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?
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.
--Emily M. DeArdo
Greetings, MORE magazine: