Less than a week after I posted my column on Melania Trump and noted that Vogue magazine would capitulate to the normalizing. And here it is:
Kellyanne Conway, Ivanka Trump, and the Role of Working Mothers in the White House
http://www.vogue.com/13511370/kellyanne-conway-ivanka-trump-working-mothers-white-house/?mbid=nl_120916_Daily&CNDID=27119440&spMailingID=13917754&spUserID=MTM2MzQ0OTAzNDQyS0&spJobID=883245678&spReportId=ODgzMjQ1Njc4S0
Who knew Anna Wintour, Vogue's Editor in Chief and Patron Saint of Quality Footwear, would crawl out her cave like Lazarus and bring us this breaking news about the difficulties of being a working mother in politics.
Let's be straight forward about Vogue and fashion magazines. They are what they are and what they are, assuming they stick to their mandate, is wonderful.
They write about clothes and makeup and 'it bags' and shoes and fashion shows and more clothes and luxury vacations and which models spurned which musician boyfriends on fashion runways and not only who wore what on red carpets, but they allow readers to vote on who looked best in those clothes and everything you could really live without if you really think about it. They have reworked Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to absurdity.
They covered the Kim/Kanye wedding like Christine Amanpour covered the Bosnian war. They led the charge of Lena Dunham's angst about being photoshopped for her cover shot because Vogue is precisely where anyone who has an issue with fake beauty being more important that the ugly truth would go. They debate, in alarming depth, the qualifications of what makes for a legitimate fashion writer vs fashion blogger which, naturally, affects who should be permitted to occupy the precious real estate of the front row of runway shows. Their idea of political appointments is which actress is named the ambassador for a nail polish brand, while the closest they get to a legitimate scandal is the television series, Scandal.
The notion of going to Vogue for breaking news is so misguided that if you search 'scandals Vogue', Google reworks that search to 'sandals Vogue'.
So why are they writing about Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump, with Conway's name as the lead?
It's one thing to put Trump on the cover of Time Magazine, but defend the choice, not as an endorsement. http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/
This is something entirely different and frightening.
You can pull the fine Merino wool over readers' eyes, but that doesn't mean it's a tight knit.
Let's be straight forward about Vogue and fashion magazines. They are what they are and what they are, assuming they stick to their mandate, is wonderful.
They write about clothes and makeup and 'it bags' and shoes and fashion shows and more clothes and luxury vacations and which models spurned which musician boyfriends on fashion runways and not only who wore what on red carpets, but they allow readers to vote on who looked best in those clothes and everything you could really live without if you really think about it. They have reworked Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to absurdity.
They covered the Kim/Kanye wedding like Christine Amanpour covered the Bosnian war. They led the charge of Lena Dunham's angst about being photoshopped for her cover shot because Vogue is precisely where anyone who has an issue with fake beauty being more important that the ugly truth would go. They debate, in alarming depth, the qualifications of what makes for a legitimate fashion writer vs fashion blogger which, naturally, affects who should be permitted to occupy the precious real estate of the front row of runway shows. Their idea of political appointments is which actress is named the ambassador for a nail polish brand, while the closest they get to a legitimate scandal is the television series, Scandal.
The notion of going to Vogue for breaking news is so misguided that if you search 'scandals Vogue', Google reworks that search to 'sandals Vogue'.
So why are they writing about Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump, with Conway's name as the lead?
It's one thing to put Trump on the cover of Time Magazine, but defend the choice, not as an endorsement. http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/
This is something entirely different and frightening.
You can pull the fine Merino wool over readers' eyes, but that doesn't mean it's a tight knit.
