Glamour’s recent choice for “Women of the Year”—Rachel Accurso, aka Ms. Rachel, and Rachel Zegler—has stirred a lot of heat by rewarding fame and controversy rather than clear achievement, and this piece argues those picks reveal cultural priorities that many conservatives find out of touch.
Glamour picked two high-profile women and presented them as emblematic of the moment, but the choices raise real questions about what merits celebration. One pick, Ms. Rachel, built a business out of children’s content and parlayed that into deals and toys, becoming a fixture in day cares and homes across the country. That kind of marketplace success is notable, yet it does not make her immune to criticism for mixing entertainment with partisan signaling.
Ms. Rachel did more than entertain; she became a brand that reached toddlers nationwide, which is a commercial achievement anyone can recognize. At the same time, she has not been shy about featuring a “non-binary” performer, inviting transgender influencers onto her platform, and marking cultural moments like “Happy Pride month.” Those choices reflect values, and many parents care about the values being presented to children.
Her politics went further into public view when she expressed apparent support for Palestinian children during the Israel-Hamas war, while critics point out she rarely mentioned Israeli children or the victims of October 7. Accurso’s line that she sees all children as “precious and equal” was shared publicly, yet detractors argue she selectively applied that sentiment. That perceived imbalance is precisely what conservative readers find troubling about awarding Ms. Rachel a top cultural honor.
The second Glamour pick is Rachel Zegler, a young actress who rose fast and then stumbled just as quickly under public scrutiny. Zegler was the face of Disney’s live-action Snow White, a film that many reviewers and viewers found difficult to defend. Her public remarks about the original Snow White being a sexist relic and her vocal social-media posture fed a narrative of entitlement that alienated some audiences.
Zegler’s off-screen behavior—her dismissal of large swaths of the audience and the reported attitude problems on set—did not help the film or her reputation. She also made pointed remarks like “Free Palestine,” and she publicly expressed hostility toward Trump voters, which only intensified backlash. For many critics, those statements and actions do not align with the image of someone who reshaped culture for the better.
What ties these two Glamour honorees together seems less like concrete accomplishment and more like political affinity, especially on the Israel-Palestine issue. Both women have expressed views sympathetic to Palestine, which some see as the underlying credential Glamour is rewarding. That signals to conservative readers that cultural outlets are elevating political alignment over durable achievement.
Picking figures who are polarizing and politically charged sends a clear message about the magazine’s priorities, and not everyone will be on board with that shift. Conservatives who value achievement tied to clear, measurable impact are likely to see these selections as tone-deaf or partisan. Celebrating influence is fine, but there’s a difference between celebrating responsible leadership and celebrating notoriety.
The awards also underscore a broader cultural trend: the elevation of celebrity and social media presence as proof of cultural leadership. Ms. Rachel turned a YouTube channel into a brand, and Zegler parlayed a high-profile role into national attention, but neither trajectory guarantees the kind of civic contribution that merits a marquee title. For voters and families who care about character and balance, those distinctions matter.
Cultural gatekeepers like Glamour have a platform, and with that comes responsibility to define excellence in a way that resonates across communities. When selections seem driven by partisan sympathies or headline potential, trust erodes. That disconnect helps explain why many people find it hard to take such institutional proclamations at face value anymore.
The fallout from these picks reveals something larger about our media ecosystem: prestige is increasingly decoupled from consensus accomplishment. Awards and honors used to follow a rough social bargain—you could expect recognition to mean broad, demonstrated contribution. Now, the bar too often reads like “who generated the most buzz this season.”
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Add comment