The mansplaining thread

[Angry Floof]

Appalled Graphic Designer Shows Girls’ Life Magazine What Their Cover Should Look Like

A magazine that does not exist to do anything but reinforce ignorance and insecurity.

The contrast between these two covers speaks for itself.

View attachment 23621

LOL at the OP. Teen mags go back to the 50s. It is the teen commercialized culture. It is ingrained in culture, what people are supposed to look like and what roles are.

What say you about the Beautiful Women Thread a few clicks away? It is the same stuff.

What I say is that not everyone is content being a pig wallowing in shit. We're outnumbered, that's for sure, but we still won't take the easy, lazy route of never questioning the status quo.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why don't more women go into STEM? We could start here.

Have you ever studied or worked in a STEM field? Ever studied or worked with women in STEM?

While I've interacted with plenty of engineers from Raytheon, now that you mention it, every last one was male. Come to think of it, even training at Raytheon in San Diego, I cannot recall seeing one female.
Why do you ask?

Well, I have (in physics/astrophysics) and it was easy to see why it is harder for them to succeed. How they have much fewer role models. And why it’s obvious why they are more likely to leave even as it is less likely that they start.

Addressing the whole “why don’t more women go into STEM?” question.

 

[rousseau]

Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.

How do you know that the first cover would sell more copies?

Precisely b/c the second cover had to be invented as a protest, b/c there were no mags for teen girls that looked like that.
There are countless people whose sole job it is to sell anything they can to teens. They spend millions on market research to explore what will sell, and that research has lead to the creation of numerous mags just like Girl's Life (Teen Vogue, J-14, M Life, Popstar, American Cheerleader, Seventeen) and none like the second cover.

If you seriously think such a mag would sell, then you could be a millionaire in months, b/c you'd be the only game in town to satisfy that market. You see the same pattern in every other form of media as well, from the most popular songs and TV shows aimed at that demographic.

Not to mention, any time spent around 12-14 year old girls would tell you that the first one would sell way more. Do you seriously think there are more 14 year old girls who sit around and talk more about about taking AP classes and their future careers than about boys and hair?
I was a nerd who hung around nerds, and that wasn't true even in that crowd. And my more recent misfortune of occassionally overhearing conversations between that age group suggests that little has changed. Boys are just as "shallow" (for lack of a better word), just with different interests than boyfriends and hair. But, as studies have shown, boys rarely read at all outside of school work (and not much then), so there aren't magazines at all that target teen boys.

Also, don't forget the content isn't just trying to sell the magazine itself, but to sell other products as well. Ads for the latest fashions are more successful if accompanied by lead stories of how the most important thing when entering a new school year is having the latest fashions.

I don't know that shallow is the right word.. maybe 'hormonal' will do?

Most teens and twenty-somethings think about sex pretty much constantly, so it's no surprise that they'd be more interested in a magazine that's tangentially about sex. What's more fun: trying to get laid or AP Classes?

Reading material like this is light entertainment for young girls who want to have fun. That doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with having positive role-models, doing well in school, etc etc.

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem as long as social supports are injecting a healthy dose of reality on the side.

 

[Angry Floof]

Do any of you guys have daughters? Any girls or young women in your lives that you care about or take any interest in at all, or whose lives you have some influence in? If so, I hope they also have other people in their lives who value them more than "Oh, well, that's just our society. What're ya gonna do? Meh." I hope those girls learn their value as humans in spite of some of the men in their lives.

 

[steve_bank]

What I say is that not everyone is content being a pig wallowing in shit. We're outnumbered, that's for sure, but we still won't take the easy, lazy route of never questioning the status quo.

Agreed, but that does not change reality.

Men are subjected to the same propaganda.

Take our revolutionary pre testosterone supplement and your girlfriend will go crazy. Men are supposed to be ready 24/7 with a hardon otherwise you aint a man.

It is the mass marketing advertising culture.

All that being said in general I oppose the idea of a self appointed morality presuming to dictate what should and should not be presented. Historically Unit ends up being far worse than what it replaces.

That is China today and the old Soviet communism. Defing culture by ideology imposd from above.

While the OP is a good example of how stereotyping and self worth are affected by media especially when young, in this case I call it a moral slippery slope. It ends up being oppressive. Back in the 50s and 60s if some had their way rock and roll would have been banned. When Elvis was on the Ed Sullivan show only his upper body was shown.

There is a down side to wide open cultural norms, and a down side to censorship.

Parents are responsible for educating kids. Very difficult with the imagry on TV, video ganes, music, and movies.

The stereotypes and created norms of value are coming from everywhere. Before all this there were the 30s 40s 50s movies that defined roles of men and women.

Why not question the forum status quo with the beautiful women thread?

 

[Angry Floof]

What I say is that not everyone is content being a pig wallowing in shit. We're outnumbered, that's for sure, but we still won't take the easy, lazy route of never questioning the status quo.

Agreed, but that does not change reality.

Men are subjected to the same propaganda.

Take our revolutionary pre testosterone supplement and your girlfriend will go crazy. Men are supposed to be ready 24/7 with a hardon otherwise you aint a man.

It is the mass marketing advertising culture.

All that being said in general I oppose the idea of a self appointed morality presuming to dictate what should and should not be presented. Historically Unit ends up being far worse than what it replaces.

That is China today and the old Soviet communism. Defing culture by ideology imposd from above.

While the OP is a good example of how stereotyping and self worth are affected by media especially when young, in this case I call it a moral slippery slope. It ends up being oppressive. Back in the 50s and 60s if some had their way rock and roll would have been banned. When Elvis was on the Ed Sullivan show only his upper body was shown.

There is a down side to wide open cultural norms, and a down side to censorship.

Parents are responsible for educating kids. Very difficult with the imagry on TV, video ganes, music, and movies.

The stereotypes and created norms of value are coming from everywhere. Before all this there were the 30s 40s 50s movies that defined roles of men and women.

Why not question the forum status quo with the beautiful women thread?

I hope there's no girls or young women in your life. If there are, see my previous post. I hope those girls have others in their lives to teach them to value themselves and to question the status quo.

And I DO question the status quo here and everywhere, but I honestly wouldn't expect you to recognize what that looks like, or to help in any way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real cover will sell more because it's talking about what girls want to know about.

 

[Angry Floof]

The real cover will sell more because it's talking about what girls want to know about.

Is that what girls want to know about, Loren? Is it really? Are there any other factors you could think of that might be at play here? Anything at all? I can maybe offer some hints if you're really stumped.

 

[bigfield]

Do any of you guys have daughters? Any girls or young women in your lives that you care about or take any interest in at all, or whose lives you have some influence in?

I have an infant niece, and I care about her future happiness.

If so, I hope they also have other people in their lives who value them more than "Oh, well, that's just our society. What're ya gonna do? Meh." I hope those girls learn their value as humans in spite of some of the men in their lives.

Ouch.

Perhaps I could've made a less pessimistic contribution to the discussion. The parade of responses all basically saying "this can't change"/"this doesn't need to change" is not a good look.

 

[Deepak]

The real cover will sell more because it's talking about what girls want to know about.

Is that what girls want to know about, Loren? Is it really? Are there any other factors you could think of that might be at play here? Anything at all? I can maybe offer some hints if you're really stumped.

So anecdotally, I find that Indian & Chinese women with MBAs or STEM degrees are much more likely to speak their mind, and where they can access it STEM tends to be a highly desirable track to women outside the Western world. Not that these places are necessarily feminist utopias, but the mentality that you can be anything you want as long as it's a doctor, lawyer, or engineer makes a difference. A child's worldview is shaped by society, and the first society they're exposed to is their family.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.

How do you know that the first cover would sell more copies?

Precisely b/c the second cover had to be invented as a protest, b/c there were no mags for teen girls that looked like that.
There are countless people whose sole job it is to sell anything they can to teens. They spend millions on market research to explore what will sell, and that research has lead to the creation of numerous mags just like Girl's Life (Teen Vogue, J-14, M Life, Popstar, American Cheerleader, Seventeen) and none like the second cover.

If you seriously think such a mag would sell, then you could be a millionaire in months, b/c you'd be the only game in town to satisfy that market. You see the same pattern in every other form of media as well, from the most popular songs and TV shows aimed at that demographic.

Not to mention, any time spent around 12-14 year old girls would tell you that the first one would sell way more. Do you seriously think there are more 14 year old girls who sit around and talk more about about taking AP classes and their future careers than about boys and hair?
I was a nerd who hung around nerds, and that wasn't true even in that crowd. And my more recent misfortune of occassionally overhearing conversations between that age group suggests that little has changed. Boys are just as "shallow" (for lack of a better word), just with different interests than boyfriends and hair. But, as studies have shown, boys rarely read at all outside of school work (and not much then), so there aren't magazines at all that target teen boys.

Not via male identity, but music, sports, and wrestling definitely target boys.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The real cover will sell more because it's talking about what girls want to know about.

Well, it markets itself as 'You should feel insecure, but we can help you.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Appalled Graphic Designer Shows Girls’ Life Magazine What Their Cover Should Look Like

A magazine that does not exist to do anything but reinforce ignorance and insecurity.

The contrast between these two covers speaks for itself.

View attachment 23621

LOL at the OP. Teen mags go back to the 50s. It is the teen commercialized culture. It is ingrained in culture, what people are supposed to look like and what roles are.

What say you about the Beautiful Women Thread a few clicks away? It is the same stuff.

Isn't that the point? In the Beautiful Women thread there are a number of pics of intelligent / accomplished women... and then a lot of big boob fluff. Just because there are strip clubs doesn't mean we shouldn't push for better. (Granted, some strippers are just paying for college)

 

[Angry Floof]

The real cover will sell more because it's talking about what girls want to know about.

Well, it markets itself as 'You should feel insecure, but we can help you.'

I was going to see if he could figure it out for himself.

 

[Angry Floof]

Appalled Graphic Designer Shows Girls’ Life Magazine What Their Cover Should Look Like

A magazine that does not exist to do anything but reinforce ignorance and insecurity.

The contrast between these two covers speaks for itself.

View attachment 23621

LOL at the OP. Teen mags go back to the 50s. It is the teen commercialized culture. It is ingrained in culture, what people are supposed to look like and what roles are.

What say you about the Beautiful Women Thread a few clicks away? It is the same stuff.

Isn't that the point? In the Beautiful Women thread there are a number of pics of intelligent / accomplished women... and then a lot of big boob fluff. Just because there are strip clubs doesn't mean we shouldn't push for better. (Granted, some strippers are just paying for college)

It's quite clear that Steve completely missed the point. He thinks this thread is complaining about objectification.

 

[TSwizzle]

I always hated standing in line at the supermarket checkout with my family and seeing the magazine stand with these dumb magazines on display. Cosmopolitan magazine always irked me the most as the cover always had something like "Ten Ways to Pleasure Your Man" or "These Moves Will Blow His Mind In The Bedroom" etc. But in all the years I have seen them, I never saw anyone buy a copy.

 

[Toni]

Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.

How do you know that the first cover would sell more copies?

Precisely b/c the second cover had to be invented as a protest, b/c there were no mags for teen girls that looked like that.
There are countless people whose sole job it is to sell anything they can to teens. They spend millions on market research to explore what will sell, and that research has lead to the creation of numerous mags just like Girl's Life (Teen Vogue, J-14, M Life, Popstar, American Cheerleader, Seventeen) and none like the second cover.

If you seriously think such a mag would sell, then you could be a millionaire in months, b/c you'd be the only game in town to satisfy that market. You see the same pattern in every other form of media as well, from the most popular songs and TV shows aimed at that demographic.

Not to mention, any time spent around 12-14 year old girls would tell you that the first one would sell way more. Do you seriously think there are more 14 year old girls who sit around and talk more about about taking AP classes and their future careers than about boys and hair?
I was a nerd who hung around nerds, and that wasn't true even in that crowd. And my more recent misfortune of occassionally overhearing conversations between that age group suggests that little has changed. Boys are just as "shallow" (for lack of a better word), just with different interests than boyfriends and hair. But, as studies have shown, boys rarely read at all outside of school work (and not much then), so there aren't magazines at all that target teen boys.

Also, don't forget the content isn't just trying to sell the magazine itself, but to sell other products as well. Ads for the latest fashions are more successful if accompanied by lead stories of how the most important thing when entering a new school year is having the latest fashions.

Mebbe you are right.

But: What if there were magazines like the second cover? Having been a girl ages 12-14, I can tell you that I certainly would have LOVED the second one while I scoffed at the first one as being useless and boring. Many to most of my female friends would have also loved the second magazine more, as well.

But why does it need to be an either/or? Who says that nerdy girls aren't also insecure about their looks and wouldn't mind reading some tips about how to style their hair interspersed with articles about which AP classes they should take, what career paths were most promising, etc?

The truth is the second type of magazine hasn't been tried for girls or for boys.

Why not?

 

[Toni]

Why don't more women go into STEM? We could start here.

Have you ever studied or worked in a STEM field? Ever studied or worked with women in STEM?

While I've interacted with plenty of engineers from Raytheon, now that you mention it, every last one was male. Come to think of it, even training at Raytheon in San Diego, I cannot recall seeing one female.
Why do you ask?

My sister was an engineer at Raytheon for a while. Eventually the misogyny got to even her and she left for another employer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But: What if there were magazines like the second cover? Having been a girl ages 12-14, I can tell you that I certainly would have LOVED the second one while I scoffed at the first one as being useless and boring. Many to most of my female friends would have also loved the second magazine more, as well.

But why does it need to be an either/or? Who says that nerdy girls aren't also insecure about their looks and wouldn't mind reading some tips about how to style their hair interspersed with articles about which AP classes they should take, what career paths were most promising, etc?

The truth is the second type of magazine hasn't been tried for girls or for boys.

Why not?

The market segment is way too small.

 

[steve_bank]

floof

I hope there's no girls or young women in your life. If there are, see my previous post. I hope those girls have others in their lives to teach them to value themselves and to question the status quo.

And I DO question the status quo here and everywhere, but I honestly wouldn't expect you to recognize what that looks like, or to help in any way.

My point, I love to watch selective moral outrage, posturing, and preaching.

The cover as things go is innocuous.Do you like to watch the Fast and Furious movies? Get you excited maybe even a hardon? The series is simple. Big strong beefy dominant men, generally submissive women with tits hanging out, and of course fast cars and violence.

What say you about those Hollywood images and portrayals of women? How about the geral TV image of young women acting mostly like goofy teens?

Male and female role images are pervasive and crafted by a minority. The crafted images are mimicked. The issue is not with a magazine cover, it is with culture as it has evolved from the 60s counter culture and rejection of norms of the day.

I do not watch porn anymore, do you watch porn with young looking girls being gagged by an older man? Do you like images of younger girls on their knees taking it in the mouth? Male dominance.

Evaluate your own norms and cultural programming first. You may be surprised.