Of all things they could apologize for....

[bliss_eternal]

...this is where they chose to take a stand? :eyes:

http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/429233_tvgif28.html?source=mypi

uh, magazine in the above...do me a favor and kiss my ass.

dudes (yes this includes husbands) can't be stolen without their consent, choice and active participation. the choice of using the term, "husband stealer" implies (to me at least) that the guy, had no involvement in the act, whatsoever.

i call bullshit.

i didn't read anywhere that this woman beat that man about the head, held him at gun-point, drug him kicking and screaming from his partner, or anything else that would suggest "theft", burglary or any of the other phrases being bandied about in 2010 in regard to women who have affairs w/married men. dude is responsible for his choices. why the fuck has this become about women?

seriously...wtbf (what the bloody f*ck) in hell...so nice to know, that the media, including alleged magazines for and about women, are part of the effort of hating women.

it will be a cold day in hell before that particular piece of trash is given my attention, even in the supermarket check-out line. :grr::mad:

[ismnotwasm]

1. Eww

That is complete and total bullshit. Shape, if I recall started out as a fairly decent magazine for what it is, but the last couple of times I looked through it, not so much.

The apology;

"Please know that our putting her on the cover was not meant to put a husband-stealer on a pedestal-but to show (through her story) how we all are human," Latona continued. "And this woman in particular found strength in exercise in what she said was her most difficult personal moment."

"But it did not come across that way... And for that I'm terribly sorry. I hope that we can do better the next time for those of you that will give us another chance," she concluded.

The email was signed, "Humbly, Valerie."

Evidently some of the readers of 'Shape' send a lot of time reading gossip and are otherwise so pure they get up and polish their halos before eating a low fat, no dairy, high protein, no high fructose corn syrup breakfast, work out for an hour and then start their day by doing good work and would never even consider having a catastrophic personal failure in their lives that they own up to publicly. Never happen. It's always far more fun to disparage husband-stealers, those poor, poor husband, not a choice--or a clue in the world.

Either that of the editor got a lot of flack from the owners and investors, which seems more likely. Something doesn't smell quite right here.

[bliss_eternal]

2. yeah, it reeks...

...i agree. like you, i'm wondering what the bigger issue is, though. somehow i doubt it had a thing to do w/"their subscribers."

you're also right, that for a while, they were one of the less offensive. now....not so much. they suck, as bad as cosmo.

[bliss_eternal]

3. i'm so angry...

...about this shit, i'm considering writing shape--not that they'd care, considering i'm not a subscriber or regular reader. not that i'd actually have to divulge either.

i'm so fucking fed up w/this bullshit characterization of women, somehow sucking men's brains dry, and coercing them, against their will, of course--into torrid encounters, they'd never, ever consider of their own accord. those awful, super slutty, brazen hussies, with their wily ways, summoning the ultimate manipulative female powers of the greatest failer of mankind of all time, eve--or would it be delilah, who shaved poor sampson's head? either way...

from leanne rimes to fantasia barrino, from angelina jolie to meg ryan....all the way back to liz taylor (waaaaaay back when). it's insane. and the fact that it's frequently women leading the witch hunt, i'm even more frustrated and angered by this.

:grr::mad:

[ThomCat]

4. Prejudice always required a double standard.

Always look for a double standard. :(


That means, in any situation involving both a man and a woman where both are equally responsible, it will be described as her fault.

Every use of language will actively blame her. By consensus, he will be treated as morally neutral or blameless, while she will be held responsible not only for her own actions, but also for his actions too.

Even in unequal situations, where he clearly was responsible for creating the situation and she either probably or definitely wasn't the decision maker, and had limited or no control over the situation, that double standard still applies. Blame her. She still will be held responsible for his actions.

In the presence of women, Men can only be responsible for their own actions if the actions reflect positively upon them. But in the presence of men, women can only be held responsible for their own actions, or for his, if it reflects negatively upon them.

:(

Pretty damned ugly. But does this seem like an unrealistic description?

[bliss_eternal]

5. no, thomcat, not unrealistic at all.

you provide quite a realistic description, thank you. it's just all so depressing to me, when i think about it. (sigh) :(