The Magazine Debate

A friend of mine had posted this last night and as always, I laugh - because Liz is freaking funny.

After I took the time to fully read through - I surprisingly couldn't shut up on my response. Since today is Fashion Conscious Thursday - all of this is fitting:

I can see where you are going with this, however... it's not fair to discount all of the magazines that have tried to do what you are talking about - (Oprah, Self, Shape, Marie Claire, Jane - which went under) without acknowledging that they all started out how you say, and eventually had to adjust to fit the market of which they are targeting.

Orprah will always be huge because.. hello, it's oprah. I think that takes care of all of the middle aged chicks that love food (Rachel Ray), analyzing people (Dr. Phil) interior design (hooray! - that gay guy that is awesome who's name I can't remember), and any of us who like crying at Halmark commercials once in awhile.

Then you have Working Woman - who tailors to people like you and me that are independent lasses that work our tails off to get a leg up in our company. Most photo content in here is general - run of the mill crap that really isn't all that offensive.

You also can't forget (regarding Settled) Working Mother - which I actually get in the mail for whatever odd reason. Helpful tips on how to be a mom and a wife and all that stuff.

There are also magazines like, hmm.... W, Elle, Vogue, etc. where most of your pencil thin waifs reside because they are high fashion magazines - targeted at high fashion individuals, or those interested in (wait for it...) HIGH FASHION. Who wears high fashion? Models. Who displays the product on runway and billboard? Models. It amazes me that people get offended by this because most high fashion designers are gay men - they pick their models accordingly: women that have no boobs, butt, curves because who do they sort of resemble with body types as such? YOUNG MEN/BOYS. So why are we trying to be cute for gay men, again?

Magazines like Cosmo - i'm surprised they still sell - but I guess that's easy to observe when it's tailored toward insecure females that complain about being fat when they're not - or can't stand to be alone even for a day at a time without having some dumb idiot man to walk beside them (in which case, your sample articles you have listed before could be extremely plausable!).

Cosmo does recycle articles. I used to buy this magazine every month in high school and when I compared a 2000 issue to one in 1996, I noticed the repetitiveness. Same Article, one new tip, different photo. COME ON.

I guess my main point is that magazines don't really force anyone to look at the advertizements/models/articles. We've kind of forced them into advertising that way.

Magazines out there like what you're talking about do exist - you just never hear about them because the general public isn't obsessed with average looking women (those girls watch Tyra religiously, because Tyra's a big girl now and won't shut the F up about how she is the way she is, and how she got there, and how great she is and literally HOLDS PARADES for "SO WHAT! - I'M a SIZE 18 and I DON"T HAVE A WEAVE!" I'm not kidding). I"ve never had a guy come up to me and say "I want to date you. You look soooo average!" Nor do I ever make an attempt to look beautiful just to have my friends say, "You look ok today."

We're obsessed with perfection and judging people when they don't meet our own individual standard. That's why Magazines like US have specific sections on "When Bad Clothes happen to good People" and "They're Just Like Us!" because we like to relate.

Reality shows are perfect because the pretty people with psychological problems are cast on every damn show so we can think them perfect at first, only to be happy we don't look like them because someone that looks like that is so messed up in the head.

I may have to put this on my blog my response was so long hahahaha. Good post, Liz.