I have a love-hate relationship with “women’s interest” magazines. Part of me loves spending a lazy afternoon flipping through the pages, giving my mind a brief respite from the grind of academia with their stories of fashion, relationships and embarrassing moments. It is escapism; it is self-care. And yet, another part of me wonders, how much of this is real? There are so few pages that deviate from what feel like stock features. Most significantly, I wonder about the women whose pictures fill the pages. Why is there such a discrepancy between magazine reality, and well, actual reality? 

Of course, I am not the only one who questions this. Women’s interest magazines have been subject to innumerable critiques, from feminist analyses of their sexist content to research demonstrating the damaging effects of imposing unrealistic beauty standards upon girls. It is no secret that magazines like Glamour, Cosmopolitan and Women’s Health continuously feature models who conform to society’s idea of “beautiful,” only to further retouch their photos. That’s why British Vogue’s November issue is a big deal – only “real women” (i.e. women with jobs other than modeling) will grace its pages. 

Editor Alexandra Shulman was reportedly inspired to create the “Real Issue” when she realized the impossibility of securing designer samples that would fit non-models. Thus, the idea of an issue depicting women of all walks of life was born. Rather than models, the latest fashion designs will be worn by businesswomen, teachers, doctors, etc. In a day when no other women’s magazine can say the same, this is important. These magazines are read by women and girls of all backgrounds, and yet, it is usually a singular “look” that gets shown, over and over again. With the “Real Issue,” Shulman hopes to provide a depiction of fashion that all women can relate to. 

Shulman’s efforts are a step in the right direction, to be sure. However, they have not gone without criticism. There are concerns that by featuring non-models in a special edition issue, British Vogue gets the green light to revert back to featuring models exclusively. Additionally, many critics highlight Shulman’s choice to feature an actress, Emily Blunt, as the cover girl. Blunt, when asked about the shoot, replied, “It took three hours of hair and make-up to get me looking this real!” I myself am curious about the advertisements that make up the majority of the magazine. Surely, these ads are still depicting models who have undergone similar transformations as Blunt describes. So no, the “Real Issue” isn’t 100-percent real. 

How did we get here? How is it that, in 2016, it is considered an accomplishment for a major magazine to include real women within its pages? That it is uncommon for women to feel represented in women-centered media? That there is even a distinction between models and “real women” to begin with? These are nuanced questions, with thorny answers, sure. And the solutions are not simple either – there are enormous financial and societal pressures on editors and designers to present women in particular ways. 

So yes, it may be flawed, but British Vogue’s “Real Issue” is progress. My hope is that one day soon, the women in magazines are just…women. Some models, some not, but lines are blurred and the myriad of lives and looks and stories filling the pages fulfill the genre’s promise of women’s interest. 

Ariel Beccia majored in neuroscience while at St. Lawrence University and is now researching eating disorder treatments at the National College of Natural Medicine.