US Glamour December 2018 : The 'Women of the Year' Issue

[dfl-001]

Multiple covers; March for Our Lives Activists, Viola Davis, Chrissy Teigen, Janelle Monáe

image source: kevinkkelly1 on eBay

 

[JPineapple]

Janelle and Viola's covers are beautiful!

 

[TZ001]

The first cover is meaningful.

 

[MON]

ANNA You could have had THAT COVER! Stunning Viola! Stunning!

 

[Benn98]

Viola and Janelle's covers are quite frankly Glamour's best not only under Samantha's tenure! The Viola one especially, can only imagine how much more powerful it would have been for Vogue.
The first one could work for TeenVogue, but with better styling. And I'm not sure what Chrissy Teigen is doing in this lineup. Absolutely unnecessary and such an insufferable woman.

 

[magsaddict]

Viola looks stunning! and yes, it should have been on Vogue.


That masthead is still tragic though, and i'm a little confused as to who Glamour's target audience is.. their covers used to be all gloss and copious airbrushing and coverlines like 'best workouts!', 'sexy swimsuits!', and now they definitely go for something more real. but the question is, is the woman who subscribed or bought this magazine regularly in the past when it was so much less socially conscious the same person who would pick it up today? There just seems to be this underlying disconnect, and trying to sell it as something deeper and more informed feels insincere and reeks of desperation.

 

[dodencebt]

I usually defend Chrissy but her cover doesn't project what the others are projecting.

Agreed that Viola's cover would be perfect for Vogue US. It takes me straight back to those early aughts full body shot covers.

 

[TaylorBinque]

Viola looking like a true queen she is. What a tremendous woman of beauty, wit and talent. That is truly a glamorous cover. I wish Vogue could have done that.

 

[tigerrouge]

but the question is, is the woman who subscribed or bought this magazine regularly in the past when it was so much less socially conscious the same person who would pick it up today? There just seems to be this underlying disconnect, and trying to sell it as something deeper and more informed feels insincere and reeks of desperation.

The mechanics of magazines – of advertising – is to create insecurity and desire, and then sell stuff that seems like a solution to those ‘needs’.

But how can magazines possibly be creating insecurities these days, when they’re incessantly reprinting messages of ‘empowerment’?

Well, to me, the current disconnect in magazines like US Glamour comes from them promoting TWO agendas at once, both of which are at odds with true empowerment.

On one page, you’ll have an article promoting a victim mentality - then you’ll turn the page to read a feature on how to be an over-achiever.

One line of talk is promoting the mindset of always scanning things for how you’re being personally undermined by whatever’s going on in the world around you = INSECURITY.

The other line of talk is designed to make you feel a failure if you’re not a successful self-employed business mogul covering several industries at once, with the looks and manner of a professional instamodel who always knows how to say the right things to promote themselves = INSECURITY.

This is the message that many magazines are selling their readers. Personally, I find it poisonous, and no real improvement on the ‘superwoman’ message they were trying to sell in the 80s under the banner of self-improvement.

And these days, there’s isn’t the compensation of seeing beautiful and inventive fashion and faces on the pages. So why should I buy the damn magazine?

 

[anlabe32]

Chrissy looks bloated.

In love with Viola's cover and the other two are nice as well.

 

[Benn98]

....is the woman who subscribed or bought this magazine regularly in the past when it was so much less socially conscious the same person who would pick it up today?

Most likely! Like many, she's just been forced to adapt to the new regime just like her predecessors were forced to ditch their 80's shoulder-padded power suits in favour of a less aggressive and more feminine silhouette in the 90s. It's how the fashion game works. Very soon activism too will fall out of favour. Glamour will have croaked by then, but I'd like to revisit all the girls on the first cover to see how exactly their sensibility will have changed.

It's not that I have a problem with activism. It's definitely needed in certain fields. But can we all just admit that Samantha Barry is the wrong person for this magazine. Even if she's to lead the magazine into their digital-only platform. And for this I blame Anna Wintour. The worst decision ever was to nominate her as overlord to these magazines. Her resume as CN consultant is littered with so many duds. How can nobody at CN see that????

 

[magsaddict]

Sometimes it feels like all American women's monthlies are in a precarious place, how is it that monthly magazines in tiny countries can still be produced with a healthy amount of ads and actual glossy, pretty pictures even with their tiny readerships... is it their low production cost compared to the USA?

And also, this year's 'women of the year' crop feels embarrassingly disconnected ... i mean one of the choices in particular.. what inspiration do they offer women aside from marrying well and being rude on twitter?

 

[Benn98]

......i mean one of the choices in particular.. what inspiration do they offer women aside from marrying well and being rude on twitter?

Thank you!!!

 

[MyNameIs]

This is so #woke.

With all this talk recently about fashion magazines struggling and folding, have any of these people considered that maybe this over the top social justice agenda is part of the reason?

 

[happycanadian]

This is so #woke.

With all this talk recently about fashion magazines struggling and folding, have any of these people considered that maybe this over the top social justice agenda is part of the reason?

With all that's going on in America right now, the "social justice agenda" is absolutely necessary.

 

[SLFC]

All of them are pretty good but I think Janelle's takes the top spot. Been a while since we've gotten a good cover from her.

As for the articles, "get woke go broke" is the saying.

With all that's going on in America right now, the "social justice agenda" is absolutely necessary.

I'm not sure you know what Social Justice is.

 

[happycanadian]

As a matter of fact, I do know what it is SLFC. And when the country in which this magazine is produced has a billionaire in its highest office, who is primarily motivated to ensure the most privileged in the society thrive at the expense of everyone else - it's vital that some form of a "social justice agenda" is fought for by everyone who has the platform to do so.

I understood MyNameIs's post to infer that fashion magazines are inherently aimed at and reflective of the most privileged amongst us (considering the cost of the advertised products, the rarefied worlds they present, etc etc). And that because of the recent trend of magazines getting political and including on their covers those who are not from those backgrounds, the targeted demographics might be choosing not to purchase and thus the magazines are going under. Simply put, my point is that right now there are things that are frankly much more important and because these magazines have a platform, they thus have a responsibility to get political and push this "social justice agenda" in the best way they can. Which I think they've successfully managed across these covers.

 

[serendipity8777]

fashionista.com

 

[vogue28]

Much prefer the cover with Chrissy Teigen out the whole bunch. Not quite understanding how she could be considered a 'woman of the year' but I do like how monochromatic the cover is, along with that Viola Davis cover too.

 

[SLFC]

As a matter of fact, I do know what it is SLFC. And when the country in which this magazine is produced has a billionaire in its highest office, who is primarily motivated to ensure the most privileged in the society thrive at the expense of everyone else - it's vital that some form of a "social justice agenda" is fought for by everyone who has the platform to do so.

I understood MyNameIs's post to infer that fashion magazines are inherently aimed at and reflective of the most privileged amongst us (considering the cost of the advertised products, the rarefied worlds they present, etc etc). And that because of the recent trend of magazines getting political and including on their covers those who are not from those backgrounds, the targeted demographics might be choosing not to purchase and thus the magazines are going under. Simply put, my point is that right now there are things that are frankly much more important and because these magazines have a platform, they thus have a responsibility to get political and push this "social justice agenda" in the best way they can. Which I think they've successfully managed across these covers.

These are fashion magazines. They aren't time magazine. Just because they have a platform does not mean they need to use it everywhere possible for the purpose of pushing an agenda. People read these for fashion, the same reason people play video games for gaming, not political propaganda. Its absolutely insane that we have magazines like Harper's Bazaar calling for incivility and violent revolution. The irony is that the people who edit these aren't people of color either. These are all rich and privileged white people. I am aware of the issues that go on in this country, but I dont go to fashion magazine to read and educate myself about it. I go to sites like CNN, or VICE, or VOX, or some of the various independent reporters on youtube. I'm tired of people calling for political agenda to be pushed by everything I enjoy. Its indoctrination not education.