Steel: "Would anyone actually read a magazine that had normal, average people in them that were about beauty? It doesn't make sense does it? So this debate becomes ridiculous, but another false flag for feminists to start campainging against the whole advertising and beauty industry rather than, for example, trying an exercise regime to make themselves feel better and healthier."

Which debate? It shifted suddenly. I'm the feminist who started the thread and I'm defending the fashion industry. I'm for exercising regularly too. Your original statement was that there are feminists who despise women who are successful in the fashion industry, so I guess I wanted to ferret them out and see if that were true, which women they find so despicable, see what the attitude of thinking women to fashion really is.

Steel: "Neither men nor women are portrayed realistically, whether it is in the entertainment industry, or advertising. And this is fine. It's a little monotonous, uncreative and boring at times but that's about it."
Realism is a genre in art and fashion and film and even advertising. Ads for the Bendigo Bank and, as R0bert points out, Gardening Australia, feature normal-looking people, although the GA types certainly have talent. (There are three mags I buy religiously: The New Yorker, British Vogue and Gardening Australia.) I'm in the "creative" industry, and I cling fast to the idea of a meritocracy of talent, or brains, or creativity, or beauty. So I love the hobby stuff R0bert talked about, and the high fashion mags, but loathe the gossip magazines, which often feature talented people but only focus on their weight and sex lives.

R0bert, great post.

Veronika

Apologies - my simple comment on magazines has shifted the debate somewhat. Perhaps I should've made myself clearer - I was thinking of magazines that focus on images of women in particular, be they from Vogue through to Ralph. I don't particularly relate to either. That's just me, I guess.

And I don't relate to Women's weekly either (sorry Foxy) - I like a mag I can read. Therefore, R0bert's pretty well summed up the type of magazine I am interested in (yup a little nerdish) and relate to - gardening, science, geographic - they all feature articles and people (men and women) I am interested in and relate to.

Clearly there is a market for the fashion mag and in my gauche period (teens)I would purchase Marie Clare and Vogue, even Dolly. I was also more interested in the 'latest' fashion back then too. Like many people I have changed over the years. Tend to think for myself a lot more - as most of us do who gain some maturity. I don't feel any pressure to conform. As for feminists hating haute couture - have never met any, but I probably don't move in the 'right' circles, whatever that means.

And I haven't forgotten the inimitable Steel, is this what you mean?

"Feminism: A socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson"

Cheers

If the fashions shown in womens magazines, for example the latest trends or what celebreties are wearing weren't popular with women then the magazines wouldnt sell in the first place.

It is said in these magazines that these fashions or trends are HOT(translated - means sexy). That's right sex sells, not just to men but to women as well. Women like to look at fashions that make them look good, that is show their assets to their best advantage, this is undeniably sexy. Women like to look at sexy fashions and men like to look at women wearing sexy fashions, Everybody wins.

Women are biologically programmed to act like flowers dressing to enhance their female attractiveness and men are programmed to be attracted to those flowers like bees, trying to polinate them. Thats nature cant get away from it

Fractelle: "Apologies - my simple comment on magazines has shifted the debate somewhat."

No wuckers at all. I was just trying to work out what everyone was talking about. I was interested in this whole idea of feminists "despising" women who've made it in fashion and wondered if they were really any out there. I don't think there are too many. Both fashion and feminism are more complicated than that would allow.

Sharkfin, there is truth in what you say. But the picture's a little more finely drawn than that, I think. I've always been interested in the difference in body type ideals between Ralph and Vogue. We talk about supermodels being the ideal, but how many men really want to go out with a woman who's sixteen, 6"2 and 47 kilos? In terms of raw sexual pull, I think they much prefer the Ralph/Zoo babe.

The commercial calculation in your first paragraph isn't the full story either. Actually, women DON'T buy the clothes in high end mags. They can't afford them. The similarities/differences between editorial and advertising in those mags is interesting too. Fashion photographers make very little from editorial. All the money's in the ads, yet all the kudos are in editorial. You have to be doing the art stuff for peanuts before you get a shot at shooting the advertisment for big money.

I find it a fascinating world, but I'm ready to accept I'm the only one!

Veronika

I find the high end of fashion fascinating too - in the way I am fascinated by contemporary art. However, throughout history, haute couture often reflects what is happening to women as their independence has increased, think of the Flapper Era - short dresses, freedom of movement. More recently women are free to wear trousers - not so long ago women were not allowed to wear trousers to work.

I suppose where feminism is concerned is the impossible 'ideal' of the 180cm, 47 kilo 16 year old - not a healthy image at all. Neither is the silicon boosted, airbrushed and plastic Ralph model something to aspire to either.

A healthy role model would be athletes, although I find marathon runners a bit too scrawny and at the other end, weight lifters too bulky. Or anyone whose lifestyle keeps them fit, gardeners, couriers, life savers, dancers etc. Sorry if this is too off-topic, but I find a pair of overalls on a well defined frame (male or female) most fetching.

Overall though, I don't see haute couture as a feminist issue, the way I do religious dictates on how women should dress, like the exclusive brethren. Ooops, probably just opened another can of worms.

Regarding the original post, I think it's a simple equation: the fashion industry is dominated by gay men, and to gay men the most attractive human form is that of a teenage boy. That's why the Marilyn Monroes are gone, and contemporary supermodels have no bums, breasts or hips.

Remember, too, that the fashion/beauty industry also trains men to identify particular body types as ideal. I distinctly remember that in high school and my early twenties, there was considerable peer pressure on boys to demonstrate an attraction to skinny girls. It wasn't until I was older and more self-confident that I was happy to shrug off criticism for being attracted to women who are shaped like, well, women.

Lastly, the fashion media are a poor guide to what men find attractive. Look instead to the wide world of porn, where curves reign supreme and underweight waifs are nowhere to be seen.