The marketability of tough stories in leisure magazines has been bubbling up for quite some time. Feminist Majority Foundation president Eleanor Smeal recalls sitting next to Glamour's breakthrough editor Ruth Whitney at an ERA luncheon in 1980, where she asked Whitney why she was starting to see more serious journalism in the magazine. "I asked if it was altruism, and she said, 'No! It's because of our readers that we have to do this,'" says Smeal. "She said essentially that as women get more power, they demand different things; they demand this. 'The handwriting is on the wall,' she said." When Glenda Bailey, who edited Marie Claire in England, brought the French-born magazine to the States, she was determined to find success in its tradition of covering international women's rights stories each month. And in doing so, the magazine's publishers at Hearst learned that it certainly wasn't just altruism but a market-developing identity.

But Marie Claire is hardly trying to pitch feminism as part of its image. The word "feminism" will never make the cover, nor the inner depths of the magazine, according to the current editor, Lesley Jane Seymour. Seymour describes herself as a feminist, but says that the word has become too isolating. The folks at Lifetime toe the same line. In fact, they won't even agree that their advocacy campaigns are political. "We want to be inclusive, not exclusive," says Rick Haskins, who holds the Orwellian title of executive vice president of the Lifetime Brand. "We're not out there to be radical. We want to be a friend and confidante." And it's clear that no matter what the messages might be in their ads, they won't fall under the heading of "feminism" at the network. "Quite simply, we want to reflect the best of women," says Debby Beece, the president of programming for Oxygen. "I don't think women think of themselves as feminists."

Of course, women who do--proudly--think of themselves as feminists take issue with Beece's estimation. And some, like Andrea Dworkin, object as well to the notion that concepts of feminism--no matter what you call it--can be used to sell television programming. "I don't think that feminism has anything to do with marketing anything other than ideas. And when I say ideas, I mean like the ideas of Nietzsche, real ideas," she says. Dworkin also represents a sliver of women who object to the fashion and beauty coverage that forms the bulk of women's magazines, whether those titles run activist-oriented stories or not. "Progressive content is fine," she says, "but I don't see the same concern for men--that they're worried about their eyebrows being too thick or the jowls under their chin."

But many women, from lipstick-and-lycra-shunning old-school activist types to fashion-forward Third Wavers, think the coexistence of beauty coverage and political coverage reflects the interests of real women. Says Equality Now's Neuwirth of what she calls "an apparent schizophrenia," "this is the conflict I think people have in our lives. It's not artificial." And this duality is beside the point, says Tamara Sobel, who heads up the Girls, Women + Media Project. "We don't help out the situation at all when we think about the debate in terms of talking about showing-your-navel-is-bad versus not-shaving-your-legs-is-good. Most women--most feminists--don't fit squarely into either of those camps. We're complex, and media reflect it."

Perhaps the biggest problem is that while coverage of serious issues in mainstream media may expose women to subject matter they would not have otherwise encountered, the stories usually fit squarely in the women's media formula: largely sensational profiles of women who are under sexual duress (stories targeted to the 18-24 magazine market) or familial duress (stories targeted to Lifetime's audience of mothers). These outlets are not a proving ground for ideas, but for shocking narratives. No surprise here: Seymour at Marie Claire has the résumé of a beauty editor, not a news one, and while her recent appointment at the top of the masthead has led her to chair Equality Now's recent anniversary celebration, it's certainly a new partnership. You know Seymour doesn't have revolution on her mind when you listen to her explain why it's truly radical that Sandra Bullock is wearing a beaded gown on the cover of one issue, rather than a monochromatic dress that matched the magazine's turquoise backdrop.

Still, there's much to be said for meeting people where they are, and guiding them firmly past that point. Since women's magazines and television have generated the expectation of sensational, emotional language and narrative, one could argue that they are effective because they squeeze issues into this formula. Women who haven't considered, say, breast cancer legislation or female genital mutilation may respond to that familiar, just-girls tone. And so women who might never dream of marching or chanting find themselves calling and e-mailing organizations and websites listed next to these stories, engaging in letter-writing campaigns, starting up petitions, organizing teach-ins and beginning to look for other sources of women's news.

The hunger for this information raises the question of why more serious magazines for women have failed in the mainstream--norm-testing publications like Mirabella and Sassy, or the recent struggles of Bust to stay afloat. Perhaps the answer comes back to this question of marketing, the dichotomy of pitching resistance versus providing it. Perhaps these failed publications dug their own grave by communicating the concept that they catered to the Smart Set, not the Girls-Just-Wanna-Have-Fun mainstream. Perhaps, chillingly, magazines and networks are getting it right when they contort themselves to avoid the language of feminism. Perhaps this critical mass of educated women isn't interested in significant content in their media, but merely a shake of educated-identity-enhancing wheat germ on their Frosted Flakes.

But widen the lens, and there's great potential for great news. In the first and second waves of the women's movement, it was activism first, not media saturation, that led women to embrace feminism. If mainstream media outlets can expand the current wave by introducing their legions of millions of readers and viewers to activism, the mainstream circulation of ideas--"like the ideas of Nietzsche, real ideas"--may very well follow.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.