The good stuff:
1) Role models:
I always appreciate reading about other successful women and in each More issue, I wind up liking the cover interview and (especially) the one-pager 'this is what (x age) looks like.' I also like that the magazine features women in their 40s, 50s, an 60s - I love seeing what paths these women have taken, what I might be able to expect at those ages, how I might be able to balance career and family, and what choices these women made that I might have to make someday. I also like that your magazine specifically chooses older women to feature since in much of the media, women disappear after a certain age even though they are more accomplished, have more interesting stories and have made more impact than their younger counterparts.
2) General interest blurbs:
Occasionally the fashion pieces have interesting bags, skirts, etc. Also, I like that the magazine has book and music reviews, recipes (although I don't really cook - I always think I might though! And I love Mark Bittman) and bits of health/science reporting.
The not-as-good stuff:
1) The 'don't worry, honey, you look great'/'this will hide your problem areas so no one will see what you really look like!' tone implying the women in the audience think they *don't* look great:
One of the first things I noticed in a previous issue was the overuse of the word 'still' in several pieces about skin care and fashion (something along the lines of 'you're still not in terrible shape, so you can still consider wearing something like this!' or 'you still have decent skin tone, so you don't need these kinds of products yet'). Also, much of the fashion advice is about covering up flaws. I find this tone to be extremely annoying - it assumes that I'm unhappy with the way I look and want to hide or fix things. Don't get me wrong - I'm as into the science behind anti-oxidant moisturizers as the next female. But I don't spend my mornings in front of the mirror tearing myself apart. Or my shopping sprees thinking about what clothes are best to hide in.
2) Generally unrelatable articles to my demographic:
In this issue 'is your hair aging you?' is wasted pages that I just flip over. I don't have 'multiplying grays', 'helmet hair' or 'granny bun'. And I'm not looking for a hair stylist who is the 'cheapest surgeon you'll find' (who's thinking about age-correcting plastic surgery in their 30s?) I don't know who Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman is so I don't know what it means that no stylist endorses her look.
In another example, the author discusses issues with her feet. The are bits and pieces of this article that are relatable (mentioning what women can do to avoid problems is relatable and 'do you need an orthotic' isn't age specific) but for the most part I skim through this and say 'don't have that, don't have that, don't have that...' So this is only a useful article to me in that it shows me what is in store for me ten to twenty years down the road.
I hope this is helpful in some way!
I am surprised that your writing staff was too young to remember the reference used by Apple's Siri in your article, Is Siri sexist? on page 36 of the September 2012 issue. Daisy, Daisy was the song sung by the HAL 9000 computer as it was disassembled at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey; So, YES! Siri WAS programmed by a man.