Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Had to respond - no, you are not being too sensitive!  You are
    absolutely right, it is absolute drivel they're trying to sell women as
    being "independent" people.  Yet they evaluate her entire existence in
    the measure of her relationships with 1.males 2. children 3.others that
    she takes care of.  Traditional values?  You bet.  Traditional
    expectations? You bet.
    
    It's truly amazing I think that magazine publishers still continue to
    define even the "new" woman in the same old tired traditional ways, yet
    under the guise of feminism.  I saw that mag at the grocery store and
    just stood there and chuckled.  It's so obvious from the cover that
    nothing has changed for the publishing world.  I suppose SOMEONE buys
    the magazine.
    Hang in there.
    

    
    re -1
    
    re buying the magazine.  I too have seen it and looked through it.
    The material does not justify spending $2.50 for it.  I have a 
    friend who is a magazine distributor.  He says that he doesn't do
    too much business with this rag because it "just doesn't sell".
    
    mi

    
    No, you're definitely not being too sensitive.  My reaction to that ad
    was at first, laughter, then sadness.  There must be women out there
    who believe they are self-sufficient but at the same time judge their
    value through their relationships with others.  I hope that magazine
    goes out of business.  It reminds me of the tobacco companies.  It's
    their right to sell what they wish, but I think it's morally wrong to
    promote products or ways of life that are bad for people.  At least
    magazines like Cosmopolitan don't pretend to be what they aren't.  
    
    Ok.  I'm calm again.  I think when you write to that company, you
    should mention that self-reliance and how-to-keep-your-man are not
    topics that fit together.  They appeal, hopefully, to different kinds
    of women.  How about "self-reliance" and "how to relieve stress", or "how to
    divide up the house-cleaning chores", or "what if you make more money
    than he does" or "how to take reposibility for your own sexual
    gratification"? ...  
    On second thought, why don't you put the company's address in this
    file.  I'd LOVE to write to them.
    
    Rachael
    

    It didn't seem to me the magazine was pretending to be anything it
    wasn't.  The main text actually was:
    
    	Q:  Who'll take care of me?  Me!
    
    	A:  Check it out.  Pick it up. [on red background:] ON SALE NOW
    
    There isn't much suggestion of liberation there.  And the top two
    articles listed on the cover are "Keeping a man madly in love with you"
    and "How to find a husband . . ."  They also brag: "WOMAN.  From the
    publishers of Mademoiselle, Glamour, and Self."  Now, if they had said
    "From the publishers of Scientific American, the New Republic, and
    Social Anthropology" I might feel differently.
    
    Now, I'm not endorsing it as great literature, but it doesn't seem coy
    about its slant on life, or more sexist or obnoxious than a few dozen
    other magazines that share that slant.
    
    Can anyone tell me if it is state law that limits magazines at
    supermarket checkout counters to these "women's" magazines, Hollywood
    gossip, the National Enquirer, and TV Guide?  Never Time, Newsweek, or
    International Hotrodding.   Yet I never see anyone actually _buy_ one.
    
    			- Bruce

>   It reminds me of the tobacco companies.  It's
>    their right to sell what they wish, but I think it's morally wrong to
>    promote products or ways of life that are bad for people.  

Er...excuse me?

Bad for *who*?

Bad for you maybe.  Definitely bad for me.  Bad for a lot of women.  But
bad for "people"?  That is a pretty big generic.

While we are all making fun of a magazine that promotes the idea that a woman's
main interest is in getting and keeping men, let us remember that there are 
some women for whom that *is* their main interest.  The women for whom it 
isn't simply won't buy the magazine.  But I am certainly not in a house of
strong enough materials to throw heavy objects at other people's houses!
I don't think you or I are in a position to judge the lifestyle some women
have chosen as "bad".

So...most women don't go to college for MRS degrees.  But who can deny that
some do?  And who is to say that doing so is *bad* *for* *those* *women*?
Why would a magazine that, say, teaches women the best way to go about getting
an MRS degree be "bad"?

I personally saw nothing of interest in the magazine cover in .0.  I wouldn't
buy it.  Doubtful most of the people I know would be interested in it.  But
morally objectionable?  I didn't find it so...

D!

    	re: checkout magazines
    
    TV Guide, Star, National Enquirer, etc. are the top selling
    publications in the country. The reason that they place them at
    the register is people don't go to the bookrack while shopping.
    When you face the aisle before unloading, you see Redbook, People,
    US, Life, Cosmo at $2-$5 a shot. While you unload, lo and behold
    if it isn't a $.75 piece of laugh material that interests us all.
    "3 Year Old Grads from College", "Newborn - Half Tuna/Half Man".
    They sell 19 million issues a week.
    
    One other very important fact. Many people cannot afford to by the
    daily paper. They don't go to or know how to use the library. Checkout
    literature is the ONLY thing they read and they believe it. They
    watch Phil, Sally, Geraldo, and Oprah everyday and think that what
    they watch and read is all there is. Why do think religion gets
    such a grip on these people??? It gives them a sense of belonging
    and so do the magazines........
    
    a sad testimony isn't it??
    
    Ken 

    Re .0, it occurs to me that if anybody ever really did have the
    answers to some of those questions it might be worth reading, but
    I've seen enough women's magazines by now to know it's always just
    fluff.  The same old stuff.  They never have anything substantial
    to say about anything.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .5, D!-
    
    >>   It reminds me of the tobacco companies.  It's
    >>   their right to sell what they wish, but I think it's morally wrong to
    >>    promote products or ways of life that are bad for people.  
    >
    > Er...excuse me?
    > [...]
    > morally objectionable?  I didn't find it so...

    Hmmm, I'm glad I went back to re-read what you were objecting to!
    The original noter you replied to did say 'morally wrong', and on
    those grounds I agree with your note.
    
    Yet at the same time, being reminded of tobacco companies selling
    harmful products to people who decide to buy them struck me as a very
    good parallel to this situation.  Took years of education to get the
    message across that the products are indeed harmful to the people who
    buy them.  Partly, took the effects upon non-volitional consumers (like
    second-hand smoke) to raise the intensity level high enough that the
    educational message finally got across because people were forced to
    listen, and it looks like smoking as a social activity may be in decline.
    
    It looks like it may take years of education to even get across the
    idea that the people who choose that lifestyle (to buy that kind of 
    magazine) are actually hurting themselves and probably decreasing their 
    chances of gaining independence, self esteem, and happiness.  I wonder
    if the effect they have on non-volitional consumers; people who are
    affected by their attitudes, people with whom they come in contact,
    society in general; will eventually result in a raising of conciousness
    that rejects these magazines and all the lifestyle they stand for, not,
    as you properly objected to, because its morally objectionable for any
    individual to choose that (within the constraints of this society, its
    practically dictated); but because its politically objectionable that
    we all be subjected to this nonsense, which treats women as such silly
    creatures.
    
    The last paragraph above is quite honestly and succinctly my own
    opinion, and anybody who quotes it and accuses me of 'stating them as
    facts', without quoting this disclaimer also, will get laughed at.  I
    already know its only my opinion.
    
    DougO

    
    Sounds like my kind of mag.