Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

'Desperate Housewives' Causes Another Breakup

By Sheelah Kolhatkar, New York Observer. Posted April 14, 2005.


The owners of Ms. magazine and its editor part ways; was 'Desperate Housewives' the final straw?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When the spring 2005 issue of Ms. magazine--the old feminist glossy that you almost forgot still existed--arrives on newsstands this week, readers might notice something a little odd. In the "Letter from the Editor" column, Ms. editor in chief Elaine Lafferty, 47, reveals that she's leaving the magazine after a two-year tenure. "In the last two years, I believe Ms. has been lively, provocative, thoughtful, and a fierce feminist example of advocacy journalism at its best," Ms. Lafferty writes in the letter. "I wish the magazine's owners all the best as they move forward with the kind of publication they envision."

The mildly worded letter only hints at the turmoil that lies beneath the surface. According to sources at the magazine with knowledge of the decision, Ms. Lafferty was asked to tender her resignation after months of tension between herself, and the magazine's owner and publisher, the nonprofit Arlington, Va.-based Feminist Majority Foundation. The official resignation on March 15 put an end to a dissonance between Ms. Lafferty and the foundation that went beyond differing perspectives on the editorial vision of Ms. magazine, and that reflected differing approaches to feminism itself. Many Ms. staffers seem baffled about the falling-out.

Ms. Lafferty declined to discuss her resignation from Ms., other than to say that "the matter has been resolved." Eleanor Smeal, 65, a leader in the women's-rights movement, former head of the National Organization for Women and current president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said simply: "She resigned and that's where it is. Change is constant and we know that, and we thought it had to happen at this stage, and we're now onto another stage."

Several staffers reported that Ms. Lafferty had suggested back in January that things might not work out for her at Ms. The Feminist Majority Foundation was unhappy with her stewardship of the magazine and felt that it was becoming too commercial, according to staffers. An emergency meeting was held in January between Ms. Smeal, founding editor Gloria Steinem, 71, global editor Robin Morgan, 54, Ms. Lafferty and others. According to people with knowledge of the meeting, Ms. Steinem and Ms. Morgan made a last-ditch effort to find a way for Ms. Lafferty to remain at Ms. But their efforts failed, and a legal agreement was signed outlining the terms of Ms. Lafferty's exit. (Ms. Lafferty was represented by the powerhouse feminist discrimination attorney Gloria Allred in the negotiation.)

Ms. Smeal wouldn't confirm that the meeting took place. "We meet a lot," she said, adding, "She gave us two good years, and they were critical years, and we're pleased with where the magazine is at."

When asked about the meeting, Ms. Morgan said: "I'm just not going to go there; I just don't think that's particularly productive. People tried with as much good will as possible on all sides to make this parting as civilized and decent as possible--and I think succeeded--for the good of the magazine and for the good of the women's movement. Particularly these days, with the assault from on high that we're seeing--everybody was in agreement that they wanted to handle things as gracefully as possible."

By many accounts, Ms. had been doing well after a long period of uncertainty. The magazine's recent--some might say startling--nomination for an American Society of Magazine Editors award, for Martha Mendoza's wrenching essay about abortion in the summer 2004 issue, edged Ms. closer to mainstream publications such as Esquire and The New Yorker. In the last few years, the magazine's debt load had "dramatically improved," website traffic was up, circulation had increased (currently estimated by the publishers at 110,000), and letters to the editor had been "smashingly good," according to Ms. Smeal. The magazine hosted a few high-profile events in the past year, including a mobbed reading with Gloria Steinem at the Union Square Barnes and Noble and another starlet-studded party in Los Angeles attended by the likes of Brittany Murphy and Kathy Najimy.

"I thought she was doing very well," said Ms. Steinem of Ms. Lafferty's editorship. "She's done a very good job of publishing important articles."

In a letter printed in Ms. Lafferty's final issue, the three "Editors Emeriti," Ms. Steinem, Ms. Morgan and Suzanne Braun Levine, a well-known feminist author, thanked Ms. Lafferty for producing "a fine feminist magazine over the past two years, with solid, lively journalism that has increased readership and financial stability."

Some readers were responding as well. "I am going to be a subscriber until I'm six feet under, because it's so important, but there were a number of years where I subscribed but didn't read it, because I didn't feel that it reflected me," said Valerie Salembier, the publisher of Harper's Bazaar. "But in the past couple of years, I have loved it again."

Decades after its founding in 1971 by Ms. Steinem, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and four other editors as the voice of the women's movement and the first national feminist publication, the magazine's readership began to seep away, especially in the '90s, when core feminist values such as abortion rights seemed secure under President Clinton and Ms. lost some of its urgency. Ms. Steinem, Marcia Gillespie, a former Ms. editor in chief, and a collection of other feminist activists kept the magazine alive, watching it juggled between publishers like a precious paperweight.

By the time the Feminist Majority Foundation bought the magazine in 2001, it was a tremendous relief--placing the magazine in friendly, not-for-profit hands represented its salvation. Ms. had a debt of over $2 million and a dwindling newsstand presence--and everyone involved knew that the death of Ms. would be a tremendous symbolic loss.

It was the first venture into publishing for the Feminist Majority Foundation, which had been focused on doing battle over issues such as Title IX, Afghan women and reproductive rights. They moved the Ms. editorial offices from New York to available office space in Los Angeles, installed an associate publisher and hired Tracy Wood, an investigative reporter from the Orange County Register, to edit the magazine. Ms. Wood lasted less than six months--and never produced an issue--before stepping down. Ms. Lafferty was recruited in 2003 after spending most of her career working as a reporter, at Time for 10 years and later as an Irish Times correspondent covering Kosovo, the Middle East and Afghanistan. When the Ms. gig came up, Ms. Lafferty was completing a book with Greta Van Susteren called My Turn at the Bully Pulpit: Straight Talk About the Things That Drive Me Nuts.

When she started as editor in chief of Ms. in March 2003, "there was no inventory, no staff--it was like a startup, and they needed a summer issue," said Ms. Lafferty. She assembled a masthead, with a handful of employees based in California and a poetry editor, fiction editor and designer scattered along the East Coast.

"My vision of Ms. was that it would be a thinking woman's magazine--a feminist magazine for sure, but my vision of feminism is a big tent," said Ms. Lafferty. "As the original Ms. was; they didn't check membership cards at the door. I don't believe in dogma, in exclusion or rhetoric. I thought it could be a magazine that invites women into the conversation about how we live today."

One of her ways of doing that was by drifting into territory that might be seen as sexier--or, to some, fluffier--and possibly beyond the realm of concern for traditional feminists, who remember the days before anti-discrimination laws and Roe v. Wade. One such example was a feature about the television show Desperate Housewives, which is on the cover of the current issue. The cover text: "Desperate Housewives: Do We Hate It or Secretly Love It?" appears in block letters on a pink background, as stark as a Bank of China billboard. Inside is a debate about whether the show objectifies women or empowers them.

According to Ms. Lafferty and other staffers at the magazine, lawyers for the Feminist Majority Foundation objected to the original cover that had been designed for the issue. It featured the apron-clad torso of a buxom woman with the words "Desperate Housewives" across her ample bosom and a triangle of black text between her legs. Just as the issue was going to press, the cover was pulled and exchanged for the plain one.

"In this case, our attorneys felt that it was too close to the ABC trademark," said Ms. Smeal. "The apron--we can't afford lawsuits like that. From the beginning I've said to everyone involved in this magazine, 'I'm willing to take any risk for freedom of speech and furthering the cause of feminism, but I'm willing to take no risk for something that has nothing to do with either.'"

Ms. Lafferty felt that the legal excuse was a front for concerns about the image being too provocative. She said she'd consulted other lawyers who felt there was no problem with trademark infringement, but that Ms. Smeal and Katherine Spillar, the executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, were firm.

To some feminists, Desperate Housewives and its frolicking sexpots might seem downright offensive, but Ms. Steinem, for one, said that the show is accomplishing some important things.

"It's showing that women can be sexual without penalty, as did Sex and the City, and it certainly should stop any flow of women from the paid labor force into the suburbs," said Ms. Steinem. "It's giving work to actresses over 40 who would probably not otherwise be considered sexual beings. Desperate Housewives is not important, [but] you start a conversation with Desperate Housewives because many people have seen it, and then the conversation can go deeper after that. It's a shared reference."

At first glance, the ASME-nominated abortion essay by Martha Mendoza--a journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for investigative reporting--seems like classic feminist material, but according to Ms. Lafferty, it was the source of another struggle between herself and the publishers. In "Between a Woman and Her Doctor," Ms. Mendoza recounts the agony she went through to obtain a late-term abortion after she found out, 19 weeks along, that the baby growing inside her had died.

However, according to Ms. Lafferty, Ms. Spillar objected to the language describing the "baby" and its body parts. From Ms. Lafferty's perspective, the piece transcended politics, but concerns about the political use of language in the abortion-rights controversy are a major preoccupation for feminists at the moment; for some feminists, using the word "baby" (instead of "fetus") in a story about abortion violates a cardinal rule. Ms. Spillar said that she "had no recollection of any conversation like that" and added that, in general, "publishers and editors go back and forth all the time."

In an earlier dispute, Jennifer Jackman, who worked with Ms. Smeal, raised objections to an illustration that accompanied a 2003 essay by Bruce Stockler, "The Roles of Attraction," about his experiences raising four kids while his wife went off to work. Ms. Jackman (who has since left the Feminist Majority Foundation and was unavailable for comment) felt that the doodle of the upside-down wife and right-side-up husband might imply domestic abuse, according to Ms. Lafferty. Ms. Smeal said she didn't recall the incident and that she intervened in the magazine's editorial content only very rarely. In the end, the drawing ran.

Ms. Lafferty said that she often felt confused about what the Feminist Majority Foundation wanted from the magazine.

"They did not suggest any particular demographic or vision, other than very political and very narrow in their definition of a feminist," said Ms. Lafferty. "It felt like it wasn't enough that you believed women needed equality, but that you had to sign on to a lot of causes." She said she was contemplating starting a new publication, a "current-affairs magazine aimed at women," and convened a meeting of potential editors and investors two weeks ago.

Ms. Smeal said that she felt Ms. was moving "in the right direction" and that despite Ms. Lafferty's departure, most of the editorial staff would remain for the time being. She said that they were open to an editor in chief with either journalism or magazine experience, but that they will "think outside the box, too."

"We're in a search [for an editor in chief], and we've decided not to hurry. This is a unique position, and it takes some thinking," said Ms. Smeal. "We feel like we're still in transition; we all feel like we're looking forward to the next thing. It's still a work in progress."

Ms. Smeal outlined goals that included continuing to grow the magazine's online presence, increasing the number of issues from four to six or more annually, launching more pieces of investigative journalism and raising the media visibility of Ms. editors and writers by having them appear on the radio or television. She cited The Weekly Standard and National Review as small publications that had succeeded this way.

Bia Lowe, Ms.'s poetry editor, said she's still waiting to hear if she'll be staying on. "It sort of seems like the publisher is resistant to success and expansion. There's a tone of accommodating loser versus a desire to win," said Ms. Lowe. "There really is a place for the kind of magazine they want and the kind of magazine Elaine wants, but they just don't happen to be the same."

In some corners, at least, Ms.'s role in the world remains obvious.

"What's important is that women have two jobs, one at home and one outside the home," said Ms. Steinem. "And we have to make sure that in the future, this is not the only country in the world with no child care, no health care, you know? That's important. There should be a women's satellite radio station, there should be a complete revolution in the media we see. We're in deep shit here."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Sonali Kolhatkar is Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a US-based non-profit that funds health, educational, and training projects for Afghan women. She is also the host and co-producer of Uprising, a daily morning radio program at KPFK, Pacifica in Los Angeles.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ms. Togetherness
Posted by: ridebalanced on Apr 14, 2005 2:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where Ms magazine is concerned, I will always be deeply concerned. An earlier time in my life was spent reading the first of five years cover to cover. It exited me to a shivering and as yet unknown realm. I did somehow free myself due to the advice of works of words and experience imparted. It's lasted 35 years and I've not felt discriminated against because I'm a she.
Can we be impartial to the message of equal rights in any arena of our daily lives, despite our proclivity to exclusive heterosexualism? Our feminists would have us believe so sometimes. So has the underlying theme of the Ms magazine I had come to know in the last 15 years. I remain a firm believer in the right of all women to experience equal rights.
Does it matter whether we of the strong point of view are lesbian or married? Whether we bitch-fight enough to call an ending of an economic/business type of the marriage or bonding type of relationship? Let's all grow up and quit flinging blame at each other.
As an old fan and advice taker, talk to all of us of the female variety. My tough as nails 20 year old daughter could have used some of the lessons I gained by reading this publication years back. Keep that up in a modern frame without angering those of us who love only men for sex.... or women for sex, and you'll be back on track. Again?
We women can work well together. So can Ms Magazine. The point being; can the magazine be saved now after all of this non important BS of who says what, and who controls what, and an important someone resigned...and an ex-important someone(s) have returned? Do it, and prove it. For us the women who might still pay for the paper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

elciel
Posted by: elciel on Apr 14, 2005 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Alternet, have just read the "desperate housewives" article and the following Ms Togetherness comment.
What on earth is this all about? I keep getting lightning flashes of feminist fascism with a cloud of unknowing over the first, and found by contrast a little more warmth and a plea for reasonableness in the second. Perhaps my trouble is that I have never watched "desp. h'wives". Still, why the furore?

Puzzled Male

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comment from a Charter Subscriber of "MS."
Posted by: bookwoman on Apr 14, 2005 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in 1971, I was a charter subscriber to "MS". I waited for each issue and read it through as it guided us women into the new unchartered world of 1970s women's rights. However, as the years passed the magazine changed and was led into advocacy areas which didn't speak for me; I let my subscription lapse. Over the years, I have picked up and read a copy of the magazine occasionally. However, it still did not reflect me or my way of life any longer.

Finally, I read an issue recently, and it drew my interest as it seemed to have turned into a magazine I could, once again, support. Perhaps, one of the problems of the dicotomy between philosophies at work here is that women's rights has become mainstream. Women, who weren't even born in 1971, have grown up and now take some of the things we fought for back in the good old days for granted. Sometimes, I worry that they take too many of these things for granted and will lose them as a result; however, that is a subject for another day. These women don't need to go without make-up, and they buy lingerie from Victoria's Secret because they can afford it, and they don't need to ignore that side of their life because someone will not think them "serious" enough. Perhaps, along with our advanced and professional degrees, we have allowed ourselves to become "sexier and fluffier".

Also, as so many women, who have now graduated from MBA Programs, will tell you, you really do need advertising income to keep a magazine going. But, that's all right as long as we know what ads are for and that it is all right to resist them and not blindly follow their lead, if we wish.

As for "Desperate Housewives", I watched half of one program and decided it was "Dallas" on steroids. However, many of my very intelligent, liberated friends watch it every week and discuss it among themselves.

I think the message about the program, the ads and the editorial bent of "MS" is that women are more enlightened, better educated and self knowledgeable than they were in 1971. We have been allowed to think - let us do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missed opportunity
Posted by: kitchendancer on Apr 14, 2005 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The controversy at Ms. magazine is an exact reflection of what's going on among women, and in our own minds. If only we could acknowledge it and allow it to play out more publicly, we could make progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good move Ms
Posted by: lamar on Apr 14, 2005 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Desperate Housewives" is about weak women using their fleeting sexuality as a source of power. Hooray, I'm glad that women feel empowered to be sexual objects well into their 40's. What about being professors or business owners? I'm a guy and was born in the 1970's, so I don't understand a lot of the battles that women faced. But if you keep fighting those battles, you're going to lose the new battles. This obsession with middle aged vanity is a poor vanguard for the feminist movement. Girls need to be strong enough to take what they want, not buxom enough to sucker a man into getting it for her. MS needs to move feminism forward, not wallow in the victories of yesterdecade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But old habits die hard
Posted by: Beaner on Apr 14, 2005 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my big question is, why are the ages of the women involved mentioned? Oh, and why is a supposedly enlightened media source perpetuating soap opera and scandal. This is article seems geared toward creating a 'big controversy' by dropping "Desperate Housewives" and Gloria Stienem. I'm all for bringing up the feminist perspective debate - but this just seems to use the tools of pop media to create buzz about some "feminist rift." That must some how have to do with age because otherwise it would not have been worth mentioning.

On the DH note - does anyone else find it a little screwey that we spend our first 30 years trying to NOT be viewed as 'sex objects' then the next 30 trying to maintain that we're still 'sex objects?' Pretty silly stuff really when you consider that we still don't have things like paid maternity leave and well funded schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am relieved
Posted by: Smdsac on Apr 14, 2005 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fluffiness that seemed to creep into MS insidiously truly bothered me. I hate to see the trend toward movie stars as a draw for anything that posits itself as a thinking magazine - you know it's going to go downhill. I have raised three daughters. Not only do they take what they have for granted, they seem to quite roundly reject feminism, having been shaped by the perverted electronic wallpaper of our culture which has worsened in the last four years. What is enculturating girls and young women is indeed the Desperate Housewives and the Sex and City of the media and advertising. This may seem to be "liberating" for women in their 30s and 40s, but it is crippling to girls. Your use of your body and sex, how you look, how long you can prolong looking "good" is what counts. Frankly, this is what MS should be speaking to. Sex and the City et al is great - until it's marketed to kids - like the disturbing trend of marketing thongs to middle schoolers. Feminists have been concerned both about equality for women - and true protection of girls. The culture is now about the pedophiliazation of girls - and it is quite inescapable and serious. I beg to differ from whomever speaks of the women with graduate degrees buying Victoria's Secret underwear; we need to be talking about children buying this stuff - and thinking that they're empowered. Or women who don't have money who think they must buy it to have power. So....lest you think I've lost my thread or mind, I'm going somewhere with this. The "fluffier" MS got, the more icky uncomfortable I got. Get fluff from Glamour that thinks it's Cosmo - or somewhere else, but I have relied for 25 years on MS as a thinking feminist women's magazine that addresses our culture and women's rights and growing young women in connection thereto. And if ever there was a time to get serious about this, it's now. So yes, I am relieved, and I do hope that the magazine goes back a step.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am relieved Posted by: tiffanybbrown
» RE: I am relieved Posted by: sionrel
» RE: I am relieved Posted by: timmreck
Have any of you actually *watched* DH?
Posted by: sionrel on Apr 15, 2005 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear a lot of flack about Desperate Housewives, almost all of it from people who have never actually watched the show. It is NOT all about sex in the suburbs. One character is the sexual one; the rest are just women juggling pretty regular issues, with the occasional soap opera-esque plot thrown in for drama or humour. I am in my 40's, and the reason my friends and I (some of whom are male) watch it is because it's witty and fun. It pokes fun at the very genre it has been written off as being a part of. The characters are all very smart (but make dumb mistakes, like the rest of us), everyone in it is a good actor, the writing is solid, it actually handles serious issues women in their 30s and 40s face (parenting, cheating husbands, divorce and dating again, to name a few), and it's damned funny. I watched the first episode out of absolute boredom, thinking it was going to be just another Knot's Landing. I was pleasantly surpised...and hooked. It is one of only about 5 hours of television I watch each week, and frankly, it's a relief to sit down and watch an hour of television with strong women who call the shots, in a show that is geared toward ME, and not men or 20-somethings. I would suggest watching it with an open mind to find out what all the "fuss" is about, but I don't think anyone who has already written it off as dreck (or any of the labels ascribed to it here) will bother to do that, sadly. It's not everyone's cup of tea, no, but it's not the pariah people make it out to be, either. By a longshot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who actually wrote this piece?
Posted by: peacecasts on Apr 16, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The byline is Sheelah Kolhatkar, but the author description is about Sonali Kolhatkar. If Sonali, a wellknown alternative radio host, is masquerading as Sheelah, you blew her cover.

As for the content, I was glad to see that none of the principals would trash the others publicly even if they had a disagreement and split up. The main problem the feminist movement has had in recent years (aside from the perpetual problems: being declared "dead" by mainstream media, and having to fight global patriarchy) is people getting snitty and refusing to cooperate on the issues we do agree on, just because there are some issues that we don't. Feminism is a majority movement, taken as a whole, and thanks to Feminist Majority for reminding us of that fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement