Mary Clare

I have been boycotting Marie Claire (the magazine) for several months now, ever since the infamous blog post by one of their writers about how she thought that fat people were disgusting and shouldn't kiss on television, or anywhere else she could see them, for that matter. However, one good thing did come out of that debacle; I discovered the feminist website Jezebel, which has since provided endless hours of entertainment. (That is, until the redesign, which was terrible and has caused the site to hemorrhage commenters.)

The other day, however, I found myself in the possession of a Marie Claire. No, I didn't buy it, and neither did the friend who lent it to me. Someone else bought it, passed it on to the friend when finished, and my friend, knowing my addiction to glossy paper, passed it along to me. So I read it. (It being the January 2011 issue.)

I never really bought Marie Claire a whole lot anyway, and I remember always feeling vaguely disappointed when I did. Like most magazines, the cover over promises while the content under delivers. This cover promises: "Sexy hair, great skin Revamp your beauty routine", "Another Year, Another Diet...How to really lose those last 5 lbs", Best New Fashion Our Faves from the Runway + 57 great buys for under $100", "Unstoppable Amy Adams 'The world things I'm so innocent, but it's not true'", "Exclusive: The Teacher who sold sex on Craigslist", and "America's Most Wanted Woman p.68". Does it deliver? I suppose. The articles about fashion and beauty are mostly about more expensive fashion and beauty items, Amy Adams is trying too hard to be "bad", and the teacher who sold sex on Craiglist really should have known better.

I find that Marie Claire focuses a lot on very high-end fashion, and not on fashion that's affordable. All women's fashions magazines feature high-end/designer fashion, but other magazines like Glamour make an effort to translate the looks to people on a real budget. Marie Claire does not. Although, to be fair, Marie Claire did focus this month on great buys for under $100, as seen on the cover. But even that's expensive! I want the whole look for under $100, not just one piece of the look for under $100.

Speaking of clothes, I also disliked the "DressCode" article on pages 54-55. This article is purportedly about how "real women" dress. The article showcased two working moms. The one mom is a Freelance Art Director, and the other is Head of Series Development MTV. Both of their looks feature the clothes that people in a non-corporate environment can get away with. That's great, but what about all the people in a corporate environment? It's easy to be fashionable and trendy if you work in areas where that's allowed. But what if you work in a more corporate environment? How do you showcase your personal style while staying within the limits of what's allowed in your work environment? Showing two women in creative fields who can wear things like overalls to work (overalls, really? No.) is not very helpful to all the people who don't work in creative fields. So I would have appreciated a little more diversity in the selection of "real women". Also, not very many moms I know wear 3 to 4 inch heels! Maybe on a night out, or at the office - but not around their little ones!

However, there was one interesting article that I did enjoy in the January 2011 issue. I really enjoyed the article "What it costs to be me" on pages 82-85. This article reports on the salaries and spending habits of 5 women from Uganda, Belgium, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. I really thought the piece on the woman from Uganda was interesting. I think we in the West have this idea of Africa as a continent full of poverty-stricken people, and it is interesting, to me, to read about a young woman who is not poverty-stricken. She has a job as an assistant accountant, she has an apartment, she hangs out with her friends on the weekends and she faces the same financial challenges of saving vs. spending. I enjoyed the peek into the lives of all these women very much. I also liked the article about Stacy London (of What Not To Wear fame) and her sister, but again, it was too short and could have been longer. (pages 76-77).

I think what I don't like about Marie Claire is its snarky tone. It's trying to hard to be hip and sarcastic, often at the expense of substance and story. I find I prefer Glamour magazine's most earnest and friendly tone. Sure, there are still articles about important women's issues in between fashion spreads and make-up tips, but I like the friendly, upbeat, engaging tone that Glamour uses. Glamour is positive and cheerful. Marie Claire is like the sarcastic friend who talks about you behind your back. Cosmopolitan is like the boy-crazy buddy who dumps you as soon as a new boy comes along, and Glamour is like the friend that will bring you ice cream when you've been dumped by your boyfriend.

I suppose what all this is saying is that I am probably not Marie Claire's target reader. That's okay with me. I'm not missing much by boycotting the magazine and will continue to do so. They probably won't miss me.