Skin deep

For want of anything better, this morning I read Marie Claire at the gym. When I was eleven and living in Canada I had to sell magazine subscriptions for a school fundraiser, and one of them was Marie Claire. I don't think it had broken the American market yet. So I sort of had this weird soft spot for it. Not any more.

It's awful! I know I shouldn't pick on MC over Glamour, Vogue, Bazaar, Elle and my personal pet hate, Allure, but I'm going to anyway, because aside from Glamour I won't even pick any of the others up anymore, and now MC joins those ranks. (Glamour is still okay because somehow they are able to combine interesting serious stories and health advice with hair and makeup tips. I know that's what the others are trying for - except for Bazaar, which has stopped trying to use words altogether - but the rest of them fail.)

In this month's issue, focused on holiday makeup, hair and clothes, the makeover of the month was for this girl who had recently lost 40 pounds and didn't know how to dress as her new skinny self. I expected to see some nice form-fitting jeans, pants, tops and dresses, in order to allow her to show off her new looks more confidently. Instead they dressed her as though she had never lost any weight. This girl was maybe a size 8 and they were dressing her like she was still 40 pounds heavier, in sack dresses (that are 'so forgiving'), high-waisted pants (I know they're in right now but they are wildly unflattering on short women, and if you have newly thin legs why not showcase them?) and empire-waisted skirts (ditto for the newly slender midsection). Nothing flattered her, she looked better in the boring top and bootleg jeans she wore to the meeting, and I was sad that a magazine allowed itself to follow ugly trends rather than something that might actually make the girl feel good and stylish.


Moving on to holiday hairstyles, I've noticed recently that lots of stylists are recommending 'texturising' sprays and cremes - one even said that the 'secret' to Kate Moss's bedhead is hard London water. I've lived in London, and it's true: my hair does feel less smooth and soft there. But why do you want that? What is wrong with shiny clean soft hair? I agree that the Europeans have it right in not washing their hair all the time - it does dry it out, and removes good oils from your scalp. But I have naturally shiny hair, and I work out every day (and perspire while doing so), so I have to wash it daily. And for the most part, it looks good. When I live in England I am always one of the larger-sized women (I'm a size 10 here, which is a 12 there, which is considered plus-sized), but I know that I at least look healthy, because I don't smoke, have clear skin (usually), and shiny hair. English people have sort of mocked my hair, skin and (unstraightened, unbleached) teeth as being 'Shiny Happy American,' but I think that that is something to celebrate (and normally I can't find too many reasons to celebrate my nationality). I know some very attractive English people - but their attractiveness is much different from that of a fresh-faced North American.

We have this great thing about us here on this continent - we are descended from many different ethnic groups, we generally have access to soft water, clean air and good wholesome food (harder to find in some parts than others). Those of us who bother to take care of ourselves are healthy - why not look it? Why aim for the Amy Winehouse teased-hair, ruined eye makeup, starving on-the-way-to-rehab look? Why look like we never sleep or shower and smoke a pack a day when we spend our time trying to sleep and cleanse more and better and smoke less? I know the Europeans look romantic and mysterious a little bit tired and dirty - but it's not because they're dirty, it's because they've got a thousand years of culture and tradition and genetics providing them with that knowingness and allure. We've got a couple hundred years of nothing coherent, a jumble of genes from people who liked to try new things or they never would have gotten here, and who must have been healthy because they never would have survived here. We should be playing this up, and women's magazines should not be telling us to try to look like something else.

So when MC and the other women's publications take nice shiny hair and tease and spray and 'texturise' it to the point where it looks more like a topiary than a hairstyle, it makes me sad. And instead of advocating a healthier lifestyle (I guess that's for a different sector of magazine to address- and there are more than enough of those as well, but no fear, I won't bore you with my thoughts on them...today), there are pages and pages of makeup recommendations. I know a lot of women; some of them even live in Manhattan, although admittedly none work in fashion. But of these women, none of them wear makeup the way it is presented in these magazines, and presented in such a way as to give the impression that all of the publication's staffers, all of their friends and anyone else who matters also participates in this daily masking ritual. I have never worn any makeup apart from concealer, lip gloss and nail polish (I wear contacts and all eye makeup leaves me with an eye infection), and neither have many of my friends or female family members, with the result that when someone is visibly made up I find myself focusing more on their makeup than on their face, which seems unfortunate.

I get that I will eventually have to figure some of this stuff out, or just learn to ignore it. I'm 32, my skin's already fading (in spite of the care I take of it), and grey hair is not as shiny as brown. I need to understand that there are no women's magazines for me; they are either aimed at women younger than I am or at women more interested at looking like someone they are not. I need a publication that focuses on how to become more comfortable with one's inside self, in order to feel more at ease and project not just the glow of physical health, but of acceptance and unconditional love. Because nothing's more beautiful than that.