Are women's magazines worse than mens?

(13 Posts)
giveitago Wed 18-Sep-13 14:02:27

I stopped reading womens mags in my early 20s. I was sick of this attitude that a) women - be empowered and get your career on track v b) how to be more attractive to men.

Took me till my 20's to get this.

Never read a men's mag.

I get a free mag on the tube. I'm now in my late 40's. I'm laughing at the recommendations to make my skin more this, my hair more that and the feminist bit is the bit about some actress is who is drop dead beautiful, completely into her career, and completely into taking her clothes off her very honed body.

Doesn't represent me. I'm in my late 40's but still a woman.

NoComet Tue 17-Sep-13 23:07:58

The headlines on misery mags are truely awful and having well within DD2's reading abilty at 6.

Words like Dad, mum, killed are going to jump out at small DCs.

I certainly wold prefer they weren't on the till.

Darkesteyes Tue 17-Sep-13 23:02:42

While i agree with some of what you say (i prefer mags like Psychologies but their sales have dropped by 45% in the last year according to ABC circulation figures) it is not women who have abused me in the street in the past because of my size (i used to be a size 28 then dropped to a 14 , am now a 20) it is MEN who have shouted out all sorts of nasty mysogynistic sizeist comments in the street and i really dont think they have been reading Glamour.
I was on a rare night out a while ago with a friend and a bloke commented on the size of her chest. She is slim and small His comment “Blimey you are hardly Nuts material are you?

THIS is why i would prefer the lads mags to go first and then we can start tackling the celebrity rags.

Retropear Tue 17-Sep-13 16:24:31

Oooooo I hate those graphic real life headlines now mine can all read.

fancyanother Tue 17-Sep-13 13:59:51

I would say that the womens 'celebrity ' magazines are far more detrimental than 'lad' mags. Women and young girls being subjected to the constant 'look at how fat/thin/ugly she is, look how fast she has lost her baby weight bollocks do not see these celebrities in everyday life. They do not know what they look like when not plastered in makeup or under their clothes. I would think womens mags have a far more detrimental effect on young peoples' states of mind than the lads mags. even though I don't believe they should be in eyesight of children either.

MrJudgeyPants Tue 17-Sep-13 10:40:42

Just wanting to add to the consensus about women's mags, I'd like to add that on the (very) rare occasions that Mrs. Pants has bought one of these magazines I was disgusted at the forensic level of detail they went into to reveal blemishes in the bodies of 'celebrities'. Photos of several stars crow's feet, cellulite and even sweat marks were enlarged and pored over with such schadenfreude that I found the whole premise to be absolutely disgusting.

Whilst I don't pretend to be an expert in such matters, I can't help thinking that if the average reader were to judge their own bodies to the same standards as the celebrities within these mags, and in such forensic detail, it would hardly be surprising to find issues such as body dysmorphia to be problematic within society.

I don't mean to let lads mags off the hook here but, taken in the round, women's mags must be just as corrosive.

FossilMum Tue 17-Sep-13 09:44:38

Lke Onesleep I too loathe those mags like Chat that are displayed at checkout counters at child-eye height. They should not be there. They shouldn't exist at all, but certainly not displayed at checkout counters where they are very hard to avoid.

I think they are about equal, they do damage in different ways.

Onesleeptillwembley Tue 17-Sep-13 08:40:05

You're right in many ways. I've seen titles along the lines of 'Raped by my daddy' and 'killed my baby' and just been amazed they are on full display at children's height. I'm also amazed people pay for the misery fest, but that's another matter.

Moistenedbint1 Tue 17-Sep-13 08:32:35

And I agree with your basic sentiment btw- women's magazines are more damaging than GQ, Loaded et al.

Moistenedbint1 Tue 17-Sep-13 08:28:32

Womens/girls mags can equally salacious. They're simply more surreptitious about it - shots of semi naked blokes, for example, tend to be centre fold rather than front page.

ttosca Tue 17-Sep-13 00:02:11

Because they're not semi-pornographic.

That's simply the earnest answer. I actually agree with you that women's magazines can have a negative effect of girl's and women's self-esteem and the way they think about their own and other women's bodies.

Notsoyummymummy1 Mon 16-Sep-13 22:56:14

Lads’ mags will not be sold in thousands of Co-operative stores after the company said publishers refused to meet requests to put them in sealed “modesty” bags. This is supposedly not a publicity stunt but an attempt to make the stores "family friendly". I'm not a fan of lads mags at all but I don't think children really notice them - they pay far more attention to the unhealthy sweets and chocolate that presumably the co-op will still sell in their "family friendly" store. I think the women's magazines that attack celebrity bodies, drone on about diets and have horrifically graphic "real life" stories on their front cover are far more damaging! Why isn't anyone asking them to cover up?!!!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now