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.

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.

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!

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”

Take the Vogue Challenge: Could You Live on $92,000 a Year?

If you’re anything like me, you’ve wondered this as you flip through magazines and encounter the $500 “investment” pants and the $175 “bargain” belt: Who is buying this stuff, and why don’t I do what they do for a living?

The May issue of Vogue sheds some light on the matter, introducing us Target-shopping types to the suffering that occurs when women who've invested in trousers lose their source of income. In “On the Market,” fashion writer Lynn Yaeger details her financial troubles after being laid off from job at the Village Voice—“troubles,” of course, being a relative term. See, after numerous calculations, Yaeger decides that she requires a minimum of $92,000 a year to maintain her rent, utilities, and Wolford hosiery collection.

Okay, Yaeger has a mortgage in New York City, which could easily run several thousand dollars a month, but excuse me if I can’t quite empathize with someone for whom that kind of cash is a bare minimum. Vogue certainly knows its audience: Why bother with the stories of families struggling to eat when you can reveal how the upper crust might have to cut back on the Bergdorf's shopping benders? The essay includes so little focus on expenses like housing and insurance and so much attention to items sold at Henri Bendel that only two conclusions can be gleaned: The Village Voice must have paid Yaeger in wheelbarrows full of cash, and maybe Comme des Garcons skirts really are essentials.

So, could you scrape by on 92K? I’ve devised this quiz to help you decide.

1. If dozens of employees at your company were being let go in the weeks before your layoff, what would you be likely to purchase?

A. Nothing unnecessary. I’m saving!

B. “A Victorian diamond-and-sapphire snake ring…just because I liked it, just because I wanted it.”

2. Oh no! The axe fell. Now that you’re unemployed, you need some quick cash. Check your closet—are there any garments with tags still attached that you can return?

A. Yeah, but...is it worth braving the crowds at H&M for a refund on a $24.90 cotton skirt?

B. “Back went the Lanvin bag…the tulle Comme des Garcons skirt that looked like a benign black mushroom cloud, recently acquired at Saks, had already been worn once, so that was a reluctant keeper.”

3. The biggest obstacle to getting by on just savings, severance, and unemployment benefits is:

A. Giving up Starbucks and lunches out

B. “I am the consummate compulsive shopper.”

4. You schedule a consultation with a financial planner. After considering your fixed expenses, the planner gives you a daily pocket-cash allowance of:

A. Enough to buy dinner off the Taco Bell value menu

B. $50

5. On this strict budget, the item you’re most concerned about purchasing is:

A. Health insurance

B. Rene Furterer Okara shampoo, T. LeClerc face powder, Wolford tights, and tickets to South Pacific on Broadway

6. You decide to freelance to supplement your income, but you need a printer/copier. You find one for $99. That sum is:

A. A lot of money now that you’re out of work, but a worthwhile investment

B. “Far less than the cheapest Marc Jacobs T-shirt” (And anyway, you simply require it: “The prospect of having to wait in line with other unemployed people at the local copy shop…had filled me with horror.”)

7. After a few months of unemployment, your perspective on money changes. You realize this when:

A. You discover in the worst possible way that the least expensive bath tissue really isn’t the same as the national brand.

B. You meet with a friend and “neither of us could believe that only a few months ago we thought $900 was a typical price for a sweater.”

8. Good news! You’ve landed some freelance work. You treat yourself to:

A. Name-brand toothpaste and a pedicure at the neighborhood salon (skip the callus removal treatment!)

B. “I found myself looking at the Web site of…the dealer who sold me the snake ring, and gazing weakly at it. I was terrified that one day the ring would be marked SOLD and slip out of my life forever.”

9. Even though you’re now financially stable, you’ve had to work out a payment plan with:

A. Your student loan financier and the electric company

B. Your antique jewelry dealer

10. Now that you’re back on your feet, you decide it’s time to plan for the future. You:

A. Open a high-yield savings account and max out your retirement contributions

B. Admire your jewelry! “And if I’m wrong, well, a diamond-and-sapphire cobra will always be worth something—which is more than you can say for a 401(k).”

If you’ve chosen mostly Bs, then you’ve opted to invest mostly in your appearance. And isn’t that what matters? You’re wearing an antique ring shaped like a cobra! (As for the actual Yaeger, talk about cognitive dissonance. How can she write both this Vogue essay and an article noting that $49.90 dresses are “not the cheapest things in the world”? Different readership, I guess.)

If you’ve selected mostly As, you’ve chosen money in the bank over money on your back. Priorities, people! Invest in yourself! Does solvency really feel better than the flawless fit of designer pants? It’s a choice every woman has to make, but I think we all know where Vogue stands on the matter.

In Lucky’s Eco Issue, “Green” Means Cash

The April issue of any women’s magazine invariably dedicates plenty of space to the environment and the latest in eco-friendly fashions. Which makes sense, of course, because there’s nothing more sustainable than printing millions of copies of a magazine that encourages readers to purchase new clothes,  accessories, cosmetics, and furnishings and then trucking those stacks of dead trees across the country on a monthly basis! (And to clarify, when I say “sustainable,” I mean it in the ecological sense. It's quite clear a magazine’s business model isn’t exactly economically sustainable.)

This month’s Lucky is the very embodiment of this pattern. Nonetheless, the editorial team managed to halt the relentless parade of consumer goods just long enough to drop some green knowledge. Get ready to follow their eco-examples!

Lucky editors answer: What’s your favorite green strategy?

The responses have one thing in common: at Lucky, green doesn’t just mean environmentally friendly—it means cash. One editor advocates the use of multiple $18 plastic water bottles. Another likes the organic textiles in a $350 duvet. And Jean Godfrey-June, like many of us, carries her groceries in canvas totes instead of plastic bags. Except, unlike many of us, her bags cost $92. EACH.

Still planning to be eco-friendly? Prepare to spend even more! In “The Lucky Guide to the Best of Green Style,” the magazine’s found a selection of ludicrously expensive organic clothes and accessories. There’s a $310 jumpsuit, a $565 jacket, and a $410 recycled leather tote. Wonder if it’s more environmentally sound to opt for paper (cash) or plastic (credit)?

To their credit, however, Lucky has embraced at least one facet of an environmentally friendly lifestyle. On page 110, they suggest an 80s-style ensemble consisting of a blazer, denim cutoffs, and “bright white” canvas tennis shoes, so obviously, they’re really into recycling.

Lowest Common Denominator: Cosmopolitan, March

1: Number of cover lines that made me cackle. “We are not kidding” is pure comedy

32: Page on which the word “shoegasm” appears

8: Actresses featured in “Red Carpet Confidence: Who Has It, Who’s Faking It”

Boundless: The inherent hypocrisy of a magazine that encourages its readers to be confident and then speculates about the confidence of celebrities. Does it serve any purpose to have a body-language expert declare that Renee Zellweger, Eva Mendes, and Brittany Snow appear uncomfortable in one particular red carpet photo?

59: Percent of men, according to “Guy Spy,” who “don’t want to know your nooky number”

6: Months I would like to travel back in time and use an assumed name to infiltrate Cosmo HQ and somehow prevent the term “nooky number” from ever appearing in print

$175: Retail price of a tank top deemed “cheap” on page 78

2: Number of pages between the $175 tank and “How to ‘Stretch’ Your Clothes,” which offers fashion-coping tips for those times “your checking account has taken a hit”

11: Number of “His Biggest Sex Secrets”

99.9: After reading “Is He Normal Down There?” and its incessant chorus of "it depends,” my inexpert estimate of the number of men who are, in fact, “normal down there”

13: Judging solely by the apparent necessity of using “down there,” the average age of Cosmopolitan readers

3: Assault and murder victims profiled in “The Hidden Work Danger”

Infinite: Locations where a woman can be brutalized by a man, according to “The Hidden Work Danger” and the psychopathic-behavior-of-the-month articles that appear in every single issue of this magazine

5: Bedtime rituals on page 164 that, claims Cosmo, will “keep you and your man connected”

2 weeks: Shelf life, approximate, of any relationship in which the participants need a women’s magazine to suggest that a kiss on the cheek might be a pleasant way to say good night

Onesie: Okay, it’s not exactly a number, but it is the name of a piece of clothing featured on page 173

2: Of the “45 Ways to Instantly Feel Sexy and Healthy,” number of tips which include the phrase “V zone”

Pop Quiz: What Does Elle Know About Affordable Fashion?

Good morning, class! Please put your books away and take out a pen and a sheet of paper. I hope you’ve been doing your reading, because it’s time for a quiz on this week’s assignment, “Fashion Foolery,” from the February issue of Elle.

1.  The article’s subhead says “Mixing high and low is totally on trend.” This purported “trend” is:

a.  A good thing, because many women are reducing their clothing expenditures
b.  Irrelevant, because many women’s finances never allowed them the option of buying high-end clothing in the first place

2.  Author Joe Zee writes, “All other fashion outside this rarefied world was considered—good heavens!—mall clothes: the poorly dressed black sheep of a very chic family.” In this sentence, “mall clothes” refers to:

a.  Apparel from retailers such as J. Crew, Banana Republic, and Nordstrom
b.  Aesthetically bankrupt clothing whose sole virtue is protecting its wearers from the elements

3.  Zee claims that in 2004, “things went topsy-turvy.” Which of the following events does Zee say happened that year? (Choose all that apply.)

a.  Facebook was founded
b.  Karl Lagerfeld’s partnership with H&M “single-handedly ushered in a new fashion era”
c.  Edvard Munch’s The Scream was stolen from Oslo’s Munch Museum
d.  George W. Bush was elected to a second term as president of the United States
e.  Lagerfeld’s H&M collection, priced significantly higher than the retailer’s regular line, made it “cool to love cheap clothes”

4.  From a fashion magazine’s perspective, what would be a primary reason for promoting inexpensive clothing labels? (Again, choose all that apply.)

a.  Inexpensive clothes and pricy ones are often of similar quality
b.  In light of the current economic situation, Americans have reduced unnecessary expenditures
c.  Only a tiny fraction of people can afford the higher-end brands, so Elle is attempting to acknowledge its readers who have limited financial resources
d.  Photographic comparisons of high-low outfits give magazines yet another opportunity to push the designer brands that advertise 
e.  Belt-tightening stories are trendy right now—as soon as the economy recovers, Elle will revert to covering almost exclusively exorbitant apparel

5.  Zee showed 100 people high- and low-end versions of seven different outfits.  In four of those seven instances, the respondents correctly identified the more expensive ensemble. Thus, his contention that it can be “hard” to determine the difference is:

a.  Correct
b.  Incorrect
c.  A half-hearted endorsement of affordable apparel
d.  A hedge carefully designed not to alienate the luxury brand advertisers

Extra credit essay question: The author mentions that First Lady Michelle Obama has worn a $148 Donna Rico dress and a $420 Azzedine Alaia belt in public appearances. In your opinion, are these examples of high-end or low-end items? Leave your answers in the comments section below, and be sure to show your work!

Next week in class we’ll cover the latest editions of Cosmopolitan and Lucky. Enjoy your weekend, everyone!

We Read It So You Don't Have To: Instyle's Indoctrinations in the Strange Ways of "Chiconomics"

It was inevitable: in the November issue, InStyle has at last graced us readers with its guide to living fashionably in these hardscrabble times. How do fashion mags try to convince us we're being thrifty while still urging us to purchase an entire new wardrobe every season?

These articles (and I've now read approximately 600 of them) tend to take one of three directions. They’re either:

a. A tone-deaf compilation of reasonably priced stuff. Hint to magazines: If I’m shopping for a $35 sweater, I’m not buying a $100 bracelet to wear with it.

b. A showcase of stuff that isn’t at all cheap paired with extensive justifications of why it’s still a good value—or pretty much every page in Bazaar

c. Further evidence of magazines’ utter estrangement from the real world

InStyle’s entry into this category, “The Laws of Chiconomics,” is an unholy mélange of the three. (Also, “chiconomics”? What, “recessionista” wasn’t obnoxious enough?) The article offers eight rules for smart shopping, and below, I’ve singled out the most egregious of their instructions.

There’s a two-page abomination called “The Red Shoe Diaries,” wherein the author embarks on an oh-so-relatable quest to find the “perfect” pair of Louboutins for less than $200. Nothing is more fascinating than reading about someone else shopping for shoes! 

I’ll spare you the suspense—you must be in knots wondering whether she found the red-soled objects of her consumer lust—and skip right to the end.

And it was there, in the wedges queue, that I fell hard, vanquished by a pair of black suede mary jane platforms with a silver wedge—part schoolgirl, part vixen and utterly breathtaking. Trouble was, even at half off, they were still $410. That may qualify as a steal in the Louboutin universe, but it was double my target price. Sold!

What compelled InStyle to consider this a lesson in bargain-hunting I can’t say—apparently, relentless worship of designer goods is an outstanding way to economize! As if the cognitive dissonance caused by hunting for Louboutins in a time of fiscal crisis isn’t enough, this is the conclusion the article draws:

The point of a budget, like a diet, is not just to stick to it most of the time, but to make sure that when you don’t, your splurge is really worth it.

Living frugally is so easy! Just disregard your budget entirely if there's something you really want!

Then there’s a quiz, “What’s the Real Price?,” to determine whether an item is actually worth its price tag. It’s an interesting idea, decently executed—until the scoring key, that is. InStyle offers two ways to determine your score:

For the numbers wiz

And

If math isn’t your thing

Apparently, being a “numbers wiz” equates to earning a passing mark from eighth-grade math, because it requires you to calculate incredibly complex percentages like, say, 60% of $500. And I was naïve enough to question my math teachers about whether I’d actually use their lessons in real life!

In any case, shouldn’t an article that assumes a reader’s interest in the economy, discounts, and budgets assume that same reader has a basic competency in arithmetic?

But the real fun comes with “The Super-Luxe Bag Pricing Index,” which helpfully enumerates all the other things you could buy instead of a $31,000 “extremely limited edition Chanel bag…handmade from incredibly rare large-scaled alligator.” This spread unleashes some real dilemmas for the bargain shopper—is it better to drop 30 large on one purse or on 81,036 organic eggs or on 25 years of monthly flower deliveries? Or would it be a better investment for me to spend $31,000 on 8.6 years of health insurance? What a quandary!

Strangely, there's no mention of what can be purchased with $3.99 other than a copy of InStyle. Next month, I just might figure that out.

Vogue: Shopping Saves Lives, Marriages, and Sykes

In case the interminable pages of advertisements didn’t make it clear, Vogue has just one simple request for you: spend money! Virtually every page in the October issue has something to buy—from Ralph Lauren fragrance to Tiffany bangles to pretty much every garment that can conceivably be crafted out of fur. (Seriously, so much fur. Is Anna Wintour trying to provoke another pie in the face?)

But until I read this issue, I didn’t know that shopping isn’t merely a way to fill the Vogue-induced perception of a void in my wardrobe. Actually, shopping is an essential pursuit that does more than extract insane sums of money from women to fill the coffers of multinational conglomerates who manufacture everything in the Third World. No, shopping is the solution for everything!

For instance, there’s this anecdote from Joan Juliet Buck’s “Costumes for the Revolution” wherein she discusses her mother’s daring 1968 escape from the demonstration-roiled French capital:

My mother, caught in the upheaval on a little spring shopping trip to Paris, coped with customary brio. She tracked down her father’s old chauffeur and persuaded him to convey her up to Belgium on a tankful of bartered gasoline, with all her new clothes in the trunk.

If she hadn’t had a pile of brand new Parisian designs to protect, she might never have found the courage to seek out a working-class person and bribe her way out of France! Quick, someone commission a TV movie about this incredible triumph of the human spirit!

For those who’ve never been forced to flee a foreign city, a trip to a retailer can serve as the very foundation of a relationship. In “Bliss Travels,” the writer describes how depressed she became after moving to Berlin.  She was so despondent she couldn’t muster the fortitude to slip into her selection of brand new designer dresses. (I’m sure you can relate.) But this story has a happy ending: her husband had available credit.

Back in Germany in December, Justin took me to the KaDeWe, the largest department store in continental Europe, and led me to the Wolford counter. It was cold outside. If I was going to wear dresses, I needed tights.

To my Berliner friends who implied that marriage is pointless, I point to my tights.

Indeed! Without a husband, who will buy your legwear for you?

And in Plum Sykes’ “A Twist, to the Wrist,” my favorite writer describes how shopping is not a frivolous diversion but, in fact, one which provides a woman with a meaningful odyssey that will forever alter her destiny:

There are three things a woman really needs at 38: a husband, at least one child, and a dress with long sleeves, which, I have discovered over the years, may be harder to come by than the husband. I found two potential husbands in the space of four years—and married one of them. But in all that time, I found only one really good dress with long sleeves, despite looking for such a frock just as diligently as I looked for the husband.

The entire article explains Sykes’ continuing quest to find her own Holy Grail, a long-sleeved dress. Her tireless pursuit takes her from downtown Manhattan boutiques to designer showrooms to lunch at exclusive restaurants in pursuit of this rare item women absolutely require. Sykes has selflessly devoted much time and energy to tracking down these elusive artifacts. Such an altruist!

In this rocky economic climate, Vogue realizes that shopping is a surefire way to stimulate the economy. Packed with stories about the vital role that spending money plays in our lives, this issue has truly opened my eyes. Who knew that serving my country would allow me to simultaneously achieve the greatest personal fulfillment? Shopping will fill more than my closet—it will fill my heart! I’ll meet you at the mall!