- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 3795
Editor's Choice: 33
Ms Harding: Never mind the ridiculousness of a few straight men speaking for all men and all women. Never mind that all along, women have been raising objections like Peggy's, or that for decades before Lizzie Miller changed Glamour's attitude toward (slightly) larger models, any reader who suggested including some in a glossy magazine was dismissed with, "Oh, women always say they want to see models who look more like them, but they really don't! They want aspirational!" And never mind that when you actually ask women whom they would most like to be, the answers show a hell of a lot more diversity and depth than the "aspirational" images we're sold.
But I don't understand. If the advertising industry's models and "aspirational hairstyles" were really that much off the mark -- if women really didn't want these things -- then how come they can make money? Isn't it an argument against Ms Harding's claim? Or am I missing something here?
If indeed women don't want to see these models, those hairstyles, etc., wouldn't they simply stop buying the products that are supposed to make them look like these models? And if it is true that they want to see a different kind of woman, then wouldn't an advertising agency that started using this other kind as the basis of their campaign immediately become victorius and set the trend for the future? I suppose, say, a group of women who think like Ms Harding could start such a campaign with the kinds of models that they think would appeal more to women, and simply prove the point empirically. Why isn't this done?
