The women of the world—or at least, those who can't put down women's magazines—have apparently found a friend in the September issue of
Glamour. Editor Cindy Leive wrote a post on the mag's website (
thanks, Jezebel!) saying that the mailroom has been inundated with letters from effusive readers who were thrilled to spot a photo of a model—nude—smiling as she bared her (possibly stretch-mark-lined) pooch to the world. "This photo made me want to shout from the rooftops" said one letter, the mass of which Leive describes as "full of joy."
To explain why is to state the obvious: Women saw themselves in the glowing "size 12-14 avid softball player/belly dancer" model from New York, and they wanted
Glamour to know that they wanted more of her.
On the surface, it seems smart to oblige—and kind of shocking that other mags haven't tried this tack before: Slip a girl with a little meat on her bones (but you have to show the model's pooch; fully clothed "real" women in a "how to dress your pear-shape frame" feature don't resonate in the same way) somewhere into your 200+ pages (of course,
Glamour loses 10 points for inserting her picture into a 'body acceptance' spread—as if that topic is a daring place to blaze new territory) and gain the respect of women who are tired of having their self-esteem battered by the magazines they can't stop reading.
Because these fashion and fitness magazines are basically porn for women: Once you start reading, you can't stop—glancing at the taut tummy of this month's
Shape cover model, obsessing over the before and afters, scanning the pages in hopes of finding a sliver of upper arm flab.
(Glamour.com)
It's why, month after month, we read the magazines but don't buy the $400 Pucci sandals, or do the Outdoor Fitness Blast workout, or take the trip to Costa Rica. We fill out the quiz (to see how we measure up), and then we, yes, ogle the women.
I'd like to think that Leive will make good on her promise to listen to the feedback and actually celebrate "all kinds of beauty" in the mag's pages. But I wouldn't bet a $15
Glamour subscription on her doing so, and I'm not skeptical for the same reason that Jezebel is—that if magazines trumpet more normal women, readers will get used to "the idea that you can look sexy with messy hair, no clothes or accessories, and a layer of body fat and stop buying products to fix their natural yet somehow 'flawed' figures."
I think readers will stop buying the magazines. Because these mags give women a gold standard, something to beat themselves up over, something to pine after—things women are, sadly, exceedingly good at doing. In the context of sex, beauty, and fashion, everyone wants a little fantasy, often to our detriment. It's the converse, in some ways, of celeb magazines. On some level, we know our bank accounts, our wardrobes, and, yes, our glutes, can't measure up to theirs, so we delight in seeing unflattering pix of stars, which take the sting out of the unattainable.
Pages of happy, not-really-fat, only-so-slightly-stretch-mark-covered models are, well, nice. And we all know where nice mags finish.
Kate Schwartz is the managing editor of Newser. She can be reached at kschwartz@newser.com.
