Taking Another Look at ‘Good Housekeeping’

19 May Taking Another Look at ‘Good Housekeeping’

I used to think of Good Housekeeping magazine as the kind of publication you read when you’d given up on being a sexy woman and resigned yourself to a life of picture-perfect recipes and mom jeans.

I remember going to the grocery store as an angst-ridden preteen with my mom and, as we unloaded our items onto the checkout belt and waited for the cashier to give us the final tab, I’d watch her pick up a copy of GH from the newsstand and casually thumb through the pages. I rolled my eyes. Good Housekeeping seemed so, well, Good Housekeeping. Headlines screamed, “10 Easy Recipes for Summer” and “How to Balance Work and Life!” How boring. The preteen couldn’t be bothered with anything so practical.

A budding quasi-feminist-yet-curious-Lolita type, I got my kicks from equal parts Ms. magazine and Cosmopolitan. I was deeply curious about fashion and sex, yet entrenched in feminist politics. In college, things didn’t change much, except that I grew deeper into my feminist side (and started reading Bitch). After college, my interest in pizza and keg parties waned, while health started to find a way back into my life — so Self and Women’s Health became my books of choice (soon to be followed by Runner’s World). Those, plus Newsweek and TIME, which I grew up with, completed my magazine subscription collection.

That media mix was a happy one … for a while. Then, I had my first son. And suddenly I couldn’t wait to read articles like “Ways to Prevent SIDS” and “10 Post-Natal Exercises,” while checking out the cute $10 beauty fixes in the front of the book (because Parents editors are smart enough to know I don’t have more than $10 to spend on a beauty item unless it’s my highlights). What’s a little troubling, however, is my lack of interest in magazines like Cosmo, Glamour, even Women’s Health (my once-favorite).

It’s not that I have no libido (I do!), or an interest in fashion (that, too!). It’s just that my priorities have shifted tremendously. What I need more of is time, and advice on how to maximize it. What I need less of is a magazine telling me why I need $65 beauty serums before I turn 40 (ahem, Women’s Health). I also have less disposable income: Clothes are bought, but they must really, really be necessary. A $200 pair of sandals or jeans? Not really necessary, even though a good argument could be made for the jeans as a push present for baby #2. A good $8 brow pencil and a good, but not too pricy, pair of running shoes so I can stay in shape with the 20 minutes I have today to exercise? Totally necessary!!

On Monday, when I was looking for “great gifts under $10” I cam across an article with exactly that headline — and the link took me to Good Housekeeping’s website. I was delighted at the piece and the clever ideas! How was it that I didn’t notice how great this magazine is, all those years before?

Then, there’s the food thing. As in, I have zero time to make it. But I cannot handle the stress of Martha Stewart-level recipes. Again, Good Housekeeping hears me, loud and clear.

While I’m not sure if I’ll give up my subscription to Women’s Health this year, it’s interesting that I haven’t found the time to pay my annual $18 tab. I forget to read it when it comes every month, only glancing at it for a second or two, so I forget that I am a subscriber.

But I’m still holding on to the “sexy woman” image in my head, rather than the “overworked mom” one. So maybe I need hang onto Women’s Health to remind myself that I am sexy before I am momish. Then again, I have no idea what to cook for dinner and it’s already 2 p.m. What I wouldn’t give for the latest GH issue!