Author Topic: Difference between men’s and women’s mags  (Read 29671 times)

vmichel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Difference between men’s and women’s mags
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2006, 03:36:05 PM »
For a while I read the British Marie Claire and loved it. Then I came back to the US and picked up our Marie Claire, and it sucked. I'll check out the new version, thanks Scout!

I really don't see a huge difference between Cosmo and magazines like Men's Health or Maxim. Both have pretty people and vapid thoughts, and are full of ways you  need to improve yourself. I like reading that occasionally, for what it's worth. Personally, however, I don't see where men's magazines are that superior to women's. Women's mags make you feel bad because your thighs are too big, and men's mags make you feel bad because your biceps are too small.

  • Guest
Difference between men’s and women’s mags
« Reply #46 on: November 03, 2006, 12:08:35 AM »
my biceps are not too small!!!!

"Elle" is a classy Canadian mag ain't it?  I have okay memories of "Elle."

lagatta

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
    • View Profile
Difference between men’s and women’s mags
« Reply #47 on: November 03, 2006, 05:21:37 AM »
Elle is also originally French, from France I mean. It started just after the war and has editions in many countries. Elle Québec started quite a few years ago; the anglophone Canadian version is much more recent.

vmichel, are you writing from the US? Hard to keep track of where everyone is from.

When Marie-Claire was originally launched - as a weekly - in 1937, the clergy denounced it as a "menace à la chasteté et à la fidélité", and publication was suspended after the French defeat.

As you can see, there is an entire empire of Marie-Claires!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Claire

This in turn links to another article about the mistreatment of journalists at the publication: http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/2 ... -13-826150

No question but that, like Marie Claire, Elle aims at a rather more educated and often more socially-aware readership. But none have really broken with the corporate mould - can they?

Glossy mags depend on a high percentage of advertising - if not, their cost would be prohibitive. And if I read them, it is certainly for the pictures as much as the text - not a habit in my daily life, but I do sometimes buy such things to deal with travel etc, in case I can't concentrate on a book. (Last time, I bought a stack of remaindered art magazines, cheap, and of course left them at my destination).
" Eure \'Ordnung\' ist auf Sand gebaut. Die Revolution wird sich morgen schon \'rasselnd wieder in die Höhe richten\' und zu eurem Schrecken mit Posaunenklang verkünden: \'Ich war, ich bin, ich werde sein!\' "
Rosa Luxemburg

deBeauxOs

  • Guest
Re: Difference between men�s and women�s mags
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2010, 03:14:56 PM »
Again, reviving an old thread instead of starting a new one.

David Brooks of the NYT gives out an award he calls the 'Sidney' to
Quote
best magazine essays of the year. In an age of zipless, electronic media, the idea is to celebrate (and provide online links to) long-form articles that have narrative drive and social impact.


Here and here are his choices.

Two of the writers are women.  None of the magazines where the award-winning articles are featured are "women's magazines".

ETA: There is also a definite conservative slant that informs his choices.

skdadl

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32874
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pogge.ca
Re: Difference between men�s and women�s mags
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2010, 04:29:04 PM »
99 per cent of the time, David Brooks is an annoying Villager twit, although he's literate and has his moments of clarity. Just this weekend, he had Glenn Greenwald and others gaping in astonishment at the most intelligent column he (Brooks) wrote last Thursday about how fear is making Merkins stupid and childish. So, as I say, he has his moments. There are levels below which he will not sink. He's pretentious, so he would be one of those Republicans who are feeling a little desperate at the thought of the Sarahs and the Micheles.

Some of his choices are obviously centrist Republican, like him. Maybe he's trying to remind people that there still are Republicans who can read. There are women he could have picked -- Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, eg -- who are every bit as important as political writers as anyone he names there. She does the torture beat, though, and Brooks probably doesn't want to go there. I'm not surprised he doesn't know women's magazines as such since he's all about electoral politics, but there are lots of serious women political writers -- it's just that most of them, if good, are fairly left, and if right, are batshit (Coulter, Malkin) in a way that even Brooks can't stand.

 

Return To TAT