
In a rare moment of planned laziness, I decided to walk about for a bit last night, watching fireworks (I still go "wow" and "oooooh" even when no one is around - who knew?), and then skip to the shop to buy magazines and those hot chocolate things that you get in packets. Aces.
It's not often I read Glamour magazine anymore (in fact, I don't think I've bought a copy for about four or five months). My love for fashion magazines has quickly been replaced by my love for interiors and Glamour and Cosmo always seriously miss the mark for me. I'm not fashiony enough to 'get' Vogue, although looking at the adverts are always fun. After working in ad sales for three years, I'm a sucker for a good campaign.
But Glamour pissed me off (again) tonight. Everything was going well, there was some nice shoes, a trite article about careers and how not to treat men if you want them to fall in love with you. And then the token article about how we've "finally accepted curves".
FINALLY! It's OK to have curves! For goodness sake. Now, as someone who has found themselves get a lot 'curvier' over the last year, I admit that for the first few months it was hard to accept and get used to how rapidly your body shape can change. But don't worry, curvy ladies! Glamour magazine says we're loving curves now so it's OK and you can start to like yourselves again.
How nice.
But it was the ad campaign that was on the next page that got me really riled. The ad for the new Wii Fit.
Now, as a previous ad sales girl, I can hear the sale pitch in my head "oh my goodness this page is perfect for you! It's in our health section, right after a feature about curvy girls! Really, the placement couldn't be better..." - responsible, don't you think? But I'm sure Wii Fit don't mind. Because on the next page was this article:
Vodka and Canapes Allowed and I've still lost 7lb!
Really? For goodness sake Glamour, show some consistency! Either we're happy being curvy or we want to lose weight (with our new Wii Fit!) Make up your minds. The annoying thing is, if the vodka and canape slant was removed from that article, what you'd have is something that makes sense: If you want to lose weight, you need to eat less shit and do exercise. That's all.
All the information was there, but the way it's displayed really pisses me off. Glamour recently wrote about a "go to sleep diet". I'm not kidding. Now, on the face of it, that seemed stupid. But I was hoping it would focus on sleeping more giving you more energy which means you'll do more stuff and actually lose weight by galavanting and doing stuff. That makes sense to me. Nope. If you're sleeping more, you'll EAT LESS. Jeez.
Don't get me wrong, the woman who lost 7lb actually looks pretty great, because for once the diet looks healthy, but why the rest of the crap? Are women really buying it? And if they are, shouldn't women's magazines be doing something to change that?
I still think that magazines like Glamour (the best-selling women's magazine in the country - selling over half a million copies a month) have a responsibility towards women. People pay attention to what they're saying. So instead of trying the most exciting new diet, why not just simple facts. If you look after yourself, and if you eat right and exercise, not only will you look better, but you'll feel a damn site better as well. Is there anything wrong with that advice? Really? It's so simple that even writing it would be radical.
If Glamour could do their bit and fight against how women are portrayed in the media, then maybe I'd have a little bit more respect for them as a publication. But they don't. They pretend they're a woman's best friend, pander to her and leave her with mixed messages. All they're doing is fuelling the media love for targetting women's body image. When in fact, they could be doing something to change it. Some of you will read this and think that's something that will never change so there's no point moaning about it, but it's something that should change. If Glamour magazine don't think that their mixed messages are doing harm, then there's something very seriously wrong.
Glamour Magazine: Change your views on body image
Posted by
Siany
Friday, 6 November 2009
Labels: glamour is a bit rubbish , media , nablopomo , women stuff , writing
7 comments:
EXACTLY. /bow
I used to be a regular reader of Glamour, Cosmo and Company. Eventually got bored, especially after reading articles about loving your body, accept curves, east healthy, etcetera.
Turn to the back, and TA-DAH - numerous advertisements for plastic surgery clinics. So if you still feel shitty about your boobs, never mind, you can go and buy some new ones! Or feel even worse that you can't afford them.
I know that these ads bring in the money for such magazines. But the hypocrisy is just so amusing that I decided not to bother reading them anymore (I read the OH's Bizarre instead - the models in which I can relate to!)
I'm not suggesting that women don't want to read about dieting and their bodies - but surely it can be handled in a way that's responsible and not sensationalist? It doesn't matter what size you are, you just have to be healthy and happy in your body. I don't think Glamour do anything to help that.
Being told that "curves are back" kinda implies that until you read the article in the magazine, you should have been feeling awful that you had a curvy body. There's nothing empowering about that.
Hmmm. Isn't this a bit like reading a copy of 'Nuts', then complaining that it's a bit pointless/wrong/misogynistic/retarded/insensitive (delete as appropriate)? Is it really surprising that glossy, vacuous magazines are a bit glossy and vacuous?
Then again, what would I know? I'm sure I've never read one. Maybe they're all normally rammed full of highbrow sophistication, and this particular publication is the exception.
I guess the fact that everyone *expects* these mags to be full of nonsense doesn't necessarily make it OK, though. But surely no-one ever takes them seriously anyway?
Y'know, glossy and vacuous is fine. I have no issue with glossy and vacuous (I did only buy the magaine for the shoes and the interview with the woman from Gossip Girl) I *like* glossy.
But there are women who pay attention to these mags - the circulation figures show that. It's not that they're glossy that's the problem. There's just certain topics that need to be dealt with with slightly more tact. I was reading women's magazines when I was 14 - you can't tell me a girls that young wouldn't be confused about how she's meant to look from reading this issue. Despite Glamour's overly pally "we're your friends we know best" tone. It doesn't sit well with me.
The section on pretty shoes however, can stay as glossy as it wants - that never hurts anyone :-)
Magazines like Glamour, Company and Cosmopolitan bore me rigid because all they do is harp on about losing weight, having the perfect image etc etc. Mind you that is nothing new as over the years women's magazines have gone from being a girl's best friend to her worst enemy. The ethos behind a lot of the mags is to sell ad pages and the only way to do that is to make women feel bad about themselves so they believe that the way to look like Kate Moss is by going on that diet and to be as glam as Jennifer Aniston you need to buy that £1,000 designer bag. Really sad!
Exactly my thoughts when I read that article last night then turned the page to find yet another diet article!
This is (one of the reasons) why I love Scarlet magazine. They never have bollocks articles about diets, and when they say "all body shapes are beautiful" they don't contradict themselves two pages later!
Shame Scarlet are soon to be no more :-(
Post a Comment