16. April. 2008 (original pub. date)
Here’s the thing, I am a magazine junkie. I subscribe to a lot of magazines and I never throw them away, like ever. Some I don’t even read, but it’s cheaper to subscribe than to buy single issues at the newsstand each month. As a result, I have a little magazine library in my apartment that I take fairly seriously. I’m a collector, so, like my books, I don’t loan them out, bend the pages, or mark them up. I love them dearly, which makes me critical of them, to a fault.
So imagine my surprise when I found myself rolling my eyes at a recent critique of the lack of ethnic/racial minorities in mainstream magazines and an examination of the stereotypical ways black, Latina, Asian and white women are represented in them. Not because the author didn’t make some valid points, but because everyone always makes those same points.
Now, I could go on ad nauseum about the lack of diversity in magazines (evidenced both by page content and the editorial staff composition) but that’s a very simplistic assessment of the problem—one that shifts blame and doesn’t address the deeper issues that manifest themselves in “whitewashed” and “overly photoshopped” covers. And, well, being the kind of girl that I am, have to try to look at this from all sides.
Magazines don’t show more “women of color” for the same reason that they don’t have more plus-sized models, handicapped people, or unattractive girls—they don’t have to. It’s not about racism or bias, which is the convenient culprit, but more so about privilege. And although privilege is something no one likes to talk about, or even acknowledge, unless they don’t have any, the simple fact is that we all enjoy some form of privilege in our lives that, by its very existence, oppresses someone else.
“Women of color” take issue with not being nearly as represented in mainstream magazines as they should be- and with good reason. Perhaps they wonder why the industry, whose EICs, publishers, and staff do look like the girls on the pages, don’t do more to address the problem. Well, it’s kind of like the extra skinny model issue that came to a head last year— it’s all about perspective. Many people agreed that runway models were becoming a bit too white and much too thin and railed against the fashion industry. “It’s discrimination,” said some, “it sets an unattainable ideal,” said others, “it’s just not attractive,” said a few. The problem was written about, discussed and dissected to death and after a while, like all causes of the moment, the drama died down. But in real life, where we all live, most girls don’t pay any attention to the fact that many stores don’t carry sizes larger than a 12. Why? Because they can always find their size, so they don’t have to.
Similarly, heterosexuals don’t realize that most ads and commercials are skewed towards their demographic because they are considered the norm, just as Christians don’t have a problem with being members of the de facto national religion. And let’s be real, if men thought about all the ways in which they are privileged just because they are men, they wouldn’t have time to do anything else. Some things are just accepted the way that they are, because for most people, it’s not a problem. The magazine industry is no different. Mainstream magazines skew white, and any publication that doesn’t is labeled “ethnic,” “multi-cultural,” or “urban.” So does that make it right? Of course not! But if we’re going to address the issue, let’s be honest. We pick and choose what types of exclusion we have a problem with, based on our own experiences.
No one has much of a problem with the fact that unattractive people rarely make it into the magazines, unless it’s a “before” shot. The simple fact is, unattractive people do not a popular (or profitable) magazine make, and for good reason. You read magazines to be entertained. Sure, you may also want to be informed, but you want to enjoy yourself while doing it. You don’t pick up a magazine to see real women in clothes you can afford, discussing lives that mirror your own. If you want to see that, go to Macy’s. Or better yet, look around you during your commute to work in the morning. That is real life and I, for one, get tired of living it, let alone looking at it all the time. So why would I pay upwards of $4 to see in a magazine the same thing that I can see on the C train for $2? I wouldn’t and I don’t.
You pick up most magazines because you want to see someone that looks better than most people on the street and to read about something that probably wouldn’t happen in your life, or a dramatization of something that did. If you want real life, go to the park, or go to work. If you’d like a break from it, get familiar with your favorite magazine.
That’s not to say that the industry doesn’t have it’s problems, but my point is that it’s easy to bash the magazine industry because as a whole, they do a pretty piss poor job of being representative. But not all magazines care or want to be, that’s why they target specific demographic. You just have to know yours.
And when you’re in a position of privilege, like magazine publishers are, and which most of us enjoy in one form or another, you don’t always remember to think about those who aren’t. So in addition to railing about the different forms of oppression you feel, also remember the ways in which you take advantage of your privilege everyday, just by virtue of having access to something that others don’t—citizenship, a penis, use of all your limbs and senses, being in your right mind. And think to yourself, how do we fix that? If you come up with any answers, pass them along to your favorite magazine, I’m sure they would be welcome to suggestions.
