The Bottom Line
Article from The Age in aussieland which looks at the weekly magazines and how the lowest common denominator sells magazines. Sales of mens and womens weekly celebrity-focused magazines are strong. The article looks at why men and women buy these magazines.
An interesting analysis by Andrew Singleton, a doctor of philosophy specialising in gender issues at Monash University on why men buy these mags:
"For the male reader it's analogous to sexual conquest. You might not be able to pick her up in a bar and have sex with her, but if you can get her in the pages of a magazine it's like owning her sexually. These magazines are the ultimate form of objectifying women. They're just lying around in their underwear saying 'Look at me'; it's so passive. At the end of the day, Ralph and Zoo do nothing positive for women in any way. The fact that the mass-market magazines are so out-and-out sexist makes me pessimistic about the goals that feminism has kicked."
The article feels that women's magazine actually treat women more harshly than the lads mags. Definitely an interesting read.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-bottom-line/2006/09/10/1157826810975.html
An interesting analysis by Andrew Singleton, a doctor of philosophy specialising in gender issues at Monash University on why men buy these mags:
"For the male reader it's analogous to sexual conquest. You might not be able to pick her up in a bar and have sex with her, but if you can get her in the pages of a magazine it's like owning her sexually. These magazines are the ultimate form of objectifying women. They're just lying around in their underwear saying 'Look at me'; it's so passive. At the end of the day, Ralph and Zoo do nothing positive for women in any way. The fact that the mass-market magazines are so out-and-out sexist makes me pessimistic about the goals that feminism has kicked."
The article feels that women's magazine actually treat women more harshly than the lads mags. Definitely an interesting read.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-bottom-line/2006/09/10/1157826810975.html