In the interests of accuracy, I have to point out that the study didn't find that viewing magazines was "bad for women." It found that viewing photos of magazine models lowered women's expressed satisfaction levels with their own bodies.

Whether a lowered expressed satisfaction level with your own body is a good or a bad thing is entirely a subjective judgment. In my own case, if it got me up off my fat ass and working out a little bit more often, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. In the case of a teenage anorexic, it would be a very bad thing. Given that, it's interesting that they found no difference in effect based on the weight of the viewer.

By the way, another study found that mirrors in gyms made women feel worse about themselves. I just have to ask, is there anything that makes women feel good about themselves? Anything at all? Besides chocolate, I mean? I'm a woman, and I find this endless whining about how much women hate themselves exhausting and irrelevant to anything in my life. I have a fat ass. I don't hate myself. If I eat more veggies and fewer fried foods and work out more, the fat ass will go away. Right now, I have higher priorities.

Dear Carol,

Just starting to read your column, I'm thinking you might be a good choice to work on the subject of our own domestic talibanism as for example I've seen again this week in this case.

"Death threats against bloggers are not protected speach"

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html

Kathy Sierra is a successful Software Engineer writing about working in the software world. As is common in the software technology world, anything not well presented as "above your head" / "better than you did" garners an overwhelming "then it's garbage" response.

But this male is learning that the degeneration of that whirlwind in the female case can be extremely ugly. My own experience is from the wikipedia, where writing articles on topics not presented in the usual undergrad curriculum, and writing a rough and unfinished product, produced a fairly wicked war with the unimpressed (deleting the article and requiring a (non) debate of its merits).

Experiences like Kathy's need some serious help. Both personal and public.

Thoughts from the wild,

John

Dear Carol,

While I applaud your coverage of Jane Stillwater’s trip to Iraq, I have to check you on the language you use. Although a link to the original story was provided, you only refer to her as a “blogging Berkley granny.” Granny? It’s a word that in our society has connotations of frailty, sequestration and infirmity. Frankly, I’d expect more than this ageist pigeonholing from Broadsheet. Additionally, by noting her as a "blogging granny," you're marking her as an exception to a rule - as if grannies don't blog. Are you still referred to as a "girl reporter?"

So cheers on your coverage, and for your excellent work at Salon, but please, remember that language neutrality is still a force worth considering.

Loyally,

Kehla

The Science Daily merely reflects what most of us already knew.

It is "normal" for women to feel badly about their bodies. But just because it's the norm doesn't make it healthy.

I wonder what role these magazines play in our increasing obesity rates. The magazines succeed in making women feel badly about their bodies, but do they also encourage women to do the right sorts of things to improve their health? Or do they encourage plastic surgery, buying "the right clothes" (that they can't afford), unhealthy and counterproductive yo-yo dieting and overeating as comfort for depression?

*Note: before anyone asks, I'm not saying magazines are the sole cause of the nation's obesity epidemic.

Gotta give them credit. On the one hand they have to pile on to the liberal train but on the other hand AI's automatic craven bowing at all things Islamic, Fundamentalist, violent and crazy has go to make some of them dizzy over there. Aren't they afraid of being kicked out of of the NGO live pile? Won't they have to at least acknowledge that Jews don't eat babies?

AI's goals, up to now, have been lauditory, I have supported them. So why would it embark on such a controversial move. All this will do is envoke the ire of those of us who are liberal enough to want to protect the rights of oppressed people abroad, but to conservative to sign off on plans to liberalize abortion.

When you conflate issues like this, you also consolidate your detractors. I don't understand why people can't be more ecumenical. Just leave the issue alone. There are plenty of other injustices in the world to be concerned about.

why women read those magazines, but they do by the tens of millions. Every month, women (but very few men) vote with their pocketbooks in favor of Vogue, Elle, etc., so they must have something women want.

And while I'm on that subject, I counted the number of letters to Broadsheet articles and those to Glenn Greenwald's. Currently, Broadsheet has 15 articles averaging 33 letters each; Greenwald has 7 articles averaging 169 letters. If the lowest and highest numbers of responses are removed, the numbers are 23 and 147 respectively.

The number of responses doesn't necessarily indicate the level of interest, but it seems like a pretty fair measure. Maybe Broadsheet editors should think about what those magazines offer women.

I like to look at fashion. Really! I like to see what's "hot" for the spring/summer/fall/winter, and decide whether it'll look good on me. I like makeup tips (for those rare times when I wear makeup). I like hair ideas. I find gossip entertaining sometimes.

Also, it's a lot easier to read one of those on the treadmill than it is to read something I actually have to concentrate on.

I wish my waist was thinner and I had a more toned stomach. But I'm working on it. Other than that, I know those models are 13 years old and look like flamingos in person--and probably have their own body issues. So I don't worry about it too much.