We Hear You! Letters from Our December 2013/January 2014 Issue

Leave a comment here or send us your feedback by letter or e-mail—we love hearing your thoughts!

by MORE • Editors
emma thompson cover image

I've been reading/subscribing to MORE since the beginning of the magazine, and was pleased to finally have a publication directed towards the mature woman. So many publications already exist that cater to young singles, young mothers, young marrieds, young everything - having a magazine devoted to women past that stage in life was refreshing and important.  Sure, mature women are also single, new mothers, newly married, or new at everything else, too.  The fact that those situations are happening to the mature woman, the perspective from which she approaches them, plus the manner in which we handles them all make it very relatable to your mature readers.

Not sure what other feedback you've received, and AM sure you're not going to change direction, either.  Wanted you to know of one very disappointed reader who won't be renewing.

 --Becky Thevenin

Dear Lesley,

I turn 60 on December 18, and what do I get from More? "Your Best Hair at 30, 40, 50" You said the 30-somethings demanded that More include them, but I suspect you wanted advertising dollars and to hook younger women on your magazine. Women in their 60s are your customers NOW! We have more money. We need more advice on beauty and clothes and we're willing to buy quality products. Frankly, your new direction is a lousy birthday present.
--Emmy Scammahorn

Dear Ms. Seymour,

I'm an active, avid 51-year-old woman who has enjoyed reading More magazine for the past decade or so. I subscribed for most of those years, and it's been a favorite, meaningful resource amidst a busy life with little time to devote to magazines.

However, I find that I'm not nearly as drawn to More as I used to be, since you started shifting your focus to include women in their 30s. I let my subscription lapse almost subconsciously, once I saw frequent mentions on your cover about "30s" as well as 40s and 50s. 

I read your editor's letter that explained you were trying to reach out to those women in their 30s who were saying, 'We're here, too - we want to be part of your audience.' But you must know as well as I do that there is a big difference between a woman who's 30 and one who's 50 - or even 40. What I loved about More was that it was a great source of content for 40+ women -- a midlife demographic dealing with issues and phases and challenges and rewards quite different from someone who's still largely in her youth, according to today's cultural standards and expectations. It was a refreshing presence on my newsstand, amidst the plethora of titles for women in their 20s & 30s. 

As you've diluted the content, less of it is as targeted to my interests. It was perhaps also an economic decision - by adding "another decade," you can expand your potential audience - but you lose the niche market that made More so great. 

I love seeing Emma Thompson on the January 2014 cover. I don't want to see Sarah Michelle Gellar. I can relate to a woman on the cover who's my junior, but I'm not looking for content geared to someone who's where I was 15 or 20 years ago. I want to read about midlife transitions, career shifts, parenting teens and young adults, aging gracefully at midlife (not "aging" at 30)... I want to see images of women around my age, who can inspire me toward fitness and a standard of attractiveness that's possible at MY age, without a bunch of surgery.  

If women in their 30s liked More before, as it was, then they can choose to read it. Just as I can choose to read Glamour if I want to, without asking them to feature models who are my age. 

If you return More's focus to the 40s/50s/even 60s segment (after, women in their sixties are amazingly vital these days, and it's really like a midlife decade now), I'm sure I will be buying it "more"!  

Just wanted you to know.

--Wendy Redal

I am 71 years old, a retired educator living on state pension and social security, such as it is.  Today as I read More, I had these thoughts.  (You are not going to like them.)

Share Your Thoughts!



I too was upset with the article by Amanda Robb, "The Woman who won't back down". I am against violence in any form - the killing of Dr Tiller and the killing of innocent babies.
I am thankful for the extra regulations that have been placed on Abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood. " In one year South Wind performed 1000 abortions" says the article, Are they proud of this? I'm disgusted and sad. How about writing a piece on how abortions kill babies and the long-term psychological problems that occur with women who abort???

I was very angry when I read the article by Amanda Robb, "The Woman Who Won't Back Down." She is the person who took over Dr. Tiller's late term abortion facility. I found the article one sided and found it disturbing that she and Dr. Tiller were made to look like heroes. He should not have been murdered. His life was just as important as every one of the lives he took during his late term abortions. He did unspeakable evils to innocent unborn children, but he is a child of God and deserved life. No pro-life person would think otherwise. We would fight for his life too. Burkhart's comment, "Are we going to be a country that forces Midwestern women to be pregnant?", was ridiculous. It implied that women do not know what causes us to become pregnant! It sounded like we suddenly find ourselves pregnant maybe from something in the water! Pregnancy is not a germ or a disease that must be ripped out of a woman even up until birth as was done at that clinic. This is a living, growing child with a heartbeat. We get all up in arms about the use of fur and the killing of whales, and we should, but the babies need us too. Speak up! Women need help, not death for their unborn babies. One mother + one dead baby = two victims and one rich abortionist.


Emma Thompson’s profile in your Dec 2013/Jan 2014 issue was both entertaining and interesting. As the article details, Emma Thompson “finds joy with extended family, a pantry full of comfort food, and a new burst of creativity” However, it would have been more informative to mention her latest “creative” endeavor: adding her name to the protest against the inclusion of the Israeli theater company Habima, at an Shakespeare festival held in May 2013. Ms. Thompson, along with more than thirty British stage and screen artists insisted that by “...inviting Habima, the Globe is associating itself with policies of exclusion practised by the Israeli state and endorsed by its national theatre company.” In this declaration the artists demanded that the invitation be withdrawn, “… so that the festival is not complicit with human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land.” It would be been more intellectually honest of More to include this facet of Emma Thompson, albeit a view perhaps less entertaining.
As the Bard of Avon might offer, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Why pick on Israel? While I champion Ms. Thompson’s right and desire to protest human rights violations, her enthusiasm would appear a bit more genuine had she initiated a boycott of say, Yemen. In Yemen, a woman is not recognized as a full person before the court. Moreover, a single woman’s testimony isn’t taken seriously unless it’s backed by a man’s testimony, or concerns a place or situation where a man would not be. And women can’t testify at all in cases of adultery, libel, theft or sodomy.”(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/27/7-ridiculou...) But given the misogynistic laws pervasive throughout the Muslim world, Yemen would certainly not be the only stop on Ms. Thompson’s train of righteous indignation, were it to allowed to proceed freely and factually. She and her cohorts have condemned Israel for its human rights violations in regard to Palestinians.
And, as the Bard would declare, “What light through yonder window breaks?” “Guess who graduated first in this year's medical school class at the Technion, Israel's version of M.I.T? “ Not surprising to those knowledgeable about Israel’s educational system, the answer is: “..an observant Islamic woman named Mais Ali-Saleh, who grew up in a small village outside of Nazareth, in Israel's Galilee.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-bletter/guess-whos-valedictorian_b_3...) Though chic for many actors/musical artists to don the keffiyeh of outrage against Israel, the less fashionable pathway of historical truths would be the more admirable pursuit. In conclusion, the Bard is worth turning to: “in a false quarrel there is no true valor.”
Diane Biegel

Post new comment

Click to add a comment