MEDIAnLight Readingnby Janet Scott BarlownIs it possible, in 50 words or less, tondescribe today’s woman, the postfeministn80’s woman, the woman whonwill soon become the 90’s woman? I’mnglad you asked. The typical Americannwoman in 1989 is divorced, in need ofnfinancial guidance, worried about herncareer, either agonizing about her biologicalnclock or searching out paid caretakersnfor the children she has, insecurenabout her looks, and, most of all, traumatizednin her relationships with men-.nOh, and she’s also bolder, happier, andnmore self-possessed than ever. The 80’snwoman is a walking wreck who thinksnher life makes sense because she hasndiscovered “self-esteem.”nThis assessment is based on evidencenfrom an authoritative source, one that’snin the business of reflecting women’sninterests and addressing their concerns.nI am talking about women’s magazines,nwhich have multiplied in the past decadenuntil they now dominate the periodicalsnsections of bookstores. Todaynthere are publications aimed at singlenwomen, older women, working mothers,nfemale executives, and fitnesscrazednwomen of all ages.nIf proof were needed that the feministn. movement has shifted women’sn50/CHRONICLESnVITAL SIGNSnpriorities and concems, the names alonenof the newer women’s magazines wouldnbe enough. While familiar standbys likenFamily Circle, Good Housekeeping,nand Ladies’ Home Journal are stillnaround, they seem positively quaintnnext to Self, First, New Woman, SavvynWoman, just plain Woman, and nownLear’s, which is for the savvy newnwoman who “wasn’t born yesterday.”nAll that’s missing from the line-up is anjournal called Me.nThese magazines vary in quality,nbut they share one trait and it’s anstriking one: they are editoriallynschizoid—which makes them a mirrornof the confused self-image of theirnreadership. Their editorial philosophynis straight out of the women’s movernent,nwhile their editorial choices,ntheir actual content, reflects the emotionalncost of living by feminist dogma.nThey toss around the language ofnconfidence, autonomy, and strength,nwhile discussing issues that suggestnloneliness, anxiety, and doubt. Readnenough of these magazines and younwill become convinced not only thatnAmerican women are having a collectivennervous breakdown, but that theynfeel compelled not to acknowledge it.nThis is the ironic legacy of modernnfeminism. What, started out, in BettynFriedan’s phrase, as “the problem thatnhas no name” {There is not enoughnhere to make me happy) has evolved,n25 years later, into The FemininenMystique, Phase II: If there’s so muchnhere, why aren’t I happy?nWhen I got married in 1965, Indiscovered rather quickly that I didn’tncare much for women’s magazines.nThere was aimless pleasure in the foodnarticles, the decorating tips, and thenafghan patterns, but I had limited interestnin whether “this marriage can bensaved” and a low tolerance for how-Isurvived-a-crisisnstories, as well as fornwomen’s humor (as tiresome in its waynas men’s humor; what’s funny shouldnbe funny, period). Those magazines —nconventional fare for women —nweren’t offensive, just boring. The imagenthey presented of women wasn’tninsulting, just incomplete. And theirnnnoften idealized picture of domestic lifenwasn’t irrelevant, but it was unstimulating.nToday, publications like McCall’s,nGood Housekeeping, and Ladies’nHome Journal still seem dull, but in andifferent way. Now they are what Peoplenmagazine would be if it includednrecipes. They do publish seriousnarticles occasionally, but these arenstuck between features like “FergienShapes Up” and “Raquel Welch: HernMost Intimate Interview.” In any case,nthe older women’s publications are notnwhere the action is;; To see the last 25^nyears in perspective, you have to looknto the more recent additions to thenwomen’s market, magazines that demonstratenthat whatever problems womennhad as women, the feminist movementnwas not the solution.nTake New Woman, for instance,nwhich proudly bears the motto “AnNew Woman is an attitude, not annage,” and whose editor calls it “annintelligent magazine that offers [women]nnew ideas, choices, and creativenalternatives to help them meet thengrowing demands in their personal andnprofessional lives.”nThis high-flown promise is followednin a recent issue by articles that are asnmemorable for the questions they leavenhanging as for the subjects they address.nLike the piece on what to donwhen “a man you love” is “sweet andnsensitive” in private but humiliates younin public. As a;New Woman, ofncourse, you have several options. If thenman in question is at least “trying to bena New Man,” you can use patience,nbecause a “half-liberated man maynneed more time to get his public andnprivate acts in sync.” Or you can takenaction, by telling him that “he mustnrelate to you as an equal in front ofnothers.” Finally, if the guy is totallynhopeless, you can make a stab atn”personal wisdom” by tossing “a frozennmargarita down his shirt.” Ah,nyes — the equality lecture and the oldnfrozen margarita trick. Fixes ’em everyntime.nAs for “creative alternatives,” NewnWoman offers a personal essay tidedn