Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: _Ms._ Magazine Advertisements Message-ID: <10453@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 12:58:41 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.10453 Posted: Wed Dec 19 12:58:41 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 00:42:09 EST References: <267@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 26 > It's been oh six years since I picked up a _Ms._ magazine, but I did last month > and noticed the same thing Jym reported. Except I didn't count and my > impression was that it was higher, and I decided not to subscribe: I just felt > that there was too much emphasis on feeling-good-about-yourself==looking-good, > and what I'd remembered fondly, and perhaps mistakenly, was rather an emphasis > more along the lines of feeling-good-about-yourself==awareness-and-control-of- > health-and-self. > > Any body out there been reading it for a long time? Has it changed? Or is it > me, as I suspect. > > L S Chabot Ms Magazine has changed over the years (I started reading it 10 years ago and stopped after 2 years, then suscribed to it again 3 years ago). I find it less strident now, and more tolerant. The advertisements now are definitely more oriented towards the traditional "womenly" concerns of looking good than they used to be, and once a year, in May, they have an issue on health (which I don't particulartly like) which is, as Lisa remarks, more geared towards "looking good", than "awareness...". However, I do have to admit that the health issues of Ms are still much better information-wise than any other health issues of any other women magazines I have seen. I just wish they would also leave the junk out. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley