OT: Lucky Magazine's Ageism
May. 7th, 2011 07:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lazypadawanI admit, I like Lucky magazine. That and People Style Watch. Why? They're the only fashion mags that aren't staffed by a bunch of Wellesley grads who believe they have to "educate" you on "serious" topics along with makeup tips, runway photos, and dopey sex advice. Just show me the damn clothes and shoes.
But while perusing through the May issue there was one thing that jumped out at me and made me very annoyed. For years, one of the things that made me laugh about Lucky was its "Lucky Girl" or whatever column starring some 21-year-old Manhattanite with a crummy job who can somehow afford a $900 Balenciaga bag. But it wasn't just the Lucky Girl this time. It was every single person featured in the magazine, with the exception of 30-something celebrity cover girl Fergie. Not a single woman was over 29.
Worst of all was a feature about what women at a particular office are wearing to work. The company was publisher Alfred Knopf and all of the women in the piece are in their 20s. I'm sure that the ladies at Knopf who are in their 30s, 40s, 50s + must have felt like crap after being slighted like that. This sort of thing reinforces the idea that no matter how much you've accomplished or experienced, you have nothing to offer once you hit the high side of 30.
Ageism in the media is nothing new. But 30, 40, 50, and 60 aren't what they used to be and it's not just because of Botox. Would it have killed them at Lucky to sprinkle in some stylish Knopf employees who are 32 or 46? Do they think only 20 somethings read their mag?
Bazaar's clothes might cost as much as a car down payment but at least they regularly feature what looks good on someone 20-70+.
But while perusing through the May issue there was one thing that jumped out at me and made me very annoyed. For years, one of the things that made me laugh about Lucky was its "Lucky Girl" or whatever column starring some 21-year-old Manhattanite with a crummy job who can somehow afford a $900 Balenciaga bag. But it wasn't just the Lucky Girl this time. It was every single person featured in the magazine, with the exception of 30-something celebrity cover girl Fergie. Not a single woman was over 29.
Worst of all was a feature about what women at a particular office are wearing to work. The company was publisher Alfred Knopf and all of the women in the piece are in their 20s. I'm sure that the ladies at Knopf who are in their 30s, 40s, 50s + must have felt like crap after being slighted like that. This sort of thing reinforces the idea that no matter how much you've accomplished or experienced, you have nothing to offer once you hit the high side of 30.
Ageism in the media is nothing new. But 30, 40, 50, and 60 aren't what they used to be and it's not just because of Botox. Would it have killed them at Lucky to sprinkle in some stylish Knopf employees who are 32 or 46? Do they think only 20 somethings read their mag?
Bazaar's clothes might cost as much as a car down payment but at least they regularly feature what looks good on someone 20-70+.
