{"title":"不仅仅是杂志:女士,时髦,和五十年的女权主义","authors":"Maggie Doherty","doi":"10.1353/tyr.2023.a908684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than MagazinesMs., Sassy, and fifty years of feminism Maggie Doherty (bio) Nearly all resolutions start with a meeting. When a group of female journalists gathered at Gloria Steinem's uptown Manhattan apartment in the winter of 1971, they were facing a common problem: none of them could get \"real stories about women published.\" The male editors of the major women's magazines—called the \"seven sisters,\" like the colleges—would not accept pitches that did anything other than advise readers to be better, happier, more productive housewives and mothers. General-interest publications, also edited by men, were no better: according to Steinem, her editor at The New York Times Sunday Magazine rejected all her pitches for political stories, saying \"something like, [End Page 158] 'I don't think of you that way.'\" Fed up and fired up, the journalists decided to start their own publication. But what kind of publication would they create, and for what kind of reader? Steinem proposed a newsletter, the kind of low-budget, low-circulation flyer that many feminist groups in New York City favored. But the lawyer and activist Brenda Feigen suggested something different: \"We should do a slick magazine,\" something colorful and glossy that could be sold on newsstands nationwide. Not everyone was keen on the idea. As Vivian Gornick recalled forty years later, \"Radical feminists like me, Ellen Willis, and Jill Johnston...had a different kind of magazine in mind,\" one that might argue against the institutions of marriage and motherhood. When it became clear that Steinem and others \"wanted a glossy that would appeal to the women who read the Ladies' Home Journal,\" Gornick and her radical sisters bowed out. But others hoped that a glossy magazine might strengthen the feminist movement. Letty Cottin Pogrebin thought a slick magazine could be \"a stealth strategy to 'normalize' or 'mainstream' our message.\" As a riposte to The New York Times, which until 1986 refused to refer to a woman by anything other than \"Mrs.\" or \"Miss,\" they decided to call their magazine Ms. The project was ambitious, quixotic, and, historically speaking, unusual. If the newsletter was the preferred form for revolutionary feminist publishing in the late 1960s, the glossy magazine was the form of the prevailing social order. While the radical feminist group Redstockings distributed newsletters and working papers—\"mimeographed thunderbolts,\" they called them—at its consciousnessraising meetings, Ladies' Home Journal was publishing a regular advice column—\"Can This Marriage Be Saved?\"—in which male editors advised unhappy women, some of whom were stuck in abusive relationships, on how to be better wives. (On March 18, 1970, more than a hundred women staged an eleven-hour sit-in at the Ladies' Home Journal offices, protesting the advice column, the \"exploitative\" advertisements, the magazine's all-male editorial team, and the lack of childcare for female staffers.) Newsletters [End Page 159] could be made quickly and cheaply and distributed easily; a glossy magazine, by contrast, required infrastructure, employees, and a big budget. More experienced magazine editors warned Steinem and her collaborators against publishing articles about race or lesbianism, suggesting that these \"controversial\" topics would make it difficult for the magazine to court advertisers and newsstand distributors—both of which were needed to reach a broad audience. Steinem and her co-founding editors —a group that included Pogrebin, Margaret Sloan-Hunter, and Mary Thom, among others—decided to forge ahead. Ms. launched as a forty-page insert in New York's December 20, 1971 issue. Its cover image featured a many-armed blue Everywoman—visually inspired by the Hindu goddess Kali—holding an iron, a frying pan, and other household objects. The accompanying article, \"The Housewife's Moment of Truth,\" detailed a series of infuriating domestic incidents (e.g., a man stepping over toys rather than picking them up) and helped popularize the feminist term \"the click of recognition.\" When Ms. published its first standalone issue in Spring 1972, it included Johnnie Tillmon's essay \"Welfare Is a Woman's Issue\"; a piece on lesbian love, \"Can Women Love Women?\"; and an open letter signed by fifty-three well-known women who had undergone abortions. (Some of these women, including Nora Ephron...","PeriodicalId":43039,"journal":{"name":"YALE REVIEW","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More than Magazines: Ms., Sassy , and fifty years of feminism\",\"authors\":\"Maggie Doherty\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/tyr.2023.a908684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More than MagazinesMs., Sassy, and fifty years of feminism Maggie Doherty (bio) Nearly all resolutions start with a meeting. When a group of female journalists gathered at Gloria Steinem's uptown Manhattan apartment in the winter of 1971, they were facing a common problem: none of them could get \\\"real stories about women published.\\\" The male editors of the major women's magazines—called the \\\"seven sisters,\\\" like the colleges—would not accept pitches that did anything other than advise readers to be better, happier, more productive housewives and mothers. General-interest publications, also edited by men, were no better: according to Steinem, her editor at The New York Times Sunday Magazine rejected all her pitches for political stories, saying \\\"something like, [End Page 158] 'I don't think of you that way.'\\\" Fed up and fired up, the journalists decided to start their own publication. But what kind of publication would they create, and for what kind of reader? Steinem proposed a newsletter, the kind of low-budget, low-circulation flyer that many feminist groups in New York City favored. But the lawyer and activist Brenda Feigen suggested something different: \\\"We should do a slick magazine,\\\" something colorful and glossy that could be sold on newsstands nationwide. Not everyone was keen on the idea. As Vivian Gornick recalled forty years later, \\\"Radical feminists like me, Ellen Willis, and Jill Johnston...had a different kind of magazine in mind,\\\" one that might argue against the institutions of marriage and motherhood. When it became clear that Steinem and others \\\"wanted a glossy that would appeal to the women who read the Ladies' Home Journal,\\\" Gornick and her radical sisters bowed out. But others hoped that a glossy magazine might strengthen the feminist movement. Letty Cottin Pogrebin thought a slick magazine could be \\\"a stealth strategy to 'normalize' or 'mainstream' our message.\\\" As a riposte to The New York Times, which until 1986 refused to refer to a woman by anything other than \\\"Mrs.\\\" or \\\"Miss,\\\" they decided to call their magazine Ms. The project was ambitious, quixotic, and, historically speaking, unusual. If the newsletter was the preferred form for revolutionary feminist publishing in the late 1960s, the glossy magazine was the form of the prevailing social order. While the radical feminist group Redstockings distributed newsletters and working papers—\\\"mimeographed thunderbolts,\\\" they called them—at its consciousnessraising meetings, Ladies' Home Journal was publishing a regular advice column—\\\"Can This Marriage Be Saved?\\\"—in which male editors advised unhappy women, some of whom were stuck in abusive relationships, on how to be better wives. (On March 18, 1970, more than a hundred women staged an eleven-hour sit-in at the Ladies' Home Journal offices, protesting the advice column, the \\\"exploitative\\\" advertisements, the magazine's all-male editorial team, and the lack of childcare for female staffers.) Newsletters [End Page 159] could be made quickly and cheaply and distributed easily; a glossy magazine, by contrast, required infrastructure, employees, and a big budget. More experienced magazine editors warned Steinem and her collaborators against publishing articles about race or lesbianism, suggesting that these \\\"controversial\\\" topics would make it difficult for the magazine to court advertisers and newsstand distributors—both of which were needed to reach a broad audience. Steinem and her co-founding editors —a group that included Pogrebin, Margaret Sloan-Hunter, and Mary Thom, among others—decided to forge ahead. Ms. launched as a forty-page insert in New York's December 20, 1971 issue. Its cover image featured a many-armed blue Everywoman—visually inspired by the Hindu goddess Kali—holding an iron, a frying pan, and other household objects. The accompanying article, \\\"The Housewife's Moment of Truth,\\\" detailed a series of infuriating domestic incidents (e.g., a man stepping over toys rather than picking them up) and helped popularize the feminist term \\\"the click of recognition.\\\" When Ms. published its first standalone issue in Spring 1972, it included Johnnie Tillmon's essay \\\"Welfare Is a Woman's Issue\\\"; a piece on lesbian love, \\\"Can Women Love Women?\\\"; and an open letter signed by fifty-three well-known women who had undergone abortions. (Some of these women, including Nora Ephron...\",\"PeriodicalId\":43039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"YALE REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"YALE REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/tyr.2023.a908684\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY REVIEWS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"YALE REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tyr.2023.a908684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY REVIEWS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
不仅仅是杂志。玛吉·多尔蒂(传记)几乎所有的新年决心都是从一次会议开始的。1971年冬天,当一群女记者聚集在格洛丽亚·斯泰纳姆(Gloria Steinem)位于曼哈顿上城区的公寓里时,她们面临着一个共同的问题:没有一个人能“发表关于女性的真实故事”。主要女性杂志的男性编辑——和大学一样被称为“七姐妹”——除了建议读者成为更好、更快乐、更有成效的家庭主妇和母亲之外,不会接受任何其他的宣传。同样由男性编辑的大众出版物也好不到哪里去:据斯泰纳姆说,她在《纽约时报周日杂志》(The New York Times Sunday Magazine)的编辑拒绝了她所有关于政治故事的提议,说“类似这样的话,‘我不这么看你。’”这些记者受够了,也被激怒了,他们决定创办自己的刊物。但是他们会为什么样的读者创造什么样的出版物呢?斯泰纳姆提议制作一份时事通讯,这种低成本、低发行量的传单受到纽约市许多女权主义团体的青睐。但律师兼活动家布伦达·费根(Brenda Feigen)提出了不同的建议:“我们应该做一本光鲜亮丽的杂志”,那种色彩丰富、光鲜亮丽的杂志,可以在全国各地的报摊上出售。并不是每个人都喜欢这个想法。正如维维安·戈尔尼克四十年后回忆的那样,“像我、艾伦·威利斯和吉尔·约翰斯顿这样的激进女权主义者……心中有一本不同的杂志,“一本可能会反对婚姻和母性制度的杂志。”当斯泰纳姆和其他人“想要一种能够吸引阅读《妇女家庭杂志》的女性的杂志”变得很明显时,戈尔尼克和她的激进姐妹们退出了。但也有人希望一本光鲜亮丽的杂志能加强女权运动。莱蒂·科廷·波格里宾认为,一本精美的杂志可能是“一种使我们的信息‘正常化’或‘主流化’的秘密策略”。《纽约时报》直到1986年都拒绝用“夫人”或“小姐”以外的称呼称呼女性,作为对《纽约时报》的反击,他们决定把自己的杂志命名为“女士”。这个项目雄心勃勃,不切实际,从历史上讲,也很不寻常。如果说时事通讯是20世纪60年代末革命女权主义出版的首选形式,那么光鲜亮丽的杂志就是主流社会秩序的形式。激进的女权主义组织红袜会在其提高意识的会议上分发时事通讯和工作文件——她们称之为“油印的雷电”,而《妇女家庭杂志》则定期发布建议专栏——“这段婚姻还能挽救吗?”——男性编辑建议不快乐的女性如何成为更好的妻子,其中一些人陷入了虐待关系。(1970年3月18日,100多名女性在《妇女家庭杂志》的办公室静坐了11个小时,抗议该杂志的建议专栏、“剥削性”广告、该杂志的编辑团队全是男性,以及女性员工缺乏托儿服务。)通讯可以快速、廉价地制作,并且易于分发;相比之下,一本光鲜亮丽的杂志则需要基础设施、员工和大笔预算。更有经验的杂志编辑警告斯泰纳姆和她的合作者不要发表关于种族或女同性恋的文章,暗示这些“有争议的”话题会使杂志难以吸引广告商和报摊分销商,而这两者都是获得广泛受众所必需的。斯泰纳姆和她的共同创始编辑——包括波格里宾、玛格丽特·斯隆-亨特和玛丽·托姆等人——决定继续前进。1971年12月20日,《纽约》杂志刊登了一篇40页的插页文章。它的封面形象是一个多手的蓝色普通女人——视觉灵感来自印度女神卡莉——拿着熨斗、煎锅和其他家用物品。随后的文章《家庭主妇的真相时刻》详细描述了一系列令人愤怒的家庭事件(例如,一个男人踩在玩具上而不是把它们捡起来),并帮助普及了女权主义术语“认可的点击”。1972年春,《女士》杂志出版了第一期独立杂志,其中包括约翰尼·蒂尔蒙(Johnnie Tillmon)的文章《福利是女性的问题》(Welfare Is a Woman’s issue);一篇关于女同性恋爱情的文章《女人能爱女人吗?》还有一封由53位知名堕胎妇女签署的公开信。(其中一些女性,包括诺拉·埃夫隆……
More than Magazines: Ms., Sassy , and fifty years of feminism
More than MagazinesMs., Sassy, and fifty years of feminism Maggie Doherty (bio) Nearly all resolutions start with a meeting. When a group of female journalists gathered at Gloria Steinem's uptown Manhattan apartment in the winter of 1971, they were facing a common problem: none of them could get "real stories about women published." The male editors of the major women's magazines—called the "seven sisters," like the colleges—would not accept pitches that did anything other than advise readers to be better, happier, more productive housewives and mothers. General-interest publications, also edited by men, were no better: according to Steinem, her editor at The New York Times Sunday Magazine rejected all her pitches for political stories, saying "something like, [End Page 158] 'I don't think of you that way.'" Fed up and fired up, the journalists decided to start their own publication. But what kind of publication would they create, and for what kind of reader? Steinem proposed a newsletter, the kind of low-budget, low-circulation flyer that many feminist groups in New York City favored. But the lawyer and activist Brenda Feigen suggested something different: "We should do a slick magazine," something colorful and glossy that could be sold on newsstands nationwide. Not everyone was keen on the idea. As Vivian Gornick recalled forty years later, "Radical feminists like me, Ellen Willis, and Jill Johnston...had a different kind of magazine in mind," one that might argue against the institutions of marriage and motherhood. When it became clear that Steinem and others "wanted a glossy that would appeal to the women who read the Ladies' Home Journal," Gornick and her radical sisters bowed out. But others hoped that a glossy magazine might strengthen the feminist movement. Letty Cottin Pogrebin thought a slick magazine could be "a stealth strategy to 'normalize' or 'mainstream' our message." As a riposte to The New York Times, which until 1986 refused to refer to a woman by anything other than "Mrs." or "Miss," they decided to call their magazine Ms. The project was ambitious, quixotic, and, historically speaking, unusual. If the newsletter was the preferred form for revolutionary feminist publishing in the late 1960s, the glossy magazine was the form of the prevailing social order. While the radical feminist group Redstockings distributed newsletters and working papers—"mimeographed thunderbolts," they called them—at its consciousnessraising meetings, Ladies' Home Journal was publishing a regular advice column—"Can This Marriage Be Saved?"—in which male editors advised unhappy women, some of whom were stuck in abusive relationships, on how to be better wives. (On March 18, 1970, more than a hundred women staged an eleven-hour sit-in at the Ladies' Home Journal offices, protesting the advice column, the "exploitative" advertisements, the magazine's all-male editorial team, and the lack of childcare for female staffers.) Newsletters [End Page 159] could be made quickly and cheaply and distributed easily; a glossy magazine, by contrast, required infrastructure, employees, and a big budget. More experienced magazine editors warned Steinem and her collaborators against publishing articles about race or lesbianism, suggesting that these "controversial" topics would make it difficult for the magazine to court advertisers and newsstand distributors—both of which were needed to reach a broad audience. Steinem and her co-founding editors —a group that included Pogrebin, Margaret Sloan-Hunter, and Mary Thom, among others—decided to forge ahead. Ms. launched as a forty-page insert in New York's December 20, 1971 issue. Its cover image featured a many-armed blue Everywoman—visually inspired by the Hindu goddess Kali—holding an iron, a frying pan, and other household objects. The accompanying article, "The Housewife's Moment of Truth," detailed a series of infuriating domestic incidents (e.g., a man stepping over toys rather than picking them up) and helped popularize the feminist term "the click of recognition." When Ms. published its first standalone issue in Spring 1972, it included Johnnie Tillmon's essay "Welfare Is a Woman's Issue"; a piece on lesbian love, "Can Women Love Women?"; and an open letter signed by fifty-three well-known women who had undergone abortions. (Some of these women, including Nora Ephron...