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

The piece called (I believe) "Once More Onto the Beach" is full of disturbing, self-loathing imagery. 

Your story on swimsuits did not feature a single thought along the lines of: love your body, however it looks.  Instead, the body-oriented editorial was about hiding or "fixing" our (apparently) uncool bodies so that, for example, a trip to the snack bar isn't a nightmare. 

And your piece about food obsession was just as bad.  I get that you were interviewing two women and therefore printing their opinions.  But your piece--especially in the context of the issue--left no room for an obvious truth: fat women can be happy and beautiful.  All women can be happy and beautiful, and their bodies need play a tiny role in that, or a huge role in that, no matter what those bodies look like.

More is in a uniquely powerful position to guide the conversation women have with themselves and with each other about our bodies.  Hating or complaining about our looks does not have to be one of the ways we bond; in fact, it shouldn't.  Summer and swimming do not have to be about shame.  Maybe you don't realize that by engaging in this dialogue you are perpetuating the problem; you are.

Why don't you consider changing the conversation?  How about a beach-going story that involves loving your body and enjoying the sun, water, fresh air, free time, and fellowship?  How about a swimsuit issue that exudes body-love instead of fear and loathing?  How about stories that show fat women as happy, healthy, and not hell-bent on being thing?  You have the chance to make a difference.  Why don't you?

Sincerely,
--Savala Nolan

Dear More,

I received a complementary copy of your publication in the mail yesterday, and I was excited to peruse it. I'm a 31 year old working woman who really enjoys reading women's magazines and subscribes to a fair number of them, but had not, as of yet, read yours.

At first, I really enjoyed the layout, the tips on beauty and swimsuits, and other items. I was absolutely appalled, however, to see your article on "women priests."

This was a pure journalistic hack job, especially including the reference to pedophilia, which is not confirmed just to the Catholic church, or indeed ministers in general. The author does not mention Catholic theology on why only women can be priests. There are also factual errors: men who come from the Anglican church and are married *can* be priests, and gay men can also be priests, because the Catholic Church requires celibacy of their priests, monks, and nuns. The entire tone of the article is that the Church is "mean". Also, only one priest was interviewed? The writer couldn't have found a bishop, or a cardinal, or even the United States' Conference of Catholic Bishop's spokeswoman (yes, she's a woman) to interview, or get a comment?

I was seriously considering subscribing to your magazine before I read this issue. I find it hard to believe that the editorial board wouldn't consider the notion that faithful, female Catholics may read this and be as appalled as I was at the was our Church is treated.

You have lost a potential subscriber, and I imagine you'll lose more, because there are quite a few women like me out there, even if we aren't polled by the New York Times and CBS about our views.
Sincerely,
--Emily M. DeArdo

Greetings, MORE magazine:

Share Your Thoughts!

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