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.

 

[fast]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.

 

[Angry Floof]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




the professionaly done picture

Is this supposed to be funny or something?

 

[TV and credit cards]

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

You are going to trigger people saying that.

 

[Toni]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.

Something.


the professionaly done picture

Is this supposed to be funny or something?

Something.

 

[ronburgundy]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




the professionaly done picture

Is this supposed to be funny or something?

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.

 

[Toni]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




the professionaly done picture

Is this supposed to be funny or something?

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?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

The market, probably.

What does marketing prize most of all? Your insecurity.... and gossip.

 

[Angry Floof]

At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




the professionaly done picture

Is this supposed to be funny or something?

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.

Well, I never mentioned the Boys' Life cover, so not really relevant. And my point was not about gender bias. It's about what poisonous, inhumane beliefs we allow greedy morons to reinforce in our children as a means of making money for themselves.

 

[Toni]

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

The market, probably.

What does marketing prize most of all? Your insecurity.... and gossip.

I was getting at that the supposition is just as you say: there is a lot of money to be made trading in the insecurities of girls and women.
Every fashion or lifestyle magazine with a female target audience that I’ve seen is chock full of advertisements, and even ‘articles’ or how to pieces are chock full of adverts.

Still, some fashion magazines also have serious, thoughtful and thought provoking articles and interviews—real journalism. It’s not all how to look thin and rich and beautiful.

It seems to me that there is a natural audience for articles and pieces as described on the second/fake cover.

 

[fast]

There’s more twist to the purported intentions than there is in twisters. Why does the most negative spin always surface when it comes to attributing motive to others? I don’t just mean that people tend to speak in ways that merely convey a perspective with tone boiling over with negative connotation. I mean the views themselves are actually twisted. It’s like everyone got the memo that said to hell with the truth and let’s just say what in the hell we want to say.

Opinions vary, and there’s seldom a fair and balanced perspective, but even factual truths shed in a dim light are truths, yet where on Sams Hill do we find the source of these purported motives? Even if (even if, I say) the insecurities of others are being focused on, it’s still (still, I holler) a mighty leap to take the truth of the matter (which is at best uneducated conjecture) and magically spring forth claims of intent.

I was at a birthday party and the youngest there was a 17 year old girl who reportedly went into the kitchen and not only made her a rather large plate of food but made a total of five plates for her family down the street. The guy who told the story said she didn’t care about others there, whether they ate or not, and basically said she didn’t give a fuck about anybody else. Actions can be an indication, but we shouldn’t solidify in our minds her state of mind by that alone. It’s more than just a whopsided view; it’s peddling in making shit up.

Now, the magazine isn’t run by some 17 year old high school student oblivious to the effects of her immediate actions. Presumably, there are at least a few business minded people that have a clue —and it wouldn’t surprise me if a few socially displeasing actions are underway, but satisfying the needs and wants of their target market (for one) is critical to sustaining business longevity, especially when under the watchful eye of the public and potential fallout.

Do you think their spin to explain what they’re doing would be couched in such negativity? Of course not; their spin will be contrary to the ‘opinions’ in this thread. But, and listen closely (‘cause this is where people get lost), WHAT they do and their MOTIVATIONS are not always steeped in the brilliance that people give credit for. The ole cliche that if it wasn’t done intentionally then it was done out of ignorance is mental garbleygook.

I think girls want to feel pretty and hip and cool and don’t always focus their every minute on their future education and careers, and I don’t see an overly overt one track mindset to lure them by such a ridiculous 1950’s rendition of education R Us being particularly enticing, especially with such pitiful lack of presentation. Should we include more within the pages to help guide them? Maybe. I’d need to think about that some more.

If what’s there in the magazine is what interests them, then that may foster what we might otherwise prefer wasn’t (especially if it aids in sustaining what they may generally want), but why think it’s their intention, their motive, or their reason? The 17 year old didn’t have an insidious motive for others to do without anymore than a magazine is setting out to maintain some antiquated social march.

We oughtn’t be so quick to outright imbue others with having the motives representative of the most hostile and vile views we can muster. Sure, there’s something to be said with going forward as if no moral concerns are present, but that does not mean they are licking their lips as if the readers are their prey.

 

[abaddon]

"This is what sells"... People should be careful with that line of argument. It assumes human nature is accurately reflected in the images we see in marketing.

But marketing does not just pander to what people want. It tells people what to want.

So why not tell people about other things to want... more achievable, simple, healthful, humane things? The second magazine just might sell as well (or near-enough) as the first one, with some societal changes in our ideals. Take the ideal of beauty for example. Who decided that the models should look more alien than human? They're skinny rails with bony faces covered over in makeup... Why? If you can tell people what to want (and they're compliant monkeys so you do rather have to), then why not be magnanimous enough to tell them to want to be something deeper than an image?

 

[Angry Floof]

"This is what sells"... People should be careful with that line of argument. It assumes human nature is accurately reflected in the images we see in marketing.

But marketing does not just pander to what people want. It tells people what to want.

It panders to what people react to the most viscerally and subconsciously.

So why not tell people about other things to want... more achievable, simple, healthful, humane things? The second magazine just might sell as well (or near-enough) as the first one, with some societal changes in our ideals. Take the ideal of beauty for example. Who decided that the models should look more alien than human? They're skinny rails with bony faces covered over in makeup... Why? If you can tell people what to want (and they're compliant monkeys so you do rather have to), then why not be magnanimous enough to tell them to want to be something deeper than an image?

I think the second one would be more appealing to just about any girl and her parents. By just looking at the comparison, it suggests that there is more to life than the superficial nonsense in the first one and the second one opens up all kinds of realizations as to what is possible to want or be interested in reading more about.

Everyone's perceptions and thoughts are influenced by media messages. But that doesn't mean that other messages and images don't challenge those previous messages. And when the previous messages are shown by comparison to be kind of shallow and have the effect of making you feel uncomfortable with yourself, and the new images and messages resonate in more inspiring ways, it's a matter of just being exposed to the things that marketers don't really want kids to be exposed to.

So I agree, just tell them they want something better. But I would put it differently: Suggest to them something better than what has been suggested before.

 

[Bronzeage]

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

You are going to trigger people saying that.

My older daughter is the head of Nursing Education at one of the country's largest medical centers. My younger daughter is a nuclear scientist at a place she can't talk about.

I have no idea what this stems from.

 

[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?

 

[bigfield]

"This is what sells"... People should be careful with that line of argument. It assumes human nature is accurately reflected in the images we see in marketing.

But marketing does not just pander to what people want. It tells people what to want.

So why not tell people about other things to want... more achievable, simple, healthful, humane things? The second magazine just might sell as well (or near-enough) as the first one, with some societal changes in our ideals. Take the ideal of beauty for example. Who decided that the models should look more alien than human? They're skinny rails with bony faces covered over in makeup... Why? If you can tell people what to want (and they're compliant monkeys so you do rather have to), then why not be magnanimous enough to tell them to want to be something deeper than an image?

Marketing is often effective because it exploits people anxieties, and it's just too damned easy to turn a profit exploiting those insecurities by selling quick, shallow fixes.

As a former reader, I can attest that men's (or "lad's") magazines were (are) extremely good at exploiting a young man's fears about his ability to attract women. Women aren't interested in you unless you get this car, this expensive watch, these designer clothes, this sickly cologne, this ripped-abs workout, and these seven different sex positions from the Kama Sutra. The bikini models and the "girl next door" interviews are just the hook.

The Girl's Life cover is nothing but quick fixes: Fashion, hair, a pretty face, make friends, get a boyfriend. These things all exploit humans' basic insecurity about their social position and confidently offers simple, certain solutions.

I think girls' magazines are particularly appalling because of the almost singular focus on the girls' presentation, but there are entire industries selling shit that does nothing except exploit our basic need to be valued by others.

why not be magnanimous enough to tell them to want to be something deeper than an image?

Because this is easier and more profitable. Consumers who reach enlightenment and stop buying shit are bad for business.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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?

 

[steve_bank]

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.