Image Standards for Fashion Industry

Women’s Wear Daily reported this morning about a new Australian program touted as “the world’s first body image initiative.” The voluntary code of conduct, developed in partnership with eating-disorder support group The Butterfly Foundation, will designate magazines, fashion retailers and designers, and modeling agencies that comply with the guidelines as “body image friendly.” The criteria, as reported in WWD:

Recommendations include disclosing and avoiding the digital enhancement of images; banning ultra-thin female models or overly muscular male ones, in addition to models under the age of 16 to advertise adult clothes; employing a greater diversity of ethnicities and model body sizes; eschewing editorial and advertising content that promotes negative body image through rapid weight loss and cosmetic surgery, and, for retailers, carrying a wider variety of clothing sizes that better reflects the demands of the community.

There is, I think, small cause for concern about the ban on “ultra-thin female models or overly muscular male ones”—what are the determining factors for these body types? Will naturally slender or naturally sculpted models be excluded? The idea shouldn’t be that any one type of body is better; it should be that there is beauty in all sizes of bodies.

But that message seems lost on a retailer quoted in the WWD article. While she acknowledges that today's models are thinner than ever before, former model Belinda Seper says,

“Fashion is for, generally speaking, women who are in good physical shape, who choose to take care of themselves.”

And if that isn't illogical enough for you, read on!

Seper harbors doubts that larger sizes would in fact sell. Just 10 percent of her merchandise is a size 16 (size 14 in the U.S.)

So larger sizes don’t sell as well as smaller sizes…but she doesn’t stock as much larger-sized merchandise. Good news, Belinda: I think I see the problem!

In any case, this program is a positive step. Australia has a female prime minister and now this? America, I hope you’re paying attention.

Update: This is the relevant section of the guidelines for determining whether a model is at a naturally sustainable weight: "Where there is concern about the healthy weight of a model, organisations are encouraged to take steps to satisfy themselves the model is healthy before employing them." And here's the full text of the guidelines [PDF].

Lowest Common Denominator: Cosmopolitan, February

6: Minutes per day needed to “score a slammin’ bod,” according to the cover

Infinite: The disingenuousness of a Cover Girl ad suggesting readers “go for beauty on your own terms” by eschewing department-store cosmetics for the Cover Girl brand. Thanks, Cover Girl, for telling me what my own terms are! Apparently my terms involve buying slightly less expensive stuff I don’t need.

25: Cosmopolitan’s “magic age” for getting married, as cited on page 36

100: In “Beauty: His Picks,” number of men surveyed about whether nail decals are “fun and flirty” or “too over-the-top”

Apparently zero: Number of women surveyed for the same article about whether they care what 100 random men think of their fingernails

1950s: Decade whose gender stereotypes Cosmo rejects in “Are You Turning Your Boyfriend Into a Girlie Man?”—right before suggesting steak and football are inherently masculine and salad, Cat Power, and French movies are inextricably feminine.

101: Page of the aforementioned article that made my head explode. The culprit phrase? “Do more gender-neutral activities with your man (see our “Manly Date Ideas,” at right)…” Since when does “gender-neutral” default to “manly”?

1: Appallingly evocative reference to an erect penis as a “giant breakfast sausage” on page 105. Sorry, I couldn’t let that one pass!

9: Of the thirteen men Cosmo’s crowned its “Fun Fearless Males 2010,” the number who are actors (The other four are a musician, an athlete, a TV producer, and Dr. Oz.)

“Almost 200” and “up to 300”: The supposedly shocking calorie counts in bottled teas and wrap sandwiches, according to “These Healthy Foods Can Make You Fat”

Endless: Stories in this issue devoted to pleasing men sexually (“4 Traits Men Find Irresistible,” “99 Hot New Sex Tips...In 20 Words or Less,” “Tap In to Your Seductive Powers,” “The One Time He Always Wants You”)

4 apiece: Pages devoted to articles about fertility and inter-racial couples

3: Pages devoted to a story about the decline of the thong

2: Pages dedicated to police officer Ally Jacobs, whose investigative work led to the arrest of Jaycee Dugard's captor

Huge: My—and, I’m sure, your—relief at learning one needn’t get a job at Cosmopolitan to achieve the same success with men that its staffers enjoy, because the magazine found 13 of them to give us the inside scoop. Lessons offered by current and former magazine staffers in “Engaged at Cosmo!” include these gems: cook his favorite dishes, avoid discussing marriage, don’t freak out when he plays Guitar Hero (like someone would?), and always wear the latest nail polish.

Zip: Actual eroticism in this month’s edition of “Red Hot Reads,” as exemplified by this decidedly unsexy sentence: “It felt so good that coherent thought was behind her, but she did realize it had never been like this with any other man before.”

Bazaar: Bare Your Body to Boost the Economy

In an essay in the February issue of Bazaar, Derek Blasberg tries valiantly to explain the phenomenon he calls "The Sexification of Fashion."

What is this "sexification," and how do we know it's occurring? I've read his article three times and I'm not exactly certain. But it has something to do with Megan Fox earning a lot of money as the face of Emporio Armani Underwear, Jenna Jameson wearing a tasteful blue frock on Oprah, and pop stars like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and Shakira merely existing.

Blasberg's theory rests on two things: a catalog of strange ideas about how women should express their sexuality, and—you guessed it!—the economy. He writes:

A woman tarting up her lifestyle, according to many, can be traced back to a very familiar recent event: the Great Recession.

Riiiight. Like Lady Gaga doesn’t wear pants because she can’t afford them.

“Maybe you can’t afford a new condo or a couture blouse,” [Simon Doonan] teases, “but hanky panky is free!”

Spoken like someone who’s never paid for birth control!

New York’s Upper East Side novelist Jill Kargman argues that a woman feeling a renewed sense of sexual energy and power in the light of the recession shouldn’t be surprising. “Since men’s egos are so wrapped up in their bank accounts, maybe their sex drive mirrors the Dow?” she wonders. “Perhaps women are trying to play into their fantasies more to lift spirits and electroshock them back from the dead?”

Maybe so! I mean, it is our responsibility as women to use our bodies to ensure men feel good about themselves at all times.

“Why dress meekly when things look bleak?” the designer Antonio Berardi asks.

Excellent point! So I assume Berardi wore a see-through singlet and hot pants during this interview. Men are also subject to the new dress code, right?                                               

He agrees with Kargman that in this economy, it’s all about a sexual woman and says, “Every once in a while fashion is dictated not by trends but by the need to feel sexy, to be adored, and to be wanted. Now more so than ever it’s about playing the female card.”

And every once in a while, fashion is dictated by men who justify objectifying women by claiming to know how women feel.

By the way, what constitutes “playing the female card”? Possessing ovaries?

Still, the midst of all this trenchant socio-economic analysis, there is some ever-so-helpful fashion advice. For instance:

…why not try an over-the-knee boot? It’s official: they’re not just for prostitutes anymore!

And, to close the article, this charming reminder:

But [Berardi] warns novices…: “Slutty is just too much and totally wrong.” In other words, ladies, wear underwear!

What a coincidence! “Just too much and totally wrong”—much like this article.