Pink Populace Paparazzi Parade Exposé

The Death Of Natalie Wood

2012-01-30T02:01:00.002-06:00

It takes me awhile to get around to reading all the magazines laying around our house. Not just the vintage ones, but the new ones that keep arriving. Normally I wouldn't be so keen to mention the belated reading of a story that's already made the rounds on the Internet at the end of last year, but this one struck me.

In the December 26, 2011/January 2, 2012 issue of Newsweek, Nancy Collins covers the mysterious death of Natalie Wood. The story is "newsworthy" because the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has decided to reopen the case of Natalie's drowning death based on new testimony from several witnesses, including that of the actress' boat's captain, Dennis Davern who published a book about Wood’s death, Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour (2009).

I remember being in high school when Natalie's body was found on November 29, 1981. I knew little of Natalie then. I had only recently discovered her in a TV viewing of Westside Story, and, like most everyone, had fallen in love with her as Maria. In my state of youth, however, I did not quite consider her "old" at the age of 43 -- perhaps because she was still the vivacious Maria in my mind. Even then I was not a celeb-hound and did not read the myrid of publications making money off her death, and so I was not bombarded with other images of an older Natalie Wood.

All of this makes me slightly odd, I'm sure.

But I do remember being not only sad at her death, but feeling a certain mistrust, a certain suspicion of an accidental drowning.

It was rather a haunting feeling. Something that's stuck with me all these years and had me reading the article in Newsweek. But never enough to prompt me to turn detective or anything; plus, my detective skills fall into the research category and as the death was ruled accidental, my skills wouldn't turn up anything new really...

So, reading this article was rather like hearing about Natalie Wood's death for the first time. This time, having seem more of her films than Westside Story, I knew more about the woman, the actress. But the details in this article were news to me.

For example, I never knew that Christopher Walken had been on that boat that fateful night. Not that I knew who Walken was back then. (I've never said I was cool -- either as a child or now.) And it was sort of odd to imagine them, Wood and Walken, as contemporaries.

It was also odd to imagine Robert Wagner as he's depicted in this article... He was one of the Harts in Hart To Hart, and he and Stefanie Powers both had seemed tragic for their losses. A more mature me realizes that all these things can be true, can be motive; but they need not be either.

I really have no ideas on the accident Vs. murder angle. Either is just as plausible.

And I agree intellectually with the points of tragedy and age brought up by Nancy Collins in her recent article.

But what strikes me most of all about all of this is the fact that celebrity and death continue to equal profit in publishing.

This means that Collins, the writer, and I, the paying consumer who reads (and continues to write herself), are perpetuating the tragedies involved, aren't we?

What is it about beauty, glamour, talent, death, and tragedy that captures humans so? When they are combined, they create some sort of alchemy that's nearly impossible to deny.

The lives, loves, and losses of these famous people are exaggerated versions of things in our own lives, and the drama does more than intrigue -- it creates a shared sense of nostalgia in which we can each experience our own sorrows and joys in a more distant way which may be disconnected from our own pain but also connects us to one another.

For these reasons stories are powerful, popular and even positive. But when one takes them too far, when one forgets that Natalie was a real person and so her death was real to her and all who love(d) her, and pursues the subject with a fascination which removes the dignity from the souls involved, we are perverse. And this includes the media which banks on such attentions.

So no, I won't seek to consume all media coverage of the newly re-opened Natalie Wood case; I won't set any newsfeeds or searches, scan tabloids at the grocery store, etc. But when these stories appear in the publications and news shows I am already reading and watching, I likely will continue to watch... With a sense of respectful guilt to monitor my level of fascination.

Vintage Fat Women & Other Stereotypes

2012-01-24T15:47:00.001-06:00

The little "funny" poem from illustrator Ted O'Loughlin reads, in part:

Noses Are Red
Viole Is Blue

Let me finish the poem for you: Don't Be Fat, Or A Drunk Cop May Arrest You

This is from the collection of Emma Pratt Hall; I wonder how young Emma felt receiving this warning disguised as humor? This vintage piece available for sale here, where the seller describes it as follows:

A dated and inscribed C. 1939 signed by the Philadelphia Bulletin's comic artist Ted O'Loughlin pen & ink and watercolor Illustration art comic work of a curvy pin-up girl on an old porcelain lollipop scale and a leering cop.

Beware The Wedding Guests?

2011-12-20T10:03:00.002-06:00

A friend of mine is getting married, and while the following story is cute, it just doesn't fit in at the other blog, so...

You know how wedding planning goes -- everyone has to stick their two-cents in, right? Well, while we were sitting around going over the checklists for things, the mother of the groom was saying how the wedding guest book is useful. It's not one way to organize your thank you cards, but that she'd heard that the proper etiquette for guest books is that you use that list as your holiday greeting card list for the next few years. She thought that made sense, so she set about doing that the very next Christmas.

About a week or so after she mailed the Christmas cards, she, the new bride, received one of the cards back. Written on the envelope was this:

I only went to your wedding to be polite. Please stop showing me how happy you two are.

It was signed by the former wedding guest -- a female friend of the groom (now the husband) who apparently was less "friend" and more jilted and broken-hearted former girlfriend.

What's more, next to this woman's name in the guest book there were little hearts... At the time they seemed like well-wishes for the happy bride and groom, but now... Well, they look more like the last attempts of communication from a pining woman!

Honest-to-God -- she showed us the card and the guest book!

If there is a moral to this story, it's that your wedding guest book may prove to be practical and humorous!

(For a more useful and beautiful wedding story, see this post by A Slip Of A Girl!)

Vintage Weight Loss Tea

2011-12-16T09:21:00.002-06:00

You can't spell art deco without a "T" and you couldn't be a slim flapper without this tea. The complete Charm Tea Method For Slenderness With Safety, box, tea and booklet.

Going Ga-Ga?

2011-12-14T16:04:00.002-06:00

We're rather intellectual about beauty and fashion here; often down right critical, even. But that's not to say we are immune to brazen acts of consumerism. Like, say, when there's a big sale on shoes... Or a big womens boots sale.

Today there's a big shoe sale at Macy's which most of us are going ga-ga over. (Hey, that expression makes even more sense now that there's Lady Gaga! Not that she needs to worry herself about a shoe sale...)

But that's rather my point: You can be a smart shopper, a critical thinker about media and what it pushes at you, and be a savvy shopper. That's rather what we try to do here at Pink Populace Paparazzi Parade Exposé -- make you think about what you're buying into before you buy.

Saving 30 to 50% on select styles -- with an extra 25% off clearance shoes, online only -- is only part of the (fabulous) story. Yes, it's nice to save on shoes for yourself and your family, as long as you are buying what you need, what you want, and not because you feel you must or feel as if you're nothing without it. It's shoes, people. They aren't going to turn you into Lady Gaga or whoever else you think is awesome.

But there's nothing wrong with buying shoes -- even pretty, impractical things that are more decoration than clothing for your feet. And it's OK to fall in love with the shoes of look of a celebrity, as long as you aren't confused about what those shoes will do.

Buy the shoes; not the image.

Even better when those shoes are on sale. *wink*

Now I'll get off my ~~platforms~~ soapbox and let you shop!

Mad Men Are To Blame For Your Ill-Fitting Bra?

2011-12-11T23:57:00.002-06:00

According to bra expert Ali Cudby, those Mad Men ad guys are the reason why bra sizes are so, well, illogical:

In other words, women have been struggling with this nonsensical measuring system for decades for the sake of a marketing gimmick!

Pink Populace Paparazzi Parade Exposé co-blogger Deanna also interviewed Ali and has exposed even more fascinating points about bras.

All this attention for Cudby's new book, Busted! The FabFoundations Guide To Bras That Fit, Flatter and Feel Fantastic.

And I'm giving away signed copies of the book here!

Frustration Is Good For Your Hair

2011-12-01T06:55:00.001-06:00

A stimulating hair pulling "exercise" from Debbie Drake’s Easy Way to a Perfect Figure and Glowing Health (1961).

You Don't Give Me Enough Credit

2011-11-30T15:52:00.001-06:00

"Sometimes, big shot, you don't seem to give me credit for very much intelligence at all. I've been to school in my life--and I'm a magazine reader!" A quote from Babydoll (1956).

Another One Of Victoria's Secrets...

2011-11-19T02:27:00.001-06:00

Found this while researching my post on Frederick's Of Hollywood Vs. Victoria's Secret: a very interesting quote from Decoding Victoria’s Secret: The Marketing of Sexual Beauty and Ambivalence, by Marie D. Smith.

The conclusions then, that I have reached, are essentially three. (1) Most women, in spite of the consciousness-raising effects of the Women’s Liberation movement, have thoroughly internalized the belief that a narrow, male-constructed image of female sexuality and beauty defines their self-worth. (2) This male-constructed image is accompanied by feelings in both sexes of ambivalence, confusion, and guilt, resulting in a need for sending and receiving conflicting sexual messages. (3) A large part of Victoria’s Secret’s enormous marketing success has been achieved through a consistently glamorous, flawless portrayal of this ambivalent, hyper-real version of the female body.

Does this have any impact on the discussion about women being too sexy in maternity &/or nursing bras?

My head (and heart) hurts...

Time Span Hipsters?

2011-08-04T16:04:00.001-05:00

Sorry, Zinke, but I don't think any garment that covers the are that widens with age "Time Span." Calling a hipster panty that is hinky, Zinke. (Found via my Shop It To Me Sale Mail Alert.)

Celebrities Behaving Badly

2011-05-24T23:14:00.000-05:00

Where do you stand on the issue of Criminal Cause Celebre?

I refuse to add to celebrity brand cache; you?

Hello! I'm Too Smart To Support The Diet Industry

2011-05-13T16:15:00.000-05:00

Via the ADI Positivity Project.

Banging My Head -- Not My Hips -- Against The Wall

2011-04-28T04:19:00.000-05:00

I found this vintage magazine page at the Visual Arts Library Picture & Periodicals Collections blog (one of my newly discovered favorite blogs with lots of goodies for me to write about).

I'm fascinated by the juxtaposition of the vintage shoe ad and the improve your figure/posture article... Even back in 1948, Harper's knew how to mix and match editorial with advertising -- which is probably why there's no mention of having your feet flat on the floor, or what wearing high heeled shoes can do to you. Of course, when the first "exercise" consists of banging your "bumpy" hips on the wall to smooth them... Well, what can you expect?

For Sexy Elmer Fudd Folk?

2011-03-01T14:10:00.001-06:00

To go with your sexy hunter's cap, Michael Kors 'Carlie' Faux Fur Trim Bootie. (Via Shop It To Me.)

Sad-Sack Clothes Hangers

2011-02-05T18:23:00.001-06:00

I'm always a bit dismayed when I open my daily Sale Mail Alert from Shop It To Me and I see the Urban Outfitter models... Am I supposed to be inspired to buy fashions from such uninspired models? This does not sell me the dream, people.

Sleeper Fashions

2011-01-18T06:47:00.001-06:00

The fabulous Martha Sleeper modeling Whiting & Davis mesh purses.

You'll find more fabulous Martha Sleeper-ness here, in Slip's post about 1930's manicures. (You might be blown-away at how mundane today's manicures are.)

PS This post sponsored by this sexy lingerie site.

Whoa Nellie, Airbrushing in 1895

2010-12-02T22:47:00.001-06:00

Nellie Stewart as Mam'zelle Nitouche, 1895 / The Falk Studios, Sydney:

"Australia's Sweetheart" in about as racy as it got in respectable theatre in 1895. She wears a heavy body stocking, the wrinkles of which can be seen but her lovely 37 year old face is as heavily air brushed as today's celebrities and she looks very young

Didja catch that part about airbrushing her 37 year old face?

Is it just me, or do you hear Bob Dylan singing Lay Lady Lay?

2010-11-22T11:36:00.002-06:00

Just love the cover on this April 1971 GQ Magazine. Check out the cover stories: "Hair After The Fallout," and murses are nothing new.

Hunter's Cap With Ear Flaps Exposes Fashion Magazine As A Whore

2010-11-06T00:07:00.000-05:00

The first thing I thought when I spotted this ad was, "Um, how much did you charge for that, Elle? And did you feel dirty afterwards?"

It's not just me making a snarky presumption about the placement of this product in the December issue of Elle -- right there at the tippy-top of this "Winter Perspectives Holiday Gift Guide," in the proverbial fine print, there's the word "Promotion." But does the word really need to be there? You don't need to be cynical to know there's payment involved when you see this hat in Elle.

And no, the ad text doesn't help at all either:

Heat Up
Your Style
Make a sexy statement with fur, the most luxurious and stylish accessory of the season. The Paul Leinburd by CROWNCAP Raccoon Aviator will keep you cozy and chic. The shape is flattering on everyone and the double hardware and leather details are beautifully functional.

Worst of all, the photograph of a man and a woman in states of undress -- yet wearing the hats! Not, I repeat, not sexy.

Listen, I live in Fargo, North Dakota, so I see a lot of these hunter hats with ear flaps, fur-lined or not; if anyone can see the sexy potential of such hats, it's those of us who see them on our husbands and the general male population.

But a semi-dressed couple wearing these hats is the opposite of sexy simply because it depicts a lack heat. How hot and steamy can things be if people are wearing their hats because people are more worried about the amount of body heat they are losing through their heads?

Hey, Elle and Crowncap, we've got two words for you: Target Market.

The ad might have worked -- even with the "sexy" pic -- if they had really kitsched it up and gone with something like, "OK, it's not all that sexy or fashionable; but it's a luxurious thoughtful gift."

And Elle, when you accept such non-effective silly advertising under a "gift guide" label, you look like the cheap dirty whores we women think you are -- and when I say "whores," I mean that in the cultural vernacular sense, not as a negative reflection on professional sex workers.

What you could have done, should have done, Elle, was reject the ad under that heading or assisted the corporate client in creating an ad which would suit your readers. Either option would have shown a desire to meet the needs of both our readers and your advertisers.

Then you wouldn't have been seen as money-grubbing street whores; you would be professionals concerned about the satisfaction of your clients.

The American Woman - Her Achievements and Trouble

2010-11-05T20:07:00.001-05:00

I'm not linking to this post by ~~Jenn~~ Jen because she linked to my post -- I'm linking to it because Jen shows us a kick-ass thing: LIFE Magazine's Dec 24, 1956 issue which was devoted to the subject of "The American Woman - Her Achievements and Trouble."

What's more, Jen makes some excellent analysis when she tells us to take this representation of what life was like for women in the 50s with a grain of salt:

in this particular issue of LIFE, there's little mention of women of colour (besides the beauty around the world feature), women in poverty and certainly no shout-out to queer women. You know, totally unlike today's über representational magazines. Heh.

As I always say, the truth lies as equally in the omission and lies in any publication. In vintage publications as well as today's.

But in any case, I'm getting a serious crush on Jen.

Cellulite Is Old

2010-10-01T01:39:00.000-05:00

From Vogue, Mid-October 1960.

The Gorgeous Issue Raises Issues

2010-08-31T15:20:00.000-05:00

Amy of Wolf Whistle on The Gorgeous Issue of Love magazine:

There is only one thing I'd like to say here: I wish Love had remembered that 'gorgeous' isn't synonymous with 'white'. Beauty comes in every colour!

I love finding new magazines and I love the "perfect" mannequin cover best (check out the link to Amy's post to see all the covers), but knowing the publication's definition of beauty is "white only," I don't think I can get this issue or any other...

That's the real question: Do you vote, express your indignation and your values, by not buying/subscribing? Or do you knuckle-under, rationalizing with hope or justifying to yourself that "all the glossies are that way"?

The Scoop On Face Powder History

2010-05-05T00:14:00.000-05:00

This vintage M. Stein's scoop may not look glamorous, but it's a vintage face powder scoop.

Praise For Porizkova

2010-04-27T03:02:00.000-05:00

The beautiful and wise Paulina Porizkova on body modification in the name of popularity:

Generally, I’m all for self-improvement. If you don’t know something, do look it up. Do learn another language, do travel, do open your heart and mind to new experiences. And by all means, pluck your mono-brow, dye your mouse-brown hair and work out to firm your body; after all, if fashion changes to celebrate hairy plump women you can go right back. But please, before permanently removing or adding a part to you to fit societal graphs of pulchritude, consider that that change will be permanent. If, a hundred years ago, you were unhappy with your nose – tough luck. You could hide your flaws, accentuate your strengths, and sometimes, more often than not, realize your flaws were your strengths and were precisely what made you unique and beautiful. That’s how, for example, we got the incomparable portrait of a large nosed Madame X, proudly displaying a profile that makes ME want a big nose.

Personally, I believe that every woman in the world is beautiful. Sometimes the distribution of her attributes is not immediately apparent; sometimes it’s a little uneven, but if she knew how to celebrate the things she was given, whether it’s a beautiful pair of eyes or legs, or intellect, or a sense of humor– she could see how uniquely beautiful she was. Less you feel like interjecting, “oh please, easy for you to say, miss former supermodel…” For your information, I have saddlebags and cellulite, and no matter how hard I work out, that is my body shape and I’m stuck with it. I look horrendous in short shorts and any pant or trouser that is tight in the thigh. But, for the body type of a saddlebag/cellulite, I think I look really great...

Wouldn’t Audrey Hepburn, Jane Birkin, Twiggy, Charlotte Rampling, and Jean Harlow have lost their special brand of elegant, feline sexiness if they were tipping over under the weight of great ol’ mammaries?

Fugly Shoe, Retro 80's Re-Do

2010-04-27T00:12:00.001-05:00

Too ugly to wear the first time around; not wearing it now either.

Is Fashion The Stuff You "Covet Then Closet"?

2010-04-22T02:12:00.000-05:00

Has real fashion become unwearable? Do you turn the pages in your glossies and click at blogs wondering if anyone could really wear that stuff? I ask six top new indie designers participating in Project Ethos, "Do you design with the average woman in mind, both in terms of livable clothing and sizing, as opposed to art you hang on a hanger?"

Be A Cover (Editor) Girl

2010-04-14T00:13:00.002-05:00

Dujour, America’s first independent, internationally distributed, print-on-demand indie fashion and lifestyle publication dedicated exclusively to emerging designers and artists, has started their third cover contest:

Instructions are easy. You have a frothy and delightful helping of cover options below, all numbered at the top. You can comment here or on any of the blogs running our contest. Simply leave the number of the cover and any of your usual love/hate comments. Votes will be tallied after one week and winners will be announced days before the new and breathtaking new ____ Issue hits stands! And yes, we are leaving the title blank because…………drum roll please….commenters selected at random who guess the correct theme of this new issue will be sent a Dujour snail mail goody bag!

See the cover image options and vote here at Dujour's blog. (If you're curious, my vote and guess are posted here.)

If you're not familiar with Dujour, check out past issues and subscribe here -- subscribing to digital issues is greener and cheaper too (but I'm a paper-loving page-flipping nut myself).

Shop It To Me Sale Mail

2010-04-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

You know I love my Shop It To Me Sail Mail, so I'm betting my UK readers will be trilled to find out that there's a new ShopItToMe.co.uk! Heck, now any Shop It To Me member can select designers loved by the Brits -- like Vivienne Westwood, Paul Smith, Burberry, Stella McCartney, and more -- and find out when the goodies are on sale.

Even better, you select not only the brands you are interested in, but the sizes too!

So no more fake-outs; find the best deals on the lingerie and fashions which fit you and your family with Sail Mail from Shop It To Me. Join here!

If you already have a Shop It To Me account you can upgrade to the new UK service simply by emailing support@shopittome.co.uk. And please let them know that A Slip of a Girl sent ya!

Finally!

2010-03-30T23:48:00.001-05:00

Finally, French ELLE has put out a "Spécial Rondes" aka Curvy Issue; plus-Size model Tara Lynn is on the cover of the issue released last Friday, March 26, 2010. (This is posted under both "Ass" and "Class" because while it's a fabulous start, it's like a century late -- and why not just include all shapes and sized in every issue?)

Today's Quick Thought: Marie Claire

2010-03-30T00:17:00.002-05:00

Sometimes, my favorite images in Marie Claire are the little throw-away sidebars on the masthead page; this example is from the February 2010 issue.

Be On A More Mag Cover

2010-03-17T00:41:00.004-05:00

Today, More magazine launched the More Beauty Search on More.com to find three readers who look and feel more beautiful than ever for a chance to be featured in the October 2010 issue and win $10,000:

"More focuses on the time in a woman's life when she feels in-charge and full of possibilities," says More Editor in Chief Lesley Jane Seymour. "We want to find women who embody these attributes and really get across – in words, photos and spirit – what it means to be a More woman."

To enter, women must upload a photo and a 150-word essay at www.more.com/beautysearch about why she feels that this is the most fabulous time of her life, and pay a non-refundable $25 processing fee. Women nationwide will vote online to choose the top 100. The winners will be chosen by the More editorial staff.

Three women will receive a first-class More experience including airfare to New York City, hotel accommodations and a spa day, lunch with More Editor in Chief Lesley Jane Seymour and a photo shoot for the October 2010 issue. One grand prize winner also receives $10,000. The two runners-up receive $5,000 each.

The contest, sponsored by Olay and Covergirl, runs through May 5, 2010.

PS I would have filed this under "class," except they charge a $25 fee to enter.

Heidi Klum's Head

2010-03-16T13:31:00.003-05:00

In this month's Marie Claire, Heidi Klum is photoshopped to the point of ridiculousness -- a giant head and man-hands on suited-stick figure. Ugh.

UPDATE: This technically is the April issue of Marie Claire; sorry for any confusion!

Big Girl My Ass

2010-01-21T15:20:00.001-06:00

This is why I don't watch those post-award shows, or read those fashion columns.

As A Magician's Assistant, Caroline Trentini Scared More Than Rabbits

2010-01-10T02:26:00.004-06:00

So she became a model.

Dusan Reljin shoots Caroline Trentini for Numéro.

Itty-Bitty Images Of Lingerie Inspired Fashions Assembled Like A Collage

2009-12-16T21:34:00.004-06:00

This specific page was found in the January 2010 issue of Elle, but lots of the big so-called glossy magazine do this and it annoys me.

Hey, Elle and others, there's a reason you're called the big glossies and I expect you to give me big beautiful images, not a Where's Waldo or I Spy version of fashion hunting.

"If not in the Fashion, a Woman's a Fright!!!"

2009-11-24T15:29:00.004-06:00

In my research on feminists and fashion (sort of a corset workshop), I found this poem in Punch, Or The London Charivari, Vol. XCVIII, February 22, 1890:

The Root Of The Matter
(The Typical Woman's Reply to the Arguments of the Rational Dress Society.)

My dear Lennox Browne, and my good Dr. Smith,
There is probably truth, there is certainly pith,
In your Kensington talk about Rational Dress.
Dr. Garson and Miss Leffler-Arnim also,
Talk sound common sense, but they'll find it no go;
The Crusade they have started can't meet with success.

No, sage Viscountess Harberton, sweet Mrs. Stopes,
You had better not nourish ridiculous hopes
About "rationalising" our frocks and our shoes.
There is just one invincible thing, and that's Fashion!
That object of every true woman's chief passion,
'Tis vain to attack, and absurd to abuse.

You may say what you please about feminine "togs,"
That they're ugly, unhealthy, are burdens or clogs,
Too high, or too low, or too loose, or too tight,
There is just one reply (but 'tis more than enough)
To such "rational," but most irrelevant stuff:—
If not in the Fashion, a Woman's a Fright!!!

More Bebe, Baby!

2009-11-23T13:37:00.003-06:00

Loved seeing Bebe Neuwirth in the September issue of More! Not only is she gorgeous, but how nice to see retro 80's re-do for women who've been there, done that -- on women who've been there, done that.

Adding neon bangles to basic black can be done without gagging me with a spoon. And that orange on black? Heavenly 40's glam!

Collecting Vanity Items: Beauty & Crime Is Skin Deep

2009-11-08T10:02:00.000-06:00

I've written about actual beauty crimes in history, learned from this book I reviewed.

Michelle Obama On Mentoring

2009-10-29T18:57:00.003-05:00

Michelle Obama featured in November's issue of Glamour -- the first time in 70-years that a First Lady has been on the cover!

Since she's being given a Special Recognition award for her commitment to mentoring young women, First Lady shares wisdom on mentoring:

The real role models aren’t movie stars--they’re the people you know: “They were the people in my life. My mom, for sure. My dad. The teachers. For me, role-modeling was immediate, it was touchable...Children connect with who is in their lives, present and accounted for...That’s why we’re trying to encourage moms, teachers, fathers, to be that presence in their children’s lives, in their communities, because it really makes a difference.”

Don’t wait to be “discovered” by a mentor: “I was blessed throughout my entire career. I had people rooting for me. It started with my parents, but it extended to almost every teacher that I had. When I was a young lawyer, there were other women and men in the firm who took me under their wing. Look for those mentors, because sometimes mentors don’t find you--sometimes you seek them out. Oftentimes, they’re flattered and glad to lend a hand.”

Don’t put yourself last in line: In answer to a reader question about how she keeps her sanity, the First Lady told Katie, “I have always tried to put my kids first, and then...put myself a really close second, as opposed to fifth or seventh. One thing that I’ve learned from male role models is that they don’t hesitate to invest in themselves.”

I certainly don't want to show off the wide expanse of crotch.

2009-10-19T14:46:00.005-05:00

Yes, we get it; they're harem pants. But does the model have to pose like that? If that's how another can tell you're wearing harem pants, then I pass.

The November, 2009, Marie Claire.

Best Magazine Covers

2009-09-11T20:22:00.000-05:00

Amazon is now holding a contest for Best Magazine Covers Of The Year; vote and discuss.

Plus, when you vote, you'll automatically be entered to win a $10,000 Amazon.com gift card. *wink*

The Overused Doll Parts Metaphor

2009-09-11T07:57:00.002-05:00

Support Victims Of Domestic Violence

2009-08-15T16:02:00.001-05:00

Just wanted to let you know that today I'm participating in the blogathon for Hope For Healing, raising awareness of domestic violence & money for supporting victims of domestic violence.

Many thanks to Twolia for generously sponsoring me in this wonderful event!

You can help too: Comment at, link to, & Tweet my blogathon posts as well as use this special link to iSearch.iGive.com to perform online searches -- doing so raises money for HopeForHealing.Org.

Of Literature & Magazines

2009-07-28T22:47:00.000-05:00

There are few barriers for authors who possess these [lightness of touch and generally in humor] in addition to genuine literary merit. Nor does the average periodical aim at mere entertainment. It must interest the reader, but it may also benefit him. It may even, to some extent, improve his taste. And there are gradations of taste by which the callow reader may ascend from one periodical to another. Some editors are men of unquestioned culture; and they are willing to experiment somewhat with specimens of what promises to be a new order of literature.

More than half of our successful American editors have been innocent of a college degree; but this can hardly be said to be in every case a misfortune, since it would be difficult to show that a college education is indispensable to either authorship or editorship. One of the most intellectual of English poets, Browning, obtained his culture chiefly outside a university; and, among our Americans, Whittier, Mark Twain, William Dean Howells, Whitman and O. Henry owe something to their sturdy individuality to an escape from the conventionalizing influence of the college. They were not men cut out on a pattern; and in literature this is of the highest importance. Magazines generally encourage individuality--even though they frown upon too much boldness. Within reasonable limits, therefore, periodicals may be said to have fostered the growth of permanent literature.

I'd love to make you guess when this was written -- but you'd cheat & Google it. *wink* Plus, I'm too excited by it not to share it right away.

It's an excerpt from "Periodicals and Permanent Literature" from the North American Review, December 1920, by Harry T. Baker. Does that surprise you at all?

Discuss.

(There's a comment section there below even!)

The entire article has been painstakingly typed onto the internets by my friend Cliff Aliperti, who says, "'Periodicals and Permanent Literature' struck me as an article extolling the virtues of magazine collecting in an age long before they were seriously collected. Published in one helping by the North American Review, I've split it into 8 serialized parts for the VintageMeld, each of which I hope both takes you back in time and presents you with a desire to hunt down some of the old issues for yourself."

The Eight Parts:

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: 18th Century Pioneers

Part 3: Lamb and Hazlitt

Part 4: Matthew Arnold

Part 5: Thackaray

Part 6: Kipling

Part 7: No Distinction in Quality Between Books and the Best Periodicals

Part 8: Conclusion

More From The "Where Can I Wear That?!" Files

2009-06-07T01:44:00.000-05:00

Emily Finkbinder, if you are proposing this "Look That Will Razzle-Dazzle 'Em" as a way for a conman working a dirty shell game on a boardwalk somewhere to "razzle-dazzle 'em" so they can't keep their eye on the shells long enough to track the ping-pong ball, fine; I'll let this ridiculousness slide.

But as I cannot find any mention of such a scenario in this "Strike Up The Glam" piece on John Galliano's Spring/Summer '08* catwalk saunter, I can only conclude that this black-eye, however covered in glitter, is a fist in the face to me and women everywhere.

Furthermore, calling it "flapperesque" is a raised finger to my roaring 20's sisters who had enough trouble with an establishment so scandalized by their lipstick, bare knees, & pajamas that they were already considered fair game to abuse & murder. Something one can easily argue is still with us today.

Let me spell it out for you: black & blue bruised eyes are not sexy.

* Yes, that's 2008 -- this was published in the in the December/January issue of Interview magazine; I don't always get through every page in every issue so timely. How can I when there are stupid pages like this?

Don't Hate Me Because You Think She's Beautiful

2009-06-04T17:23:00.003-05:00

Kate Moss is no Kelly LeBrock; I only hate Kate because she's an icky, attitudinal druggie poser (and I, sincerely, mean "poser" in that 80's wannabe lingo; not in reference to her career as a model). So when I heard stick-girl was coming out with more stinky stuff for Cody I was just going to ignore it. However, her new "fragrance" has been dubbed Vintage and so it's filling up my RSS readers. For that offense, I now take the offensive myself.

Now you know I'm a lover of vintage things, including fashion; but "vintage" as a smell is not something I'd go for.

Precluding musty mildew as the base note, "vintage" sounds like the "grandma smell" (a combination of Avon cologne, pennies & mints) you find in vintage purses and on vintage handkerchiefs. If I want to smell like grandma's purse, I'll just tuck an old hankie from an old purse into my bra and let my body heat generate a wafting odor sure to make folks ask me if I'm lost -- or if they can have a mint. (By the way, the mint will also smell like pennies and cologne, so beware, whippersnappers!)

Of her new spray d'offend, Kate had this to say to WWD:

"I am fascinated by vintage pieces because they not only have a remarkable beauty but also an innate sense of history," says Moss. "I love the fact that each object has its own story to tell. And yet vintage items can be reinvented with a modern twist to make them very fresh and relevant today. That's why vintage looks have inspired my personal style, my work as a fashion designer and, now, my fragrance."

I wonder who wrote that? And how many puppy uppers did it take to teach Kate to speak it on command?

Vintage Beauty Tips: 1941

2009-05-27T13:48:00.002-05:00

You might snicker at many of these beauty tips published in Modern Woman Magazine (Volume 9, Number 8, 1941), but recall seeing these right up through the 80's and beyond...

More Cosmo Nonsense

2009-05-12T05:32:00.001-05:00

OK, so by now you know I'm neither a subscriber to, nor a fan of, Cosmo. But in case you are either (both?!) I'd like to point out just how silly the magazine is with a page from the June 2009 issue.

On page 48, "Sexier When They're Single?" displays the results of "100 people on the street" who responded to pics of female celebrities, with & without male mates, with their vote for when said celebrities were sexier -- when single or in a relationship.

I'm not entirely sure of what to make of this nonsense... Is it some sort of Maxim-esque "look who is single!" alert? Or is it to, once again, reduce women to their looks? Maybe it's to point out their "failed relationship status?

What do you think it is?

Your input is much appreciated.

Free Marie Claire!

2009-04-22T15:39:00.000-05:00

Nope, she's not in a can with Prince Albert *wink*

ShopItToMe (which you should totally join, if you haven't -- it's a tailor-made daily personal shopper that doesn't babble on-and-on or eat your cake but just quietly delivers to your email inbox alerts about sales on your fav fashions and in your fav stores) is celebrating the finale of Running In Heels by giving away one-year subscriptions to Marie Claire Magazine.

To enter just leave a comment here at ShopItToMe's post with what you consider to be the greatest office fashion faux-pas! (You don't have to have been watching the show; just use your noodle and rant!)

The New Pathway to Slenderness, 1938

2009-04-18T23:36:00.000-05:00

This vintage booklet, The New Pathway to Slenderness, intrigued me right from the start.

Upon first glance, it was a simple weight loss booklet; page one made that clear:

Being beautiful isn't easy! To acquire and keep a lovely, youthful figure requires the combined effort of a correct diet, scientifically planned exercise and the gentle, yet efficient aid of a good rubber reducing garment.

...Don't be told that sweat baths, drugs or pills will reduce you healthfully and sanely.

...All women from the "should be trim twenties" to the "fatal forties" and even along into the later, or "golden years," are entitled to and can have a well-proportioned graceful figure. Classic beauty of facial features, lovely hands, any individual beauty asset, means nothing without health and vitality. A beautiful body, sparkling eyes, clear skin and real vitality are by far more important than regular features. Physical fitness, unhampered by those extra pounds, will give you charm and attractiveness and will increase your "earning" power whether your work be at home or in the office. So let's stop being lazy! Stop wishing for good looks when you can have them by making the effort yourself!

But here we were, past the cover and we still didn't know who put out this publication... Was it the makers/purveyors of "correct diets," "scientifically planned exercise" programs or "gentle, yet efficient rubber reducing garments?"

All I had to go on, so far was the booklet numbers (F9623 5-28-38) which, while possibly supporting my guess that the booklet dates to the 1930's (years of ephemera dating has helped me learn that part of the booklet code can contain the year printed; in this case "38"), still didn't give me a clue as to the publisher or product pusher...

Ah, but then we get to pages four & five, pushing Sears reducing corsets -- complete with customer testimonial.

That's pretty impressive; a promotional booklet which doesn't cram the product down your throat right away. But then again, it's pretty clear that all the care and concern for health and appearance is fear mongering to sell stuff. Just like today, it's ad copy designed to first sell women that they need to worry, feel unworthy, and then, when they are worried they aren't "earning enough," there's products galore to buy. Sears to the rescue!

The majority of the book has the usual height & weight charts, spot exercises, calorie tables & menu suggestions, plus cautionary tips about "violent exercises," the proper rate at which you should lose weight, etc. But, despite being told not to trust that "sweat baths, drugs or pills will reduce you healthfully and sanely," there are early representations of advertorials for other Sears products, like the "Knead-Away" Massager -- "the massager which kneads the flesh away like the trained fingers of an expert masseur."

(OMG, where there really once masseurs who could "knead away the flesh" -- or where folks confusing masseurs with E. coli?)

Anyway, it appears the "Knead-Away" Massager was made by The Conley Company, Inc. of Rochester, Minnesota -- at least the Conley Hemp Knead-Away Massager shown here complete with original box and ephemera -- I'm dizzy with desire! -- looks like the illustrations in this booklet. (Note to seller: Why ya usin' pointy fishing lure background for a massager?)

PS This seller has a copy of The New Pathway to Slenderness dated June, 1939.

Mis-Selling To Americans

2009-04-10T00:07:00.003-05:00

Because I enjoyed it so much, let's hear about the idiocy, ageism, and discrimination of media and advertising from one of the last episodes of Boston Legal, Juiced (Season 5, Episode 11).

Carl Sack (John Larroquette) in court, presenting a case to Judge Clark Brown (Henry Gibson), on the behalf of client Catherine Piper (the delicious Betty White):

Carl Sack: Your Honor, there may have been a time when it made practical business sense to exclude the old. But not today. Americans over fifty make up the fastest-growing market.

Attorney Jeremy Hollis: It's about money! Not how many-

Carl Sack: Really? Gee! Who would ever have guessed that? The baby boomers, now all over fifty, earn two trillion in annual income. That's trillion!

Attorney Jeremy Hollis: Madison Avenue is after discretionary spending.

Carl Sack: Yes, and people over fifty account for half of that too. Choose your statistic. Go ahead. I've got you. We've got more money. We spend more money. We watch more television, go to more movies. We buy more CDs than young people do. And yet we're the focus of less than ten percent of the advertising. All the networks wanna do is skew younger. Kid's shows for kids. You know, the ony show unafraid to have its stars over fifty is Bo.. (He stops himself.) Gee, I can't say it... (He looks and points directly into the camera) ...it would break the wall.

Judge Clark Brown: Mr. Suck!

Carl Sack: It's still Sack.

Judge Clark Brown: I can't tell the networks what shows to make!

Carl Sack: No. But you can order them not to discriminate! What they're doing, it intentionally excludes a class of society. That's bigotry. You know, we should be able to turn on our damn televisions and see something other than reality shows aimed at fourth graders. Game shows aimed at those slightly smarter than fifth graders. And scripted shows with dim-witted, sex-crazed twenty-somethings running around in suits or doctor scrubs. Old people, the ones with intelligence, don't wanna watch that crap! We're fed up! You know the networks might think we're dead! But we're not! We're very much alive, with working brains! Give me something to watch dammit!

Later, Carl catches his client speaking inappropriately with the judge and there's this juicy bit about television:

Carl Sack: Uh, you know Judge, in addition to there being little for us to watch, most of it stinks. (He pulls out his cell phone.) And it's partly this thing's fault.

Judge Clark Brown: What are you talking about?

Carl Sack: Well, a lot of people are on it. While they're watching. They no longer give television their undivided attention. We're either on the phone or texting. Or on the internet. So the producers, they dumb down the plots. Make it easier to keep up with while their viewers multitask.

Judge Clark Brown: Really?

Carl Sack: Kids nowadays watch an average of three hours of television a day. That's while being distracted! People over fifty-five, we watch six hours a day, and we really watch! So why aren't they programming for us? You know what? Do these idiots a favor, Judge. Send these network bozos a clue. Be a leader. We can't wait for Congress after all. Because... well they're bozos too.

The judge's verdict:

Judge Clark Brown: At first this case was like every other case brought by this ridiculous law firm. Ridiculous and outrageous. But I can't ignore ageism is one of the last socially condoned bigotries. And it is rampant in this broadcast network business. They consider those of us over fifty to be irrelevant! How is it possible that we are not even a part of the target demo when we watch the most television and spend the most money? My God! There are eighty-seven million of us and that number will grow by thirty-one million more by 2020. Are you telling me that it doesn't make sense to make television shows that we want to watch? If I am to assume that the industry is not run by a bunch of idiots, then I can only conclude that it's dominated by prejudice. This case stands. (Pounds gavel.) Adjourned.

Oh how I miss my Boston Legal.

"Vintage Cosmetics & Beauty Accessories: Not Taken At Face Value"

2009-04-09T07:19:00.003-05:00

I feel really weird making this post, but here it is: Pink Populace Paparazzi Parade Exposé makes ink because I, Deanna Dahlsad, was interviewed for a feature article in the March 2009 issue of Collectors News magazine.

It began with an email from Stephanie Finnegan, monthly columnist for Collectors News:

I enjoy reading your work at COLLECTORS QUEST, and would like to invite you to be the subject of an upcoming magazine profile.

My topic is "accessories and beauty," and I know from your writing that you are very articulate about these two topics, particularly in how they have been aimed at, and for, women.

Would you like to be the subject of my column?

Such a flattering request, how could I refuse? (Even when a photo of myself would be required! *Ugh*)

So there I am, in the "Collector's Spotlight" titled Vintage Cosmetics & Beauty Accessories: Not Taken At Face Value, covering two pages (24-25) in text with some photos of my collection. Just pages away from Wes Cowan (he's going to get a restraining order, I swear!)

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the article (and boy is it weird to quote myself).

How I began collecting in this area -- after falling in love with Marilyn Monroe and vintage Hollywood glamour:

There are few things as romantic as beauty products. They reveal such intimacy, both physically & emotionally. They connect you to women who have lived and dreamed before you. For example, take a tube of lipstick once tucked into a flapper's garter for late night reapplication on precise & lovely red lips. That woman once felt all the same hopeful excitement I used to feel going out -- and likely the same disappointment and rejection too. To hold that tube is to feel a connection across time.

How I began to look at things after feminism hit me:

I started to see the makeup as something more sinister. It was used to cover imperfections. Was that from the false perceptions formed of insecurities, or was it because of the violent bruising of abuse? Was it applied so that the world would see the 'brave, acceptable' face, or was it just a mask? Did we choose to put it on, or were we made to?

...I slowly started to work from one end of the continuum to the other. I still bought pretty pinup stuff and beauty products, but I continued to explore feminism in the text and the objects. I hoped my collecting and my research would meet, someday, in some middle truth.

On why I continue to collect and explore "beauty" and look at it in the constructs of culture and advertising:

Glamour is, after all, a noun defined as 'a charm affecting the eye, making objects appear different from what they really are.' It is also a verb, meaning to cast a spell over someone or something. We women use glamour to be attractive to potential mates, and to society in general for health and productivity is important to the whole group. The notion that there are biological components to beauty -- and that we'd dare to manipulate them to our advantage -- is political. And it is not so easily admitted. Humans like to believe they are not in any way animals. However, there's also a cultural overlay to the biology. How are women to behave? What is her role? What does the proper woman look like? It's a 'nature versus nurture battle' of beauty and gender roles.

But it's Finnegan's own words about my viewpoints and my "collecting acumen" which make me blush the most:

Dahlsad is a touchstone of where women have been, what they wore, and how they carried themselves to get there. She is a historian of how powder puffs and nail polish have both ensnared and enshrined the image of womankind.

Good heavens, I think I'm getting the vapors!

(Or maybe that's my head expanding.)

All photos of me and my stuff were taken by hubby, including the cover, so he's pretty stoked to "make a cover" too. *wink*

The only disappointment is that the article doesn't directly mention Collectors' Quest, which is where Finnegan found me. I feel bad about that. So I now direct you there, to see these specific articles which likely (I'm guessing) are where Finnegan found me to be "articulate".

Vanity Collectibles

True Confessions Of True Confessions

Collecting Female Uniforms: Vintage Aprons

Pick A Shelf, Any Shelf: Collections In Context & Construction

The More Things Change… Vintage Women’s Publications

Old Etiquette Books: How To Be A More Interesting Woman

And, when I have time, I'll add more photos to My Vintage Makeup & Beauty Stuff Collection in the CQ community.

Fashion Straight-Jacket

2009-04-01T18:45:00.002-05:00

Via Rasmusmogensen.com.

"It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property, etcetera, if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right."

2009-03-24T18:29:00.001-05:00

A fascinating article by Kate titled, Fashion's Revolution since the late 18th Century: Beauty's Evolution in Female Fashion. Here's the intro, and I do hope you all read it:

How true it is that the general style of the dress is a sign of the times, and an indication of the morals of society. In the last century or two, female fashion has taken a dramatic turn. Beauty in the 20th century consists of reference to an outward appearance and one's sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex and society in general. Nancy Baker once described beauty as "intangible personal qualities" about a person and not based upon one's looks. Although this is quite true to those who appreciate a person for who they are and not what the appearance is, most of the world since the late-1800s refers to beauty of a person by their looks and styles. As Arthur Marwick once said, "the beautiful are these who are immediately exciting to almost all of the opposite sex." As sad as this statement might be, it is still none the less true in today's society. A woman’s standards today are based on television and magazines. Women are compared to the unattainable air-brushed goddesses you see modeling the new fashion. Beauty has become a goal for most women in today's society rather than an attributed aspect of themselves.

Throughout history beauty has always been based on certain aspects of a person from wealth to age, but for the first time beauty is being based upon and associated with one's sexuality. No longer is beauty based on a person and their character but rather on a sense of [one's] 'sexual self worth' (Source 2, pg.11). The most recent generations of women have even resorted the deadly cosmetic surgeries to attain a sense of beauty based upon what society classifies it as at the time. Sometimes beauty is found in the narrowness of our waist or the body of our hair, never even glancing at the person themselves. Ever since the 1830’s each generation of women and men have had to struggle against their society's own beauty myth. Today women have accomplished almost near equality to men but with the equality they still bear the stress of appearances. Men never really had to fight to vote or be treated as an equal, they simply co-existed, but women had to fight for their equality all the time also maintaining their desirable aspect in society. As our society flourishes and cosmetics are mass produced along with new clothing and new revolutionary surgeries to take off the years of worry and struggle, women must face the inevitable challenge of meeting the goal of what our society believes a woman should look like. (Source 2)

"It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property, etcetera, if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right." Lucy Stone stated this in 1855 and yet today women still struggle with the same idea as she did.

Who Reads Cosmo?

2009-03-14T15:07:00.003-05:00

I'm pretty relentless in my mocking of Cosmo; I make no secret of stealing people's copies of the mag to protect them from the rag. I can't think of a single person, let alone a demographic, which should be reading it.

So just what are Cosmo magazine's supposed demographics anyway?

Historically, the magazine's readership has been described as:

Brown always focused her magazine's editorial slant on the reader she termed "the mouseburger." Clearly a self-referential term, Brown defined it for Glenn Collins of the New York Times in 1982: "A mouseburger is a young woman who is not very prepossessing," Brown said. "She is not beautiful. She is poor, has no family connections, and she is not a razzle-dazzle ball of charm and fire. She is a kind of waif." With a heavy editorial emphasis on sex and dating features, tell-all stories, and beauty and diet tips, Cosmopolitan had become an American institution by the 1970s, and the term "Cosmo Girl" seemed synonymous with the ultra-liberated woman in her twenties who had several "beaus," a well-paying job, and a hedonistic lifestyle. The magazine also introduced the male centerfold with a much-publicized spread of actor Burt Reynolds in its April 1972 issue.

Yet the reality was somewhat different: Cosmopolitan's demographics were rooted in the lower income brackets, attracting readers with little college education who held low-paying, usually clerical jobs. The "Cosmo Girl" on the cover and the few vampy fashion pages inside reflected this--the Cosmo style was far different from the more restrained, elegant, or avant-garde look of its journalistic sisters like Vogue or even Mademoiselle, which focused on a more middle class readership. Though often a top model or celebrity, the women on Cosmo's covers were usually shown in half-or three-quarter-length body shots, often by Francesco Scavullo for several years, to show off the low-cut evening wear. The hair was far more overdone--read "big"--than usual for women's magazines, and skimpy beaded gowns alternated with lame and halter tops, a distinctly downmarket style. The requisite "bedroom eyes" and pouty mouth completed the "Cosmo Girl" cover shot.

Currently, Cosmo pushes themselves via their media kit, which varies, as you can see, from the information gathered by Quantcast.

You can argue the comparison of Internet apples to paper magazine subscriber oranges (and the supposed fact that, according to a very small study, only 7% of magazine subscribers visit that magazine's website) and third party metrics all you'd like, but it's clear that Cosmo tweaks their numbers by regrouping them creatively.

Tweaking/regrouping numbers to make themselves more impressive -- I guess that's a common enough biz sin. But wouldn't they do better to actually deal with the realities of women -- and I'm guessing that might start with actually facing their own demographics.

And seriously questioning why readers seem to out-grow (become bored with, not just 'age out of') the magazine.

Also, while some joke that Cosmo is really a magazine for men (I think the magazine is far more dangerous than that), Cosmopolitan magazine numbers indicate that just 15.03% of subscribers are men; Quantcast shows 39% of site visitors are men.

Make of this what you will; I just wish Cosmo would clean-up their predatory act.

Dress Codes (In Film & Project Form) Rock!

2009-03-12T15:08:00.000-05:00

In August 2005, Renaissance East Midlands organized Dress Codes, a year-long multiple museum project which culminated in Youth Culture Day in August of 2006. One of the goals of the Dress Codes: Youth Culture Day project was, "To increase museum visits and participation from minority groups, including teenagers (13-19), social grades C2, D and E*, black and ethnic minority groups and young people with disabilities," so fashion was used as a talking point.

Described as a project in which, "Six museums and youth groups came together to explore the topic of ‘Dress Codes’ - examining heritage and identity by looking at traditional dress and making connections with modern fashion and popular culture today," the result was seven projects, 16 short films, and 1,500 visitors at Youth Culture Day.

Here's one of the films, featuring the Northampton Museum & Art Gallery and the shoe collection -- which I found working on this post about collecting shoes.

I'm A Maxim Subscriber -- But...

2009-02-27T15:55:00.006-06:00

I'm a chick & I subscribe to Maxim.

I'm not unusual for doing so; lots of women, including happy hetero feminist ones, subscribe to so-called "men's magazines."

While the actual numbers of happy hetero feminist women like me who read Maxim aren't known, Maxim's publishers do admit women make up nearly a quarter of their readership.

And I'm willing to bet that's lower than reality. (Hey, some folks still use the charge with hubby's name on it; other households think the mag is for him but he's not the only one reading it.)

There's a lot more to say about Maxim & why I do like it -- but today I've got a complaint.

In covering the March 2009 issue, the photos of Eliza Dushku, I was once again annoyed with the credits proffered on photo shoots. Does anyone really think stating "C'N'C Costume National bra" is all that helpful for shopping? It's not. (And some companies even make it worse.)

Now I hear what you're thinking... "But this is a men's magazine, so why would Maxim put as much work into shopping help for women's stuff as they do the men's shopping section?" Here's why, whiners.

A) Maxim knows that (at least) nearly a quarter of their readership is female.

B) Maxim should be able to make the leap that male readers might want to dress their women, their blow-up dolls, &/or themselves in the lingerie shown.

Ditto other "female shopping things".

I'm terribly surprised & disappointed to learn that Maxim doesn't think this way.

Dear Cosmo, I Hate You

2009-01-20T18:29:00.000-06:00

I told you there were far more than 13 reasons to hate Cosmo...

Here's one which I just know will send Jaynie sputtering and the feathers flying *wink*

And will someone please explain just where the hell we are supposed to wear outfits like this?

This one is counter-intuitive to bodily comfort:

Even if I can believe that there's a club someplace where I wouldn't get laughed at for wearing this, I'm pretty sure that I'll get too hot in that jacket and removing it will also remove the very "structured look" the lingerie pieces were supposed to "soften".

And as if that outfit weren't confusing enough, this one is so mixed signals I can only imagine you wear it while interviewing submissives:

Your Figure (1923)

2009-01-11T18:46:00.000-06:00

"Has Charm Only as You Are Fully Developed" -- and, apparently, only with "bust pads and ruffles."

I also find this rather interesting as it's an ad from Beautiful Womanhood, November, 1923, which would make curves on the way out with the sleek flapper look.

I Doubt The Canucks Have It Any Worse Than Us

2008-12-21T08:07:00.000-06:00

From e! Science News, Women's magazines downplay emotional health risks of cosmetic surgery: UBC study, a report on how magazines portray cosmetic surgery to Canadians -- but I doubt it's any better for us in the US:

While the emotional health implications of cosmetic surgery are still up for scientific debate, articles in women's magazines such as The Oprah Magazine and Cosmopolitan portray cosmetic surgery as a physically risky, but overall worthwhile option for enhancing physical appearance and emotional health, a UBC study has found. The study, published in Women's Health Issues journal, is the first to examine how women's magazines portray cosmetic surgery to Canadians. It also finds that male opinions on female attractiveness are routinely used to justify cosmetic surgery and that a disproportionate amount of articles are devoted to breast implants and cosmetic surgery among women aged 19-34.

"Alongside beauty, clothing and diet advice, women's magazines present cosmetic surgery as a normal practice for enhancing or maintaining beauty, becoming more attractive to men and improving emotional health," says Andrea Polonijo, who conducted the research at UBC as an undergraduate honours thesis in the Dept. of Sociology.

The Correlation Between Watching The Drivel & Believing The BS

2008-12-20T15:44:00.000-06:00

In Which Came First? The Chick-Flick Or The Egg On Your Face?, Alessia discusses her thoughts on participating in the continuing Media, Personality and Well-Being Study (which so far has found that romantic comedies can ruin relationships). After responding to the first set of questions, Alessia wrote:

It's pretty clear when I looked at my responses on the television shows and films I watch, by genre, that I don't watch a lot of chick-flick-shit. So maybe I'm totally not who they want participating. But the interesting thing is that I also don't believe that the stuff shown on the screen has anything to do with real relationships, let alone any expectations for my own. That alone would seem to indicate a strong correlation between watching the drivel and believing the BS. But does the watching cause the believing? Or is it that those who live in a fantasy world seek out fantasy entertainment?

When just reading about the original survey results, I immediately thought similar things; for while we are told that viewing films is an escapist activity (if passively watching a movie can be called an 'activity'), there certainly seems to be a natural drawing of like to like based upon one's own values. How can it not?

I mean if watching films were all about the escapism from one's own life, wouldn't I watch something completely unlike my own life -- like body count films which blow up shit? That certainly would be unlike my life in terms of violence. And in terms of control (if one presumes that I see 'me' as the one pulling the trigger or detonating the bombs). But I can't stand those films because they utterly eschew the sanctity of human life, one of my core values. And so I am unable to enjoy the 'escape' of the movie because my value of human life is literally blown apart, my values obscured by blood and body parts.

This would indicate, anecdotally anyway, that one's values and perceptions matter even in your escapism.

So, if, as the original study indicates, a person not only believes that another can read their mind but also expects that of their partner, then it makes sense that, obviously disappointed in their real-world-relationship, they would seek to escape in a film which has its basis in such fantasy happenings. It delivers what they seek.

Therefore, it is at least possible that the unrealistic expectations for relationships feed the films, not the other way around.

In Case You Didn't Think Being Female & Living Up To Expectations Was Exhausting...

2008-12-20T14:14:00.003-06:00

After a few months of trying to live a 50's life, Marzipan has had to change her plans:

As you readers know, Ward has never been that keen on having a 50's housewife for a spouse. While initially he might have envisioned this woman who oozed perfection, made nightly meals, kept things spic and span, and generally mothered him to a calm sense of security, he soon found that instead he had married a woman who was more concerned over the cleanliness of the kitchen floor than who might be elected to office, who knew little about the economic crisis of her country, and who had to be fed newsbites from a wary husband.

...It seems incredible that after only 100 days of prescribing to a certain set of rules and lifestyle one could become so smothered that one actually suffers memory loss relating to one's own personality. Only I knew something wasn't right because I kept getting so depressed and angry at the littlest things. It's true, caring for a home, making that the integral part of your existence, is not for me. It may be for others and more power to them, but alas, it is seriously damaging my psyche. And I don't want Ward to feel like he's the only one in the house living in the real world while I try to lure him into discussions of WW2 rationing and the difference between a girdle and a waist-cincher. He thought it was funny at first, sure. But when that's all your wife talks about it gets a little stale fast.

She's not giving up, per se, but modifying the project and will now focus on several decades, each for 100 days (with the 80's only getting 65 days).

You can keep track of what she's doing -- and how she's faring -- at her blog. I for one wish her well; but think she'll just find a different hell.

Listening To Some Nut We've Never Even Met

2008-12-20T13:35:00.000-06:00

In her Problems With Pantyhose post, Slip of a Girl quotes from a retro men's magazine on the horrors of pantyhose.

The most excellent part is when the author shames women for putting up with a fashion directive which not only (as shown by earlier parts in the text) is icky for women but unwanted by the men who adore them:

But the women weren't listening to the men -- they were listening to the fashion writers, the profit-hungry stocking manufacturers, and the queers of the European fashion houses, who can't stand to see a woman turn-on a real he-man by showing him how marvelous she looks in sheer nylons, a black satin garter belt and tight silk panties. So up went the miniskirt, and on went the pantyhose. It's pathetic, really, the way women will ditch something that has males gasping for breath in favor of a fashion that brings only a "ho-hum." It's crazy that women will ignore the endless assurances of men that they look ravishingly beautiful in garters and regulation-length sheer hose, and deliberately cover their legs in opaque colored stockings because some nut they've never even met tells them that their bare thighs are uglier than Frankenstein's monster.

Today's Thought On Women's Magazines

2008-12-11T18:02:00.000-06:00

I don't want aliens coming here or future anthropologists looking at today's women's magazines and thinking that's who we are.

Attention = Vulgar

2008-12-05T15:30:00.002-06:00

Because Pop Tart collects vintage etiquette books, I'm surprised she missed this post by Marzipan on The New Book of Etiquette by Lillian Eichler:

This section called "On Being 'Different'" caught my attention quite rapidly.

"Of course, if you are "different" you will attract attention to yourself. But to attract attention is not desirable. It borders too close upon vulgarity.

Many people actually glory in being called eccentric, believing that this separates them from "the crowd." But eccentric means away from the center. What these people are doing, really, is separating themselves from the center, the heart, of humanity. The world will glance over its shoulder at them, may even be interested or fascinated for a moment, but will not throw wide its arms in welcome.

We will lionize such persons for a season, talk about them and write about them in our newspapers--but we will not love them as we love our simple, kindly, lovable next-door neighbor who is always sane and sensible."

That renders me nearly speechless. Nearly speechless.

While I'll confess to reading the passage from the book to a perhaps extreme point, that we should all be sheep, I'm not alone in my reaction.

Marzipan says, "She doesn't bother questioning who makes the rules, who outlines these norms, and why these norms exist in the first place. She also hints that those who are different wish to be away from the soul of humanity thus, the norm contains that soul."

This is the total opposite of what we have with today's celeb-centered worship where people gobble up rancid celeb blogs and pay for lurid publications both based on attention whore -- arguably vulgar. But, the vulgarity isn't so much about being 'different' as actually being the same. Be a Brittany or Hilton clone!

What's worse is that those who plunk down money or give their attentions to such celeb fandom seem to believe the celebs are the very soul of humanity.

While I certainly do not believe Eichler's philosophy, I don't believe this flip-side either.

PS Marzipan also included this photo of Dare Wright, who I have a huge crush on.

How To Be A More Interesting Woman, 1965

2008-12-04T13:32:00.002-06:00

Read about this gem in my article Old Etiquette Books: How To Be A More Interesting Woman.

More (Magazine) Or Less, The Irony

2008-12-03T17:36:00.000-06:00

In December's issue of More magazine, Meredith Vieira said why she refused to interview Paris Hilton after Hilton was released from prison:

I did not feel good about doing the interview. I just said, 'I don’t think this is right, this is all about ratings.' There was this whole thing about whether we were going to give her a special, and all this minutiae and craziness.

Kudos to Vieira -- not just for refusing the interview with the troubled blonde icon of bad taste, but for saying so publicly.

However, we can't help but grimace & sigh at the irony of More's name-dropping -- using "Paris Hilton" for her keyword popularity; but that's not as bad as Hilton actually having any sort of popularity at all.

Can Media Professionals & Those In Fashion & Beauty Biz Really Be So Ignorant?

2008-12-03T16:00:00.006-06:00

I just wanted to comment on Alessia's post about the biology of beauty, youth & fertility, and WHR (body shapes), but then realized that it was too long just for a post *wink*

First, some related reading material on the web:

Dimensions In The Female Form In Art: statistics on the female shape in art works from 1890, 1930 and 1970.

Fantasy Females: Skinnier Every Year Since 1953: a 2002 study looking at the thinning measurements of women in Playboy since since Marilyn Monroe first stretched across its pages in 1953.

Now my questions...

If there is a biological drive for male DNA to spread itself which causes him (however unconsciously) to evaluate those hips to deem them spread-worthy, why are folks in the media ignorant to this?

If they aren't ignorant to the science...

Then why on earth are men's mags selling men a product (too-thin women) they don't really want? Wouldn't it be easier and more profitable to sell them a product which satisfies their desires?

Women's mags make their money off the fashion & beauty industry -- which turns a profit from praying on insecurities and unfulfilled dreams. So their blind-eye to science makes (sad) sense. But again, wouldn't it be easier and more profitable for the folks in the fashion and beauty industries to address reality? Then the consumers, women, would find success in their products, fostering loyalty? This could still be done to create the seasonal turns in merch (profit), but would be a satisfying experience for all.

Thoughts?

The Biology Of Beauty Beguiles; Or, Reasons For Our Youth Obsessed Culture

2008-12-03T01:29:00.001-06:00

"Fashion" & "the beauty industry," as if they were entities or machines unto themselves and not made up of human beings, are often blamed for imposing false beauty ideals on weak female victims.

Women are mocked for believing and following -- at best accused of falling for the insipid ploys of powerful patriarchal males, at worst accused of pandering to them. And women are also mocked for neither believing nor following beauty standards -- for not following societal norms.

(Additionally silly when you realize much of the fashion & beauty industry is run by gay males; but that's for another time.)

But behind much of what we humans call "beauty" is a biology to which men not only are the unconscious victims, but the ones manipulated by women.

Female "beauty" and "attractiveness" are directly linked to cues of youth -- or, more honestly, to fertility. At a very basic, primal level the male is always assessing women for their fertility. Because this is unconscious, he is not always aware of it and therefore cannot control it.

This is not to say that such a drive mandates males thinking only (or primarily) with their dick; but to say that the impulses are deeply rooted there. And that we women use those impulses and drives.

We are a youth obsessed society not only because the male seed is always looking to deliver its DNA but because we women use & manipulate the male sex drive.

Even the gay and those not looking to breed use "beauty" to our advantage. We know, for example, that more attractive people tend to be more liked, get more opportunities, better pay etc. -- and we use that. We all are factors in the equation -- not (just) victims of the (fashion) expression.

But staying on topic of women's magazines and the industries they support (fashion and beauty), I'm specifically going to address them in context of heterosexual male/female relations in these mainstream publications.

Here's a brief list of some of the things we call "beautiful" which are linked directly to biology as far as it pertains to attracting heterosexual males and, when males get lucky, the perpetuation of the species. All of which can now be manipulated by women to fool the male -- or his tool.

Hair:

Healthy hair is literally a sign of overall health; hair that is not grey is a sign of youth & therefore fertility; long hair, the hair of the maiden, is usually seen as signs of both health (several healthy years to grow it) and youth; blond or lighter hair color in general signifies youth since most hair darkens with age (up to and even while greying); all fertility cues putting the penis on alert.

We can buy products to make hair gleam, be longer, and we can color it (both lighten and cover grey).

Skin:

Even, symmetrical female faces -- right down to the smallest millimeter -- are the signs of strong estrogen. Yes, science points to your shifting face, girl; with your face being the most even & symmetrical when you are ovulating (most fertile). So you can imagine what even slight imperfections such as acne can do to a man 'reading' or evaluating (however unconsciously) a woman's visage.

Powders & creams enhance -- not only the complexion but can help disguise unevenness in features. Such are the skin care and cosmetic trickery which attract men into believing a female is more fertile. Thus the vials on the vanity really are to lure him on over & fill him with desire.

Body:

There are studies which indicate an (at least Western) male preferred waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) for females of 7/10ths (or 0.7). ** This ratio gives at least the bottom curvy hip of the hourglass figure of Marilyn Monroe as opposed to the stick-straight shape you find on the average runway model (the likes of which clothing is draped upon, but whose names remain unknown because we do not celebrate their beauty as individuals). The 0.7 is a also magical ratio known in the United States to be an indication of an extremely healthy and fertile woman. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Women can diet & exercise -- a natural way to provide (perhaps) more desirable ratios and better health and (perhaps) fertility. But we can also use shapewear, belts, and other fashions to shrink waists &/or plump hips and behinds; giving the illusion of a lower waist-to-hip ratio. And we can suck, insert & others sculpt our bodies via surgery to get that lower WHR.

Once you see this...

It seems to me we all would be better served if there was more honesty in the discussion of "beauty". Instead of having magazines trot out the traditional and tired beauty tips, instead of having feminists rail at the conformist nature of the beauty and fashion industry and victimization of women, instead of discussing what is 'hot' and 'how to be hot', we should all be looking at why 'hot' matters -- as well as when it should and shouldn't matter (or be used).

If we women want to "look beautiful" to please ourselves, we should be able to do so without being accused of playing into men's hands. But we should also be aware of what (and who) we trigger, for when we tamper with nature we trifle with male tools. And blaming men for thinking with the small head while we indirectly stroke it is self-defeating at best and inappropriate at worst.

More to come.

** The waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 is under heavy discussion in several arenas.

Scientifically, the debate centers around questions of the method of the study (line drawings used) and the study group (location & culture; Western v. non-Western males). For example, some studies indicate men from poor rural backgrounds in other parts of the world prefer women with a ratio of 8/10th. (This 0.8 indicates a little thicker waist, but still an hourglass shape.) Others studies indicate that in less wealthy countries where hunger is a larger issue body mass index (BMI) is the first cue; WHR the second. The non-universality of WHR prompts the discussion that if such standards of appreciation and desire are not cross-culturally in practice, and we are all the same animal, it cannot be biological.

While nature v. nurture is always a question, the science of low female WHR and male attraction seems to be holding up -- and far better than the other arguments from feminists regarding waist-to-hip ratios and the biological laws of attraction.

The Swanson Assigment

2008-11-25T00:45:00.001-06:00

In the 1950 Fall Issue of Photography Worskshop, in an article "The Swanson Assignment: A Movie Queen's Dilemma Becomes The Photographer's Portrait Problem", photographer Philippe Halsman recalls his photo session with Gloria Swanson.

An unhappy & nervous Swanson appears at the photographer's studio, and as time passes, he wonders if he'll get the shot he's supposed to get for Life.

He tries a little conversation to cheer her, mentions his honest delight at having just seen Sunset Boulevard. Her response? She cries.

Half-guiltily, I asked her, "Why do your cry?" She dabbed at her straight, perfect nose with a lace handkerchief and finally, when she could speak, she told me. She was tired, she said. Ever since she arrived from Hollywood, she had been pushed, pulled, driven, manipulated, by the implacable forces of publicity.

So she wept, and her eyes turned red at the lids and her face became swollen. Helplessly, I watched her beautiful face disintegrate into misery, and I saw our full-page in Life dissolving in salt.

"Why don't we go for a quiet walk in the Park?" he asks her. They did, and they "talked until her forehead smoothed and she said we could go back to the studio".

But while Swanson was feeling better, the camera was not ready to make love to her:

she was calm inside, but the calm had not yet worked its way to the outside. Her swollen, red eyes still betrayed the fact that she had wept. I clicked the shutter anyhow, not wanting to offend her, but all the time, I thought: What excuse can I make to tell her that she should come another time? Still trying to evolve a little, diplomatic plot to postpone the portraits, I haphazardly suggested that she put on some black leather gloves for the next few pictures.

What follows are some of the most beautiful & famous photos ever taken.

Why-O-why don't they publish stories like this in women's magazines? Swanson is both gorgeous and human; the photographer kind. He clearly adores women -- I should be described so when I cry!

Today the story would have be published as an egotistical bitch-fight; salacious details from an insider exploiting a celebrity.

If this article had been published in a women's magazine, it would have been some tired tripe. Like 3 Little Pick-Me-Ups: "When having a bad day a) go for a walk, b) talk to someone, c) try a new fashion accessory."

What garbage! I love fashion -- and the gloves! -- but it's Halsman's care of her -- care for her -- which puts her at ease, has her playing with the gloves, and gets him the photos. Why can't that be the story? Or at least part of it.

Why don't we have articles like this in women's magazines today?

Magazines Say You Are Incomplete

2008-11-23T07:03:00.000-06:00

I've been "enjoying" an issue of Calling All Girls, but this quiz takes the cake.

Your Personality Picture by Marguerite Barze is as it looks; you take the quiz and then for those you answered "yes" to, you get to draw in on the dot-to-dot picture. If you don't, for example, "keep yourself neat and well-groomed daily" or "have a workable, satisfying religion" you will have missing clothing &/or body parts. And then, "undoubtedly you will want to do something about the little lines that aren't there."

Number 10, "keep a natural manner toward the opposite sex," may mean an unfinished dress for lesbians and, as this was 1945, sluts. A bit more than ironic for the sluts, anyway.

Giant Magazine Gives Us The Bird

2008-11-23T06:32:00.000-06:00

I like fashion, and I don't mind being sold it; but when it's just ridiculous...

Fashions with feathers?!

Never mind that I don't see any significance in the supposed celebs Giant magazine used; what's with showing people such impractical things as feathered fashions?

Accessories? Sure. A feathered purse, hair ornaments; fine.

But where are we going to wear a feathered dress? Are we going to stand for the entire event? Will my local cleaners know what the hell to do with it?

What We Are:

2008-11-22T08:41:00.001-06:00

Pink Populace Paparazzi Parade Exposé is the voice of women who decry, denounce and de-fame the posers, posturing and pandering.

We are women who enjoy fashions and material things -- without apology -- but are not materialistic.

We don't believe Americans or humanity as a whole is as bereft of character, consumerist, celeb loving & soulless as a loud & visible throng might lead some to believe.

Come to think of it, we don't understand who these people are that they call 'celebrities' and keep throwing at us.

We know won't get any advertisers.

And we don't care about that.