I don’t have a problem with her being on SI, or flaunting her body. What I had a problem with was her saying she hadn’t had any work done and deriding those who use filters. It sets unrealistic expectations for women and that only young looking women can be thought of as sexy. I am not considered old at all but I’m approaching middle age and I would love more role models that embrace their age and/or owned up to the work they’ve had done so that we don’t feel like there’s something wrong with us for not looking that way.
I don't think it sets unrealistic expectations. The expectation is we'll age in the way most women age. Old women don't expect to look like those women I mentioned. I have no problem with them, any more than I have a problem with the millions of women who enhance their looks in every way possible. The beauty products industry is alive and well for a reason.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree! I do feel pressure as culture shifts more and more towards pretending that they just look the way they do naturally. Again I don’t have a problem with work or filters but I appreciate transparency on those things. Regardless, your post was well written and enjoyable to read :)
I do appreciate your thoughts here, Jenny. I'll just say, transparency requires giving up a certain amount of privacy. Is it really our business to know who has gone under the knife and who hasn't? Who is it hurting? Young women, even teenagers, are certainly aware of the methods to enhance looks, including plastic surgery. I really don't think they feel threatened by it, or even disillusioned.
Martha looks fantastic and I’m glad she’s featured. She and women her age are not invisible, relegated to the shadows of their younger selves. They are wonderful as they are. I always think people are fortunate to get old and if she’s up for it... 👏🏾👏🏾
I don't like Martha Stewart either. And don't even get me started on Oprah! It isn't that I'm jealous; it's more that I don't like what they do or how they treat people. Perhaps that's inevitable once you get to their level of wealth and popularity. I don't know and I'm never going to find out.
I tried to avoid reading about Stewart's SI cover. I truly did, mostly because I dislike the SI swimsuit issue and am not a fan of her. But it was impossible to avoid. I appreciate women aging naturally. I've never been fond of makeup or beauty enhancement in general. However, as I get older, I understand the impulse more. It's hard to be OK looking like this when you used to look like that. But that's the thing, right? What if we celebrated wrinkles (especially laugh lines)? What if we revered a round, soft, comfortable body? Instead, we all bow to the patriarchal notion that, in order to be attractive, you must look young and "hot."
I've been so upset with the increasing number of famous women (and women with money - I live around Dallas; there are TONS of women undergoing plastic surgery) who are willing to risk their health and beauty to still look young. Meg Ryan is unrecognizable. Madonna looks awful. But then there are those who are successful at their beauty enhancements, like Stewart and Moreno (I don't buy the "genetics" or "only" arguments), who now become the beauty ideal. Ugh! I don't want fight to be super thin and have cut arms in my 80s. If that's how I looked naturally, then OK, but I have yet to meet that person. Stewart looked great but at what cost to her and to the rest of us? And would we expect a man her age to be paraded around in a speedo? No, of course not. Men don't have to be sexy in order to be worthy.
As always, I appreciate Gloria Steinum aging naturally. I also appreciate Jane Fonda being honest. I just wish more women would be OK with looking however they do as we age. In my Psychology of Women class, one of my older students did a project where she compared the women in Modern Maturity magazine (for the over 50 crowd) with her own friends. They women in the magazine looked late 30s, 40s at the oldest. Her friends looked their age and hurrah for them! Women must be comfortable in our own skin instead of going along with impossible patriarchal ideals.
Can we just get rid of the SI swimsuit edition? It's sexist and terrible.
That Swimsuit Edition has always been an absurdity. I don’t care what anyone does to her body. But the deception that these images are of actual bodies (I won’t use the term “natural” because we’re always changing) is destructive to women and girls who measure themselves against digitally produced illusions. Actually, I’m less concerned about us oldsters than about preteens and teens. They grow up learning what a women is supposed to look like from a digital world that they can’t approximate. But tie themselves up in knots (and eating disorders) trying.
Yes to the Swimsuit issue. It's always been sexist and terrible. But the truth is, most women still try to look good. They may not go to the lengths so many do, with surgical alterations and Botox and huge lips (What IS that??), but women still wear makeup and do their hair and nails well into old age.
We try to avoid looking like death warmed over, and that takes certain enhancements. That said, why should anyone tell another woman what she should be doing with her body? If an old woman wants to dye her hair purple and wear bell bottoms and fringed suedes, so what?
If I want to wear leggings and turtlenecks, so what? Yet, younger people, in articles or elsewhere, want us to know they're imposing restrictions based solely on what they want to see when they look at us.
I don't have major issues with makeup, hair dye, or painted nails. People are always going to try and look good. In general, I don't care what people do to themselves. But I do care when it's a societal trend that is damaging to women in particular.
If trying to avoid looking "old" is so important, why aren't men doing it too? Because their worth is not solely in their appearance. By women bowing to the patriarchal ideal, it seems as if we're agreeing that our worth is mostly appearance based. I take issue with that. Don't even get me started on breast enhancements and vaginal rejuvenations!
In addition, by older women (with money) opting for chemical and surgical procedures to chase youth, it not only creates a false model of aging that puts pressure on other women to do the same. This is especially true in the workplace. In Hollywood, I've noticed more and more younger women having work done. That's sad.
If we're going to insist that women must take care of our appearance as a workplace necessity, then they should at least let us have beauty products, procedures, etc. as tax deductions. I'm only kind of being sarcastic.
What bothers me is not what Martha (or anyone else) does to their bodies. If I have a problem it’s with Sports Illustrated, which digitally alters every cover shoot and leaves women of all ages with an unrealistic picture of what’s “normal” for their bodies. I’m with Jenny Chen on this. It’s not the individual woman, it’s the cultural deception/normalization of “perfect” bodies that are actually digitally produced that bothers me. And I agree with her about your piece too. Very, very enjoyable!!
Yes, I should have been clearer about the Swimsuit issue. It's stupid and ludicrous, but my point here is that it goes on as it is until someone like Martha Stewart comes along and then she becomes the poster child for all that's wrong with it.
I don't have to like her to point out the unfairness. It's in the headlines because Martha is in her 80s and posing for it. To me, it stinks of ageism.
I agree. The focus on Martha is ageist. In the “old days,” feminists were more focused on cultural representations across the board. Why aren’t people raising a stink about what SI (and other media) does with young bodies, which is equally deceptive. This digital stuff has become so much the norm that young girls do it to their own photos on Insta. Wonder how they feel when they have to take off their clothes with an actual other person? I know the answer, cause I study this stuff: They feel anxious and unworthy.
I've often wondered about that--the moment of truth when the person they're trying to impress by faking it finally sees the real deal. It can't have been worth it.
Oh, I am so with you on this! I'm 65, wear my hair long, and due to allergies avoid a lot of makeup. My reaction to Martha Stewart was much the same as yours--not a big fan (though I did buy her mags occasionally for color palette ideas when I was making and selling bead jewelry, as well as checking out craft trends for things I was selling), but all the same, I was very much YOU GO WOMAN with her SI pix. Damn, I hope I look that good at her age. Unlikely because I have my mother's chunky torso, but hey, I can still do stuff.
No work done here, save for Elizabeth Arden ceramide capsules for a period of time in my 50s.
I’m going with “Live and Let Live”. My opinion of Martha doing a photo shoot with SI or doing a porn video really doesn’t matter. I’m not concerned about either one.
Coincidentally, I wrote a piece about embracing our gray (and our aging process by association) right before the internet blew up with Martha Stewart's SI cover. https://elizabethbeggins.substack.com/p/silver-linings
As usual, I can see both sides of this coin. I don't intend to denigrate women, or men, who opt to take measures that enhance their looks, or those who luck into the privilege of good genes (and/or affluence, as is supposedly the case with M. Diddy). But, it's not just looks they're chasing - it's a certain kind of look, a youthful one, free from wrinkles, sagging chins, and droopy eyelids. That's where my issue with Martha's cover image comes from. It's not about her. It's about the industries that work so hard to make sure we get the memo that we are less worthy as we age. Less worthy of being on the cover of a ridiculously sexist magazine issue. Less worthy of jobs. Less worthy of having sexual partners. If we don't keep ourselves looking young, we're just a cast off bit of melba toast.
While I appreciate and generally agree with the calls to not pit women against women, and to laud the qualities of feminism, strength, and tenacity found in someone like Martha Stewart, I still think we owe it to ourselves to look carefully at what we hold up as a mirror for our standards. Privilege matters. Genes matter. And, the stories we tell ourselves matter. We are worth more than our looks and our earnings, and I think the SI cover doesn't do a decent job of making that point.
Yes, I get what you're saying, and I can agree with so much of it, but I see the Sports Illustrated cover as such a tiny blip in the story of womanhood and aging that it's downright inconsequential. An old woman gloried in her body for a single moment in time.
I see it as progress. I'm of an age when I remember Barbara Stanwyck being hailed as 'brave' for admitting she was 40.
We're living longer now. I'm 85 and I feel 20 years younger. I want to be able to celebrate who I am in any way I choose. I want every woman alive to be able to celebrate who she is in any way she chooses. And that includes someone as privileged as Martha Stewart.
I don't see her privilege as a reason to keep her from celebrating her womanhood.
I totally agree! We deserve to be who we are and to celebrate that -- whether plain and wrinkled or chic and well-preserved. Hopefully we are moving toward a willingness to acknowledge both with equal appreciation.
Great piece, Elizabeth. My goodness, your hair is glorious! I quit coloring my hair around 30 years ago. It's still salt and pepper with a slight silver streak I keep hoping will spread. It'll never be all silver, which would be my dream, of course!
Eighty or not, I'd love to have seen the non-airbrush pics of Martha Stewart, the REAL ones. The kind that Helen Mirren, Judy Dench and Maggie Smith have taken. I suppose the thing that I can't understand is why anyone would lower themselves to appear in Sports Illustrated anyway, which is the ultimate misogynistic publication, IMO. She would have been more admired if she had done something meaningful for society.
There's any number of blogs for women over 60 out there- the women are attractive, don't use plastic surgery and its lesser evils to improve themselves, are normal and accepting of age and some even write thinking women's posts on ageing, grief, and life. They have more credibility than Martha Stewart. The lovely late Brenda Kinsel comes to mind...
And Ramona, I'm with you - Oil of Olay - best daily moisturiser ever. Even so - at nearly 72, I've got crows feet, laughter lines, two horrendous lines each side of my chin, crepe folded arms, a wrinkled neck and chest and silver hair and my boobs are dropping daily! Whatever - it's all genes and a lived life and I'm grateful to still enjoy it.
Also not a Martha Stewart fan, or Oprah,, for that matter. I agree with everything you wrote. Today is my birthday. I am now 68. In my opinion, every birthday is a gift at this point. Do I enjoy the changes in my looks? Not particularly. Shopping for clothing gets worse and worse with every passing year. There was a time when only bathing suit shopping felt that way. Now, it encompasses just about everything. One thing I won’t give up on is my red lipstick. It’s always been my secret weapon to give me courage during some particularly difficult times in my life. So I echo your sentiments and say, Martha, you go, girl. We all need to stick together.
I’d probably be happier if these mags would stop posting women in bathing suits on their cover, no matter the age.
That being said, I have never bought a SI mag and never will. I frown on publications that think a pic of some woman’s body is a way to sell them. Give me a story of a woman who survived against odds to do something spectacular, and bonus points if it was accomplished because she wanted to help the less fortunate.
Martha Stewart has more $$ than she will ever spend. Maybe she’s sending a message about her age and “looking good” but I don’t buy the “never had any work done” BS. How about we stop glorifying women for their “perfect looks” and instead revere them for their accomplishments.
I don’t have a problem with her being on SI, or flaunting her body. What I had a problem with was her saying she hadn’t had any work done and deriding those who use filters. It sets unrealistic expectations for women and that only young looking women can be thought of as sexy. I am not considered old at all but I’m approaching middle age and I would love more role models that embrace their age and/or owned up to the work they’ve had done so that we don’t feel like there’s something wrong with us for not looking that way.
I don't think it sets unrealistic expectations. The expectation is we'll age in the way most women age. Old women don't expect to look like those women I mentioned. I have no problem with them, any more than I have a problem with the millions of women who enhance their looks in every way possible. The beauty products industry is alive and well for a reason.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree! I do feel pressure as culture shifts more and more towards pretending that they just look the way they do naturally. Again I don’t have a problem with work or filters but I appreciate transparency on those things. Regardless, your post was well written and enjoyable to read :)
I do appreciate your thoughts here, Jenny. I'll just say, transparency requires giving up a certain amount of privacy. Is it really our business to know who has gone under the knife and who hasn't? Who is it hurting? Young women, even teenagers, are certainly aware of the methods to enhance looks, including plastic surgery. I really don't think they feel threatened by it, or even disillusioned.
Martha looks fantastic and I’m glad she’s featured. She and women her age are not invisible, relegated to the shadows of their younger selves. They are wonderful as they are. I always think people are fortunate to get old and if she’s up for it... 👏🏾👏🏾
I don't like Martha Stewart either. And don't even get me started on Oprah! It isn't that I'm jealous; it's more that I don't like what they do or how they treat people. Perhaps that's inevitable once you get to their level of wealth and popularity. I don't know and I'm never going to find out.
I tried to avoid reading about Stewart's SI cover. I truly did, mostly because I dislike the SI swimsuit issue and am not a fan of her. But it was impossible to avoid. I appreciate women aging naturally. I've never been fond of makeup or beauty enhancement in general. However, as I get older, I understand the impulse more. It's hard to be OK looking like this when you used to look like that. But that's the thing, right? What if we celebrated wrinkles (especially laugh lines)? What if we revered a round, soft, comfortable body? Instead, we all bow to the patriarchal notion that, in order to be attractive, you must look young and "hot."
I've been so upset with the increasing number of famous women (and women with money - I live around Dallas; there are TONS of women undergoing plastic surgery) who are willing to risk their health and beauty to still look young. Meg Ryan is unrecognizable. Madonna looks awful. But then there are those who are successful at their beauty enhancements, like Stewart and Moreno (I don't buy the "genetics" or "only" arguments), who now become the beauty ideal. Ugh! I don't want fight to be super thin and have cut arms in my 80s. If that's how I looked naturally, then OK, but I have yet to meet that person. Stewart looked great but at what cost to her and to the rest of us? And would we expect a man her age to be paraded around in a speedo? No, of course not. Men don't have to be sexy in order to be worthy.
As always, I appreciate Gloria Steinum aging naturally. I also appreciate Jane Fonda being honest. I just wish more women would be OK with looking however they do as we age. In my Psychology of Women class, one of my older students did a project where she compared the women in Modern Maturity magazine (for the over 50 crowd) with her own friends. They women in the magazine looked late 30s, 40s at the oldest. Her friends looked their age and hurrah for them! Women must be comfortable in our own skin instead of going along with impossible patriarchal ideals.
Can we just get rid of the SI swimsuit edition? It's sexist and terrible.
That Swimsuit Edition has always been an absurdity. I don’t care what anyone does to her body. But the deception that these images are of actual bodies (I won’t use the term “natural” because we’re always changing) is destructive to women and girls who measure themselves against digitally produced illusions. Actually, I’m less concerned about us oldsters than about preteens and teens. They grow up learning what a women is supposed to look like from a digital world that they can’t approximate. But tie themselves up in knots (and eating disorders) trying.
Yes to the Swimsuit issue. It's always been sexist and terrible. But the truth is, most women still try to look good. They may not go to the lengths so many do, with surgical alterations and Botox and huge lips (What IS that??), but women still wear makeup and do their hair and nails well into old age.
We try to avoid looking like death warmed over, and that takes certain enhancements. That said, why should anyone tell another woman what she should be doing with her body? If an old woman wants to dye her hair purple and wear bell bottoms and fringed suedes, so what?
If I want to wear leggings and turtlenecks, so what? Yet, younger people, in articles or elsewhere, want us to know they're imposing restrictions based solely on what they want to see when they look at us.
To which I say, so what?
I don't have major issues with makeup, hair dye, or painted nails. People are always going to try and look good. In general, I don't care what people do to themselves. But I do care when it's a societal trend that is damaging to women in particular.
If trying to avoid looking "old" is so important, why aren't men doing it too? Because their worth is not solely in their appearance. By women bowing to the patriarchal ideal, it seems as if we're agreeing that our worth is mostly appearance based. I take issue with that. Don't even get me started on breast enhancements and vaginal rejuvenations!
In addition, by older women (with money) opting for chemical and surgical procedures to chase youth, it not only creates a false model of aging that puts pressure on other women to do the same. This is especially true in the workplace. In Hollywood, I've noticed more and more younger women having work done. That's sad.
If we're going to insist that women must take care of our appearance as a workplace necessity, then they should at least let us have beauty products, procedures, etc. as tax deductions. I'm only kind of being sarcastic.
What bothers me is not what Martha (or anyone else) does to their bodies. If I have a problem it’s with Sports Illustrated, which digitally alters every cover shoot and leaves women of all ages with an unrealistic picture of what’s “normal” for their bodies. I’m with Jenny Chen on this. It’s not the individual woman, it’s the cultural deception/normalization of “perfect” bodies that are actually digitally produced that bothers me. And I agree with her about your piece too. Very, very enjoyable!!
Yes, I should have been clearer about the Swimsuit issue. It's stupid and ludicrous, but my point here is that it goes on as it is until someone like Martha Stewart comes along and then she becomes the poster child for all that's wrong with it.
I don't have to like her to point out the unfairness. It's in the headlines because Martha is in her 80s and posing for it. To me, it stinks of ageism.
I agree. The focus on Martha is ageist. In the “old days,” feminists were more focused on cultural representations across the board. Why aren’t people raising a stink about what SI (and other media) does with young bodies, which is equally deceptive. This digital stuff has become so much the norm that young girls do it to their own photos on Insta. Wonder how they feel when they have to take off their clothes with an actual other person? I know the answer, cause I study this stuff: They feel anxious and unworthy.
I've often wondered about that--the moment of truth when the person they're trying to impress by faking it finally sees the real deal. It can't have been worth it.
Oh, I am so with you on this! I'm 65, wear my hair long, and due to allergies avoid a lot of makeup. My reaction to Martha Stewart was much the same as yours--not a big fan (though I did buy her mags occasionally for color palette ideas when I was making and selling bead jewelry, as well as checking out craft trends for things I was selling), but all the same, I was very much YOU GO WOMAN with her SI pix. Damn, I hope I look that good at her age. Unlikely because I have my mother's chunky torso, but hey, I can still do stuff.
No work done here, save for Elizabeth Arden ceramide capsules for a period of time in my 50s.
Thanks for this, Joyce. I hear you!
My go-to facial stuff was and is Oil of Olay. I rarely wear makeup anymore, but I still use moisturizer.
I’m going with “Live and Let Live”. My opinion of Martha doing a photo shoot with SI or doing a porn video really doesn’t matter. I’m not concerned about either one.
Coincidentally, I wrote a piece about embracing our gray (and our aging process by association) right before the internet blew up with Martha Stewart's SI cover. https://elizabethbeggins.substack.com/p/silver-linings
As usual, I can see both sides of this coin. I don't intend to denigrate women, or men, who opt to take measures that enhance their looks, or those who luck into the privilege of good genes (and/or affluence, as is supposedly the case with M. Diddy). But, it's not just looks they're chasing - it's a certain kind of look, a youthful one, free from wrinkles, sagging chins, and droopy eyelids. That's where my issue with Martha's cover image comes from. It's not about her. It's about the industries that work so hard to make sure we get the memo that we are less worthy as we age. Less worthy of being on the cover of a ridiculously sexist magazine issue. Less worthy of jobs. Less worthy of having sexual partners. If we don't keep ourselves looking young, we're just a cast off bit of melba toast.
While I appreciate and generally agree with the calls to not pit women against women, and to laud the qualities of feminism, strength, and tenacity found in someone like Martha Stewart, I still think we owe it to ourselves to look carefully at what we hold up as a mirror for our standards. Privilege matters. Genes matter. And, the stories we tell ourselves matter. We are worth more than our looks and our earnings, and I think the SI cover doesn't do a decent job of making that point.
Yes, I get what you're saying, and I can agree with so much of it, but I see the Sports Illustrated cover as such a tiny blip in the story of womanhood and aging that it's downright inconsequential. An old woman gloried in her body for a single moment in time.
I see it as progress. I'm of an age when I remember Barbara Stanwyck being hailed as 'brave' for admitting she was 40.
We're living longer now. I'm 85 and I feel 20 years younger. I want to be able to celebrate who I am in any way I choose. I want every woman alive to be able to celebrate who she is in any way she chooses. And that includes someone as privileged as Martha Stewart.
I don't see her privilege as a reason to keep her from celebrating her womanhood.
I totally agree! We deserve to be who we are and to celebrate that -- whether plain and wrinkled or chic and well-preserved. Hopefully we are moving toward a willingness to acknowledge both with equal appreciation.
Great piece, Elizabeth. My goodness, your hair is glorious! I quit coloring my hair around 30 years ago. It's still salt and pepper with a slight silver streak I keep hoping will spread. It'll never be all silver, which would be my dream, of course!
Your hair is marvelous - reminds me of my mom's, which I always admired. Rock on, Mona!
Eighty or not, I'd love to have seen the non-airbrush pics of Martha Stewart, the REAL ones. The kind that Helen Mirren, Judy Dench and Maggie Smith have taken. I suppose the thing that I can't understand is why anyone would lower themselves to appear in Sports Illustrated anyway, which is the ultimate misogynistic publication, IMO. She would have been more admired if she had done something meaningful for society.
There's any number of blogs for women over 60 out there- the women are attractive, don't use plastic surgery and its lesser evils to improve themselves, are normal and accepting of age and some even write thinking women's posts on ageing, grief, and life. They have more credibility than Martha Stewart. The lovely late Brenda Kinsel comes to mind...
And Ramona, I'm with you - Oil of Olay - best daily moisturiser ever. Even so - at nearly 72, I've got crows feet, laughter lines, two horrendous lines each side of my chin, crepe folded arms, a wrinkled neck and chest and silver hair and my boobs are dropping daily! Whatever - it's all genes and a lived life and I'm grateful to still enjoy it.
Thank you for another honest post.
Also not a Martha Stewart fan, or Oprah,, for that matter. I agree with everything you wrote. Today is my birthday. I am now 68. In my opinion, every birthday is a gift at this point. Do I enjoy the changes in my looks? Not particularly. Shopping for clothing gets worse and worse with every passing year. There was a time when only bathing suit shopping felt that way. Now, it encompasses just about everything. One thing I won’t give up on is my red lipstick. It’s always been my secret weapon to give me courage during some particularly difficult times in my life. So I echo your sentiments and say, Martha, you go, girl. We all need to stick together.
I applaud Martha! She looks great & I’m tired of misogyny & sexism & agism!
I’d probably be happier if these mags would stop posting women in bathing suits on their cover, no matter the age.
That being said, I have never bought a SI mag and never will. I frown on publications that think a pic of some woman’s body is a way to sell them. Give me a story of a woman who survived against odds to do something spectacular, and bonus points if it was accomplished because she wanted to help the less fortunate.
Martha Stewart has more $$ than she will ever spend. Maybe she’s sending a message about her age and “looking good” but I don’t buy the “never had any work done” BS. How about we stop glorifying women for their “perfect looks” and instead revere them for their accomplishments.
Just my two cents…
Martha Stewart will always have cool points from me for her friendship and partnership with Snoop Dogg.