{"id":347,"date":"2008-10-01T14:34:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-01T18:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.silkentent.com\/Trees\/?p=347"},"modified":"2009-09-05T13:31:43","modified_gmt":"2009-09-05T18:31:43","slug":"the-way-we-were","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.silkentent.com\/Trees\/?p=347","title":{"rendered":"The Way We Were"},"content":{"rendered":"

October 1, 2008
\nWednesday<\/strong><\/p>\n

A few days ago<\/a>, when I wrote about my long-standing admiration for Joe Biden, I included some quotations from\u00c2\u00a0the 1975 Good Housekeeping<\/em> article which first brought him to my attention. When his name began to be mentioned as a likely vice-presidential pick, I yearned to read it again. I surely did not have that in my files, and any mention of Joe Biden I\u00c2\u00a0might have made in private journal writing had long since been lost. Though I could see myself sitting in my apartment reading the piece,\u00c2\u00a0I could not recall the name of the periodical, knowing only that it was something I subscribed to. Google, the modern research tool of first resort, was no help. I had to get the information the old fashioned way \u00e2\u20ac\u201d hands on, offline library research.<\/p>\n

I knew that reading the article would take me on an extended foray down Memory Lane. I hadn’t expected that the process of finding and reading it would itself be a stop on that road.<\/p>\n

I first went to the library of Harrisburg Area Community College to consult the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature<\/em>, still in the thick annuals bound in green cloth and the slim monthly paperback\u00c2\u00a0indexes\u00c2\u00a0that accumulate during the calendar year. I like the old school look and feel of these volumes, and running my hands along the spines to find the year I want and then pulling it out and carrying it to a table makes me feel like a student again.<\/p>\n

The Kitty Kelley article in Good Housekeeping<\/em> was the lone citation I found. This surprised me. I expected more than one reference to Joe Biden, and I would have guessed that the articlle I remembered was in\u00c2\u00a0Time<\/em> or Ms.<\/em> or\u00c2\u00a0The New Yorker<\/em>, all of which I subscribed to.<\/em> As housekeeping and cooking\u00c2\u00a0magazines go, GH<\/em> has never been a favorite (Woman’s Day<\/em> and Family Circle<\/em> were staples in my reading basket until I realized I had more\u00c2\u00a0recipes for baked chicken\u00c2\u00a0and plans for clutter control than I would ever need or use).<\/p>\n

Next I had to find a library that archived Good Housekeeping<\/em>. Adding to the trek down Memory Lane was the discovery that Millersville University, my alma mater (and Lynn’s) had it available. Thus did I find myself on another field hockey Thursday not at the game (Ron went to that, and when Lynn got home from work she joined us at a reception for the new coach) but on the balcony of the fourth floor of Ganser Library, in a carrel that had “Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head” graffitied into the side, a spot I had quite possibly occupied once before in the long ago and far away.<\/p>\n

Millersville’s collection of Good Housekeeping<\/em> is in annual bound volumes.\u00c2\u00a0That means you are not looking at microfilm\u00c2\u00a0or some other facsimile medium, but at the actual issues of the magazine as they arrived at the library or at the newsstand or in your mailbox at home. I took a deep breath before I opened the book.<\/p>\n

I did look at the fashion layouts first, remembering the Diane von Furstenburg wrap dress, jackets with wide lapels, bell bottom pants, and blouses with ruffles or bows at the throat that I made myself out of expensive Vogue patterns but cheap oily polyester double knit (more a fashion choice than an economic one).\u00c2\u00a0 As I have said elsewhere<\/a>, I hated the 1970s, and those ugly pantsuits epitomize the look of the time for me.<\/p>\n

Finally I got to the article. In my mind I remembered a double-page layout with several pictures. What I found was a fairly brief article in narrow columns with only a single small picture showing the senator standing with his father in the background behind the hospital beds\u00c2\u00a0where his injured sons lay. The picture was two years old.<\/p>\n

The most amazing aspect of the article to me\u00c2\u00a0is how\u00c2\u00a0it reflects the journalistic standards of the time. Every single woman referred to in the piece\u00c2\u00a0is described with a word or a phrase that comments on her appearance. His mother\u00c2\u00a0is “a pretty, 58-year-old woman with soft gray curls” and his sister\u00c2\u00a0is “a lovely 29-year-old.” His late wife was “the blonde beauty he met in Nassau during a college vacation”\u00c2\u00a0who had been “a beautiful homecoming queen.” The only adjective applied to the senator himself\u00c2\u00a0is “young.”\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n

Contrast this with an article<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0written in 2007 by Iowa blogger Lynda Waddington about Jill Biden,\u00c2\u00a0the woman Joe Biden married in 1977. The piece\u00c2\u00a0gives a vivid portrait of this accomplished, energetic woman without once mentioning her appearance.\u00c2\u00a0A glance at her picture shows that she is attractive by almost anyone’s standards, but the focus on her personality and her energy and her interests is the kind of journalism that gives me what I want in my informative reading. It’s the way we are now, and I for one am as happy to be rid of appearance-focused (on the women anyway) “news” articles as I am of double knit polyester bell bottom pants.<\/p>\n

To be included on the notify list, e-mail me:
\nmargaretdeangelis [at] gmail [dot] com (replace the brackets with @ and a period)<\/em><\/p>\n


\n