in a HEARTBEAT.
I would look like this woman.
I think most women would, or am I crazy?
I love that she’s speaking out about the Hollywood starletrexia, but how in the HELL did Kate Winslet ever become anyone’s definitition of “not thin”? She’s got curves, but I don’t really think I could call her anything but quite slim regardless.
Every day it becomes more clear how messed up our body image is on a societal level, and how much the entertainment and publishing industries contribute to it. Not to mention how we barely blink at people calling Winslet or Jennifer Lopez or Beyonce “full-figured.”
I think I’ve spent a lot of time turning a blind eye to it, but it’s been bubbling up more and more lately, as I work through my own irritation with my body and my lack of control over how it feels and looks at times.
My thoughts just over a year ago on “entertainment feminism”:
***
I have four issues of Cosmopolitan in my bedroom. I’m going to confess that right off the bat.
Three were bought by me, one by my friend Catherine.
And I’ve been struck (for the thousandth time, mind you) by the incredible cognitive dissonance that women’s magazines — and especially young women’s magazines — create in our lives as females in modern society.
I should note here that Catherine and I read much more than Cosmo. Each of us has books on the go and I have a bigger stack of New Yorkers lying around than I do anything else. Neither of us would be described as vapid, nor do I imagine that most Cosmo readers are; they’ve just ended up reading something that too often encourages them in that direction.
I read the magazine because of the hair and makeup stuff (I’m a die-hard girl — no question, no excuses) and perhaps, on a more subconscious level, because of the “carefree existence” it celebrates.
I don’t really have a life where my biggest crises are romantic ones, or where I get to buy a new wardrobe every season. So for me, Cosmo is escapism at it’s finest. But maybe that’s just the problem. What exactly am I escaping into?
Field and Stream with a tackle box full of lipstick.
I happen to have the current “Fun, Fearless Female” edition, featuring page after page of celebrities who have either kicked a drug or alcohol habit, continued to act past the age of 35 (where they say there are few good roles), or taken on some kind of charity work.
Or not.
Some of them just look great in tight pants.
I suppose that these examples of self-determination are meant to inspire me, but since I know plenty of women who work past 35, have been in recovery, and who work for non-profits, I’m kind of stuck as to how to laud these particular people above the ladies in my life.
Besides — none of them are even all that better looking than my friends, anyhow.
They just have more exposure.
The FFF theme is undoubtedly supposed to lend a feminist cast to a party-girl publication, but the stories never find their way into the regular world, where women do courageous things every day that don’t involve self-tanner.
The effort to appear beautiful, prosperous, well-adjusted, and upwardly mobile is at the true heart of every feature.
Discussion of life issues revolve around not appearing “psycho”; putting your best face forward, whether the end goal is to seduce some man in your Manolos or to succeed at career and social networking.
The problems you might actually have are not dealt with, nor are you encouraged to face them in a meaningful way. You’re supposed to find a way to sublimate them, so that you appear “fun and fearless” as much as possible.
Pop psychology — as touched upon in advice columns and the notorious “Cosmo Quiz” — is the only apparent stab at working through dilemmas and issues.
Even then, the counsel of “experts” never strays far from “do the opposite” theory of solution: if you’re partying too much, stay home. If you don’t party enough, go out. If you can’t meet a man, look better. If that doesn’t work, look even better. If you have a man you don’t want, find another one. If men hurt you, well… don’t get hurt.
And if you have raging childhood issues of abuse that don’t allow you to function normally, give you an intense fear of rejection, wake you with nightmares, and force you into awful patterns that cause you to continually degrade yourself publicly…
Well… you could always try losing some weight.
I know this isn’t news.
We’ve been aware for years that these magazines give women an unhealthy idea of how they are supposed to live and look. The problem is this: they are trying to sell that ideal more than ever as a feminist one.
The whole “Fun, Fearless Female” concept now shows up in all of the beauty/fashion/lifestyle magazines that I read: Helen Reddy with a mani-pedi!
I realize that Helen Gurley Brown started her vanguard rag to target women at the peak of the sexual revolution. This was the power she wanted women to embrace: all the strength and inherent force in their sexual identity.
But — and I say this as a regular reader — it has become a crippler, rather than an empowerer.
Cosmo lauds women in government who push for key gender-sensitive legislation. They profile models who have overcome eating disorders to have “normal” bodies. They encourage self-acceptance.
Then the next page brings a contradiction of everything on the previous one: there is no encouragement to become politically active, but only to be socially active; the models in the fashion spreads look thinner than the recovering model at her worst; and the main thing that all the “life coaching” hints point you towards is not helping yourself, but making yourself worthy of money or a man.
Is this the feminism being embraced by the next generation? The “if I look good and act normal someone will believe in me” school of getting ahead?
They are embracing their sexual power without ever getting to know the non-sexual parts of who they are and without the fundamental proviso that their sexuality cannot be their only playing card in life.
In the end, women are taught to embrace their bodies and minds only to earn the chance to hand them off to someone else — and the validation of relationship/ownership by a mate.
Most of the twenty- and thirty-something women I know are pretty conflicted about how sexual or nonsexual to be, how image-conscious or not image-conscious to be, and how to find satisfaction within ourselves. But on the other hand, most of the women I know are incredibly smart, giving, exciting individuals with, at least the beginnings of good priorities.
The generation below us is the one I am more worried about: the Britney-ites who have heard the message of empowerment their whole lives, and who are now inundated with examples of brazenness, not emotional courage.
I can see the contradictions at 31, but did I at 17?
I spent years working with these girls with my former job and I did my best to help them realize that they are amazing creatures who are capable of great things; great things that have nothing to do with their appearance.
I’d insist that it was okay to be slightly crazy, emotional, frustrating and complex. To not look Cosmo-glamourous at all time. To realize that image — even the proto-feminist image that you find in the glossies today — is only going to get you so far.
At some point, you must develop a soul.
So.
I’ve still got the four issues of Cosmo in my bedroom. I’m still going to read them. But I am also going to have to do a little more thinking as to what impact those issues are having on my issues as a real, live, “Fun Fearless Female.”
Because I am fun.
Sometimes I’m even fearless.
But I don’t always trust or love myself.
And I should probably figure out why.
I’m willing to bet the answer has nothing to do with velcro rollers.
***
What do you think?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I think …
… Kate Winslet is a knockout AND a smart, talented woman. At any size.
… you are right on about Cosmo. Speaking as a reformed Cosmo junkie, this magazine is just the epitome of all the contradictory, crazy-making women’s magazines out there.
… this Fatshionista thread perfectly illustrates how conflicted we as women and as a society are about women’s bodies.
… you are perfectly gorgeous looking like this woman.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
The irony of Cosmo (and magazines like it) is that women have replaced men in the objectification of women gambit. If you look at the masthead for these magazines, nearly everyone, right up to the editor-in-chief, is a woman.
Now, there are plenty of men objectifying women in Maxim, FHM and, you know, a bit of online pr0n, but I’m always struck by the irony.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Upon turning 30, something clicked in my brain that (finally) made me wish not for a better body but more acceptance of the one I have. Seriously, I could workout 24/7 and the width of my hipbones is still going to be wider than I’d like. All we can do is our best, yet still we strive for unattainable standards then beat hell out of ourselves when we (undoubtedly) fail to meet them. At least if you’re me that’s what you do!
I wish I had the answers to this question. I’d sure like to shut out the world’s ideal body for women and learn more self-acceptance.
Curious to read others’ answers…
December 11th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The irony of Cosmo (and magazines like it) is that women have replaced men in the objectification of women gambit.
That’s called internalized oppression.
I’ll never forget when a lesbian friend of mine confessed she was a homophobe.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I’m one of those who has nearly always been exposed to the ‘pop princesses.’ Now, I’ve never idolized them and have always been ashamed that that was what passed for ‘feminism’, yet I’m all insecure that I don’t wear the right clothes, hairstyle, makeup etc anyway. Basically, I feel I’m wrong because I don’t really want to be a Cosmo party girl. Silly, eh?
Anyway, sounds like my twenty-something issues echo yours. And maybe it’s in our (people’s? women’s?) nature to worry about the next generation; it scares the hell out of me that my 5 and 7 year old cousins love Bratz dolls.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
hey meg,
have you read “Female Chauvinist Pigs” by Ariel Levy? It’s great, and speaks to a lot of what you’ve written about here. and i hear angela about the whole Bratz dolls thing; they scare the crap out of me, and not just because they look like emaciated girls with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. you know i still love the girly stuff, but i too have yet to find peace with the magazine issue. other than i just don’t read them anymore.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
No, I haven’t, but I’ll look for it if you recommend it:).
December 11th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I’ve struggled with this, too. The physical fitness standards set by the Navy two dozen years ago are measured in inches and not in physical ability, and as a large-framed guy, I struggled with it every day for fifteen years. I was once downgraded on a performance evaluation because “while you meet the physical fitness body fat standards, you APPEAR to be outside those standards.” By way of appeasing me, my captain added, “We had to draw the line somewhere…competition at your level is VERY intense.” The next time I hit shore duty, I joined a traditional martial arts program and worked out there 9 hours a week, plus the mandatory three hours per week for the Navy. I’d go home after my classes with my gi so soaked in sweat that I looked like I’d been swimming. I lost 35 pounds in three months, and I STILL didn’t “appear to be within body fat standards.” Yet, a professional football player joined our class for a session and couldn’t keep up…so which of us was more fit?
I got passed over for promotion because of my appearance.
My point is that it happens regardless of gender.
One of the concerns I’ve had for a very long time is that the Ancient Greeks and Romans developed similar obsessions with physical beauty right before their respective empires collapsed.
Cosmo (and its brother magazine, Maxim) are the literary equivalent of chocolate Easter bunnies, offering us an existence that is so focused on the surface that the inner emptiness is viewed as unimportant. In fact, that’s what they are…the hollow chocolate bunnies of the apocalypse.
~Kurt
December 11th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
You just wanted an excuse to say “hollow chocolate bunnies of the apocalypse”. And who can blame you for taking your shot?
December 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I see the sad result of Cosmo thinking in my friend’s sister. She is 36 and looks like an aging Barbie doll. She has had tons of “work” done - botox, boob job, you name it.
She is deeply in debt due to her twin beauty and fashion addictions, and now she is way on the far side of her shelf life as arm candy. She has begun to date older and older men, reaching up into the 60s to find a man who want her as a companion as she desperately hopes one will marry her and set her up with a bottomless bank account.
As I see it, her main problem is not that she has focused on beauty, but that she has never focused on anything else. She does not have a marketable skill. She has a hard time taking care of her basic needs (can’t cook, budget, create, repair, etc).
So at her age, she must be terrified. Once her looks are gone, what is left? That is the true tragedy.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
and has anyone else noticed other “women’s” mags that have in huge print on the cover, “Lose 35 pounds in 2 minutes!” imposed over a cover photo of a scrumptious chocolate cake with ‘way too much frosting on it?? we get so many mixed messages, i just can’t stand it. meg, you hit it absolutely. i think a woman’s confidence is the sexiest thing about her. the thing is, how do we build our confidence despite all the attention to the physical? it’s a constant struggle.
meg, you’re gorgeous. you’re my hero. and you see the world in a really beautiful way.
xxoo.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
At the risk of doing myself an injury by patting myself on the back, I did my duty as a mother by warning my too bright daughter about the dichotomy contained within the covers of women’s fashion/lifestyle mags when she (The Meg) was very,very young.
Also, the Dec.4th edition of New Yorker contains an interesting article on Bratz dolls and the market research that moves its’ sales philosophy (ie., greed… which is the motive behind Cosmo as well — that AND the base ‘need’ to create an artificial overclass to support a dangerous worldview, and the industries which advertise in the mags.)
(woooow-did I say all that!?)
December 12th, 2006 at 12:32 am
You did, my mama, mostly because you’re brilliant.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:13 am
Whoo-HOO, GO MOM!!!
“Artificial overclass” — I’m borrowing that!
December 12th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Hear! Hear! It is so refreshing for this older-than-your-Mom woman to see such words from everyday hardworking, struggling women. My daughter (older than you, Meg) also wrestles with these issues. I applaud her for overcoming addiction, earning an MBA on her own and deciding to have a child out of wedlock. Her 6 yr old daughter is who I am scared for, not just for these issues but for those greater political and social issues (global warming and war are but 2 that come immediately to mind) that might just make the world uninhabitable by the time she is your age and thus make the whole feminist issue more important; but not for the reasons Cosmo would have you believe. I think that the world they describe will not exist and a woman’s role will become survival in the most literal and basic sense.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I think that has always been a woman’s role–survival. But these days the popular interpretation of it is self interest-the femininist agenda leaves a good portion of the population behind and any time you have that you create a climate of dissatisfaction, from which comes conflict. This goes from the one to one relationships all the way up through clans/tribes, to nations. If you always seek to put yourself first,as a gender, clan or nation, you will always come to war. Survival of all humankind requires a generous spirit and actions towards others, and while self-sacrifce is part of that, we must take care of ourselves in order to maintain strength for this self-giving. This does NOT encompass the philosophy of Cosmo and its’ ilk or the suppressive philosophy of radical feminism. I repeat,-any time you put yourself first you will leave someone behind. The times are scary, (I typed evil first and while I believe it, I thought better of it and modified it!)but they are about as scary as most other times in history, only now we have instant communication and it aint always the facts, its personal interpretation in the mix. But that’s another horse to ride!
December 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
The whole issue is so frustrating. I feel this simultaneous push to be both phenomenal emotionally and intellectually, but also to be confident and assured in both my physical appearance and my sensuality. I work hard on my internal growth - daily, hourly… sometimes by the minute. And yet, when someone of the opposite sex pays attention to me, I cannot help thinking:
“It must be because I look good today!” It is like my insides think outside the box when there is time and a thought process involved, but my instincts and quick response are based on my physical appearance. Does that make sense?
(Maybe this is because I spend two minutes on my outsides for every minute I spend working internally. Never thought about that…)
Thank you for pointing out how these magazines not only set the bar ridiculously high externally, but also internally. Women are still encouraged to put on a brave front. We might be told that we are amazing for overcoming some great feat, but damn us if we aren’t perfect before we share our great epic tale of “How I Survived”. Not to mention, we had better look better coming out of crisis than during or beforehand.
And as for the mags… bummer to them all. I try to avoid most of them because I cannot stand their content. I have, however, found a lovely mag: Bust. It is just awesome. Way more on the inside than on the outside. That is my recommendation if someone wants the simplicity and length of a magazine without a lot of the pretty pictures.
Although, there are still pretty pictures.
But I digress. Thank you for bringing this up, Meg. Even though I’ve never met you, I love reading your thoughts. And dude, you post more than once a day, which aids with my work procrastination! Thanks!
-Heather
December 12th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Love this piece.
Kate Winslet is NOT full-figured. And she is absolutely gorgeous. Too bad her attitude toward personal beauty is rare in her industry.
The thing I find the most fascinating, and frustrating, is the fact that this tiny group of people — celebrities, models, editors — are allowed to set the standard. They are looked to to make the rules, to critique our wardrobes, diets, choices, careers, morals for all women. The regular woman is rarely represented in these types of magazines and when she is it is treated like some sort of feat of Feminism.