Dear More Editors,
I'm not a regular reader of your magazine, but I might become one after buying the latest issue and opening up to The Fine Prints fashion layout featuring Danai Guria. It is absolutely stunning! And kudos to More for featuring African Americans of all shades as part of your magazine, something rarely seen among the majority of magazines today. The actress, the fashion, the background were all gorgeous. I will have to check out More magazine "more" often!
Dear More Magazine,
I love your magazine. I started reading your magazine years ago when I would "sneak" my Mom's copy while I was in my 30's and I continue now in my 40's with my own subscription.
When I read March's issue last night (cover to cover), I was pleased to see "What to wear in your...." in your Stylebook section. I started at the beginning looking at the suggestions for women in their 30's and agreed, those are not for me. Then I moved on to the 40's (my age group) and thought "well, sort of...but not exactly". I kept on looking at the suggestions for 50's and even 60's and got really excited! Those two were more my speed, things I would choose, and some great suggestions I hadn't thought of. I found it sort of strange that I would be drawn to the "older ladies" clothing and then reread the summaries at the beginning of each section. For the 50's it's "Your kids aren't little anymore. Time to sex it up, make investments and add some edge." The 60's had "You know who you are - and which body parts are holding up, flatter the best, camouflage the rest." BINGO! Both of those really hit home for me. Style isn't and shouldn't be about your age, but about how you feel in your body and your life! Clothing is how we express ourselves no matter the age! I'm a confident, sexy woman with grown kids and I certainly know what looks good on my body! :-) So, please, in the future, get rid of the age categories and focus more on the attitude!!!
Keep up the good work - we need you!!
After reading “This is What 30, 40, 50 Looks Like” in the April edition of MORE, I was moved to write you. Thank you for including so many women who have embraced their beautiful silver, gray, and white locks. They are all stunning and inspiring to me.
After much consideration and soul searching, I made the decision to stop coloring my medium brown hair five months ago. Opening MORE to see strong beautiful mature women in all their silver glory affirmed to me that MORE finally recognizes the beauty of mother nature as she leaves her mark in this next phase of our lives. I was beginning to be bothered by how rarely grey haired women were seen in MORE. That has changed. Thank goodness. We exist. We are have amazing stories. And we are BEAUTIFUL. Just ask Cindy Joseph, the pro-age diva gracing magazine covers these days. I hope some day, in the not- too- distant future, we will see women’s product advertisements in MORE no longer touting anti-age this and anti-age that. It is a negative approach to the natural progression of life. And it doesn’t enrich women’s psyche. But I know your magazine is working on that...changing the mindset of the cosmetic industry. It’s a hard nut to crack.
In closing, I thank for all you do for women, especially mature women. I have cut out more than a few articles to share with my doctors. Your medical information is always cutting edge. Keep up the great work.
--Jo Anna Kloster
Words can't express enough how much I love Regina King as the 'Woman of Interest'. First..the photo..Beautiful with a capital B. It so captures her beauty, strength and spirit. One of my favorites, she has been around for years as an actress and I still feel as though she is one of the many under recognized actresses in the industry. Such talent should be showcased more. Excited to see she has added director to her repertoire and looking forward to her next project which I hope will be an Emmy.
--Saundra Louise Penn
Dear Ms. Seymour,
Often I've been tempted to write to express my satisfaction with More's championing of strong women, wry and witty editorials, and support of the general idea that there is much living to be done past age 40. I am finally compelled to take to keyboard after reading your last editorial letter in which you used the term "dos and don'ts" without using an apostrophe in dos. Perhaps I'm a militant grammarian or punctuation Luddite, but the proliferated use of the apostrophe to indicate a plural drives me to tears. Thank you for leaving the apostrophe to the realms of contraction and possessive exclusively.
Re: Roe vs. Wade: Still Controversial After All These Years
I am impressed with Kathy Ireland's bold stance on abortion and her disregard for how it might negatively affect her billion dollar business. I also admire how she approaches the issue in an open-minded way as opposed to the angry, emotion-driven "abortion is murder" tactic taken by so many pro-lifers. More of this kind of empathy and level-headed thinking is needed in the pro-life movement.
Just a note to THANK YOU so very much for featuring Connie Britton on your cover! She is so fun to watch in any role that she does. Recently my daughter and I were fortunate enough to attend a recent taping of the Katie Couric show that included an interview with Connie. She is a great role model for a woman of any age...
Your photo spread was one of the best I have seen in ages (I have over 60 magazine subscriptions) and really captured the glow and energy that radiates from Connie. Didn't love the cover shot though - you could barely tell it was Connie.
Keep up the great work on MORE - you always have an interesting mix of articles.
Love MORE magazine! I am recently retired and look forward to curling up on the sofa with it each month! HOWEVER, this is the 2nd month in a row I have had to look hard at the cover to figure out who it is! It is ironic that I was at the Katie Show on February 7 and Connie Britton was a guest. Believe me , neither Katie nor Connie look anything like your cover photos. Why are you photo-shopping or whatever it is you do to these beautiful women? Your covers don't make them look younger, they just don't look like themselves!
I am now 60. 40 years ago I was a hippie in ripped jeans. Now I am a retired university fundraiser who for the last 39 years wore neutral suits and closed toe pumps. I am 5'6" and wear a size 0 in jeans, so I must shop junior stores to buy jeans that fit.
So, I am breaking out of a conservative mold and into fun jeans styles, including ripped, brightly colored, patterned, and more. I love my jeans of all types and styles. When you tell us 60 year olds not to wear ripped jeans, I want to say, but they're so cute! And I look great in them!
I am glad in your monthly editor's letter you allowed us the right to be different from your "wrong."
I always feel so content after reading More. There is always something leaves a smile on my face. On page 51 of your March issue there is a beautiful woman with the caption "This is what 48 looks like". Seeing women the same age as me is refreshing and keeps me posted on what my age can look like for women who take care of their skin.I think I'm right on track.... This is what 49 looks like...
What I hope is that you will save this e-mail and read it on your 70th birthday.
I was distressed when reading the otherwise excellent issue of March 2013 to see that the feature on what to wear in your 30"s (hopelessly young to be in your magazine) 40's, 50's and 60's then abruptly stops. What? Women disappear when they turn 70?
I have just watched 75 year old Shirley Bassey KILL the audience at the Academy Awards. Still beautiful and still in fine voice. How about Jane Fonda? Give me a break.
Even some of us "normal" women are still stylish and struttin' our stuff in our seventies. So get with it, "More."
Hi Meredith: I am a subscriber of MORE and truly enjoy the magazine geared toward women 40+.
Given the demographic you are looking to entertain and inspire, I am a bit surprised to see the current changes in your magazine to a font size that seems to be geared toward "fine print", not comfortable reading.
I understand the costs of putting a magazine on paper is increasingly more difficult as publications keep transitioning to web-site viewership, but is there any chance your team could cater to your audience and increase that font size?...... Not asking for font size 14 mind you, but something that is readable for those of us in the 40+, visually challenged readership.
Beyond that, keep up the good work!
I have been a subscriber from almost the start and have found most articles and advice very interesting and helpful. Even my husband reads MORE! Your articles of advice by age are usually spot on, but I must tell you how disappointed I was with the article on what to wear in the March 2013 issue. As I read each decade before me (I am 63), I felt the advice was well done. But I was shocked to see that you think the 60s decade can only wear black and white, with absolutely no hint of color. Seems so stereotypical and definitely defines the 60s decade as having passed into the era of "old". I expected more from you.
I really enjoy More and have subscribed for several years. As men used to say about Playboy,” I read it for the articles”. But for me , that is a true statement. The contributors are outstanding with every issue. I usually portion out one day of a weekend and read the current issue from cover to cover.
Having said all of that, let me say I am not oblivious to fashion and all that goes with it. I am currently 70 years old, still employed full time and enjoy my work –which keeps me fully engaged and active intellectually. So - I am still very interested in fashion trends and spend money on clothing each season, for the office, social events and weekends. I like to think I have moved on from the clothing of my youth (30-40s), and even into maturity (50-60s) and try to dress age appropriate.
However – I am very disappointed in the March 2013 issue “Dressing by the Decade”. All black and white for any woman over 60? Really?? Are we to have no color or fun in our wardrobe or our lives? Your editors’ choices for the 60’s decade are boring, boring, boring. I cringe to think what you would come up with for someone like me in the 70’s decade with never a facelift or days spent at the gym.
Do you think you can come up with something a little more interesting for the “More Mature” readers?
One last comment – I am tired of seeing Diane Keaton as the icon of the mature woman. I have always admired and enjoyed Ms. Keaton as a actress and she is beautiful. However, it would be refreshing to see you feature (once in a while) someone actually mature in pictorial spreads and advertisements.
Thanks for listening. I will continue to subscribe and enjoy More.
Last week was my birthday - 45! I picked More magazine because of the Dressing for Your Decade article (and of course the fabulous cover girl, Connie Britton. Love her! And that hair!)
I adore clothes but in the last few years my fashion confidence has been shaken. Sky high double platforms and skinny jeans left me on the sidelines in ballet flats and cardis thinking I'd reached the end of the fashion line. I love being my age and I don't want to dress like I did in my 20s or even my 30s which, for me, was like a decade dressed in variations of a black uniforms that travelled well. The "DYD" article proved that there's a way to be chic, sexy and appropriate and above all that that fashion is for everyone at every age.
One final thought... if you run the article again (and I really hope you will) I'd love to see your readers in different ages and sizes.
Great issue and great magzine. I will be back for MORE.
With best regards,
I've loved your magazine for years. Recently I had the March issue with me when visiting my mom. She was looking @ the article about fashion in your 40s, 50s, & 60s. She said to me "I thought you said this magazine was for older women. Where's the advice for my age group?" She's 84. It made me realize that women even in their 70s & 80s are more aware of fashion now than they used to be. I hope I'm like that when I'm her age.
Thank you for a great magazine. Keep doing what you're doing.
I couldn’t find the survey on your website, but wanted to let you know my feelings about your magazine.
I am just hopping over the 60 age divide and find that many things I thought were important in my youth…just aren’t.
Dressing, just right, or looking just right or even behaving just right, don’t carry as much meaning as they once did.
So frankly, I skip over all the ads for the latest beauty products and ignore the latest fashions finds highlighted in More.
I head straight to the stories of women who, like me, struggle with our daily lives. Women whose stories, in every issue,
make me cry. Women whose stories, in every issue, make me think about my life and the changes I need to make. Women
whose stories, in every issue, fill me with hope and pride and thankfulness that I am part of this incredible tribe.
I understand that advertising pays the bills. But it’s what’s in between those glossy pages that appeals to me and
makes me tear off the covering of More the minute it hits my mailbox.
And it’s why I am currently a subscriber until 2017.
Thank you for a meaningful magazine.
I have subscribed to MORE for 10 years. It was a gift when I turned 40. Boy, was I disappointed to see this month's cover WHAT TO WEAR WHEN YOU ARE 30, 40, 50. I guess I am in that last category now. This magazine is supposed to appeal to 40 and older. Sure on this inside, you have a page for those in their 60's, but the spread is lacking. I want to SEE real women in their 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's looking great doing amazing things. I have suspected for about a year or more that the demographic you are intending to reach is an audience including younger women. By appealing to this broader base, it seems you at MORE have watered down and compromised what was a great intention for a magazine. Looks like you are selling what all the other women magazines are selling. I hope you will reconsider the direction you are taking this magazine.
I am 65 and when I'm not in my blue jeans I live in leggings and big tops. I especially love my Eileen Fisher slouch sweaters over a pair of leggings--so there goes that rule!!!!
I do dress up on the rare occasion when I need to, but give me my leggings (and shorts in the summer) and I'm one happy woman.
--Linda L. Elman
As a father who works part-time and does a lot of the child care, I read your article on the "mommy wars" with interest. My wife works long hours in a demanding and rewarding career at which she excels. But clearly she and many other professional women face scrutiny into their choices about family life, in a way that their male colleagues do not. What I find particularly frustrating is that much of this scrutiny comes from other women, whether intimate relations or the distant voices heard in the media.
Dads are easier on each other, in my experience. My daughter and I often socialize with other dads who are the primary caregivers of their children. Some of us have chosen to be stay-at-home dads, while others have embraced the role out of necessity because of job loss. Whatever our stories, I have found that fathers tend to have a friendly and sharing relationship with each other. I don't see the SAHDs comparing each other's parenting skills, nor do I see them disparaging the choices of the dads who are working longer hours. We just try to make the best of our situation - to do what is best for our children and our relationship with them - and that seems to be enough. I am saddened that mothers seem unable to find such solidarity in their own lives as parents.
When women criticize working mothers, implicitly they also criticize the SAHDs to whom some of them are married. The lack of respect faced by the SAHD generally doesn't come from other dads - many dads working long hours outside the home envy us! The greatest challenge for a SAHD is to find a way into the female-centered infrastructure of children's activities. Working women complain about being invited to a playgroup at 1:00 pm, but the SAHD might not get invited at all. Perhaps if we had more support for men in this role, we would also be less critical of women who choose to make their contribution to their families in the workforce.
I have never written to a magazine editor but I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you how much I am enlightened by your magazine. I share the information I absorb every month with my 27 year old daughter because I want her to see how professional, intelligent women think, dream and succeed in this world. And how they continue to grow, inspire and reinvent themselves at any age. So many magazines who target women seem to be more concerned with their advertisers or trendy stuff. I think your magazine is well rounded. I am a real estate agent and my daughter is an attorney. I was a stay at home Mom when my children were young, which I feel was a blessing, but I have since divorced and returned full force into the workplace. The articles in your magazine inspire me to do well.
May I ask one favor. At some point in time , could you explore the topic of successful women dating after age 50? I feel like I am still in high school and I had hoped that men had evolved by this age! I really enjoyed your article on the different types of relationships.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
--Joan E. Heller
I thoroughly enjoy MORE, it is smart, classy and the perfect blend of what women in the real world want to read about.
However, I took exception to parts of “The Yes, No, Maybe, Never Fashion Guide in your March issue; particularly the age specific yes, no, maybe, never.
Ripped jeans are not acceptable after age 50? I disagree. On a walk recently I spotted a woman who was probably in or entering her seventh decade.
I saw her trying to get a young man out of her vehicle and into a wheelchair; it was apparent this young man was severely handicapped, so I offered to help.
She smiled and told me she was fine and didn't need any help, it was obvious she had done this many times before, with love.
She wore western style boots, jeans that were fashionably ripped and a straw hat. She radiated a quiet confidence and looked beautiful, for any age.
Conversely, I have seen younger women who because of personality or body type should probably not be wearing things that are deemed appropriate for their age.
Fashion should be fun and a reflection of who we are and where we've been, not how long it took to get there.
--Samantha Frazier Gordon
At what point did women 60+ disappear from the face of the earth? You should be ashamed of yourselves for ignoring
women over 60 and beyond!!!
Perhaps you are not aware that women over 60 weld the most power with money, opportunity and social change. At 61, I and my friends
are CEO's, business owners and some beginning new careers in private social work. We have the maturity, experience and money but are ignored
by most "women's" magazines. If you believe our generation is nothing more than to be ignored, then why have ads with Diane Keaton? She's definitely over 60? Oh, and by the way airbrushing the women you do use in your magazine to look like 16 year olds does a disservice to all women.
Dear More magazine Editor,
Several issues ago while reading the fantastic More magazine I was deeply disappointed.
I have been unable to forget the comment made in the article concerning make-up for all ages.
The make-up person stated how women 60 should try not to bring any attention to themselves.
Very little eye make-up or color.
It made me very sad to think that More magazine would support that person and write those words.
I am not 60 yet, but hope to be and still want to believe I will be able to bring the best out of myself.
OK so I see that MORE is buying into the 30-50 market. On the cover of your recent issue "Here is what 30,40 and 50 looks like". I thought you people were a bastion of safety for all us "boomers". Very rarely do you feature 60+. You are like Chico's and their slimming pants suggests that if we slip them on we will too look like the "older models". Comparing ones self to glossy models does not stop at adolescence but rather impacts us through life. Hoping on the "slim band wagon" does a disservice to all those 60 + suggesting that after that "well............" Guess I'll just stick to those large print AARP magazines. I will not be renewing my subscription, as MORE no longer "speaks to me".
I read the March issue of More this morning at 5:30 am. I do some of my best reading at that time! I was disappointed by the What to wear at 60 page. First; all the other ages had two pages facing each other. The 60's woman, like an afterthought, had two pages, but not together! Secondly, what's with the black? Am I in mourning? I wear a lot of black in the winter, but for spring, can't we lighten up the old lady a bit?
I'm a freelance writer, and part time furniture refinisher (I know that's not a word.) My style is classic, but quirky with color or scarves. I refuse to blend into the woodwork, so why can't we have something to fit my kind of woman?
Otherwise, I love your magazine. Thank you.
I have been a reader of MORE for many years. I have given subscriptions as gifts. It is the only magazine I subscribed to for many years. I pass my copies along to my daughters and friends.
However, I have also written numerous times, done surveys and never got a response. I know you need advertising money, but I find it more and more difficult to take your magazine as seriously as I once did. Your articles are always about issues, ageing, honesty, reinventing and yet you allow so many of your ads to LIE to us. There isn't a make-up ad that isn't airblown and touched up. I would buy any product that has a before and after picture and says there is nothing that has been retouched. But allowing these ads in your magazine makes a shame of everything that you do that is good. You claim to support us as we age, and yet you have photos of women we will never look like. You tell us to be happy in our own skin, and you allow ads with models that look 20, or are touched up to look even younger with skin that just doesn't exist on any one over 40.
Please, if you can't do anything about the ads, please at least address the issue.
I look forward to every issue of More, but I was very disappointed in the fashion you showed for the "In Your 60s" Sylebook section of the March issue. I will be turning 60 this next year and you made me dread reaching that decade. Although I wear a lot of black, the clothes you showed would make me look huge. I work out daily trying to keep my body as slim and youthful as possible. I do need to camouflage some parts of the body as everyone in any age has their particular body problems, but these clothes would make me feel OLD! The idea of placing flowers on a small pump looks like something an older woman held in their closest since their 20's and couldn't throw them out because they were their favorites. Stripes and large prints make me think of the little grey haired women that love dressing as their mother did. Although, I know I have to change my dress as I age, I don't believe you have to go from the more colorful, sleek fashions shown in the 50's to only black, large, out of date prints when you turn 60. Please give the women in their 60's more fashionable options!
I actually really loved the suggestions - but really - where is the COLOR for the women in their 60's??? ALL black & white??? Not even a colorful accessory???? I am in my 70's, love black & white, but also need some color in my life!!!!! I really like the Ann Taylor "Chanel" sweater jecket!
I've been a faithful reader of MORE magazine for about 5 years. In all that time I've never written a letter to the editor--but I had to write regarding your article on Connie Britton in the March issue.
There's no doubt Ms. Britton is beautiful, talented, and successful. Why, then, does MORE feel the need to include four sultry photos of her basically half dressed? The photos you selected look more appropriate for a men's magazine (where the readers are men!)
I'm not opposed to illustrating the beauty of any woman you choose to profile. But I am opposed to your decision to focus your photos exclusively on Ms. Britton's physical attributes in order to help convince me she's important and worth reading about.
What is that popular saying, less is more? In this case I need less of MORE. Please cancel my subscription.
--Barbara R. Call
Your magazine is very instructive. Most of us past 50 (I am 68) are happy that your magazine addresses the issues women of our age face. Many of us tend to laugh at the foibles that have younger women at a loss.
I ask you to think about the humor that is often lacking in our day-to-day lives because we are doing our best to bring food on the table and keep a roof over our heads. The economy is not our friend.
Just one cartoon would lift the weight of your magazine’s issue content and our spirits as well.
Thank you for considering this comment.
Hello Ms. Seymour.....As a subscriber to your magazine, I am usually delighted with each and every issue....however after reading your article..."Stylebook---What to Wear in Your 30's., 40's., 50's etc." I could no longer keep silent. I was indeed eager to read it as being 53, I have reached a stage were I question everything I wear. Usually I nag my 23 year old daughter for her opinion...."do I look too old in this? or Do I look inappropriately too young in this?.......Naturally, I immediately turned to your article., only to find that unless I win the lottery, I will basically be unable to dress for my age. I am a registered nurse working in a hospital with 2 children still in college and a husband who just lost his job after 30 years........who can afford the outfits you have suggested....Although they are lovely. , I was so dissappointed that it was not geared more to the average woman on a budget. If I took the advice stated....I would have no money left over for..say...food., shelter..etc...but I would indeed look fabulous for my age. Thanks for listening.......
I love your magazine. But. Upset about article the life extending diet page 134 encouraging people to eat salmon. You should advise your readers that they have to make sure they get the wild salmon. And even now when you buy the wild there are studies now saying they might not even be wild The other salmon I'm sure caused my moms rheumatoid arthritis and my dad had symptoms of Parkinson's.
Salmon wild. I wouldn't eat it more than once a month.
Flu shot. Are you out of your mind ? Do you have any idea what's in there? What effect this flu shot will have on you when your 80?
Shame on you for giving out Health advice.
First, I have a complaint about being able to write a letter to the editor. On your contents page, it states “join us at more.com/letters to post your reaction to this issue”. Unfortunately, it was not that simple! After changing my password, updating my profile and taking a prompted survey, I still couldn’t launch the link! Please provide a simpler, more direct way to send comments!
Second, concerning the issue itself, I’m very disappointed in the presentation of the article about Connie Britton. I’m not familiar with her; but, thought the cover photo showed a beautiful woman with an engaging smile. The article’s opening page was titled “The Smartest Woman in the Room”. So far, I’m interested in learning about this woman. I was totally dismayed to turn the page and see a photo of Connie more worthy of a lingerie catalog or sports magazine swim suit issue!
Is this what you are telling us “women of style and substance” should look like? I’m very disappointed! It seems that with each issue MORE is moving toward a younger, more glamorous position.
Your article “Revenge of the Handsome Women” somewhat redeems you for the Playboy –style photos of Connie. This is MORE of what I want from MORE!
Please stay true.
First, I love your magazine. Thank you for bringing us great ideas, people, and photos every month.
But I do feel compelled to write to you. I'm approaching Medicare eligibility, but I sometimes feel I could be on your "This is what 63 looks like!" page. I wear leather, I wear lace. I wear short skirts--I still have some legs. I enjoy sexy, flirty clothes. But why do you feature beautiful women like Connie Britton predominantly sprawled in bed or draped over furniture like a seductress that might be a runner-up for a Guess ad? For me, it resonates "cougar," an overused, rather silly term that implies "trying too hard"--clinging to youth that one may feel is starting to slip away at a certain age. One bedroom shot would do it, but what else does this talented, smart, energetic, stylish woman have to offer? Sex appeal is a beautiful thing, but what about life beyond lingerie? I suggest giving us more range. We've earned it.
I love More, I really do. Despite most of the articles starting with gushy descriptions of what the interviewee is wearing or how she picks at her meal, they do get around to the meaty, soulful and brainy stuff pretty quickly. But the photoshopping is extreme!! Vibrant and talented women are turned into unrecognizable plastic dolls. The worst was Julie Bowen - I stared and stared at the photo spread and could not see any resemblence to her, she was completely unrecognizable. Katie Couric's cover shot is a close second. Who are these people? What are you trying to say about them?
These women are real, beautiful people. I get a little touch up here and there, but the plastification is so out of touch with the magazine's mission.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!!
I was happy to see that your article on Fashion for Grownups included the women in their 60's but I would like to see More go even further. I am 71 years old, color my hair, excercise regularly. have a good fashion sense and read magazines that keep me up to date on what's new. I'm sure I'm not the only woman in her 70's and beyond who is like me and I think it would be great to make a little room in your magazine devoted to us. I know you're targeting a certain demographic but you could capture some of the market that isn't just reading the AARP magazine.
Thank you for your consideration,
The Stylebook feature this month, which you explored in your editorial, was so helpful because it was soooo unhelpful. I offer this comment with love and humor. I was really excited to read it but found it preposterous - in a good way. It seems that defining ourselves by our calendar age is just not helpful in any way, particularly when it comes to fashion. Body type, lifestyle, budget, interests, life phase, and on and on informs one's sense of style much more than age ever could. I found it wonderfully liberating and empowering as a result and my guess is that's what you'd ultimately want for a reader. I'd never wear any of the shoes featured but I can see myself picking other items from the 30's, 50's and 60's spread. Interestingly, I wouldn't wear anything in the 40's spread and I'm 48. I attached a photo of me with my son to personalize my comment.
Thanks for helping me 'unplug' even more from preconceptions about what 48 looks like. I am grateful!
How can I begin to tell you how disappointed I am in this issue. I was so thrilled to find More since it wasn't targeting young, funky women but older, funky and fun women. So I subscribed. But I doubt I will be renewing again.
My biggest disappointment in this issue is the 'what to wear' article. Really? I am 62 so according to this article I am to wear dirndl skirts with clown sized polka dots or prison striped shirts, sweaters and coats? And I'm to forget fashionable footwear in favor of low middy heels in case I might loose my balance? This was the most insulting article I've read in your magazine and it is obvious you have nobody on your staff who has the slightest idea what 60 yr. old women wear. We wear color, metallics, fashionable and fun footwear and anything else we darn well please. We didn't suddenly turn off the lights to live in a black and white world. If I walked down the street in the things you pictured, I would be a laughing stock. Maybe Chicos and Talbots have been steering us all wrong all these years.
When I go out with my daughter and daughters in law I expect to dress as fashionably as they do, right down to my footwear and designer bag. Shame on you.
Kudos to you for featuring actress Danai Gurira in your March Issue. I do not watch the show The Walking Dead, but this stunning actress caught my eye. As a young African American woman, I was taught to accept everyone and be proud of my heritage by my incredible parents. Unfortunately, society- through daily contact with people and the media- taught me that my hair was not long enough and my skin was not light enough, so I was "just a black girl" not a "pretty black girl". If you didn't look like Beyonce or others, you were invisible. The picture you featured with Danai showed a confident, beautiful woman. As a single woman in my 40's, I know young girls don't read your magazine, but I hope these images will encourage the women like me to pass on the real meaning of beauty.
The March 2013 issue has a banner on the cover "What to Wear at 30, 40, 50" but inside, thank goodness, you do have the decency to include 60. Why didn't you mention that 60 was also going to be included and have the title on the cover as "What to Wear at 40, 50, 60?" I almost called to cancel my subscription and I've been a subscriber since the beginning!
You have adverts for aging skin but an article on finance from a woman in her mid thirties.
I started my subscription to you when I was in my 40s and have aged at least semi-gracefully and, I believe, a good part of that is because of your magazine. I turned 60 last year and like several of my Boomer friends, we do not necessarily devour AARP journals; we like to read magazines that cater to grown-up women, not youngish women. Please, there is nothing wrong with younger women but there are tons of magazines that are out there for them and very few for women of a certain age.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but when More started, weren't you the magazine for women over 40? It's nice that you are trying to appeal to younger women ("What to Wear at 30 ..".) but if you keep trying to appeal to the younger women at the expense of the older women, you may find that you have neither reading your magazine.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
Very truly yours,
--(Mrs.) BZ Marchant
I purchased this month's magazine because of the headline "What To Wear at 30, 40, 50. But then we get the pictures of Connie Britton!! Who ever styled her was interested in selling it to men. Her costumes were so out of line with the headline article. I have never written to a magazine before but this just turned me off to possibly never reading More again! Why were these pictures used here? So off base.
Hello Ms. Seymour,
I love More magazine. Just received the April issue with a cover article,
This is what 30, 40, 50 looks like....
I am a vibrant, thin, stylish and youthful woman of 62 who had a great
professional career, wonderful marriage and conquered many of life's
challenges. I know that there are many like me out there. I have a MacBook,
iPAD and a 2012 Honda Accord V6. I love technology, fast cars and
successful, vibrant men who appreciate elegant women.
Don't forget about us on your cover & articles. I am available
for cover shot, too !
Dear Ms. Seymour,
I am a woman turning 70 in the next two months. I am a working professional who was told to check out MORE because, unlike other women's magazines, it acknowledges women over 50. I did and can't believe what you advise for age 60 ( March, 2013): Talbot's and Brooks Brothers? Have you even been in either of those stores lately? Talbots has a few neat items but the quality is getting spottier every day and Brooks Brothers is just deadly boring. In your Fashion Flashback piece on page 48, I really didn't see much difference between the image of the woman from the 1950's and Sherry Lansing today; they were both just perfectly neat & matronly. The fashions you highlighted for 60's were OK, but all but one came from companies other than Talbot's or Brooks Brothers. Halsbrook offered some interesting items - but at $700 a blouse, it's a mite steep for most.
But beyond that, where are the 70 year olds in your magazine? There are a lot of us around - working, shopping, and looking for advice. We have money to spend, but we are not represented - anywhere. We have brown spots we need advice about, dry skin that no longer responds to the cream we have always used, exercise questions, makeup questions, health questions, and some fashion needs too. We are here, and more of us are arriving at this age every day, still vital and vibrant and wanting to look good. And we don't want to shop at Brooks Brothers and Talbots. Attached are some photos of what 70 looks like today. I am divorced, have 4 grown children (3 daughters in their late 40's) and 14 grandchildren. I work, I travel, I play, I exercise and I shop. I meet more and more women like myself every day. Where are our faces in your magazine? Where are our needs addressed? You are missing out on a growing market!
I began reading your magazine when it began. I just subscribed to it for the first ime. I am disappointed at the recent content. More had set itself apart as a magazine for intelligent older women, over 35 that is. Now, I might as well be subscribing to Cosmo for older women. We are so much more than fashion, makeup, and our weight. Please return the substance. I loved the reinventing yourself articles, when they pertained to career moves. We are also a generation raising teens at an older age, not an easy task. We are also the first generation to be caught between our aging parents and teens at home. Raising teens has never been more difficult. You could address the increasing number of teens that turn to self harm, cutting is common place for struggling teens. Help raise awareness and present information that will help parents help their teens. I could go on all day.
Hoping to read substance soon.
Dear More: I was so happy to see actress Connie Britton on your March cover--especially now I know we share a birthday!--as I've always admired her honest, mature portrayals of working mothers on tv. Thank you for revealing the strong personal character behind both Tami Taylor on Friday Night Lights and Nashville's Rayna Jaymes.
My question for you is this: Why would the editors of a magazine that promotes women's strength and intelligence dress a person with as much moral fiber as Britton in such tacky and skimpy attire, and pose her like--pardon me, but--a teen-aged hooker? The clothing chosen for this shoot was neither sexy, current, nor fashionable, and I was frankly rather embarrassed to see such a smart, beautiful woman in such uninspired outfits.
Dear Ms. Seymour,
I love your magazine but I nearly fell over when I got to page 88 of your April 2013 edition.
I took the magazine and showed it to my colleagues, friends, and family . . . they all said the woman for What 50 Looks Like - yes she is 57 . . . . looked in her late 70's. (Straw poll of over 25 people). I then showed the age. Everyone said I should show you my pictures so that your readers can get a clearer image of what 56 - I'll be 57 in less than a year really looks like!
I have never done this before, so here goes . .
Please find my photos attached . . . and please let your readers know that looking 57 doesn't look like what you chose to reflect to your readers.
Just a comment on editing - March 2013 issue, 9 Ways To Be Married article, page 106 Ricochet Marriage profile of Cozy Meyer, 49 and Joe Newman, 48. In reading the article, I notice in first paragraph, second sentence
"When she was 17 and he was 19, a friend fixed them up..." Are you telling me that as we age, women age quicker? She was 2 years younger than him when she was 17 and now she is 1 year older?
Please retire the overused and pretentious "ubiquitous" and "eponymous."
I don't believe I have ever read a copy which did not include both of those irritating phrases, often more than once.
Also, please end the over air brushed very young models in advertising.
If we are celebrating mature women, why the 20 somethings?
Must say that the newest issue has great articles as usual However.............
The cover shot of Connie Britton is the worst I have ever seen. Looks nothing like her. Your photographer ought to be shot. It's one thing to photoshop. Another to give an unflattering image of a well known person on your cover. The articles' photos are not much better.
I know what I am talking about. My uncle was a well-known fashion photographer and his son, Nicolas Moore, is equally well-known for his work. (check out Allure, Paris Vogue, etc.)
This is the first time in years, that I have felt compelled to give an opinion. You really owe Miss Britton an apology....and your readers too.
--M. L. Moore
I have been reading More Magazine almost since it began. Some articles have had more meaning than others....some issues have been more interesting or captivating than others. Not until I read the article on Hearing Loss and thought about it for a while, did I feel the need to respond. Comparing the need for glasses with the need for hearing aids was a concern to me. Insurance and the relatively low cost of glasses (even bifocals) make it possible to obtain the glasses. The prohibitive cost of hearing aids coupled with the lack of insurance available for hearing aids make the expense way out of the range of glasses and way out of the range that the normal person can afford. There is some assistance available if you are low income. The cost is not an issue for the wealthy Those in the middle....us...do without them.
What happened to Tim Gunn?
His input on style and what to wear or not was very valuable to your magazine.
I do love the magazine and buy it every month off the news stand to keep your numbers and profits up. I also know you changed the format a while back but this latest March issue hit home on how much I dislike that you have changed to a younger demographic.
Sure there is a money reason but there is SO much out there already for women in their 30s (even 40s now)
I am 61; in great shape,( 5\\'9" and 127 lbs) do yoga and aerial silk ribbon dance ( see attached) run my own consulting firm (environmental science) and it is disheartening to barely have anything catering to me. And I am a growing demographic. With your beauty contest now open to women in their 30s and the article on age appropriate
dressing reach down to age 30, we women in our 50s and 60s ( especially) are getting shorted. Even your cover celebrities are mostly in their 40s.
I hope you will consider paying a bit more attention to women like me.
Thanks very much
I have subscribed to More Magazine at my home for years now. I have always enjoyed your approach to both traditional and edgy topics. I tend to be conservative in most of my viewpoints, but have many liberal and mixed beliefs. (abortion, marriage rights) I guess to get to my point…..9 Ways to Be Married, The Cleavers Would Be Horrified….just doesn’t seem like a More Magazine cover. I truly have mixed feelings on the subject and am definitely not anti gay, but this does not belong on your cover. You have just make a spectacle of the issue by wording it that way. Sounds like National Inquirer…not the class I am used to seeing from More.
--Laurie A. Perseo
I am 48 and pick up your mag as a "treat" in the grocery store. I recently snagged the March 2013 mag and after being Super Woman and preparing two dinners for next week, dressing for Sunday dinner with friends, responding to friends' chats, and yes, having a quick call with my daughter, I sat down to enjoy my More.
I was offended by your "blurb" on page 30 regarding conversations between daughters and mothers. Who did they poll? Where is the research coming from? I'd like some facts and figures, please.
I have a 20 something daughter. And, I can tell you, we are so honest (read: vulnerable) with each other. We are far from subject to the "best friend" syndrome either. We are definitely in a mom and daughter relationship. But one where we have made a choice to be honest with each other. Whether it suits us all the time or not. Trust me --- sometimes, I'd rather not know and the same goes for her.
It was just the two of us when she was small. I had to work at making sure she had a childhood. I seriously defined our roles. I was the mom. She was the daughter. That foundational relationship stuck, and we continue to be a mom and daughter --- we've just both grown up a bit.
Has she lied? Absolutely! She she been a little sh*&? 100% percent! But she has been a daughter to my motherhood.
So, when I read your "blurb", I was like, "Did they talk with 'real' moms and daughters?"
Families are so blended these days. There is no "typical" context in which moms and daughters communicate. The diversity of elements surrounding the mom and daughter relationship are so dynamic that to publish such info is a bit, ignorant - may I say - on More's part. I have always found the mag to be a grounded, intelligent, contemporary mag for women over 40. But this "blurb" reminded me of a "lesser sort of mag" sort of "blurb" --- not something I'd expect from More.
Shall we say, I was disappointed.
I have never had such a conversation with my daughter - who has green hair and more tattoos and body piercings than Corporate America Me with a graduate degree wants to think about. BUT, I see her for her strength, her intelligence, her independence, her moxy, her compassion, her empathy, her old soul...and she sees me with all my gifts and "nakedness". And, we have a mutual respect. But we are a mom and a daughter --- not BFFs. So, who are these women who were polled? Goodness!
Do a better job next time. Look to publish an article on moms and daughters who are empowered, real, honest, respectful, and have a mom and daughter relationship worth aspiring to. That is the least you can do for your reading population.
Okay, here's the deal, I did re-subscribe, but this is my issue with your magazine--I am 65 years old, I don't see myself very often in your magazine. Doing an article that says something like "if you're 50 or older, do this or use that" doesn't cut it. I want to look good and I want you to talk about how to do that at MY age. I also have been in a relationship with the same woman for 30 years--where are we in your magazine? You are very focused sometimes on relationships with men to the point that we can't relate. We are business owners, dress well, use makeup, garden, raise kinds--where are we in your magazine?
I have been reading More Magazine, and running in the NY More race for a long time now and look forward to both.
I think the topics covered and the selection are well done, but have been wanting to raise something with you for a while.
Certainly, you must realize that life for women does not end at 60.
Those of us in our 70's are still interested in living life to the fullest, and looking our best while doing so.
We are productive, many of us working either full or part time, and suffer agism should we be interested in seeking employment.
So, why should a magazine such as More contribute to that agism by including the age range 30 -60 in "Dressing for the Decade?"
Are those women who are older not worth attention, or is the assumption they are to old to care, too old to be consumers, etc.
I'm sure you get my drift.
Women are living longer and are more interesting, interested, active and productive than ever.
Don't let us down.
--Phyllis Roth, LCSW
What to wear in your 70's???
I enjoy your magazine but there is another very active age group out there - 70!!!
I have been receiving More magazine for a couple of years now and find it interesting and informative. I must say, I think of myself as a woman of substance and style,yet, when I saw your coat idea for the 60 year old in "stylebook", I couldn't help thinking, clown suit in prison! The striped coat, reminds me of Op-art prison garb that no self respecting 60 something would think of as flattering. Do your editors not understand that the point of any fashion is to complement the wearer? In other words,to enhance the woman's good looks, not overwhelm them.
Magazines often fall back on the "Audrey Hepburn" look to promote Mid century and 60's fashion revivals, as` you have in the description of this coat. Her unusually thin figure, and well known face could wear this coat,but most women have neither. The beautiful icon that was Audrey Hepburn gained that figure starving in occupied WW2 Europe; a price most of us wouldn't pay for fashion.
Dear Ms. Seymour,
Pin a plastic flower to my shoes? To my lapel? Purchase a sleeveless dress I have to modify with a sweater in order to wear it? How aging is that? Add shoes difficult and dangerous to walk in, and “old lady perfume,” and horizontal stripes--- enough! What were you thinking? In my mind’s eye I can see the sorting going on at your place. Was the sixty- year-old category the default pile?
Okay, maybe I’m a little pissed off because I’m seventy and my category fell off the chart. I’m slim and in good shape and take care of what I have. I’m lucky.
I’ve also paid attention over the years to what looks good on me and other people. When to cover up and when to flaunt, require an unflinching eye. For example, I want clothes I can move in--- grounding basics mostly in black and cosmetic colors like periwinkle blue, plum, and bright navy. A couple of inches of heel makes me feel less chopped off. A great handbag that goes for a number of years is worth it. I want to feel unselfconscious and confident and the forget what I am wearing.
I like your magazine but this article doesn’t do you justice.
I am a big fan and just want to pass along some comments on your recent issue.
1. Please, please do not try to be all things to all people. You can’t have a cover blurb that refers to your 30s on the cover…and still expect to be credible to those of us in our 50s and beyond. (Do the 30-somethings even know Connie Britton? Or that Patti Davis, who penned the essay, is Ronald Reagan’s daughter?)
2. The younger generation that you’re trying to attract on the cover would rather die than be known as a “handsome woman” (another feature in the current issue).
3. On the story about aging secrets many of the women you feature plug their own skin products. Again, it damages credibility. (Like when you see a favorable restaurant review next to an ad for the same restaurant). I realize you can’t change their response, but perhaps the interviewer can pose the question this way: “Other than your own products…”
As I mentioned, I have been a regular reader of your magazine since its inception. But I’ve noticed a watering down of your original mission (which, frankly, I don’t see in “Oprah”) and it makes your voice seem less authentic, less “one of us.”
I know that the magazine business is tough these days, but there should be enough of us aging baby boomers (and fans of smart editing) around to make you a “must-read.”
I have generally enjoyed More, and I always have the latest copy in my office waiting room. Unfortunately, two stories in recent issues have led me to decide to remove the magazine from my waiting room and to let my subscription expire when the current term ends. The stories featuring Katie Couric and Connie Britton were excellent, but the accompanying photos were, in my opinion, demeaning. Both women were described as smart and strong and independent people, but the photos portrayed them as sex kittens. The skimpy clothing and the seductive poses were such a stark mismatch with the content of the articles. I was baffled by the choice to produce these photos. I think it gives the wrong message to your readers, suggesting that no matter how successful a woman is in her career, her public appearance should always emphasize her sexual qualities. I hope you will consider portraying smart, strong, successful women who do not have to be photographed as sex objects.
I've been a subscriber to most of the magazines you've edited. I love reading magazines and have done so for as long as I can remember. More has always catered to women over 40. Please don't change that very special side to the magazine. This is what sets it apart from the countless other publications geared to women in their 30s. Go back to your original plan and celebrate women in the second half of their life. So much more interesting.
Where, oh where has my MORE magazine gone?
As a charter subscriber, I looked forward to many years of relevant articles/photos to support my journey into senior womanhood. But wait! MORE seems to have abandoned its 45-64 year-old targeted demographic, electing instead to go the way of other youth obsessed magazines. Why?
Why must you also photoshop images of every woman who appears in your magazine? (Especially ironic in the "This is what --- looks like" feature.) Is the sight of a mature woman really so repulsive?
Having walked through a number of magazine headquarters in NYC, I can only conjecture that the problem with your magazine is the same as many others... the majority of your staff is just too young to "get it." Perhaps your seasoned professionals can steer MORE back to it's original mission: addressing the issues facing women past the childbearing years.
Blaze some trails! Don't be afraid. You were headed in the right direction but somehow chickened out. We're out here, ready and waiting to read.
--Amy Virginia Evans
Really? You really think women on their 60's should wear this stuff? Black and white clown pants and black and white full skirts and black and white horizontal striped tent coats? Women in their 60's are not stupid. According to this article, we should throw out all our color and prepare for death. You will not understand how ridiculous these choices are until you are my age.
I have read all the letters for the March issue. I am summarizing those that were repeated multiple times that I agree with completely. After marketing your magazine towards 40+, why are your creating a 2 page fashion spread for women in their 30's? Trust me, they are not reading More Magazine. Please continue with the concept, but replace 30's with 70's. After all, women in their 70's are thriving these days. It's not what it used to be! Also, PLEASE stop doing photo spreads of celebrities looking like they are trying to be seductive. Connie Britton's pictures and the fashion was better suited to MAXIM Magazine. Katie Couric's pictures with her "come hither" sexy looks were just ridiculous! These are healthy, attractive women and we can't relate to them with your current approach.
Finally, please stop adding long articles that seem to reveal your political point of view. The article about the immigration attorney was a puff piece that was insulting to all of us who are struggling with the current economy and the possible amnesty that is heading our way. It's obvious that you are not aware that there are thousands of citizens who are unemployed and have all but given up looking for work. The suggestions in this article were insulting for those of us who are suffering in our states with the ever increasing burden that comes with immigration. Please continue with articles that are of interest to women and we will continue to subscribe.
After buying MORE from the very first edition, I am becoming a little disillusioned with some editorial (or perhaps marketing?) decisions. Recently I have noticed the 30s decade being included and I don't understand why this would be part of MORE's target demographic. There are already many magazines aimed at women in their 20s and 30s and these younger women do not face the same skincare, fashion and life challenges that older women do.
For example, I was totally alienated by the March edition's In Your 30s comment that 'This is the time to experiment. Short, sheer, skintight - for you, nothing is out of bounds.' Which is exactly why I want a magazine catering to older women - some things are now out of bounds and we need advice on how to walk the line between fun and stylish, yet appropriate. I am a young 51, but don't want to have to compare myself to a 30 year old.
I'd love to hear what has caused this change in MORE.
If MORE is a magazine for women why pose Connie Britton wearing a black lace teddy?
I just don't see the need to have her lying across the bed with her shirt half off. Yes, she is beautiful but we know that. It was a total turn off for me and I didn't even read the article.
It's disappointing that we are still using that even to sell to ourselves.
I am sure you could have shown her doing just about anything else that would portray her as the smart, funny and beautiful person she probably is.
--Mary J Stoner
I have been a reader of MORE almost from its inception...and do not in any way consider myself to be conservative in my thinking...but I was truly disappointed in the photo spread of Connie Britton in the March issue. She is an attractive woman; yet the pictures presented of her bordered on tastelessness. I'm sure that her beautiful figure could have been photographed in different settings that still did justice to how lovely she is.
Thanks for listening,
I am a woman in my mid-50s who, hopefully, is headed for my 60s. I have been looking for a magazine that speaks to those in my age group and had hoped it would be MORE, I was excited when my first issue arrived – March 2013 – and one of the feature articles was about what women should wear in each decade of their lives. Was glad to see that MORE also included a section on “In Your 60s.” What bothered me, however, is that the section on 50s noted that back in the 1950s, women who wore bright colors were considered garish, yet your section for those in their 60s featured only black and white clothing. So has the 60s become the new 50s? My mom is heading into her 80s and wears plenty of bright colors and has the best sense of style of anyone I know. The whole section was really rather depressing. Sure black and white is a great combination, but only black and white? Is this all women my age have to look forward to? In this day and age, women of all ages should have the freedom to embrace some color.
--Kathleen Brunet Eagan
Dear Editor Seymour,
I have been a fan and subscriber for several years and frequently give this magazine as gifts. But this February issue made me want to give a few opinions and i was unable to get my eldest daughters aged, refurbished Dell laptop to link up on your site. I stuffed my thoughts aside until March issue arrived and found I could hold my stuffings no longer.
I don't know if its my being post-hysterectomy, having three kids including two teenagers at home as a single mother and the stress is getting to me or plain mid-life crisis or if the magazine has changed...but point blank - in my opinion - this magazine just doesn't represent REAL women. It feels like "fantasy fodder" for us 'normies.' The masses that have to shop at Walmart and discount stores. That have oatmeal each morning not because it's a health trend but because it's CHEAP breakfast food.
I find little to identify with in sections like 'Finance' when it's about someone spending 'out of spite,' turning down a $5000 writing job so they can watch more t.v. with her boyfriend and thinking it's something to be proud of. Or 'I threw away half a million dollars, out of guilt' - pleeeese. What i could do with $500K!
I could write you 7-8 paragraphs about REAL finance if you like. "How to live off $1500 a month with Three Kids" or "If I Get a Part Time Job My Kids and I Lose More in Food Stamps Then The Job Pays." The Rat Wheel of financial stress, dependence on government assistance - i know alot about that.
I enjoy reading about the inventors that persevere, the small business owners that thrive, the gals who change careers mid life...it is inspiring. The travels into gaucho country, the clothes and jewelry in the spreads and advertisements - it's lovely to imagine. But it ends there. The only vacation my kids and I have ever taken was the Make a Wish Foundation trip to San Diego Sea World and Zoo after my youngest daughter was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.
And I could not/would not spend $1215 or even $398 on a purse as shown in the latest "What to Wear in your 40's." I could cloth myself and all three of my daughters from thrift stores and yard sales with that kind of money. And my girls look good.
My oldest is in community college on full financial aid and living at home. My two younger girls, age 16 and 10, are both disabled. My middle girl attends part time GED classes and my youngest is homeschooled. Her germ exposure must be limited as the SMA is affecting her lung function now. Her illness has the latest very P.C. label of "life limiting." I have to haggle my way through the DSHS hoops for every specialist and piece of equipment we need for her, including the new wheelchair I am fighting to get with our very limited state coverage.
So, when I say i know about REAL nitty gritty living and how to survive it, I know what I'm talking about. And it certainly isn't some warmed over 'Sex and the City' bullshit.
It isn't walking around on 3 + inch heels worth over $300 or wearing a clunky necklace for $1100...It's finding activities to do in town for free but not too crowded. It's menu planning and watching every dollar so the once-a-month state disability checks we live on stretch out through the four weeks. If not we're eating soup and homemade flat bread two meals a day and using Kleenex for toilet paper, and no using what's left of the gas to run to town for even a 99 cent movie rental. It's having no satellite t.v., no long distance phone service, no packaged plan cell phones, Iphones, smart phones, no personal Internet access, no ipads or Kindles. No lipstick over $6 - and that's a splurge!. No shoes over $20. (I don't even remember the last pair of new shoes I bought myself. I get all my shoes and most of my clothes second hand and from my former mother-in-law I still call 'mom.' Same goes for home furnishings, books, etc.)
The real world for my family may be alot different then your world but from what i see around me, there are a lot of us who could use guidance, encouragement, things we can relate to while trying to be our very best in the midst of very real, sometimes, dire circumstances.
Thank you for your time.
Dear Ms Seymour,
I was curious to read Ms Listfield's take on "handsome women". Why must we appropriate this term to describe women? The women portrayed are all simply beautiful, not to mention very accomplished. Angela Bassett is not handsome. She is simply stunning. Sorry, but the author has not convinced me to describe any woman as handsome. Beautiful includes unconventionally pretty and I like reserving "handsome" to describe men's looks. I don't see the point of this piece. Also, what's with the "revenge" theme? It was also on the Summer 2012 Canadian edition cover, "The Sweet Revenge of Madeleine Stowe".
I've been reading More since it hit the newsstands, a decade before I was part of its target audience. I agree with many of your readers who commented on your website about the March 2013 issue: More is getting fluffier and more out of touch with reality. I hope you've taken note of Ms Ford's comments. She is in touch with the nitty-gritty of life. That said, Connie Britton's "sex kitten" pictures didn't offend me in the least. Perhaps it's because I've just recently, at 46, started to revel in my sexy, playful side but I love seeing women my age portrayed as sex kittens. After losing my libido for many, many fertile years (and almost losing my marriage because of it), I am experiencing a sexual reawakening and for the first time in my life, am luxuriating in my feminine, seductive side.
Finally, HUGE thanks for Ginny Graves' "The Pills We Can't Kick". I needed that information.
Enjoyed the March issue but wondered what you thought happens at 70 years of age? Do we stop buying clothes? caring? trying to look our best? Not only sounds sad but also unlikely.
I noticed the blurb about writing our review of the current issue and thought to myself - hmm maybe I will. Then I decided to not spend my time trying to make everything around me "better" and just enjoy some time reading and then reading some more.
I was shocked and surprised to see how basically shallow this issue is and decided to stop reading and call it a day. Then I decided to let you know...
Yes, I do love the little quotes in the Notebook section even though they are not substantive but after that, where's the meat?
1.Cyndi Lauper article - Yey Cyndi! Going strong and interesting at 60 - but your article is just a tease and is basically a commercial for her reality show which you do tell us how to find but I broil that it is contrasted to the LGBT fund that you do NOT tell us how to contact. Why?
2.Stylebook - eh. We can all love Diane Keaton but that doesn't mean we should dress like her. And,Who is Carine Roitfeld?
3.Back to Stylebook page 44 - "Everyone and we mean everyone, should invest in a shapely chick leather jacket..." Sorry. Not everyone wants to wear a dead animal. In case you are not aware, there is a rise in vegetarians and vegans and not only for health reasons. Get with it!
4. She said, she said page 30 - insulting, stupid and humorless. I wonder how many it really does apply to because it certainly did not apply to my relationship with my mother or my cousins with her mother. I know my family is unusual but I don't think in this way. This sounds like something written by someone in their 20's.
In brief, I am guessing that your magazine is written by more 20 year olds than those in their 40's, 50's and up. I once worked at a magazine when I was in my 20's. The Editors were in their 30's and the readers were Teens. I think for a magazine geared toward older women, you might want to have more substance and classier humor. Perhaps more staff in the older age group.
P.S. my favorite section in your magazine is Second Act's. Should I dare to read this issue's?
I am a 61 year old psychologist who is a big fan of More Magazine. I usually keep a copy in my office waiting room because I think it sends the right message to my patients, that women can beautiful and fashion conscious at any age. However, I was disappointed when I read the " Yes, No, Maybe, Never Fashion Guide." I think the perspective that women have to stop wearing fun and funky stuff like ripped jeans is depressing...I don't plan on giving them up any time soon. Even Ralph Lauren has included them in his spring Denim Supply Company line. Just saying...