Glossed Over

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: 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!

Glamour Knows What You Want from a Man

This is the charming way Glamour opens “What to Do With a Naked Man (That You Haven’t Thought of Before)” in the July issue:

We hate to be all “Here’s how to please your guy…” But if what would please you is to try a whole bunch of fun new tricks, what are we going to do, withhold the info? Hardly!

Yeah! Don’t blame Glamour for perpetuating the notion that a woman’s most direct route to personal fulfillment is to satisfy a man in the sack. They’re publishing these tepid true confessions and unimaginative sex tips because they know what you want.

Or because they had nothing else to run in this space. It’s not like those pages could have been used for ads. Or serious journalism. Or, you know, sex advice focused on your own pleasure.

But I’m sure Glamour has that planned for a future article, right? So, assuming you want to focus on satisfying your man, what wisdom do Glamour’s certified male experts have to offer?

1. Non-verbal cues to relay consent:

Your hand on his upper leg is pretty much the universal sign for “you’re getting some later.”

Excellent! There’s no way a potentially disastrous misunderstanding could result from that.

2. Revealing non sequiturs in personal anecdotes:

“I’m not violent at all, but this girl I used to date would throw me into place during sex.”

Right, see, her “throwing” you has nothing to do with you being violent. And probably nothing to do with her being violent, either. Your need to announce that you aren’t violent, however…

3. Off-handed misogyny about your body parts from a guy who is, ostensibly, interested in your body parts:

Above all, do not cup a man’s chest like he has boobs—especially if he has boobs.

There! Armed with all this knowledge, aren’t you inspired to sexually gratify a man? Maybe just not these men.

The 5 Ways Glamour Undermines Its Size-12 Self-Acceptance Message

There’s been quite a bit of discussion recently about the photo of model Lizzi Miller in September’s Glamour. See, Lizzi has something that rarely appears in fashion glossies: a non-concave stomach. So readers—in the apparent joy of seeing a body that remotely resembles their own in a magazine—have sent letter after letter of praise to Glamour HQ.

In her blog, editor-in-chief Cindi Leive mentions Glamour’s “commitment to celebrating all kinds of beauty,” which makes me wonder whether she even reads her own magazine. I’ll give credit where credit is due: this photo and the overwhelming response give me a little hope. But a photo—even this photo—isn’t enough.

Here’s why:

1.    Lizzi Miller’s photo appears in a story called “What Everyone But You Sees About Your Body,” which is ostensibly promoting body confidence. But why illustrate this piece with a plus-size model? The implication is that larger women are the ones who need this advice, because, you know, skinny females apparently pop out of the womb bursting with self-confidence.

2.    Leive describes Miller as a non-supermodel whose body is “wait for it…normal,” as if she (Leive) has nothing to do with the models who populate every other page of the magazine. Yeah, I’m pretty sure it isn’t readers who clamor for a parade of sylphs month after month.

3.    The hubbub over Miller doesn’t just mean they’ve done something positive. It means Glamour is failing its readers. If a single photo has generated such a response, then the magazine isn’t regularly depicting the women it purportedly speaks to. A picture of a plus-size model shouldn’t be a favor to readers. It should be a frequent way of representing them—not to the exclusion of slender women, but alongside and equal with them.

4.    If I could say one word to Cindi Leive, it would be this: “context.” A plus-size model in Glamour is great. Loving your body is fantastic. But the positive message is diluted by the rest of this issue’s content: a “Health Answers, Please!” column about weight-loss supplements, a feature called “Beware the 1,140-Calorie Breakfast,” the usual spate of super-thin models, and in “Your Instant Whole-Body Makeover,” the warning that poor posture “can even make you look like you’ve gained a few pounds.” The horror! Here’s a thought: Stop fear-mongering about fat and maybe there wouldn’t be a need for articles about self-acceptance. Which brings me to...

5.    Leive’s blog post completely fails to acknowledge that Glamour is complicit in this situation. You know why it’s refreshing to see a model who looks like Miller? Because we so rarely see anyone who looks like her in any fashion magazine. Sure, Glamour is leagues beyond Vogue or W in terms of body-type diversity, but that’s damning with faint praise.   

What do you think?

Related: What W Really Thinks About Women’s Bodies

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”

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.

The Slimming Secret of Glamour's "Best New Bodies": Childbirth

Dear Glamour,

Just a quick note about this page from your January issue:

Sure, her pregnant body was a significant departure from her usual peak shape, but carrying twins does not qualify Jennifer Lopez as the “before” in a weight-loss story—unless you’re touting the miraculous tummy-flattening benefits of giving birth.

Wait...are you?

Love,

Glossed Over

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, December

$1,712: Value of the gift bag from Glamour’s Women of the Year gala

68.75: Percent of honorees cited at least in part for their work improving the lives of women in poverty or oppressive situations

16: Women honored by Glamour for, in the words of editor-in-chief Cynthia Leive, “inspiring” other women

3: Celebrity hairstyles noted on page 86 as “Part Makeovers to Inspire You” (that’s “part” as in the part in your hair)

Null: Likelihood I would ever publicly admit to being “inspired” by the direction Gwyneth Paltrow combs her hair

10: Number of strategies suggested to “Make Over Your Body, Head to Toe,” including three for the face

2: Uses of the word “bling” on page 116

$895: Average price of the bling-encrusted bags on the same page

Boundless: My astonishment that anyone would spend $2,295 on a Valentino purse studded with hot-glued faux jewels

3: Body types represented in “The Sexiest Dress for Your Shape”

3: Number of “fun ways” to wear a scarf recommended on the next page

239: Page on which a Glamour staffer claims to have seen the term “sophisticated elf” as the dress code on an invitation

5: According to page 163, the count of “Fights Every Couple is Having Right Now”

100: Approximate percentage of those five conflicts that have been the basis for an episode of a network sitcom starring an average-looking former standup comedian and a gorgeous actress as his wife

9: “Sweet ways guys show their affection” in “100 Little Things that Renew Your Faith in Love”

1: Of those 9, the number which involve a man sleeping outside his girlfriend’s house without her knowledge. Sweet, eh?

4: Pages devoted to “I Don’t Care About Being a Size 2,” a beauty story featuring singer Adele

1: Total of photos of Adele where her body is actually visible below the neck

Everything I Need to Know About Wasilla I Learned in a Women's Magazine

Never heard of Wasilla, Alaska, until a certain former mayor was vaulted to national prominence in August? Me neither! Ever anticipating our needs, the magazines have stepped up to fill in the gaps in our collective knowledge about the town and its most famous resident. According to this month’s issues, here’s what Wasilla is all about:

• Marie Claire features a Wasilla native in its “Savvy Girl’s Guide to Surviving a Reunion.” According to writer Michelle Tolan, the town is cold, wet, and packed with teens who enjoy deep-sea fishing. Tolan says “growing up in an unforgiving wilderness” shaped her and her classmates into “tenacious, spirited adults.” Which is great and all, even if she didn’t mention whether being able to see Russia affected their development.

• In Cosmopolitan’s “The Hot Bachelors of 2008,” Alaska’s representative is a brown-haired guy named Levi who hails from Wasilla. No, not that one.

• And in Glamour, which is where the image on the right appeared, Governor Palin’s sister Heather Bruce sits for an interview in “I Never Thought I’d Say, ‘My Sister, the Vice President.’” In this article, it’s clear that Wasilla isn’t that removed from the rest of the world: the veep nominee and her sister saw enough bad TV to learn the trick of taping off individual portions of their shared bedroom. Hmm, early evidence of isolationism?

Ad in Glamour Creates a Contradictory Message

The November issue of Glamour features an amusing juxtaposition of editorial content and advertising. On page 48, in “Dos, Don’ts, News & Views,” the mag scolds men for checking out their co-stars’ cleavage on the red carpet:

And inside the back cover, an ad for Vassarette indicates their bra will inspire men to do just that:

(The text reads, “Hope you’re willing to sacrifice a little eye contact.”)

This particular ad sparked a minor disagreement in my house. Here’s what transpired when my husband spotted my copy of Glamour folded open to that page.

Him: Are you going to write about that ad?

Me: Yes. It bothers me. Like men need any more encouragement to stare at women’s chests?

Him: It’s not directed toward men—it’s a magazine, and an ad, for women. I think it’s kind of funny.

Me: Sure, you find it funny because no one’s ever talked to your breasts instead of your face.

Him: Well, what are bras for? To de-emphasize your cleavage?

So I’d love to hear some other opinions. Readers, what’s up with this ad?