Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265 of 824

In one of these--one of the history books, the company history books, I ran across his periodically--apparently he'd say to somebody at LIFE, he'd say. “Why aren't-we appealing to more women?” Or, “Can't you find some more women editors to write things for women?” Do you recall that?

Yes.

In this search for the correct LIFE, you know, what was the--

Yes, but that was for a different reason. It had nothing to do with his thinking about women in the organization. It had to do about would women make the magazine more appealing to more people? Whether he thought about, women researchers and the fact that women researchers tended to remain women researchers and never get promoted is a different issue. And you might have thought that having been married to Clare Boothe Luce he would then have done more thinking about the role of women in the company, which I don't think he did.

If I'm hearing you, if I'm understanding what you're saying, then in a way he wasn't focusing during his lifetime on what later became such major issues in our society. It wasn't that he was particularly anti-women or anti-black or anti-Jew or anti-Catholic, but he wasn't focused on the implications in society. Is that correct?