In honor of their 70th Anniversary, Glamour has an American Icons photo shoot with current female entertainers posing as important female icons.
I'm not usually a fan of magazines like Glamour but I thought this spread was pretty cool.
In the spread they've got Lindsay Lohan as Madonna, America Ferrera as Dolores Huerta, Hayden Panettiere as Amelia Earhart and Alicia Keys as First Lady Michelle Obama plus 9 more. I thought it was an interesting way to honor these icons and they did a good job of picking women from different types of fame--athletes, activists, political figures, etc. I particularly liked the picture above of America Ferrera.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Glamour: American Icons.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12361
i got to hear dolores huerta speak in 2002. she was amazing.
I do like that particular picture. The colors are gorgeous.
Others (I think over at Pursuit of Harpyness, but I'm not sure) have remarked that the whole article was pretty fluffy and sort of tacitly anti-feminist. The quotes I read featured lots of talk of how pretty the various icons were, not how hard-core and courageous they were. Not being a reader of Glamour, however, I can't personally vouch for that. Can anyone who read the article themselves confirm/deny this?
I think, however, that I'd prefer that media outlets designed primarily to distract women from political and social reality and get us to divert our energies into making pretty for Big Daddy would keep their dirty hands off my feminist icons, thank you very much.
While I enjoyed some of the images, a lot of the blurbs from the "rising stars" really rubbed me the wrong way. There's an emphasis on beauty rather than what these women did.
I agree, it was more about beauty than brains or activism. Most of those photos rubbed me the wrong way. I like the one of America Ferrera, though. That one is the best.
Why did they pick a light skinned Alicia Keys to pose as Michelle Obama? I mean, seriously? they can't find a dark skinned black woman? I give up.
Agreed. Some of them managed to talk about their accomplishments, but Lindsay (sp?) Lohan was the most off-target. She managed to turn a pictorial about influential women into some blurb about herself. She said something like, Oh yeah I used to listen to Madonna all the time as a kid. Me: mmkay and I care why? Why doesn't she talk about how Madonna changed attitudes about sexuality?
Did you know that Carrie Bradshaw was both feminine and feminist? You learn something knew every day.
*cackle* Yes, this. This is the complaint I heard levied elsewhere, that the quality of discussion was pretty much along those lines.
I know it's just Glamour, but still.
So glad it was not just me. Honestly, since when do Delores Huerta and freaking "Carrie Bradshaw" belong in the same category?
I figured if I looked hard enough I would find something about this spread that I didn't like--it sounds like the captions were it. Unfortunately, not surprising!
I agree with everything above about how the captions are very much things like "strength is beautiful too" emphasize beauty. However, of all the fluff magazines out there Glamour is definitely the better ones. They had a series of Marianne Pearl traveling the world and they often times highlight everyday young women doing amazing things. Also, many of their articles are much more serious than say Cosmo.
Agreed... if you need a fashion mag fix, I feel like Glamour is the most palatable, with some actually interesting content to go along with the fluff. They had that good article about abortion last month, for instance. And the sex advice tends to be more focused on sexual health and female pleasure than the "please your man" variety at Cosmo.
I also agree, of the fluff magazines Glamour is certainly one of the better (if not the best of mainstream fluff) ones.
I tend to think of Glamour as slightly more grown up than Cosmo for example (yes I read both on a regular basis). The abortion article they ran last month happily surprised me and in an article about small things you can do to empower yourself they said something along the lines of tell him you're just not that into him.
I have yet to have read the spread but what struck me was that a number of these people are still alive. Couldn't someone photograph and speak with Michelle Obama (for example) instead of Alicia Keys pretending to be Michelle Obama? Wouldn't the actual person be more inspiring?
I think Michelle Obama as a separate interview/photo spread is a great idea as opposed to the intent of this fashion shoot. I'd rater see another first lady (Eleanor Roosevelt? Pat Nixon? Not Jackie, too easy!)
In any event, I like me some brain candy. Glamour is a great mix of fashion (admitted, I need help with this stuff!), celebrity (Because if they put it out there, I'm interested!) and seriousness. Yes, the intent is to sell nail polish and pre-fabricated femininity, but, as opposed to almost every other magazine out there it's the least degrading. (That and Marie Claire)
Also - Carrie Bradshaw? Ugh. I've seen exactly ONE episode of SATC from start to finish and I wanted to rip out my kidneys with a really dull spoon. I can be shallow but those (fictional) babes are ridiculous! If that is what dating is supposed to be like, count me out!
Totally reminded me of http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/birthcolor.shtml !!!
I've been in love with that poster for ages!!! It's actually really sad how well it applies here...
As far as the quotes go, the one that stuck out for me was the woman posing as Mary Tyler Moore. She said something about continuing to fight uncompromisingly for equal pay in the work place. So they weren't all bad.
and I love Alexis Bledel...
Save America Ferraro's photo, I didn't get the feel that this was a tribute to great women throughout history. It was a photo shoot. I think Tyra Banks did something similar on ANTM. It's about the glamour, as many have mentioned already, it's not about the accomplishment.
That Huerta photo is by far my favorite.
What is gained by reimaging women role models with models and starlets? It seems to send a message that it is not enough for a woman to make great achievements in her chosen field, she must look like a model while doing so.
The photo of America Ferraro is a nice photo of her, but to me it does not represent Delores Huerta. Instead it is a message about stereotypes of feminine appearance in the valuation of women's achievement.
I do agree that this is more of just a photoshoot than a political statement about women...but I'm not gonna lie, the Huerta photo kind of took my breath away for a second. Not sure if it's the photography or what. ;)
Not pleased about Carrie Bradshaw being an icon (as a former New Yorker, SaTC and how they made women and NY life appear infuriates me), and I mean, come on, but MICHELLE OBAMA? I know that she's the first lady now, and there's a lot of attention on her, and she has many people admiring her acheivements....but really? An icon? With just over two months in the White House?
SUCH a sell-out, in my opinion. There are so other women I could think of that are deserving for the spot. But then again- CARRIE BRADSHAW?!
Replying to my own comment here....I've been through the Glamour website (I saw the pictures on other different blogs), and they apparently picked one woman per decade....I still stand by my dislike with some of their choices (a fictional character among them!)...could have been a more powerful spread, IMO, if they started from the beginning of the 20th century and didn't have to manually dial through each decade!
Carrie Bradshaw??
1. Not a real woman
2. Not a female character who in any way deserves to be in the company of the others
3. The movie version of her character, certainly no feminist, was fashion-obsessed, shallow, whiny, and all things "character" women hate to be associated with.
This woman, anyway.
Complete and utter dissapointment with the potential this had.
As others have said, it focused more on their beauty...silently implying THAT is the worth that garnered them their spot in this spread.
And don't get me started on Carrie Bradshaw.
I love the photo shoot and really appreciate the varied icons they chose. I've also always thought that the words "beautiful" and "beauty" have a wider meaning than looks alone. Certainly, I always mean a wider concept when I use those words. For example, strength is beautiful, and there is so much beauty in wisdom.
But why does strength have to be beautiful? Can't we appreciate strength on its own merits?
I think I agree with you conceptually, but the language really bothers me. While I certainly approve of broadening the definition of what's beautiful, it feels like blanketing so many things under the label of "beauty" dilutes the meaning of attributes like strength and wisdom, if that makes any sense.
I definitely got the sense that this piece was Barbie-fying the historic women. Barbie is all about the clothes and accessories and appearance, whatever the theme.
These are just like any other photos of young attractive models/actors in nice duds, but here they're trying to add a sense of gravity by hijacking the accomplishments of historic people. It was all flash and no substance. The original women didn't have stylists to make them look perfect for the cameras. What's with all the spackle, and why?
"Hey, we took some powerful iconography and stapled it onto another person's body to sell stuff."
yeah, i got that feeling too.
i also felt like they ran out of ideas/women toward the end. Carrie Bradshaw?
The whole set didn't wow me, but the shot you feature here is my favorite. I'm seeing Dolores Huerta in a few weeks in DC!
My personal favorite is the Brandi Chastain photo.