Which are More Harmful; Lad's Mag or Women's?

kylith

The thread over in AH got me thinking; are men's magazines less damaging to women than women's magazines are? You'll have to forgive me a bit if I'm oversimplifying as I'm kind of seeing this from the outside looking in; I haven't read a woman's magazine since I got hacked off at how brainless Just Seventeen was with all its articles on hair and makeup. At that age I actually preferred reading my brother's magazines because they were funny and had actual articles, about beer and video games.

Men's magazines are often criticised for portraying women as purely sexual objects, and I can't really argue with that. I do think, however, that they at least feature women who look better than those in women's magazines. Women's magazines seem to feature a few articles about the dangers of anorexia, or how important it is to be true to yourself, but then to fill a hundred pages with images of incredibly thin women, diet plans (some of which appear to be downright dangerous), and features and advertisements exhorting women to buy the latest clothing and makeup.

What think you LL Ladies? Are Cosmo and Elle just as damaging to women as Nuts and Loaded, albeit in terms of causing women to devalue themselves rather than objectifying them?

cantdecide

I have an older female relative with a serious mag problem. At one stage I was enlisted to help clear out all the old clutter before a move. She had accumulated literally thousands of every kind of women's mags among all kinds of books and other bits since the mid nineties and I simply had to sift through them quickly and fire out the mags.

It was really and truly depressing. Thousands of 'lose x amount of weight in Y amount time', 'make up tips', 'fashion to make you look slimmer'. Pressure pressure pressure.

Women are bombarded with this crap from all sides and bafflingly it appears to be by other women. Even if you ignore it, you can't deny the constant drone it creates. It must be like tonguing a toothache to be presented with this kind of rubbish from all sides.

I thought about sitting in a busy hospital waiting room in Kathmandu last year. There was a weighing scale and seeing literally dozens of Nepali women of all backgrounds, ages and all shapes and sizes weighing themselves in public and publicly comparing and discussing the results light-heartedly. That could never happen here.

meeeeh

I like Vouge and there are some other magazines that are not bad. In general though I think women's mags are completely brain dead. IBut then so is Men's Health. Playboy is actually not that bad. And I don't know the rest.

I don't think either are overly harmful or they are as harmful as people want them to be.

Lyaiera

This is a tangent but I remember there being a big deal made in a computer game mag I read as a teenager. The editor and staff started campaigning against the corporate side of the business to get sex chat telephone line ads removed from the magazine. They were obviously targeting the typical teenager market of sexually awakened teenage boys and they made up a significant portion of the classified and small ad section at the back of the magazine. The editors were saying that these ads were insulting to their male audience, insulting to the few female readers and were off-putting to the larger female market. I think it took about two years, with the editor frequently putting updates in the mag on the situation through his editorial privilege but it eventually did get changed and they stopped publishing those ads.

Morag

I think there are issues with both types of mags but as long as people keep buying them they will keep making them.

Sauve

I think that anything can be damaging if you allow yourself to buy into it. I don't feel any pressure from either magazine to look a certain way, simply because I know that they're full of bs articles that are designed to make me feel like I'm not thin/successful/sexy/big boobed enough, and make me conform to all of these ideals in order to be happy, so I buy a bar of chocolate instead

Then again, it's easy for me to say that as a reasonably well adjusted, confident, and 'I kinda like my big ass' 31 year old.
It's not the same for everyone, I know. I realise that I'm very lucky to be fairly happy with myself as I am.

If I had to choose, I'd say womens' mags are worse. The subtlety of some of the articles is mind boggling. They tend to be more about 'how to achieve perfection', whereas the mens' ones are mostly about actual semi-interesting topics, interspersed with pictures of (mostly healthy looking) women with cracking bodies

hedgehog2

I think they both equally as harmful to your intelligence and wallet.
I only get to glance at one once in a blue moon in the docs waiting room or a hairdressers.
I can barely spend 2 minutes flicking through the articles in the womens mags,the fellas mags are equally filled with crap trying to sell you an overpriced moisturiser or skinny jeans for 100 quid.
My opinion avoid them all as they are only good at starting the fire.

jam_mac_jam

I think womens magazines are much worse. At least mens magazines have articles on something other then appearance and how to keep your man, they are boring brain dead and I think paint a much worse image of women.

meeeeh

I don't know, there are only so many ways a man can achieve a perfect six pack and yet Men's Health still gets produced.

I actually find all the gossip stuff more mind numbingley stupid than fashion and make up or dieting advice.

seenitall

The quibble I'd have with on this topic is men's mags seem to be more aspirational in content and tone. Excluding all the ads, the features are still better quality, more serious, more thought provoking than the female equivalents, where it all seems to be about a celeb's Post-Baby Body, Is Infidelity On The Rise? and How To Make Him Go Wild With Desire In 10 Easy Steps, with reams and reams of sleb gossip and 'true life stories' thrown in for good measure.

So yes, while I don't particularly enjoy seeing the objectification of women in lad's mag's, the women's ones are overall worse for women's confidence and self-image. Even when it is about us, what it is really about is men and how to please them. Natch.

Wompa1

A distinction I could make is that a lads mag is read my lads. Most men do not bother with Nuts or Loaded or any of that crap. If you go to a doctors waiting room you're not going to see Nuts on the table. Very intelligent women still read the likes of Cosmopolitan.

Dolbert

I hate these magazines so much. Though I do also think the 'lad' magazines are harmful, albeit in a different way.

Tigger99

I think women's mags are far far more dangerous.

From the men's ones I've read, the models have amazing bodies with a few interesting articles. They don't seem to bash women or men.

The women's one have 2 aims - find a man and be as skinny as possible. The desperation to find and keep a bloke in these mags is scary. I dunno, I'm as happy single as I'm a relationship so maybe I'm mot the target audience, but it seems to create such unnecessary pressure for women and are just so critical of women including whatever celebrity they've decided to bash this week.

It seems to me that the models in men's mags look that bit healthier than women's mags.

The Cool

I think it depends on the magazine really, some are awful and then some are fine. I quite like Company, they seems to have the right attitude about what they give women to read - articles on womens rights and safety, experiences of women who pushed themselves forward in their careers etc, they ran a campaign against rape focused on getting home safe a while back, and not once will you see anything about bikini bodies or who's snapped back from their pregnancy the fastest.
The majority of the other magazines are absolute rags though - putting a candid photo of some TOWIE "star" on the front cover and saying that she's piling on the pounds due to relationship stress just because she's not smiling or holding her double chin in, pages of pics of skeletal Kiera Knightley at the beach, some size 6 actress saying she eats nothing but pizza. They're creating false, unattainable ideals for women.
I wouldn't say men's mags like Nuts are as damaging to women really. Yes they objectify us but personally I wouldn't be inclined to look at a men's mag and think, why don't I look like that, which is what happens a fair bit with ladies' mags I think.

Dark Phoenix

the womens mags make my blood boil. Page one 'she is way too skinny- dangerously thin - lost her curves', page two 'guess who has piled on the pounds', page 3 'love yourself for who you are', page 4' buy make up, lose ten pounds in five days by eating nothing'.

What made me snap last week was a full page add in a womens magazine telling me that a specific type of washing up liquid lasts twice as long. WTF? Its 2013 and yet as a woman my only concern in life is still meant to be how long a cleaning product lasts and how clean the house is jesus give me strength. if it was a mans magazine I would have been presented with a photo of an expensive looking woman trying to sell me a car but because im a woman my only destiny in life is apparently to tether myself to a man, worry about my weight and clean the house.

Look at deodorant adds. Men get the witty lynx adds women get the sappy dove adds telling us to love ourselves just how we are while at the same time buying their products to improve upon it. :rolleyes:

syklops

I think we are basically talking about 6 seperate kinds of magazines here. For example, I would distinguish between Men's Health and Nuts. To me Nuts is a "lad's mag"(hate that term!), and Mens Health is a more mature magazine. I am guilty of buying it on occasion.

Then for the ladies, you have the likes of Just Seventeen, (it seems to me, and this is just an observation that most girls seem to out-grow Just Seventeen at around 15), and for your older, more discerning female you have Cosmo, Marie Claire, etc.

The two remaining types of magazine in this context are mens and womens porn. Im not including hobby magazines which both genders can enjoy. (You don't have to be male to buy weapons and warfare, just like you don't have to be female to enjoy Good Housekeeping)

Its funny this thread came up now because yesterday I posted my first and probably last comment on the Marie Claire website, because an article that was printed actually came up in conversation at an IT Conference I was at last week. I won't go into the details here, but facts were mis-represented.

To be honest all six types of magazine are trash but they are different kinds of trash, and I think the one or two that masquerades itself as a high brow publication, is the more damaging, because it is the one which receives more respect, and people take on board what is said.

B0jangles

Check this out: Lad's mags are maybe worse than you think!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study

(Women's ones are mostly terrible too, but for different reasons IMO.)

They wouldn't be sold if they did not sell! its as simple as that I do not buy womens magazines and the only time I would look at time is in the doctors or dentist. Women want to buy them and want to see articles about clebs and soap stars putting on or loosing weight, or they want to read high end mags like vogue and read about bags that cost thousands.

Also another interesting point is fashion journalism and working in magazines/fashion is one of the most sort after careers for women why is that?

Mens mags as fare as I can see seem to be aimed at immature men, and contain a lot of fantasy about women and lifestyles.

syklops

B0jangles wrote: »

Check this out: Lad's mags are maybe worse than you think!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study

(Women's ones are mostly terrible too, but for different reasons IMO.)

Ah the guardian. Hard hitting journalism at its best. not.

"The group guessed correctly 50% of the time

Nothing ground breaking there, statistics show if you guess something you will get it correct 50% of the time.

Edit: In fact this demonstrates my point. You read that article and took it at face value because it came from a newspaper, not from a trashy magazine. Actually it is from a tabloid, who thought they could trick its readership with some subtle use of statistics.

XxMCRxBabyxX

mariaalice wrote: »

They wouldn't be sold if they did not sell! its as simple as that I do not buy womens magazines and the only time I would look at time is in the doctors or dentist. Women want to buy them and want to see articles about clebs and soap stars putting on or loosing weight, or they want to read high end mags like vogue and read about bags that cost thousands.

Also another interesting point is fashion journalism and working in magazines/fashion is one of the most sort after careers for women why is that?

Mens mags as fare as I can see seem to be aimed at immature men, and contain a lot of fantasy about women and lifestyles.

In fairness there are the magazines in the middle which are just about affordable clothes and have somewhat decent articles (on furthering your career and personal safety etc - not the keep your man or have a better sex life ****e) such as Company which was mentioned earlier. I have no interest in celebrity gossip, weight loss tips or massively overpriced fashion but I will read the mid range magazines. Tbh I think they're the most intelligent of the three types.

I do think the gossip rags are the worst though. They are totally the womens equivalent of lads mags. They just seem to revel in bitching about everyone for whatever tiny thing they can pick on. They are defo worse than lads mags.

B0jangles

syklops wrote: »

Ah the guardian. Hard hitting journalism at its best. not.



Nothing ground breaking there, statistics show if you guess something you will get it correct 50% of the time.

Alright, here's a link from the University which carried out the study since the guardian is not to your taste apparently.

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/news-events/news/mags.aspx

Lyaiera

syklops wrote: »

Ah the guardian. Hard hitting journalism at its best. not.



Nothing ground breaking there, statistics show if you guess something you will get it correct 50% of the time.

Edit: In fact this demonstrates my point. You read that article and took it at face value because it came from a newspaper, not from a trashy magazine. Actually it is from a tabloid, who thought they could trick its readership with some subtle use of statistics.

If you can't understand something say that, but don't go around making implications based on something you don't understand. An even split between people getting it right and wrong shows that the language used by lads mags and rapists is indistinguishable.

You can of course bring up other issues such as were the participants making their best effort to distinguish between rape comments and lads mag, were fair quotes used, even if there is a significance to the language. But far from the Guardian and the study trying to mislead with the statistics, you're the one doing the misleading.

syklops

B0jangles wrote: »

Alright, here's a link from the University which carried out the study since the guardian is not to your taste apparently.

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/news-events/news/mags.aspx

Its not that its not to my taste, its that they tried to suggest that 20 men guessing something in a room, and them getting the correct answer half the time somehow proves a link between lads magazines and rape.

Even Mystic Meg gets it right about half the time. It doesn't prove she can tell the future.

syklops

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you can't understand something say that, but don't go around making implications based on something you don't understand. An even split between people getting it right and wrong shows that the language used by lads mags and rapists is indistinguishable.

My reptillain brain can't understand an article from the guardian. Fair enough. Consider me suitably burned.

B0jangles

syklops wrote: »

Its not that its not to my taste, its that they tried to suggest that 20 men guessing something in a room, and them getting the correct answer half the time somehow proves a link between lads magazines and rape.

Even Mystic Meg gets it right about half the time. It doesn't prove she can tell the future.

You still aren't getting this at all.

They took direct quotes from convicted rapists and direct quotes from these Lad magazines.

They asked a variety of people to decide which were which.

Those who were asked got the right answer 50% of the time; ergo, quotes from rapists were indistinguishable from quotes from lad magazines.

Lyaiera

syklops wrote: »

My reptillain brain can't understand an article from the guardian. Fair enough. Consider me suitably burned.

It's not a contest about being right or wrong. It's about the damage the type of language used does. If you're only about one up'ing people on the internet then I'll stop responding to you.

Glinda

For content, definitely women's magazines, but the covers of men's magazines are much more objectionable. I don't care what's inside (since you don't have to read it if you aren't a buyer) but I hate having the men's mags so visible in shops - hard to have kids see women portrayed that way in public and then expect them to take women seriously in society/work

meeeeh

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you can't understand something say that, but don't go around making implications based on something you don't understand. An even split between people getting it right and wrong shows that the language used by lads mags and rapists is indistinguishable.

You can of course bring up other issues such as were the participants making their best effort to distinguish between rape comments and lads mag, were fair quotes used, even if there is a significance to the language. But far from the Guardian and the study trying to mislead with the statistics, you're the one doing the misleading.

They had a choice between lads mags quotes and rapist quotes. Did they have a choice between tv programs, literature like 50 Shades of Grey or similar? You can set up the study in the way you can get certain results. For example how the quotes were chosen, what was the context? Give me any mummy porn book and I bet you can find enough quotes that will give you the same results. This study reeks of research bias.

I have absolutely no love for lads mags or their female versions. I have certain respect for Vogue because they actually create high quality photography, some of the best photography is high fashion photography anyway and Vogue pays a bit more attention to art. Industrial and fashion design can't be art because it's made for commercial reasons but there is no comparison between innovative and sometimes provocative designs and washed out high street copies.

I don't think we need nanny state to tell us what to read and we definitely don't need nanny state to tell us what kind of design or art should be created (besides obviously illegal stuff). Btw there are so many harmful things and it seems there is always a group of middle class pseudo liberals who think everybody should do and think as they do and they always find some fashionable cause to be upset about.

Lyaiera

meeeeh wrote: »

They had a choice between lads mags quotes and rapist quotes. Did they have a choice between tv programs, literature like 50 Shades of Grey or similar? You can set up the study in the way you can get certain results. For example how the quotes were chosen, what was the context? Give me any mummy porn book and I bet you can find enough quotes that will give you the same results. This study reeks of research bias.

I have absolutely no love for lads mags or their female versions. I have certain respect for Vogue because they actually create high quality photography, some of the best photography is high fashion photography anyway and Vogue pays a bit more attention to art. Industrial and fashion design can't be art because it's made for commercial reasons but there is no comparison between innovative and sometimes provocative designs and washed out high street copies.

I don't think we need nanny state to tell us what to read and we definitely don't need nanny state to tell us what kind of design or art should be created (besides obviously illegal stuff). Btw there are so many harmful things and it seems there is always a group of middle class pseudo liberals who think everybody should do and think as they do and they always find some fashionable cause to be upset about.

This is ridiculous. How is discussing something a "nanny state." This tactic is constantly used to stifle people. No one is talking about banning things, no one is talking about restricting the freedoms of the press. On the one hand you talk about their freedom to publish then you accuse others of implementing a "nanny state." Saying something is wrong is not the same as saying it should be banned.

meeeeh

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is ridiculous. How is discussing something a "nanny state." This tactic is constantly used to stifle people. No one is talking about banning things, no one is talking about restricting the freedoms of the press. On the one hand you talk about their freedom to publish then you accuse others of implementing a "nanny state." Saying something is wrong is not the same as saying it should be banned.

Anna van Heeswijk, Campaigns Manager for OBJECT, a human rights campaign group which campaigns against the objectification of women, said: "This crucial and chilling piece of research lays bare the hateful messages which seep out of lads' mags and indoctrinate young men's attitudes towards women and girls. When the content of magazines aimed at teenage boys mirrors the attitudes of convicted rapists, alarm bells must ring.

“If we are serious about wanting an end to discrimination and violence against women and girls, we must tackle the associated attitudes and behaviours. This means tackling the publications which peddle them. The Leveson Inquiry is currently looking into the culture and ethics of the press. These disturbing findings unequivocally demonstrate the need for the portrayal of women to be included in the remit of this inquiry. Now is the time for action."

I presume you know where the quote is from.

I wouldn't stop people buying them even if I could, people can spend their money on what they like. I was making the point that various people object to them for vague resasons..they portray an unrealistic ideal of men/women/ lifestyle and so on. I would however like to think that people who read the magazines ( both men and woman ) are self aware enought to judge what they are reading and not take any of it too seriously.

I often think the editors and journalists who work on a lot of womens/ lifestyle magazine are neurotic self hating woman who manage to mask obsessions about weight/appearance/men/lifestyle as journalism!

Again if the magazine are so objectionable why are careers in fashion/magazine journalism so sort after by woman.

syklops

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's not a contest about being right or wrong. It's about the damage the type of language used does. If you're only about one up'ing people on the internet then I'll stop responding to you.

I know its not about one upmanship. I am interested in discussion and debate, you mention it being about the language used. I found the language you used to be rude and even slightly agressive.

Can I make it clear i am not defending lads magazines, nor am I defending rapists, but in my opinion that study is very much flawed.

From the article:

Psychologists presented men between the ages of 18 and 46 with a range of statements taken from magazines* and from convicted rapists, giving the men the source of the quotes in only some cases. Men identified more with the comments made by rapists than the quotes made in lads’ mags, but when told which quotes were from lads’ mags they identified more with these, despite some being incorrectly attributed and actually from rapists.

Theres a bit of switching going on there. First they only gave them the source for some of the quotes, then they told them which were from the Lads Mags, so they identified more with the lads mags(who wants to be associated with rapists), but some of the quotes they were told were from the lads mags, were incorrectly identified

Then:

The researchers also asked a separate group of women and men aged between 19 and 30 to rank the quotes on how derogatory they were, and to try to identify the source of the quotes. Men and women rated the quotes from lads’ mags as somewhat more derogatory, but generally couldn’t categorise the quotes more accurately than if guessing.

Why a group of men and women, and not a group of women for balance?

It also doesn't tell us what the quotes were.

Lyaiera

meeeeh wrote: »

I presume you know where the quote is from.

If you have a problem with someone else, speak with them.

Scarinae

syklops wrote: »

It also doesn't tell us what the quotes were.

This Jezebel article has some of the quotations, it sounds as if they requested them once the story had already been picked up by other news outlets. Here are the examples:

1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ‘Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.

Having said that, I got all but two of them right

meeeeh

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you have a problem with someone else, speak with them.

You didn't even bother reading the source article for the study? It's not very long and most questions regarding methodology of the study remain unanswered. I was making general point on comments regarding that study, the article included the quote, I didn't invent it.

Rosy Posy

In my gut I would say that most womens magazines are more damaging to women but tbh I have zero experience of lads mags. The only exposure I have to them is on a shelf in the shops and I don't give them a glance. In that respect I would find them less damaging to me personally than a billboard of a woman being objectified. However I can't vouch for their content and certainly the concerns over the language used in them raised by that study would trouble me as to the effect they would have on men's attitudes towards sex and women. But I would also raise some questions over the study's methodology.

I can say with passion that the majority of womens magazines are utter dross. The slag rags are the worst (as in they slag everyone off)- too fat too thin bad mother bad wife personal anguish (snap snap snap), not to mention the ridiculous and unrealistic diets- they really are the lowest common denominator- candy for the brain- and I believe they are addictive. My oh (who would just die of shame if this were to become public) has stacks of these in the waiting room of his work and became mildly addicted to them and had to wean himself off them. They serve only to make women feel inadequate and IMO to hold off conquering the world because they're worried about the size of their thighs.

The glossies are not much better, pages and pages of ads of underweight models often in submissive poses. Some have halfway decent journalism but wedged in between standard how to look, think and behave to get and keep a man rubbish.

I tend to read zines or alternative publications with interesting articles. Online Jezebel is my favourite- http://jezebel.com/

As much as I dislike the way magazines objectify women and make them insecure I would hesitate to ban them. I'd prefer to work towards a progressive womanhood that didn't demand them. I wouldn't mind if a clause was made to ensure that models were in the normal bmi range all the same.

meeeeh

I'm a (decent) newspaper person. Every so often I'd buy Vogue (the last time was probably years ago) but the truth is we like a bit of escapism. If we don't read mags, we watch soaps or some reality show nonsense, sport (football probably isn't the pinnacle of intellectualism but it still entertains me) or whatever other pop culture junk. We can change the narrative but it will be more likely contra productive because it will just create some other more extreme version as a backslash.

Lightbulb Sun

An entertaining blog post on the subject of women's magazines.

Try to look at it lightheartedly, it's quite blunt.

http://decitronic.blogspot.ie/2011/07/womens-magazines.html

XxMCRxBabyxX

Sorry to resurrect the thread but I was looking at magazines today and got thinking about this debate.

Why is it wrong for "lads mags" to have women in revealing clothes on their covers but fine for women's mags to have the same?

Rosy Posy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Sorry to resurrect the thread but I was looking at magazines today and got thinking about this debate.

Why is it wrong for "lads mags" to have women in revealing clothes on their covers but fine for women's mags to have the same?

IMO both serve to make women feel self conscious and inadequate and to concentrate more on their physical image and less on the impact of their actions on the world. The same is true of the language inside both types of magazine.

I would be uneasy about censoring such publications though. I think women would be much better served by other forms of empowerment and cultural change that would lead to a drop in demand for such images and attitudes to women in the media. It's huge though, and seems impossible at times.

meeeeh

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Sorry to resurrect the thread but I was looking at magazines today and got thinking about this debate.

Why is it wrong for "lads mags" to have women in revealing clothes on their covers but fine for women's mags to have the same?

In general it's different body language. Lad's Mags is shoulders back, breast out type of pose, women's mags is more reserved.

I have no problems with nudity. Human form was explored through the history and some of the best artistic photography has naked body as a subject. Porn photography has human body as an sexual object and nothing more. In that regard porn presents people in very limited and submisive way. Human body whose only aim is to please. I'm not saying that Cosmo or Company represent women in a more substantial way but good fashion photography can be more topical and has story and complexity in the image.

Very often are the lines between porn and art barley noticeable but they are there (Jeffrey Koons is good example). I believe people should be free to do what they want so I do not oppose porn or it's softer versions but we shouldn't dismiss the emptiness of it and sometimes very harmful influence. It should be critically examined and children should be taught that gender relations are a bit more complex. Women's mags are not any better because they mostly reduce women to a shopper, dieter etc.

I don't overly like publications that are aimed at particular gender. They oversimplify the world and shouldn't be taken seriously. But I also think they are ok as a bit of fun. A bit like horoscope, you read it and, I hope, don't believe in any of it.

j@utis

mariaalice wrote: »

<...>I often think the editors and journalists who work on a lot of womens/ lifestyle magazine are neurotic self hating woman who manage to mask obsessions about weight/appearance/men/lifestyle as journalism!<...>

I don't think so. and I wouldn't call them journalists either I think it's all about the costs. That kind of material: celeb gossip, diets, fashion is abundant and you don't need to hire a journalist to write "an article" about it. All you need is a person who's good at editing software.
It's all the same stuff slapped together in different manner over and over again. Take Cosmopolitan from 10years ago and one recent and their content is gonna be very much the same just the pictures are different. I see most of the magazines as cheap, mass produced goods. They have no intellectual, moral, residual any other kind of value, they're even not fit for lighting the fire up because of the poisonous materials used in their production.
For the same reason I don't buy newspapers either. Half or even more than half is filled with sports, mostly football stuff - it's cheap, available in quantities, somebody is kicking the ball everyday - loads to write about. But hey, it's not the sports that keeps the world turning. I would buy a "no sports" edition of any newspaper, except tabloids of course, if those existed.

meeeeh

j@utis wrote: »

I don't think so. and I wouldn't call them journalists either I think it's all about the costs. That kind of material: celeb gossip, diets, fashion is abundant and you don't need to hire a journalist to write "an article" about it. All you need is a person who's good at editing software.
It's all the same stuff slapped together in different manner over and over again. Take Cosmopolitan from 10years ago and one recent and their content is gonna be very much the same just the pictures are different. I see most of the magazines as cheap, mass produced goods. They have no intellectual, moral, residual any other kind of value, they're even not fit for lighting the fire up because of the poisonous materials used in their production.
For the same reason I don't buy newspapers either. Half or even more than half is filled with sports, mostly football stuff - it's cheap, available in quantities, somebody is kicking the ball everyday - loads to write about. But hey, it's not the sports that keeps the world turning. I would buy a "no sports" edition of any newspaper, except tabloids of course, if those existed.

Considering I have yet to find a serious newspaper which has more than half of it's content filled with sport, I suspect you didn't come across many non tabloid newspapers. I've heard this type of complaint often usually from people who don't read or follow news(parers).

Shelga

I bought Heat this morning for the first time in ages as I was stuck on a train. It really is total and utter shite. I used to buy it a lot as escapism and a guilty pleasure but it has gone even further downhill since then!

20-25 pages of beach bodies, "showing off their curves" (TOWIE stars shown at a clearly unflattering angle), weight loss tips, makeup and clothes, and interviews with absolute nobodies from reality TV who are years younger than me (I'm 25). The only mildly interesting bit now is the funny TV reviews. I look at the editor, Lucy Cave, who worked for the magazine when I first started buying it at 14, and I think, isn't a grown/middle-aged woman embarrassed to be associated with this rubbish? I even felt mildly self-conscious looking at it in front of others!

I don't know much about lads'/men's mags but they seem to be a bit more honest in what they're about.

Blisterman

The fundamental difference I notice is that men's magazines tend to be more aspirational. If they have a famous man featured in an article, the tone is generally an admiring one.

Women's magazines on the other hand, seem to deal mostly in schadenfreude, having articles about famous women getting fat, being cheated on, being caught cheating etc.

Another example is how men's magazines also tend to focus on exciting and exotic activities throughout the world, whereas women's focus mostly around watching TV.

Little Acorn

I don't like gossip magazines like Heat. They're pretty crap and bitchy.

About 3 - 5 times a year I might pick up a
"U" magazine or "Company" magazine or something similar.
I enjoy seeing what's in highstreet fashion at the minute, and looking at different types of make up and hairstyle looks. I don't feel pressured to copy or look like the models.
I only wear makeup a handful of times a year, and am not very fussy with my hair.
Despite this I still enjoy looking at all the colourful fashions and styles and just getting some inspiration for my own style.

I like reading healthy food articles. Definitely not diets, but little articles about the new "superfood" and why this particular food is very good for you. It is usually a piece of fruit,veg, or fish so nothing harmful. Of course it's all fairly repetitive stuff we've all read before such as why fish are excellent to eat but sometimes it's no harm to recap. What I like though is that they will often give a few recipes that incorporate the healthy food they are talking about. Not a diet plan, just 2 or 3 healthy recipes which use that particular food type. I like reading these. (And yes I know I can get recipes elsewhere, I have several cookbooks and read recipes online too)

I like when they give recipes(?) for things like face masks or hair masks that will save you some money.

I like reading the reviews of books, films, and music that sometimes gets a small section in women's magazines.

And again, I know I could find book reviews, or fashion tips online but sometimes just to pass an hour, it is nice to pick up a mag that has bits and pieces of it all in your hands.

As a young teenage girl I learnt pretty much everything from teen mags.
Periods and what types of sanitary wear was available. Bras.
Bullying, what it was and steps to deal with it.
Sexual terms and what they meant.
Information about stds.
That I should Never EVER feel pressurised to do anything sexual that I wasn't comfortable with and how to say no in an assertive way. This advice was probably the best I could have taken on board as a teenage girl and it really stuck with me.

I know there's a lot of bad in some of these magazines, the fad diets and the bitchy gossip rags are probably the worst. Some are not too bad though and just offer a bit of harmless distraction with a bit of fun fashion or recipes. I couldn't buy any of them weekly as they are ALL just so bloody repetitive, but I think a handful a year is ok.

I haven't looked at enough men's mags to comment on them.

Blisterman

Blisterman wrote: »

Another example is how men's magazines also tend to focus on exciting and exotic activities throughout the world, whereas women's focus mostly around watching TV.

That's certainly true of magazines aimed at an older age group, where the consumer is likely to be a woman with children and more likely to be home based for more of her time.

Same reason celebrity culture is a large part of gossip magazines. They seek to fill a void where a woman at home is less likely to be interacting with people in the same way as they would if they were out at work, and gossip mags compensate in a vicarious way for that lack of interaction. Except the gossip isn't news about your neighbours, it's about Brad and Angelina.

Men and women are fundamentally different in how they relate to others of their own gender. Magazines aren't men relating to women or vice versa via the medium of print, mens' mags are men relating to men and womens are the same.

When men talk to one another face to face, they tend (initially at least) to lead off with talk about things they do, and when women talk face to face they tend to lead of with discussion of things they feel or about personal things like family. The stereotype of men talking about cars and football and women talking about their diets is somewhat grounded in reality.

There is a fundamental difference in how the genders bond and in what interests them about others of their own gender, and magazines reflect that in an exaggerated way.

kippy

Sauve wrote: »

I think that anything can be damaging if you allow yourself to buy into it. I don't feel any pressure from either magazine to look a certain way, simply because I know that they're full of bs articles that are designed to make me feel like I'm not thin/successful/sexy/big boobed enough, and make me conform to all of these ideals in order to be happy, so I buy a bar of chocolate instead

Then again, it's easy for me to say that as a reasonably well adjusted, confident, and 'I kinda like my big ass' 31 year old.
It's not the same for everyone, I know. I realise that I'm very lucky to be fairly happy with myself as I am.

If I had to choose, I'd say womens' mags are worse. The subtlety of some of the articles is mind boggling. They tend to be more about 'how to achieve perfection', whereas the mens' ones are mostly about actual semi-interesting topics, interspersed with pictures of (mostly healthy looking) women with cracking bodies

Yep, thats it there.

Unfortunately there appear to be many that "buy into it" so to speak.

Einhard

I've recently come to realise that women spend so much time getting dolled up to leave the house for the benefit of other women, not men. It was a bit of a revelation to me, but all the woman I've spoken to confirm my theory. And I think many women's mags play a big part in them. Many of them are pretty despicable- I especially hate the ones where the physical flaws of celebrities are paraded for the readers to gloat and mock. I cringe when I see intelligent friends read such crap. How can one seek to inculcate a healthy body image in younger girls when so much of the literature produced for them pokes fun at those with tiny physical flaws, and constantly harp on about the correct body image, the best diet etc.

Men's mags are pretty braindead, but I'd argue that, for the most part, they're harmless. They may sexualise women, but what exactly is wrong with a bit of sexualisation of either sex? We all do it in our everyday lives. At least though, the women in men's mags are beautiful, and celebrated for being so. There's nowehere near the knocking of women in Loaded of FHM as there is in women's mags. And, men's mags feature a broad range of beautiful women- from slim waif-types to more cury-types. From what I've seen, that's more than can be said for the average women's mag, which, if it does feaure more amply women in a complimentaty manner, will then completely undermine tself with diet tips and advice on how to lose all those pounds.

sunbeam

j@utis wrote: »

I don't think so. and I wouldn't call them journalists either I think it's all about the costs. That kind of material: celeb gossip, diets, fashion is abundant and you don't need to hire a journalist to write "an article" about it. All you need is a person who's good at editing software.
It's all the same stuff slapped together in different manner over and over again. Take Cosmopolitan from 10years ago and one recent and their content is gonna be very much the same just the pictures are different. I see most of the magazines as cheap, mass produced goods. They have no intellectual, moral, residual any other kind of value, they're even not fit for lighting the fire up because of the poisonous materials used in their production.
For the same reason I don't buy newspapers either. Half or even more than half is filled with sports, mostly football stuff - it's cheap, available in quantities, somebody is kicking the ball everyday - loads to write about. But hey, it's not the sports that keeps the world turning. I would buy a "no sports" edition of any newspaper, except tabloids of course, if those existed.

Back in the 80s Cosmo used to publish an excerpt from a newly published (non chick litt) novel every month. It introduced me to many of the writers I later studied in college. The rest of it was the usual repetitive mix of fashion/relationships/vague motivational advice on getting ahead in business.

kylith

Einhard wrote: »

I've recently come to realise that women spend so much time getting dolled up to leave the house for the benefit of other women, not men. It was a bit of a revelation to me, but all the woman I've spoken to confirm my theory. And I think many women's mags play a big part in them. Many of them are pretty despicable- I especially hate the ones where the physical flaws of celebrities are paraded for the readers to gloat and mock. I cringe when I see intelligent friends read such crap. How can one seek to inculcate a healthy body image in younger girls when so much of the literature produced for them pokes fun at those with tiny physical flaws, and constantly harp on about the correct body image, the best diet etc.

It comes as something of a surprise when you realise it first, doesn't it? All the waxing, tweezing, plucking, paint, and painful shoes are for the benefit of other women. Generally men, in my experience at least, don't give a hoot about it, or if they think about it at all think it's a bit silly.