
Women's magazines ignore technology and demean women - denzil_correa
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/nov/15/womens-magazines-ignoring-tech
======
vilda
The whole article is flawed in one major point. They assume that women are
buying women's magazines because they are for women. In reality they are
buying magazines that are of interest for them. Thus women's magazines are
women's magazines because of the content. If you change the content (let it be
rocket engine construction) it won't be women's magazine anymore because women
won't buy it.

I think this is a typical mistake feminists make. Instead of understanding and
accepting what women want, they represents their view of what they should want
and blame all other factors (stereotype anyone?).

~~~
golergka
Exactly. "Women's magazines" should really be called something like "women's
traditional role model in society". It's something of a remnant of a previous
era which is still useable for some purposes. My wife can read Cosmo if she
needs women's fashion advice, but we read the same articles in Esquire or
TechCrunch.

~~~
tachyonbeam
Fortunately, the internet should help change this. Magazines will die, and be
replaced by something much more dynamic and adaptable. With content
aggregators like Reddit and Prismatic, viewers can choose what actually
interests them. Those sites aren't immune from demographics-based marketing,
but I suspect that in the long run, the most efficient kind of marketing will
be the kind that tries to learn what you actually like, instead of just
prescribing you something based on your age and gender.

------
leoedin
What the statistic completely ignores is that the £394 a year spent on tech is
almost certainly spent on one or two big items. I'd say iPhone ownership is
fairly ubiquitous - the average cost of an iPhone is probably about £360/year.
The rest is probably made up of the fraction of a tablet or laptop that the
average woman purchases each year. Even if someone theoretically spend £394 a
yer on tech, it doesn't mean that advertising a tech product to them will make
them buy it. Phone purchasing decisions happen annually, laptops or tablets
even less frequently. Cosmetics, on the other hand, are purchased across many
small transactions in a much more continuous manner, giving far more scope for
effective advertising return.

And as others in the comments have said, magazines are really about delivering
adverts to customers.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
Is that any different for men? I mean, I may buy the odd (relatively cheap)
geek gadget, but most of my tech spending is pretty similar to that of my
wife.

Yet there is plenty of tech advertising aimed at me.

~~~
jseliger
_most of my tech spending is pretty similar to that of my wife._

In addition, the key metric is probably not tech _spending_ , but tech
_creating_ , which is often not measured in dollars. We've all probably run
into guys [1] who produce impressive code using a five-year-old laptop who
don't spend much on "tech." Maybe a couple bucks a month for hosting, but
that's really it.

[1] A note on the language used:
[http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-
this/](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-this/) .

~~~
tommorris
Why would the key metric be that of creating rather than spending?

The fact that I sit at Vim all day cranking out Ruby and Python (for work and
for open source etc.) is irrelevant to whether I buy a smartphone. Apple
getting £500 from my mother for a new iPhone is no different than them getting
£500 from me. In sales, the key metric really IS spend rather than
creativity/interest.

------
hayksaakian
"The average British woman spends about £279 on beauty and cosmetics but she
spends about a third more, £394 on technology products. By comparison the
magazines she reads gives about 20 times as many column-inches to cosmetics
than they do for tech. The disconnect between how the glossy mags choose to
fill their pages and how British women actually spend their money suggests
that traditional publishers are out of touch with their readership. Women
spend more on smartphones than men, they spend one and a half times as much on
technology and influence 57% of new technology purchases. The glossy mags have
yet to acknowledge that women are now fully involved as technology consumers."

The most damning evidence

It makes me think that these magazines are not actually designed to optimally
interest their readers, but simply to grab their attention and then mold it to
their advertisers interests.

~~~
circuiter
Yes, but if women want to read about technology they can buy a technology
magazine. How much of Men's magazines column inches are given to tech?

~~~
ColinWright
My wife reports to me that if she wants to buy a copy of Android Magazine she
has to shoulder aside men who are much larger than she, and fish among the
magazines about fishing, cars, "Lad's Mags" (ugh (her words)), and similar
things.

"Not fun" (direct quotation).

~~~
girvo
Exactly. Hell, I (as a upper middle class young male) get annoyed when trying
to find a tech magazine on the shelves. Hidden amongst a dozen other things,
and usually a terrible selection. Sigh... Not that it matters, my favourite
magazine (Atomic MPC) that I subbed to for 5 years folded into PC Authority :(

------
_s
So this is something that has been on the back of my mind for ages (at least a
few years / through one or two relationships now) -

I used to subscribe to Men's Health / Fitness, a Motorcycle Magazine and
another tech one (T3 or stuff, I can't remember) - and they'd all be on the
bookshelf (dozens and dozens spanning a couple of years).

Whenever my any of my previous significant other(s) would thumb through them -
they would always comment on how much more practical and informative they were
- literally everything was put there in some way to help you become a better
person; from fitness tips and guides, to the business insider interviews and
"lifestyle" hacks / articles, down to the insider information on upcoming
gadgets / vehicles and what not.

These was in comparison not just to the top selling female magazines (Marie
Claire / Cosmopolitan etc), but with the equivalent female magazines (Female
Fitness etc). I haven't read any of these magazines recently (in about 3
years, since the onset of tablets and whatnot), so I can't comment on how they
are now but it definitely came as a bit of a surprise to me to see how
different they actually were - and how they actually continued to reinforce an
incredibly old fashioned female stereotype; I don't know how else to describe
it other than the "dumbing down" of information targeting females, and a
subtle encouraging of various fashion / gadget trends that _need_ to be
followed to "keep up with the times".

I couldn't help but question it all, and wonder why women would actually buy
them ... and then my mind would wander over to women's issue's and how
magazines that make them question their image and self-worth, talk down to
them and greatly encourage the whole celebrity / paparazzi environment whilst
touting feminist ideals etc etc ... it's a whole other world that I am in no
way equipped or educated enough to think about; a giant paradox thrown inside
pandora's box.

~~~
Peroni
I can't speak for the US but some of the top 'mens' magazines in the UK are
disgraceful. FHM, Loaded, Nuts, et al.

You mention how the top womens magazines "reinforce an incredibly old
fashioned female stereotype", well these mens magazines are arguably worse
considering the primary content is boobs, toilet humour and football.

~~~
nailer
> I can't speak for the US but some of the top 'mens' magazines in the UK are
> disgraceful. FHM, Loaded, Nuts...

Loaded and Nuts are 'lad mags' \- 15 to 25. They're not for grown up men.

The biggest, and by far the most profitable Man's Magazine is Men's health. It
has a little tech, lots of workout/fitness stuff, a lot of diet stuff, and
some fashion.

(not sure if FHM still exists so can't comment there)

~~~
collyw
I am close to 40 and I still like boobs and toilet humour. I don't buy these
mags, because I find them pretty repetitive, having read them in my 20's.

------
patio11
Apropos of nothing: Google Glass and Marissa Mayer both got very long spreads
written about them recently in the US version of Vogue. (I buy a copy
periodically when visiting the US. Business-related research expense.)

n.b. If you do this regularly you'll be able to make pretty accurate
predictions about 30% of the magazine by reference to 70% of the magazine.

------
nathan_long
While I agree these magazines are frivolous and unhealthy, isn't this a
stretch?

>> The disconnect between how the glossy mags choose to fill their pages and
how British women actually spend their money suggests that traditional
publishers are out of touch with their readership.

...except that, apparently, such women also spend their money on the magazines
being criticized. Which seems to say the publishers are in touch with what
their readers want.

Obviously not all women buy such magazines, but those who do are not being
forced to.

------
theallan
Is this not simple supply and demand? If people didn't want to read magazines
such as Hello etc they wouldn't buy them and the publishers would realign to
what people do want to buy (be that reading about technology or anything
else).

~~~
jb17
Yes, but the article suggests that there might be demand for something that
does not exist at the moment.

------
graycat
Yes, women spend a lot on cell phones. So, that means that they are interested
in _technology_? Not really! Here's why:

Read D. Tannen, _You Just Don 't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation_
\-- she's long been a prof at Georgetown. There learn that girls and young
women want to get _security_ from memberships in groups of other girls, and
one of the main ways a girl/young woman can do that is to bring to the group
some juicy _gossip_. So, they _gossip_. Yes, they do _gossip_. And drawing
from the movie _Jurassic Park_ , yes, "They do form herds.".

For _technology_ , that's _things_. In simple terms, in year 1, month 1,
nearly week 1, in their crib, the girls are trying to get emotional
connections with adults via facial expressions, and the boys are trying to
hack the latch on the crib and write C++ code to automate the toy fire truck
on the floor.

The girls are interested in emotional connections with people, and the boys
are interested in things. The boys are seeking mastery over the physical
world, and the girls are seeking care taking via emotional connections with
men who have mastery over the physical world.

The girls are interested in fashion and cosmetics both to attract men and also
to fit into the groups of other girls they want to be part of.

Can women do technology? I don't have much insight into what the real limits
are, but I've seen a wide range from (1) having a super tough time with 8-9th
grade algebra to (2) work with programming languages, starting with no real
background at all, totally blowing away some of the brightest people in
computing. But, I've nearly never seen a girl or woman who actually likes
something technical.

Again, basically the women's magazines are correct: What girls and women
really like is belonging to groups of girls/women and making emotional
connections with other people. And that's what girls/women use _technology_ ,
radio, TV, magazines, cell phones, social media, for -- to belong to groups of
girls/women and to make emotional connections with other people. For the
_technology_ itself, the girls/women don't care, don't care any more than they
care that it was a Diesel powered 18 wheel truck that delivered their women's
magazine, cosmetics, cell phone, laptop, skim milk, etc.

Just because the women's magazines dish out material based on stereotypes does
not mean that the stereotypes are wrong.

~~~
what_the_heck
I can't believe you're serious.

I'm a woman who's been programming for years, and I really, really like
technology. I'm currently at hackerschool, and nearly half the current batch
consists of women who like technology. It's not such a rarity.

And no, I don't read "women's mags", and spent my teens reading various Linux
and technology magazines.

~~~
hrkristian
You should have read more carefully.

>starting with no real background at all, totally blowing away some of the
brightest people in computing.

That's pretty much an acknowledgement of your existence as an exception to the
general rule.

Did you know there are -despite this (I assume) man's statements- men who are
not the least bit interested in technology and "things"? I hardly see them
being offended on behalf of their whole gender like yourself.

~~~
what_the_heck
Read more carefully yourself. I didn't reply to the bit about competence, I
replied to the bit where he said "But, I've nearly never seen a girl or woman
who actually likes something technical." As he's not met a single one, I'm
pointing out I exist.

I'm not offended (much less 'on behalf of my whole gender'), I'm surprised.
Don't bring your own baggage into other discussions randomly.

------
perlpimp
fashion magazines do not make woman a woman just like woodworking magazines do
not make man a man.

Geek culture is a niche and it is more healthy to deal with it as such,
promote stars female and otherwise.

I am sick of people being divisive on this issue, we have women coders that
like to put make up on and look pretty. However I also have friends, dudes and
dudettes who don't really care about tech beyond very easily usable iPhone.
Brandishing fact that magazines don't give adverts about iPhones is much like
saying that woodworking magazines that do not give adverts about family cars
with automatic everything(IMO). iPhone is the easiest phone to use compared to
older dial a number phones so I am not sure where argument stands here.

As well fashion industry stands by itself as far as I know it and they don't
really care to change their ways just because they say so.(re: movie: Devil
wears prada).

If I subscribe to woodworking or mechanics magazine, I am not sure I'd care to
see adverts for game boy or Playstation.

Given that I am all for women in technology - however I think that making the
rest of the world think(like general purpose womens magazines) is presumptuous
that people are into nerdy stuff and computing.

my 2c.

~~~
girvo
But is technology _just_ geek culture? I don't think so, and I believe that's
the OP's point

------
001sky
The worst mysoginists are often other _Women_.

~~~
Volpe
What are you talking about? Please clarify your position.

~~~
001sky
_Women 's magazines ignore technology and demean women_

The editors of these titles are disporportionately Women.

~~~
Volpe
... so you might of (very badly) shown that some woman are mildly mysoginist
(if even that)... How do you get "worst mysoginists" and "often" out of that?

~~~
001sky
Insecurities, eg body image, are propogated to support the beauty and fashion
industry. Just one example. Others (studies and simple empirical checks) will
also corroborate this. It shouldn't be controversial, but YMMV.

------
Millennium
70 years ago, women's magazines centered mostly around how women can please
men. Today, this is pretty much still the case.

------
edoloughlin
_" The average British woman spends about £279 on beauty and cosmetics but she
spends about a third more, £394 on technology products. By comparison the
magazines she reads gives about 20 times as many column-inches to cosmetics
than they do for tech. The disconnect between how the glossy mags choose to
fill their pages and how British women actually spend their money suggests
that traditional publishers are out of touch with their readership"_

It does suggest that, but it also suggests that they're in touch with the
"beauty and cosmetics" companies who spend money advertising in their
magazines. Anyone got any data on how much technology companies spend
advertising in women's magazines?

~~~
tehwalrus
It mentions later in the article:

> _" One of the magazines we studied, Glamour seems to recognise the value of
> advertising with 6.3% coming from tech companies. In this regard the
> publisher is somewhat ahead of the trend."_

(Side point: Jumping on a "problem" you found in the first paragraph, and ask
a question answered a few paragraphs further in, looks rather like you're
interested in confirming your bias that this article must be wrong. That isn't
a good way to learn about how the world works - If you're only reading HN to
feel good, no problem, but I come here to learn stuff.)

------
nxpnsv
Some good points. The mistake here is assuming technology magazines have male
only readers...

~~~
Morgawr
I agree, people interested in technology buy technology-related magazines.
People interested in fashion (don't assume just women do that, it's a bit
sexist) buy fashion-related magazines.

~~~
Toenex
Precisely. The error here seems to be assuming that just because these
magazines are often aimed at women they should cover all areas. The magazine
is still a dominant force in fashion whereas technology is heavily supported
by many and varied online resources.

------
theorique
Perhaps there is a market niche for a good quality tech magazine for women. If
there is a demand for it, some smart entrepreneur could make some money
providing it!

~~~
venomsnake
Enlighten me what exactly will have a good quality tech magazine for women as
a content - because everything I could think of is offensive to any woman that
has real interest in technology? Tech content is gender neutral. The only
thing I have really noticed gender differences is that color and industrial
design play a bigger role in purchasing decisions than raw specs but this is
very shaky foundation on which to build a magazine.

~~~
theorique
I'm not sure. Perhaps more articles written from a female user perspective?

I really don't know if it is a good idea. I wouldn't personally invest in it,
but maybe I'm off base.

------
senthilnayagam
asking glossy print magazines to shun gloss is too much to ask for, people who
pay for it, women who buy it and the advertisers, use the medium. a
sufficiently advanced user would just go read it on their website.

These are the same women who make Romantic Comedies popular, you can't
complain romcom has too many beautiful people and so less tech/geek stuff

------
philwelch
If you're still reading print magazines in the year 2013, you must not be that
interested in technology.

------
awjr
I think a mean analysis would have been more useful here.

------
neur0mancer
Magazines are crap. Why we should care?

