Yours in Sisterhood: Ms. Magazine and the Promise of Popular Feminism

by Amy Erdman Farrell

In the winter of 1972, the first issue of Ms. magazine hit the newsstands. For some activists in the women's movement, the birth of this new publication heralded feminism's coming of age; for others, it signaled the capitulation of the women's movement to crass commercialism. But whatever its critical reception, Ms. quickly gained national success, selling out its first issue in only eight days and becoming a popular icon of the women's movement almost immediately. Amy Erdman Farrell traces the history of Ms. from its pathbreaking origins in 1972 to its final commercial issue in 1989. Drawing on interviews with former editors, archival materials, and the text of Ms. itself, she examines the magazine's efforts to forge an oppositional politics within the context of commercial culture. While its status as a feminist and mass media magazine gave Ms. the power to move in circles unavailable to smaller, more radical feminist periodicals, it also created competing and conflicting pressures, says Farrell. She examines the complicated decisions made by the Ms. staff as they negotiated the multiple--frequently incompatible--demands of advertisers, readers, and the various and changing constituencies of the feminist movement. An engrossing and objective account, Yours in Sisterhood illuminates the significant yet difficult connections between commercial culture and social movements. It reveals a complex, often contradictory magazine that was a major force in the contemporary feminist movement.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction

248 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN INFORMATIVE AND OBJECTIVE HISTORY OF THE FIRST ‘FEMINIST MAGAZINE’

Amy Erdman Farrell is a professor of American Studies and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Dickinson College.

She wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “The first commercial magazine in the United States to unambiguously claim a feminist perspective, Ms. promised to be an ‘open forum; a place where women of many different backgrounds can find help and information to improve their lives.’ With… an estimated readership of 3 million, Ms. magazine clearly worked as the popular, commercial expression of feminism in the United States… This book explores the history of Ms. magazine, from its origins in 1971 to its final commercial issue in 1989… It is a story of dedicated editors and writers, of courageous staff members who worked to convince large and small corporations to believe in a new kind of magazine… On a larger level, the story of Ms. is the story of the mainstreaming of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s, as the issues facing this magazine mirrored the dilemmas and advances encountered by so many feminist organizations in these decades. Moreover, the history of Ms. is about the creation of popular feminism itself, the experimental and daring attempt by a number of women’s movement activists to engage a mass audience using the commercial media as their vehicle.” (Pg. 1-2)

She summarizes, “The story of Ms. Magazine … [in] this study differs sharply from both the dismissive essays written by media critics and … the celebratory tone of Ms.’s histories of itself… I have refused to characterize the Ms. experiment as solely reformist… or revolutionary… the choice by the Ms. founders to create a feminist mass media periodical… was a bold experiment, one that created layers of contradictions and compromise. Its history teaches us about the gains and losses inherent in creating a popular feminism.” (Pg. 14)

She reports, “In 1970 and 1971, Gloria Steinem began to talk to writers and activists … about her desire to start a woman’s movement newsletter… Steinem quickly connected with the two women---Elizabeth Forsling Harris and Patricia Carbine---who were to become her partners …[and] to pursue the dream of a mass-distributed feminist magazine for women… they knew that a magazine drawing on the extensive financial resources of advertisers could actually make money for the movement… [Carbine] considered a magazine to be an ‘extraordinary medium’ … because it was portable, easy to read, and visually pleasing… It was a daring move… considering the history of women’s magazines which were clearly designed … as magazines for consumers, not for politically minded women wanting to change the world.” (Pg. 27-28)

She recounts, “they chose offices in midtown Manhattan, where all the major publishing houses were located… At the same time, they hired the only black, female-owned company in New York to do the carpeting; they had a feminist carpentry class build the bookcases… This was to be a ‘real’ Madison Avenue magazine, but one that was women-centered, woman-controlled, and run in a fashion as egalitarian as possible.” (Pg. 44)

She notes, “In the early days, Ms. did sometimes use images of successful and famous women, but it frequently attempted to portray these women in a more ‘realistic’ and less glossy fashion… with little makeup or styling… Interestingly, these ‘realistic’ covers were not always a result of a conscious decision… .they resulted just as much from the magazine’s low budget for photography, props, makeup, and so on.” (Pg. 56)

She argues, “According to the Ms. philosophy, what thwarted the potential for a ‘perfect’ humanity were rigid and artificial sex roles… The purpose of the movement… was to create a new, fully recognized, fully balanced human being… ‘the point is not to imitate men but to humanize both roles, male and female.’ In their rejection of the masculine sphere, however, editors simultaneously evoked a superior female culture… These contradictory approaches to feminism---one asserting the fundamental sameness of women and men, the other asserting women’s difference as superior---was by no means a new combination…” (Pg. 70)

She notes, “Although … the entire Ms. staff were optimistic about Ms.’s profit-making potential, the magazine failed to ever make money… Steinem wrote that in the beginning they were ‘naïve enough to believe that serious magazines made enough profits to give away.’” (Pg. 90)

She acknowledges, “From its origins, Ms. was primarily a white organization, speaking to and emerging from the white women’s movement. Sisterhood was a predominant theme in the founders’ vision of the magazine, but its limitations were clear once one began dealing with the real diversity of the magazine’s staff.” (Pg. 93)

She reports, “By the 1980s, Ms. had moved from an emphasis on consciousness-raising, explicating and analyzing the roots of female oppression, to a greater focus on self-help, on practical suggestions for women to use in their own lives… While Ms. did not shy away from feminist discussions and authors in the 1980s, it did redirect the packaging of those discussions. Ms. became less explicitly a magazine for the women’s movement and more a magazine for women… Ms. maintained a space for feminism within a public, commercial realm but, in transforming its shape, allowed the commodified vision of feminism to take center stage.” (Pg. 114-115)

She admits, “Ms. never shifted its perspective far enough from a white, middle-class, heterosexual feminism to be more than a token effort at inclusion, however… Indeed, the problems Ms. encountered in its attempt to be a magazine for the women’s movement raised numerous questions about who [and] what the movement was. The letters written to Ms. force us to abandon any notion of a universally shared experience of womanhood and sometimes suggest that there was little common ground among women in the 1970s and 1980s. What is significant … is the way so many women continued to claim this text, despite its limitations.” (Pg. 168-169)

She reports, “most readers who wrote to MS. were particularly angry that cigarette and alcohol ads continued to show up in a magazine where editors had promised to refuse to advertise products dangerous to women… [A] Newsweek article singled Ms. out… pointing out that it had never had a full-length feature on women and smoking and that Steinem herself was a smoker… Steinem explained, ‘I do smoke occasionally as one might an after-dinner cigar, and do not inhale.’ … Ms. attempted to argue that it could accept advertising but not be affected by it. Readers, however, were not convinced by this argument…” (Pg. 174-175)

She notes, “While a Ms. editor [Anne Summers] explicitly refusing the label of feminism for Ms. may seem heretical… An essential part of the Ms. legacy was always to reach out to those who wouldn’t necessarily call themselves feminists to those who believed in feminism’s major tenets but did not embrace it as an identity.” (Pg. 188)

She concludes, “In retrospect, the most revolutionary quality of Ms. … was its power to be a magazine on the commercial racks that dared to say ‘feminism.’ As we move into the 21st century, facing increased poverty among women, welfare ‘reform,’ racial and ethnic inequities, and the ongoing struggles to retain the legal, cultural, and economic gains women made earlier in the movement, we need more … like Ms. ... Hybrids like Ms. will not cure our problems, but they provide sites of intervention we dare not give up.” (Pg. 197)

This is an excellent, honest and balanced perspective, that will “must reading” for anyone wanting to know the history of Ms. (My only complaint is that it stops the history in 1989, not covering the following effort to make Ms. ad-free.)

[Anna · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has some valuable and thoughtful information about 1970s feminism and the tension between activism and media, all centered around the history of Ms. magazine. Unfortunately, it's a very dry text that reads like someone's post-grad thesis. Of course, it IS someone's post-grad thesis, but that's no excuse, now is it?

[Courtney · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were bits of wonderful in this book, but by the the time I was 100 pages in it became completely uninteresting. It may have been better if it was written as a long article rather than a book. I suggest reading the intro, the chapter(s) you're most interested in, and then the conclusion. Many points get rehashed so you can sort of sample it as you go.

[Stephanie]

She's a good friend and colleague of mine ... and she's written an outstanding book!