I felt so energized and empowered after reading the articles about strong, "fierce", courageous women in the May issue. Then I turn to page 86 and see the photograph at the beginning of the article about Lauren Graham. There she is in a stereotypical, provocative pose better suited to a men's magazine. So, you really haven't decided what your message is to women, have you?
I cannot convey to you how offended I am about the article on "women priests." As a lifelong Catholic, I can assure you that only males can be ordained priests. Just as Our Lord, (who showed little interest in adhering to the political correctness of his day) ordained only men as apostles, so men, and only men, can serve in that role today.
How sad that some women can find fulfillment only in pretending to be men.
As a 48 year old mother of two teens, I have an obligation to model quality periodical reading in my home. Although I find many of the articles in MORE to be inspiring and provocative, the photographs of Lauren Graham were disappointing at best. Whom are you targeting with a magazine cover that displays generous cleavage? Even worse, the full page photo of Graham inside the magazine has her in such a ridiculous unnatural bend-over position (how do you like these breasts) that one is led to believe she might be preparing to urinate in the grassy field where the photo takes place. What gives More? Don't you know that when it comes to sharing our bodies, LESS truly is MORE.
I take HUGE issue with the inclusion of Candy Crowley in your Fierce List. Seriously? You can love her all you want for her “balls,” but she did a serious disservice to all who tuned into the debate that night. In a blatant attempt to provide cover for the President regarding the Banghazi debacle, she wrongly said the President immediately called it an “act of terror” when Romney was trying to make the point he hadn’t (does "spontaneous" violence ring a bell)? It was completely out of bounds for a moderator to interject him or herself into the debate in defense of a candidate. Worse yet, she got it wrong. He hadn't called it an act of terror until much, much later. And Crowley eventually admitted she was wrong. You gave her props for keeping the candidates "on point" when what she actually did was "create points" for her one, favored candidate. The Debate Commission even said they made a mistake asking her to be the moderator, and disappointingly, you applauded her for it.
I just cancelled my subscription to your magazine after my first issue since the print size is so small it is very difficult to read. I have 20/20 vision but now in middle age need glasses for reading. The font is a couple points smaller than other magazines, and I would think that a magazine who is aiming at a good part of its market to be the 40+ crowd would take readability into consideration.
By the way, this survey thing is ridiculous, signing up for who knows what, forgetting what one wants to say in the meantime.
I like your magazine. I do not like the covers of the last two issues. Here are two fine actresses falling out of their bras and onto the covers. Demeaning dismissive of their real talent. Shame on you.
I don't like the photograph of the two women fighting in last month's issue; its ugliness took away from the real substance of the research you did.
Hello- I am not sure this is the correct contact point but the web goes around in a circle basically when you click on “contact us” and it never get’s anywhere.
So- while reading the May issue, specifically the “Fierce” article I had to write to someone at the magazine to ask...Are you serious?
To applaud Candy Crowley for her behavior at the Presidential Town Hall debate and actually state she “had the balls” to keep the candidates on point and on their toes is so far into the crazy zone I am still shaking my head.