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