?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Please put on your imagination caps. You have been granted the position of editor for a new feminist magazine. Your budget is not a problem, allowing you to be picky about writers and advertising. What would this magazine look like? Who would be your target audience and why? What types of articles would you have and who would write for them? What would be featured on the cover? To follow up on the question from last week, if popular culture figures such as Christina and Britney (or pink, jessica simpson, avril l. and so on) wanted to be on the cover, what would you cite as your standards and would they be featured?


I would create a magazine for which the theme was making invisible women visible. It would be the anti-People. I would feature a seemingly random selection of women talking about their everyday lives, what is important to them, what motivates them, what they get paid to do. I would hire a staff of journalists who are both educated classically and educated informally. The theme would be something like, "we're all boring and ordinary, and that is why we are all important". There would be at least one picture of each woman accompanying her interview/feature, showing that woman as she wishes to be seen.

Stylistically, well, that's not really my forte... covers might be a collage of images of the women detailed inside... or perhaps each issue would have a theme that the profiled women would talk about, and the cover would reflect that directly or abstractly. There would be no celebrities, unless the women featured chose to mention them, but there would never be a picture of someone "famous" within the pages, and the object would not be to make anyone famous. I would hope to focus on women who you typically do not see in the public eye; there are plenty of outlets for the popular culture. I want to feature the people on the other end of the spectrum.

This magazine would never get published. Although in a way it already is, here in blogs.
... for WHB ...

Tags:

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
kitty_pitchfork
Mar. 31st, 2004 12:20 pm (UTC)
That, my friend, sounds awesome. :)
marstokyo
Mar. 31st, 2004 01:00 pm (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.
snidegrrl
Apr. 1st, 2004 08:44 am (UTC)
To you, me, and approximately 2 other people... despite the fact that everyone is ordinary, and seems to want a voice. But instead they spend their money and time on people who are hyper-real, or "extraordinary".
tomorrow_devil
Mar. 31st, 2004 02:47 pm (UTC)
My feminist magazine would focus on the connections that supplement and invigorate feminism. I would want to accept a wide-range of contirbutors, and a wide-range of feminist ideals. If Britney wanted to be on the cover, well, sure she could, so long as she earnestly considered herself a feminist and had something to say. Her handlers might have something to say, too; and pop analysts; and industry leaders; and media scholars; and so on. I think that themed issues would be best - so maybe pop feminism would be the topic for Britney's issue, and we'd include counterpoints. To reject sympathetic viewpoints is to weaken the positive effects of a movement.
snidegrrl
Apr. 1st, 2004 08:40 am (UTC)
The reason I would be rejecting sympathetic viewpoints is simply that you can't fill your hypothetical magazine with everyone who wants to be in it; the reasoning behind specifically rejecting mainstream celebrities and highly visible women from popular culture is because they already have outlets. There is already enough visibility for those people. I want to hear about the invisible. That's my explanation. That's also why I tend not to patronize vehicles for that kind of voice; without even trying, I will already hear it enough.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )