Would you read a magazine that stereotyped you as man-obsessed and reliant on others for cash?
In my head, where I have plenty of spare time and plenty of spare cash, I think about one day being involved with the publishing of a completely awesome women's magazine. One that has nothing to do with obsessing over men, weight loss, and celebrities. It would obviously have a badass feminist slant, and would cater to the fact that women have diverse interests and experiences. It would be amazing.
Every time I'm involved in a discussion about women's magazines, people who want more from them start saying the same things. "Why do they think we only want to read about blokes and diets?" - "Why are the celeb interviews so predictable?" - "Why do they insist on patronising their readers?".
A few magazines are getting it right (take a bow, Stylist), and I know people really appreciate it. Nobody, however, takes kindly to being patronised, as More! magazine found out this week.
Earlier this week, a couple of tweets from @everydaysexism highlighted the way More! has profiled its readers on Bauer Media's advertising website - claiming that their defining factor is an obsession with men:
"Finding the perfect man, having the perfect relationship, and eventually settling down and having the perfect family.
"Her short term goal is to have the best Saturday night ever and her long term goal is to settle down with the man of her dreams."
The profile went on to say that lots of its readers "are funded by the bank of mum and dad, and boyfriends".
It's always nice to know that publications have such a high opinion of their readers. Men! Sponging off other people! Men! It's not hard to see why a few More! readers were less than impressed. Pretty soon, some had even seen fit to inform the magazine that they'd no longer be buying it.
Damage limitation began and that less-than-flattering reader profile has now been removed from Bauer Media's website. More! staff were quick to act, but will it really change the way they view their readers or how they sell advertising?
Women clearly don't want to be seen as spongers whose lives revolve around men and I think we'd all prefer it if magazines didn't treat us that way in order to make money. They're quick to act to minimise drama when they sense a Twitterstorm brewing. Whether they actually sit up and take notice when people call them out is another matter.
In recent months companies have been quick to pull products from shelves or change the way they do things after social media has made them the centre of attention. People often worry that while they're happy to do something short term to save their reputation, attitudes never really change. While a high street store might stop selling a misogynist t-shirt after a social media campaign, will it stop them being offensive in the future?
It's time that women's magazines started to realise that readers want content with substance that doesn't assume the worst about them. We deserve better, and it's clear that many women are sick of it.
Check out - and contribute - to the Everyday Sexism Project.
Hannah Mudge writes about all things news and feminism-themed for BitchBuzz, and is currently adjusting to life as a new mum. You can also read her blog, We Mixed Our Drinks or follow her tweets as @boudledidge.