We Hear You! Letters from Our May 2013 Issue

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

by MORE • Editors
lauren graham image

In my opinion the woman should have been fired for her conduct and her incredibly rude and disrespectful behavior toward Mr. Romney, not commended.

Have we really gone so far down that any expectation of professional behavior is gone forever?

I expected better from your magazine which is why I subscribe to it but I may have to rethink that one when it comes time for renewal.

So sad.
--Diane Parodi

Hello,

I’ve been a MORE subscriber for many years and am very disappointed to see that the two most recent issues are showing more skin than I’ve seen in the past. Perhaps, at 75, I’m finally becoming a fuddy-duddy! Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ photo on page 8 of the April issue seems unnecessarily revealing and Lauren Graham on page 86 of the May issue is ridiculous. Does your reader research show that is what “women of style and substance” want to see?

I appreciate the informative articles, book reviews, and skincare and fashion advice, though it is geared for younger women -- but am beginning to think I have “outgrown” the magazine. I know I’m not your primary target audience, but I do buy stuff.

Yours truly,
--Nancy

Unbelievable. I subscribe to your magazine because of the inspiring stories you feature of mature women regardless of ethnicity, looks or other.

Imagine my dismay while enjoying "The Third Fierce List" (May 2013) and reading the paragraph entitled, "Magnetically Hilarious".  The "boldly chunky Rebel..."    Really? A talented, hysterical actress, and your writer feels the need to include 'chunky' as part of her description? Why is that a necessity?  Would you include that on her male counterparts? There was only one paragraph- actually one lengthy sentence to be exact. So, in reviewing Rebel Wilson, your writer felt that in that one sentence featuring this person, that 'chunky' contributed to a reader's understanding of her in a meaningful way?

I am truly disgusted, what a notch your magazine was taken down with such petty name calling. I guess it's okay to discriminate against a person's size still- because it's not a protected class. I expected better from "More."   Women of style and substance should be above such treatment to our fellow sisters and mankind and general.
Sincerely,
--Tracy Weber

Dear Lesley,

I thoroughly enjoy MORE Magazine.  However, I have been completely offended by the photographs of the celebrities in your recent cover stories.  I started noticing it with Katie Couric.  The photos just seemed overtly sexual.  Then Julia Louis-Dreyfus' breasts were jumping off the pages.  Now the lead photo for Lauren Graham's article might as well have a man standing directly behind her.  Your readers don't want to see these photos; Playboy's readers do.  MORE is supposed to be For Women of Style & Substance.  There is no style or substance to these photos.  Please let the photography reflect the classiness of the magazine itself.

Kind regards,
--Shelly Davis

I am a devout Catholic and the article on The Rebel Priests was so upsetting to me that I will not be renewing my More magazine subscription.   It seems to me that over the last year or so More is changing by including articles that make some of us very uncomfortable.  An article on changing an institution that has been around for over 2000 years and has over a billion followers...really???  I wish you would stick to fashion, health, makeup, book/movie critiques and non-controversial inspiring stories.
--Anonymous

What’s your reaction?

Comments

Hoyt06.21.2013

I am disappointed to watch More become another magazine for the 35-50 demographic. The occasional inclusion of a woman in her 60's is not enough to balance the focus on celebrities who are nearing or barely 40. There are many talented and interesting women in their 60's and 70's who have reinvented themselves several times and found fashion and a style that suits them. They have found a way to get "more" out of life, and I would like to read about them.
Unless I see some change back to the magazine I thought I was buying when I subscribed, I will allow my subscription to expire.

Hoyt06.21.2013

I am disappointed to watch More become another magazine for the 35-50 demographic. The occasional inclusion of a woman in her 60's is not enough to balance the focus on celebrities who are nearing or barely 40. There are many talented and interesting women in their 60's and 70's who have reinvented themselves several times and found fashion and a style that suits them. They have found a way to get "more" out of life, and I would like to read about them.
Unless I see some change back to the magazine I thought I was buying when I subscribed, I will allow my subscription to expire.

Daphne Galvin06.02.2013

In "How To Find Happiness At Any Age", I found it interesting that there was no mention of "sex" or "sexuality". Hard to believe that those critical components of aging end in our 30's, especially when we are getting happier as we get older!

Cheryle 04.29.2013

The article “The Rebel Priests” in your May edition was a very disturbing and painfully biased article full of untruthful suppositions. It is quite apparent that the author did not take into consideration a number of very basic facts regarding the Catholic Church.
1) When a bishop is excommunicated, he loses all power to perform any sacraments. Ordination is a sacrament; no power to perform this sacrament means no valid sacrament. Hence these misguided women in your article were never legitimately ordained. If you are not ordained, you cannot be elevated to Bishop, thus these misguided women are not valid bishops and are not in succession of St. Peter.
2) To have a valid marriage within the Catholic Church, the ceremony must be performed by a validly ordained Priest or Deacon. I certainly hope that Ms. Venne is not misleading the couples that she “weds” that their marriage will be considered valid in the Catholic Church.
3) The 2010 Delicta Graviora did not “condemn” female priests, it simply reaffirmed in very clear language the church’s stance on the priesthood. The misguided women in your article are free to interpret this as condemnation; however it is a shame that they take such a stand.
4) The priesthood isn’t a myth dreamed up by authoritative or egotistical men; this is also based on scripture. God chose who would be his disciples (Mark 3:13-14). Read the passage closely – he chose all men.
5) The celibate priesthood is also based on scripture (Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32). In John 13:34 God commands us to love one another as He loves us. This is not an easy commandment – to accomplish this requires a total commitment to the Church and her members. When a man is ordained to the priesthood he knows that his life from that point forward is about emulating Jesus, that he is to love us as God loves us. This is an amazing sacrifice; please do not diminish this unselfish act.
The author also makes the statement that the women profiled in the article had hoped that Pope Francis would allow women to be ordained priests. This is a Canon Law – not a guideline that is simply revised with each newly elected pope. The pope can change a Discipline but he cannot change Canon Law.
One last note: It is true that in the bible many prophets suffered for their cause; however it should be noted that the prophets were all following the laws and the word of God. It is very unfortunate that the women in this article are spinning the words of God into an elaborate web of deceit. Revelations 22:18 very clearly warns of such actions, I suggest they read this passage very closely.

Post new comment

Click to add a comment