Losing all the Glamour
Back in the olden days when I was 13 years old, and makeover TV programs weren’t even a glint in their stylists’ eyes, I begged my mom for a subscription to Glamour magazine. Eventually my mother caved in, and I used to eagerly read every page, every ad, every article each month, especially the Fashion Do’s and Don’ts. In 1961, before I was a teen (way before!), Glamour even featured Martha Stewart as one of their “Best Dressed College Girls” — and, in typical Martha fashion, she’d made all her clothes. There was a time when Glamour Mag used to be good clean fun.

Time flew and Glamour Magazine changed.

Glamour, whose name is derived from a word that means An air of compelling charm, romance, and excitement, especially when delusively alluring has lost all airs of compelling charm. Romance is gone from the pages of Glamour, where every month the pages are filled with articles on detailed instructions on sexual techniques and sexual encounters with multiple partners. Articles on nose jobs, boob jobs, and liposuction explain all the advantages to the procedures, only occasionally detailing a few horror stories. Cleavage-showing babes adorn the front cover, which probably provides an air of excitement to those interested in that sort of thing but there is certainly no elusiveness to that allure.

Now Glamour’s opining on Social Security reform. The thing is, Glamour doesn’t have a clue. Carrie Lukas explains:

Glamour skips past a serious discussion of Social Security’s financial crisis and goes straight to bashing the president’s reform proposal. The writer parrots the dishonest tactic favored by reform opponents: comparing only the guaranteed benefits of the proposed system to the benefits promised under current law. In colorful print, the article provides examples of how much individual women will lose as a result of President Bush’s plan.

The small detail missing from these calculations is that current promised benefits are a fiction, because the government won’t be able to pay them. In fact, current law would require an across-the-board benefit cut of nearly 30 percent once the “trust fund” is exhausted in about 2041 — about the time Glamour’s 20-something readers will be looking through Modern Maturity for advice about what to wear on a retirement cruise.
. . .
The fact is that Social Security faces real problems that can only be fixed in one of three ways: raise taxes, cut benefits, or find a way to pre-fund future benefits, such as through personal retirement accounts.

Rather than cover the pros and cons of these options, Glamour minimizes Social Security’s financial problems and turns to three “nonpartisan” (in fact notoriously leftist) feminist groups — all staunch opponents of reform. These ladies offer no plan; they merely emphasize the current program’s benefits for women and assure readers not to worry their pretty little heads about the future.

Glamour’s version of Social Security carefully ignores the fact, as Kudlow has mentioned, that Social Security returns are dismal:

Men born between 1956 and 1964 will receive only 2%, women 3.3%.

For those born today, the return will be a disappointing 1.6%.

Ms Lukas believes that Glamour readers are in the 20-something demographic. From my own experience, I believe they are much younger. She adds,

Women deserve more from their magazines than ill-informed partisan hackery. Until Glamour’s editors start acting like responsible journalists, they should stick to advice about nails and makeup.

If only they would.