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
posted by modestyrocks at Thursday, September 14, 2006
1 Comments:
This is a very, very interesting article..there are a few really nice quotes that i'll have to write down. I have to say though, I don't agree Le Masurier though I will say that she almost had me for a second with her "the poor men! it's all just a tough guy exterior!" argument. I'm willing to buy that there are men out there who feel that they need to buy and read these magazines to feel like "a man" and that some good can come out of it if in the magazine there are intelligent non-sexist articles about gender and such...but to me #1 that almost never happens and #2 the packaging, the selling point, the advertising trumps it all. The meat and potatoes of any so called men's magazine is, like the other person said, conquest and a sense of entitlement to women and women's bodies. I don't think there's anything sweet or endearing about it...i've read enough of those crappy magazines to know that when they do interview women, it's to dig up "dirt" on them so they can portray them as these good girls with a raunchy dark side..it's just a nice shiny version of howard stern or leykis.
but anyways, thanks for posting about the article :)
Post a Comment
<< Home