Image HERE
Earlier this week I bought a copy of a popular weekly women's magazine. This, for me, is not a particularly uncommon occurrence: I do not have the same vehement opposition to magazines that I have noticed some other bloggers do. Personally, I prefer the magazines with a stronger current affairs and features content, as opposed to those with a predominant fashion theme. But this week, I found that even my regular faithful wound me up. The article in question was asking what something called my "make-up age" was. The Middleton sisters and Kitty from the X Factor have make-up ages older than their actual ages, whilst Alexa Chung's cosmetic habits are, apparently, more aligned to someone much younger than her twenty-seven years.
Although to a degree I could understand what the magazine was trying to say (in a nutshell: what you put on your face does have an effect on the overall look that you portray), the snarky tone and relatively useless advice was what riled me. Apparently, I can achieve a more youthful look by applying smokey eyeshadow and liner, but leaving out the mascara. Come again? I have naturally light skin and hair - including my eyelashes - and look half-asleep without any mascara at all. For me, smokey eyes without mascara would look unfinished and just plain weird. Meanwhile, the Middletons were blasted for their heavy use of eyeliner, but given how frequently they're both photgraphed these days, the need to accentuate their eyes with such dark hair seems pretty obvious to me.
Even having thought about it for a few days, I am concerned that I am overreacting somewhat to this particular article. I mean, in all likelihood, the advice does carry some degree of logic and sense, but in many ways it very succinctly summarises the criticisms I, and many others, seem to have of the printed media as a whole. Firstly, the need to make a point by running down some women whilst holding up others as icons. We hate it when male-dominated newspapers and magazines do it, so why does an established, respected women's weekly feel the need to stoop to such tactics? Secondly, the obsession with age. How is this still an issue? In an age where women will need to work until age 60 and beyond, it seems somewhat futile to obsess over the preservation of the illusion of a few golden years in a woman's early twenties, when there is quite evidently so much more to life. Finally, and this is porbably the problem that publishers wrangle with a lot, is this particular feature/section/publication even relevant now? The rise of the online magazine - much like this one - mean that content can be created and shared so quickly, and be found easily by its target audience for free that it's a wonder some magazines haven't gone out of print much sooner.
I suppose though, I have answered that last question before I had even asked it. I currently suscribe to two monthly women's magazines, and will purchase others on a more ad hoc basis as I wish, despite being a fairly heavy consumer of fashion and beauty blogs. In a way, this is similar to my getting news and current affairs information from a variety of media outlets - both paid for and free-to-access. I don't always agree with every article or viewpoint, but I consider it important to be informed from every angle. Perhaps I need to adopt the same attitude toward something that is, let's face it, far less important in the overall scheme of things.
What are your views on women's magazines? Is there still a place for them in the new 'age of the blog'?
Latest Comments