Fools you into thinking your a "thinking" woman?!.... (Marie Claire)

Name: hot_rock_chick

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Marie Claire
Date:	27/02/01 (264 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Raises some important issues.....

Disadvantages: hypocritcal.......

Ok, first of all I used to love Marie Claire. Remember when you were younger, and reading some older ladies Cosmopolitan, or sneaking a look at More! to see the "position of the fortnight" was like, really exciting, and gave you an idea of a grown up woman's world and S-E-X. Well, I don't because my mum read Marie Claire, and for a long while I hailed this magazine as the Queen of the glossies, and the only magazine I would ever need. Well not anymore.

Marie Claire is spilt into various sections, for example, the beauty section, the fashion, the lifestyle and a "reportage" section. What makes this glossy different from other big glossies, let's say Elle, Vogue and Tatler, is that it's sells itself on the fact that it is "The only glossy with brains". Because of this, you will find reports and articles on news issues abroad and at home, things that you can really read and feel like your educating yourself with. This is the reason why I used to love Marie Claire, and now it is a reason why I dislike it. Magazines like this only come out once a month, thus making it hard for it to produce something really current, so fair enough, but to call itself the "only" glossy with brains is somewhat pretentious espcially when you realise how hypocritcal it is.

I have to point out the most obvious complaint that even hardcore Marie Claire readers can't argue with - the superflous adverts. Page after page lies a purfume advert, a clothing advert, basically anything related to apperance, and wealth. On the superficial side - well what a waste of paper and ink, espcially when people are just going to flick the page over as soon as they see it.

More importantly is how ironic the juxtaposing of the advertisments are. Marie Claire writes a lot of reports on third world countries and the state of poverty in the world. It will happily comment on how people are suffering in the world, the
n on the opposite page will be a advert for a Gucci handbag costing hundreds. Or when they write a article on how a woman is suffering from a eating disorder, or is paranoid about the size of her breasts, the magazine will convey the fact that the women in question are fine as they are, that they're is no need to conform to supermodel standards. Then on the following page, and even in the fashion pages, lie a skinny model in skimpy clothing. Two different arguements lie within the same cover and back page and because were used to being presented with images of glamour and capitalism in "glossies" no one realises how hypocritical the magazine is being.

Marie Claire plays on the whole aspiration factor of the readers. Most people that do buy Marie Claire tend to be young, working class women, but you do tend to think the women being protrayed in the text is the same as the person who reads it. How many people that buy Marie Claire can honestly afford the big designer labels, or the haute couture fashion? But to look at it is nice, giver the real readers something to aspire to, and dream about. The glamourous, beautiful celebrities and models too give the mere woman something to aspire too, and seeing, and hopefully with the advice of Marie Claires beauty pages, you too could look like them. After if it was such a "classy" magazine, it wouldn't have to be giving away free cosmetic bags, and nylon purses would it - after all, I'm sure the rich can afford they're own.

Ahh-the freebies. I'm a firm believer in the fact that a good magazine does not have to give things away, unless it be genuinley useful. Marie Claire freebies are quite useful, I know, but I have been offered a few theories into why they seem to be giving something substansial away with every edition. One is of course it tempts people, because it gives that little bit more than the magazine next to it, and hey, you REALLY need a fushia lip
stick, another is that the wrapping included with the product means that you can't stand in WH Smith and read the whole edition there and then, you have to buy it and take it home. They do want you to part with your cash.

The order of everything promotes the idea tha Marie Claire is a informative, and intelligent read too. Note the Reprtages come first, and the beauty and fashion, pages are saved till the end. Even so, they are still there, sticking to the true women's magazine conventions, the cookery pages and horoscopes. Annoyingly, the usual adverts for cosmetic surgery, tarot lines and chat lines habit Marie Claires back pages, once again challenging the ideology that every woman should just be herself, but a bit of liposuction dosen't hurt.

I know that the magazine also has a reputation for being a bit controversial at times, and the most obvious examples I can think of is the whole female nudity thing. Now and again there is the reoccuring image of ordinary women standing in a line up style, just to show that, yes really, we know what real women look like, although were not going to have them on our fashion pages. More recently, there was a image of a womans body, who had had a breast removed due to cancer. That image was quite stunning in the sense that it showed how life does go on for women who suffer such devastating illnesses, and that it was nothing to be afraid of, so good for Marie Claire in that instance. Now and then though, some rather "what the point?" images occur, such as the photo of a butt with a tampon cord hanging out? Really we know what it is, and we don't have to see it.

Another point, the magazine is so damn patriarchal. Just look at the images of skimpy women, espcially on the covers. Men's magazines constantly have naked women strewn over the cover, and hey - how come we have naked women strewn over our cover too?! If MC really wanted to be controversial why not show
images of naked men instead, but present them in a non-gratioutus was?! (now that would be a challenge!) Admittedly the images of women are not quite to the lewdness to that of men's magazines, but certain images - take last month's supermodel Gisele, posing in a sexy pouty fashion and sporting wet hair, could easily of been in FHM or Esquire. Surely a intellegent glossy could present a image of Gisele clothed, and looking sophisticated and poised? Compare this image to Vogues recent cover girl image of Catherine Zeta-Jones clothed, and not trying to pull off any outwardly male gratifying pose.

Keeping with the patriarchal theme, I noticed in a few editions in particular, there are always aritcles about mistresses - how women cheat women, how women in Africa fight over they're men, how to get your man, how to keep your man, what to do when he dosen't call etc. It all sounds like the type of thing you read in Sugar when you were 15, when you were supposed to care if he phoned again or not. Marie Claire spends so much time petitioning for womens rights, then ruins a lot for it by including articles about how men are basically something to be worshipped, and idolised, and yes your going to have to try hard if you actually want a man-I mean look at Gisele! Also one article that sticks in my mind is a interview Kate Thornton did not so long ago with Christina Agulieria, the singer much compared to Britney Spears, except Miss Agulieria can actually sing.

Ms Thornton portrays Christina basically as a bitchy, showbizy diva, and she makes this clear because Christina is unfriendly to her at first. She also makes critisims about her apperance, commenting on her peroxide blone hair and "impossibly blue eyes". In a Men's magazine, she probably would've got a positive review about her apperance, but in Marie Claire, she is critised for basically being high maintience, but this image of "perfect" beauty is one M
arie Claire promotes over and over again! Plus, MC want to show that women are strong and can acheieve anything - but like with Christina, when you have made it, they will pull you down and portray you as a bitch.

Phewwww...there is basically a lot of things I could say about Marie Claire, because there is so much to it! There are a lot of view points one could take as well, and analyze the magazine from that angle. I'm just looking at the magazine as someone who loved it at one point and bought into the whole plastic ideology about how fantastic life could be, but then realised that it is basically a womans magazine with some very mixed morals. Don't get me wrong, Marie Claire have done some great things too, such as raise money for women's charities and show images of things that were previously taboo. This is it's strength, but it's weakness to me, will always be the way one thing is presented, then contradicted by the images of self indulgence and basically, greed. The general jist is that all women's magazines will always present a set of hypocritical and patriarchal values, giving all it's readers a very mixed message of what it is to be a woman in the 21st century.

Summary: