Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Jeez, that's not what I said. I said that magazines are targeted towards different genders that way because men put pressure on women to "look good for them", and generally throw a childish tantrum if a woman says she wears make-up and nice clothes for herself and not for a man's approval.
    You are being incredibly sexist and speculative by blaming the source of this pressure on men; it makes you no less than a misandrist. The pressure is just as much from women, no different to how men have pressure from other men and from women. Your posts in this thread display a quite shocking hatred of men - even blaming the magazines on them! The editors in chief are female for heaven's sake and meeting demand with supply.

    And lastly, there's no such thing as looking good for yourself; you look good for others to see you looking good which, in turn, makes you feel good. So yes it is for male approval but also for female approval, and this is the same for men and women alike.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Before jumping on the defensive perhaps appreciate that I was asking for a source and offered my experience. That's not to say that females can't push male ideals but it does take some weight off the chances.

    You've not provided any source yourself and so are mearly offering a 'may' scenario. So again; Please source us evidence that most female aimed magazines which heavily lean towards fashion and beauty etc are steered and influences by men.

    Again: Not trying to debate that that's not the case.. but that no one has actually given and proof that it is either.
    I'm just providing a philosophical position that women are perfectly capable of pushing sexist ideals themselves. But you said it yourself, if most marketing departments are female and push that kind of magazine set up with all the games, trains and other supposed male things in one section and have beauty etc in another more female section. Or say in a toy shop, that is all very split up into boy and girl. The whole thing enforces gender roles for better or for worse.

    The women who is a vocal feminist and thinks there shouldn't be this kind of shop set up is could be less likely to find herself in a position as part of the marketing team. A women who is complete fine with pushing sexism to make money is going to be a better marketeer for an entity that only cares about maximizing profit. I am saying just because marketing departments are predominantly female doesn't mean they can not be sexist against women.

    I am just thinking aloud, I got no evidence.

    (Original post by ParadiseFound)
    This is BS, women put pressure on themselves to look good.
    And why does this pressure exist?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    I like the implication that people wanted to read The Sun.
    Over 2 million daily circulation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it lacks class and that the Sun is garbage, but surely if the models choose to pose topless, knowing they'll be objectified by sleazy men, it shouldn't be a problem? I thought the feminists wanted to free the nipples anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    Over 2 million daily circulation.
    I never said people didn't buy it. I just find it funny that these social justice warriors would read it. Unless they're trying to change a piece of media that they don't read.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm just providing a philosophical position that women are perfectly capable of pushing sexist ideals themselves. But you said it yourself, if most marketing departments are female and push that kind of magazine set up with all the games, trains and other supposed male things in one section and have beauty etc in another more female section. Or say in a toy shop, that is all very split up into boy and girl. The whole thing enforces gender roles for better or for worse.

    The women who is a vocal feminist and thinks there shouldn't be this kind of shop set up is could be less likely to find herself in a position as part of the marketing team.
    So? If I am a vocal atheist, I'm not going to get a job as a priest. If this woman in your example disagrees with a company's proven track record to maximise meeting demand then why would she be hired?

    There's no reason why marketing according to gender is wrong (which I appreciate you haven't said directly); it makes logical and practical and business sense to everyone who isn't blinded by sexism. "Gender roles" are simply the result of average preferences of males and females respectively derived from our biological and psychological differences. Businesses cater to these different interests, and to think of this as a fundamental social problem is really quite strange. Of course there is going to be a minority who don't fit in with the average but since it is impossible to cater to everyone the best you can do is cater to the majority. Should we also have non-gender marketing and merchandising in clothes shops? Should we have men's shirts next to women's underwear? What if I want to wear a nice thong from Topshop? What if I disagree with this retail fashion layout but I want a job at Topman?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    You are being incredibly sexist and speculative by blaming the source of this pressure on men; it makes you no less than a misandrist. The pressure is just as much from women, no different to how men have pressure from other men and from women. Your posts in this thread display a quite shocking hatred of men - even blaming the magazines on them! The editors in chief are female for heaven's sake and meeting demand with supply.

    And lastly, there's no such thing as looking good for yourself; you look good for others to see you looking good which, in turn, makes you feel good. So yes it is for male approval but also for female approval, and this is the same for men and women alike.
    I'm not a misandrist. I believe in gender equality, which is why I dislike the fact that women are constantly pressured to look good for other people. It so happens that men are generally the ones in charge in the press industry. It's also possible for women to have internalised misogyny, which I believe is largely the case for these magazines whose editors are female. I don't read them, but the front pages always seem to be about impressing men, and if women are being told by other women that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a man, then we have a problem.

    This isn't meant condescendingly, but a lot of people don't realise that there actually is such a thing as looking good for yourself. My self-worth isn't tied to how other people react to my appearance. I rarely wear make-up, but if I feel like wearing it, then I will. I'm not trying to impress anyone by presenting myself in a way that I personally like.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    I never said people didn't buy it. I just find it funny that these social justice warriors would read it. Unless they're trying to change a piece of media that they don't read.
    Oh, sorry.

    Yeah, I can't easily imagine a good reason for the tumblr hambeasts to pick up a copy of The Sun. I don't think they'd like any of it, never mind the boobs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    So? If I am a vocal atheist, I'm not going to get a job as a priest. If this woman in your example disagrees with a company's proven track record to maximise meeting demand then why would she be hired?

    There's no reason why marketing according to gender is wrong (which I appreciate you haven't said directly); it makes logical and practical and business sense to everyone who isn't blinded by sexism. "Gender roles" are simply the result of average preferences of males and females respectively derived from our biological and psychological differences. Businesses cater to these different interests, and to think of this as a fundamental social problem is really quite strange. Of course there is going to be a minority who don't fit in with the average but since it is impossible to cater to everyone the best you can do is cater to the majority. Should we also have non-gender marketing and merchandising in clothes shops? Should we have men's shirts next to women's underwear? What if I want to wear a nice thong from Topshop? What if I disagree with this retail fashion layout but I want a job at Topman?
    I'm just pointing out how economics can provide the mechanisms that create and push sexist attitudes and how women are perfectly capable of playing a part in this.

    Anyway, in the page 3 case it is more the owner of the product deciding having topless models could become damaging to profit. Hence they are being got rid of.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chewey)
    I think it lacks class and that the Sun is garbage, but surely if the models choose to pose topless, knowing they'll be objectified by sleazy men, it shouldn't be a problem? I thought the feminists wanted to free the nipples anyway.
    It's more about the fact that male nipples aren't generally sexualised, whereas female ones are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    I'm not a misandrist. I believe in gender equality, which is why I dislike the fact that women are constantly pressured to look good for other people. It so happens that men are generally the ones in charge in the press industry. It's also possible for women to have internalised misogyny, which I believe is largely the case for these magazines whose editors are female. I don't read them, but the front pages always seem to be about impressing men, and if women are being told by other women that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a man, then we have a problem.
    You can easily reverse the genders in this text.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You can easily reverse the genders in this text.
    Um... no?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Um... no?
    if men are being told by other men that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a woman, then we have a problem.
    It also works this way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm just pointing out how economics can provide the mechanisms that create and push sexist attitudes and how women are perfectly capable of playing a part in this.

    Anyway, in the page 3 case it is more the owner of the product deciding having topless models could become damaging to profit. Hence they are being got rid of.
    It seemed that you were saying a great deal more than that. Economics helps explain why markets behave as they do. The reason why there is a clear distinction in gender between products in a toy shop or magazines on a shelf is because there is a clear distinction between male and female interests on average, i.e. this merchandising is the result of recognising these differences and meeting demand with supply, not the other way around.

    I support The Sun removing page three.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    If you don't like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper with page 3 boobs.
    And if you do like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper without page 3 boobs.

    (Original post by BitWindy)
    If this decision by the Sun is driven by falling sales then fine, but if the undue pressure applied by idiotic feminists informed such a move I hope it will be swiftly reversed.
    What difference does it make? It was a decision by the Sun, Murdoch can do as he pleases with his paper.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    If you don't like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper with page 3 boobs.

    This isn't a matter of battling sexism, protecting children or getting rid of the "old fashioned".

    1) Being attracted to the opposite sex is not sexism.
    2) Boobs are not damaging to kids. Children can and will access far more explicit images on the internet; and they won't be damaged by them either.
    3) If something is "old fashioned", it will fall out of circulation naturally. Clearly there is a demand for page 3.

    If this decision by the Sun is driven by falling sales then fine, but if the undue pressure applied by idiotic feminists informed such a move I hope it will be swiftly reversed.
    ^this.
    There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    It seemed that you were saying a great deal more than that. Economics helps explain why markets behave as they do. The reason why there is a clear distinction in gender between products in a toy shop or magazines on a shelf is because there is a clear distinction between male and female interests on average, i.e. this merchandising is the result of recognising these differences and meeting demand with supply, not the other way around.

    I support The Sun removing page three.
    A lot of thought is put into the designing of a shop floor. All around the concept of making money.

    It;s a chicken and egg scenario. Does arranging toys by gender create artificial gender roles. Or do natural gender roles create the toy arrangement. It is a question for sociologists. Not me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Well, as a woman I'm quite happy about this. Hopefully men will stop objectifying us so much in future.
    I'm curious: do you think banning porn would reduce 'objectification' (whatever that is) too?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boods8897)
    ^this.
    There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thank you, say this to the feminazi on the thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    And if you do like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper without page 3 boobs.



    What difference does it make? It was a decision by the Sun, Murdoch can do as he pleases with his paper.
    Don't be a dolt.

    We're not talking about "who's able to do what" here. Can we not discuss what should or shouldn't happen without referring back to what someone is free to do?

    In fact, I'm not sure why this is in the politics section at all. No one's talking about banning page 3, are they?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.