to disco until dawn or try out newnerotic techniques” but who “nevernquite forget[s] that your career needsnlooking after.”nBalancing career and eroticism cannbe a trick. Cosmo does it by urgingnwomen to accentuate their physicalncharms through cosmetics, exercisenand diets, and (un)dress but—at thensame time — warning readers thatn”getting ahead” at the office requiresnthe suppression of every emotionalntendency traditionally regarded as female.nThe aspiring executive shouldnaim at becoming “the madwoman ofnthe office” by learning to “channeln. . . feelings toward anger rather thanntears, assuming it is necessary to shownany emotion at all.” The Cosmo dichotomynis complete: Lady Macbethnby day, Cleopatra by night. There is,nof course, a more ideal way to combinensexiness and career, and it, too, isnin Cosmo: a “former call girl” whonnow goes by the pen name “TigernLily” describes in an article her worknas a “therapist” who helps young mennovercome “sexual dysfunction” byngoing to bed with them. Meanwhile,nCosmo laments the new “divorce of sexnand emotion”; “real intimacy” andn”romance” are the preferred Cosmonremedies.nManufacturers of children’s productsnno longer try to promote theirngoods in Cosmo, but the makers ofnbikinis, cigarettes, bank cards, perfumes,nand male-stripper videos do.n(“Disrobics . . . our instructors willnraise your pulse and give you a workoutnyou’ll never forget.”) The bookclubnads still found in Cosmo are nownfar fewer and most of their titles arenmarked “X; Explicit sex, violence,nand/or language.” {Cosmo still carriesnits own fiction, though much less thannbefore. Stories no longer focus onnmarried or soon-to-be married couples:na typical Cosmo tale in a currentnissue traces the impassioned course ofna young Southern preacher intonadultery.)nToday’s Ladies’ Home ]ournal hasnalso changed dramatically over thenyears. The intended audience is stillnlargely wives and mothers: the articlesnare about overcoming infertility or anhusband’s reluctance to having children.nThe editors encourage readers tonenjoy the holidays by involving “eachnfamily member,” and contributors aren401 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnstill exploring ways marriages can ben”saved.” The numerous LHJ recipesnserve four, not one or two, and childrennstill appear in photos and ads. Yetna noticeable decline in the visibility ofnchildren and husbands is only one ofnthe changes effected in the magazinenby the feminist movement. In 1970,n100 radical feminists led by SusannBrownmiller held an all-day sit-in innthe LH] editorial offices, denouncingnthe publication as “one of the mostndemeaning magazines toward women.”nBefore they left, the activistsnhad won a number of concessions,nincluding the right to publish a specialneight-page supplement to the Journalnin which they expounded their views.nThe supplement was a one-timenfeature, but the results of feministnintimidation are still visible in thenJournal. LHJ articles urge women tonovercome the “early psychologicalnconditioning” and even the “biological”ntendencies which make “womenn. . . reluctant to cause pain or disappointment.”nThe LHJ reader shouldnstop “automatically fulfilling her husband’snwishes,” should stop trying tonbe “the perfect wife,” and should learnnto cherish her “private self” Only bynso rethinking her approach to life cannthe reader ever attain “a demandingnposition” in the business world, whichnis apparentiy where LHJ now thinksnwomen belong. The Journal may stillnargue that the ideal is “a workingnmother who takes her family responsibilitiesnmore seriously than her career,”nbut editors appear reluctant toninvestigate the possibility that a nonworkingnmother will perform her familynresponsibilities much better. A recentnarticle noted the “chilling trend ofnyounger criminals growing up morenbrutal than ever before,” even amongn”smiling middle-class youths,” andnlinked this development to a lack ofn”sufficient love early in life” and to an”negative” home life. But the authorndid not—perhaps could not—say thenobvious: millions of middle-class kidsnare now receiving smiles but not lovenfrom the day-care centers where workingnmothers are now leaving themnon their way to their “demandingnpositions.”nOther changes in LHJ’s editorialnstance are likewise disconcerting. Fornone thing, the editors no longer look tonMiddle America for images of exem­nnnplary family life. The covers now featurensome famous woman, not annameless couple, and profiles of averagenAmerican families have becomeninfrequent, linked to some crisis, suchnas that gripping “farm women” andntheir families. So instead of learningnhow average American housewivesnand their husbands cope with theirnproblems, the reader gets interviews onnmarriage and parenting with Lady Dinand Shirley MacLaine, with SallynField and Ted Kennedy, with actressnEileen Brennan and Latin singer JulionIglesias. With celebrities posing as authoritiesnon domestic matters, LHJnends up promoting views peculiar for an”family magazine.” MacLaine feelsn”comfortable playing prostitutes innmovies” because she was “a prostitutenin another life,” and she believes itn”important . . . that she have lovers.”nShirley admonishes LHJ readers tonpractice “sexual openness in marriage.”nIglesias, who sees the childrennfrom his failed marriage only on holidays,nboasts to LHJ that he has “madenlove to not less than three thousandnladies” and that he would “love tonhave sex all the time.”nClearly, LHJ has lost its former fearsnabout a sex-obsessed society. It appearsnthat the more the cultural and domesticndefinition of womanhood is eroded,nthe more women must rely upon annakedly physical and erotic sense ofnidentity. So LHJ tells women it’s perfectlynall right to be more “sexy” innpublic now that “society’s rigid sexualnmores [have] loosened.” Advice onnpicking a flattering swimsuit will helpnreaders get started, while an article onnthe breast explains how to achieve an”prettier, firmer, sexier” bust-line tonput in that new swimwear. Omitted innthe article on the mammary gland isnany discussion of lactation or infantnnutrition: Playboy has triumphed overnthe La Leche League. LHJ has nownalso lost its admiration for puritanicalnAussies and tells readers that theynought to regard “pregnancy, rathernthan adolescent sexual activity itselfn… as the major problem.” And whynshould teenagers be the only ones tonhave fun? The reader is encouraged tonact out her “naughty fantasy” so longnas it’s “with her husband.” For readersnwhose imaginations need a boost,nthere are now plenty of ads for “explicitlynsensual reading,” fiction that cele-n