In defence of women's magazines

This is a bit off-piste for i heart bikes so be warned: non bike-related content ahoy....

Thanks to this column from the Observer's Eva Wiseman, over the past two days there's been a big Twitter debate about the validity of women's magazines in this day and age.

As a magazine journalist and sub editor – not to mention a staff member of the very mag held up as the not-so-shining example of all that is wrong with women's mags (Marie Claire in case you wondered) – I feel compelled to wade into the debate. Given my position, it may not be the most objective stance but you can't deny I know a lot about the industry.

Yes, monthly mags struggle to stay current on some levels these days. How can they not? Compared to live-blogging and streaming, tweets and status updates, three month lead times and crazy forward planning can leave a monthly seeming a bit sloooooow (and is why they all have websites to provide new and up-to-the-minute content).

That said, when it comes to the core issues facing women, are these publications really as outdated as Wiseman thinks? 

One sentence that seems to have been retweeted a lot is that 'our lives are no longer measured out in wedding cake' to which Wiseman adds: 'Few girls plan for their one special day now that the concept of marriage has mutated and our expectations have cracked wide open.' Be that as it may, dear, but WOMEN STILL GET MARRIED. 

And, quite frankly, I'm offended by the inference that any woman who gets married has spent most of her adult life (or longer) planning the big day. I'm unhappy with the suggestion that getting married is somehow unfeminist. It is possible to have a wedding and only spend four months and a minimal amount getting it together - trust me, I've done it. Plus it's not a betrayal to the sisterhood. I'm married yes, but I still have a career and a social life and dreams and ambitions.

Just because a magazine happens to run a piece about how much you spend on a wedding, doesn't mean it's not reflective of the times. 

In hindsight maybe a piece about three women all spending a small amount made have been more innovative, but what stays in your mind more - the fact I bought my wedding band in Argos for £38, or that a women spent the equivalent price of family house on her day (including £25K on a second dress that her husband didn't even notice)? Yes, it's an obscene amount, but I think its a good story. Isn't that what features are meant to be? A good read and one that sparks interest and debate? Job done, I'd say.

Also, I'd take Wiseman's piece a lot more seriously if I felt she'd properly read the features she so witheringly puts down. To say that the piece on virtual sex suggested 'using the internet' and could have been lifted from the era of Yahoo! emails bears little resemblance to the actual feature. 

If I had a pound for every time I'd read about a vibrator controlled, via the internet, by someone else, thousands of miles away… well, I'd be no richer than I am right now. What's outdated about investigating how virtual sex has changed and looking at new ways to get your virtual kicks – including new inventions?

One of the reasons I wanted to work at Marie Claire, and am proud to do so, is that it's not like the generic stereotype of A Women's Magazine. We don't obsess over diets, or quiz celebs endlessly on their eating habits. You won't find sex tips, or ways to dress to make the most of those wobbly bits. 

We are evolving and changing and our recent growth in readership suggests we're doing it well. We still run investigations into rape in Congo, forced marriages, UK girl gangs, sterilisation in China, life in Sarajevo 20 years after the siege, what it's like to be a war correspondent or be imprisoned in Bali. 

The team works incredibly hard to find new things that women want to read about and can identify with and often that might the so-called outdated subject of marriage or babies. We don't always get it right, but show me a publication that does. 

I've worked on health mags, slimming mags, supermarket mags, celebrity mags and high-end fashion titles and through that experience I really do believe that Marie Claire offers something a bit different.

A lot of those other titles left me deflated and dissatisfied. Whether it was the bitchy, misogynistic anti-female stance of a celeb weekly that left me feeling like a traitor to my sex, or the cold, hard consumerism of designer fashion that mined a river of inadequacy, they made me unhappy. Not so my current job and that's because I feel free of that.

Yes, the world has moved on but what's so modern about a woman writing about not shaving her body hair? That may have made waves on the Guardian and Vagenda to the extent that the writer went on This Morning but it's hardly revolutionary content, is it? Doesn't it just play up to the stereotype of A Feminist that's been floating around since the 70s?

I didn't realise how passionate I am about this until I started writing! For me it was the attack on women's mags using one issue of one publication that got me so riled but I have to stop ranting now!

So as a final word, I'll say that if I didn't work for one, I'm not sure how many women's monthly mags I would bother reading. But I really think that's a sign that I'm 34 and my interests have changed, rather than the mags being stuck in a timewarp. I've seen it happen with friends and sisters too often to lay the blame solely with the magazine.

But hey, that's just my take on it.