![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sometimes I turn off my capslock & use multisyllabic words: shocker, I know
I was chatting with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
swingingstars today and she linked me to this advertisement by The Economist, purportedly for women:
source
Holy shit, said I. For women, really?
I almost get the point this ad is trying to make: The Economist is not made to be read by men, nor is it made to be read by women. It is made to be read by accomplished and influential people, regardless of gender.
That's not a bad message to send. The problem is the first page. The problem is that the message it is actually sending is: Hey! Women don't read The Economist unless they are accomplished and influential, because most women are not, and you, dear reader, are superior to those women. (Because you're trying to be like a man. Because men are accomplished and influential.)
Why isn't there an ad directed at men? Oh, because their readership is, I assume, already mostly male (i.e., accomplished and influential), so they want to expand readership by targeting the audience they are currently lacking. That's fair.
But they're working off an incredibly erroneous and ignorant assumption that men and women are starting off on equal footing in society (in the media, in history, in culture) and they're not. I am no historian, feminist or otherwise, but I don't think it goes against common logic/agreement to say that women have faced and are continuing to face attitudes telling them that they're not intelligent, that they're better with emotions, that emotional intellectualism doesn't "count" as much, that they're not as successful as men, that they will never be as successful as men, that our world defines success as what men are naturally better at so that when a woman strives to be successful, she is striving to be like a man. Et cetera ad infinitum.
So what I'm getting out of this ad is:
1. There are not enough women reading The Economist.
2. That means there are mostly men reading The Economist.
3. People who read The Economist are accomplished and influential.
4. Men are accomplished and influential.
5. Women are not accomplished and influential. QED.
If you want to be an accomplished and influential woman, you would read The Economist. (Like men. Unlike the rest of those women out there who are not reading The Economist.)
meiface: Who thought this ad was a good idea? Who wrote this? Who okayed this??
swingingstars: Men.
swingingstars: Actually, probably women too.
D:
So this sucks in many, many ways, but among them is that The Economist actually tends to have pretty thoughtful and interesting articles (though, tbh, I usually read articles regardless of source based on personal interest in the topic, but source factors into how much weight I give the opinions and facts being presented in the article itself).
For example, here's a post on the fact that women are far less inclined to use geosocial media (basically, social media that announces your location, like Foursquare) than men:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/geosocial-networking
This is super interesting to me, as someone who has never been inclined to use one of those apps that announces where I am and who I am with at any given moment. If I really want to brag about what an awesome time I am having doing drunken karaoke with my friends, I might tweet an update so you can wish you were doing drunken karaoke with us. Usually, who the fuck cares if you're out doing GTL or grocery shopping or at the movie theater on the corner of X and Y Sts?
And even more interesting are the reasons the author tentatively hypothesizes:
Huh. They kind of both apply to me! Do they apply to you? I'm leery of announcing my every position to the world at large, yes. The urge to win a badge definitely does not trump that leeriness. I wonder how many other women this applies to? Food for thought!
Economist, you don't always suck. But, really, this ad fiasco sort of drives home more than ever the societal perception of women as dumb or more concerned with make-up and clothes than intellectual debate of economics or politics (or whatever The Economist is offering only to accomplished and influential people).
(Full disclosure: I am concerned with make-up and clothes and hot porn. However! It is not the only thing I am concerned with. I think the fact that women can be involved with/concerned about topics both "frivolous" (as defined by who? men) and "serious" applies to, um...100% of all women.)
So on this topic of the undervaluing of intellectualism in women and the overemphasis on how we look (the defining of our worth so often tied to how 'attractive' we are to others, i.e., men), here is a trailer of a documentary on the (mis)representation of women in the media! Also viaswingingstars.
It's been out for almost a month! Check the website to see if there are any screenings in your area; there's one around me after Thanksgiving, so hoping I can make that.
And one last note! How to Talk to Little Girls is relevant to this topic of giving worth to girls (starting from a young age!) of their interests and their passions and their mind, rather than their looks (alone). Like some of the comments do a fair job pointing out, it's important to give positive reinforcement on appearance sometimes, too, particularly during the horrible years of endless self-doubt and insecurity (read: adolescence, but maybe it never ends...), but not to make appearance the sole defining feature of worth.
So this has been a post about women! I was going to link to some more Wonder Girls stuff (I love theeeeeem ♥) but maybe I'll save that for next time. Maybe one day I will make a post about my very conflicted feelings on kpop girl groups and ~feminism!
Right now I'm going to put on some socks because my feet are cold. :(
swingingstars today and she linked me to this advertisement by The Economist, purportedly for women:source
Holy shit, said I. For women, really?
I almost get the point this ad is trying to make: The Economist is not made to be read by men, nor is it made to be read by women. It is made to be read by accomplished and influential people, regardless of gender.
That's not a bad message to send. The problem is the first page. The problem is that the message it is actually sending is: Hey! Women don't read The Economist unless they are accomplished and influential, because most women are not, and you, dear reader, are superior to those women. (Because you're trying to be like a man. Because men are accomplished and influential.)
Why isn't there an ad directed at men? Oh, because their readership is, I assume, already mostly male (i.e., accomplished and influential), so they want to expand readership by targeting the audience they are currently lacking. That's fair.
But they're working off an incredibly erroneous and ignorant assumption that men and women are starting off on equal footing in society (in the media, in history, in culture) and they're not. I am no historian, feminist or otherwise, but I don't think it goes against common logic/agreement to say that women have faced and are continuing to face attitudes telling them that they're not intelligent, that they're better with emotions, that emotional intellectualism doesn't "count" as much, that they're not as successful as men, that they will never be as successful as men, that our world defines success as what men are naturally better at so that when a woman strives to be successful, she is striving to be like a man. Et cetera ad infinitum.
So what I'm getting out of this ad is:
1. There are not enough women reading The Economist.
2. That means there are mostly men reading The Economist.
3. People who read The Economist are accomplished and influential.
4. Men are accomplished and influential.
5. Women are not accomplished and influential. QED.
If you want to be an accomplished and influential woman, you would read The Economist. (Like men. Unlike the rest of those women out there who are not reading The Economist.)
meiface: Who thought this ad was a good idea? Who wrote this? Who okayed this??swingingstars: Men.swingingstars: Actually, probably women too.D:
So this sucks in many, many ways, but among them is that The Economist actually tends to have pretty thoughtful and interesting articles (though, tbh, I usually read articles regardless of source based on personal interest in the topic, but source factors into how much weight I give the opinions and facts being presented in the article itself).
For example, here's a post on the fact that women are far less inclined to use geosocial media (basically, social media that announces your location, like Foursquare) than men:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/geosocial-networking
This is super interesting to me, as someone who has never been inclined to use one of those apps that announces where I am and who I am with at any given moment. If I really want to brag about what an awesome time I am having doing drunken karaoke with my friends, I might tweet an update so you can wish you were doing drunken karaoke with us. Usually, who the fuck cares if you're out doing GTL or grocery shopping or at the movie theater on the corner of X and Y Sts?
And even more interesting are the reasons the author tentatively hypothesizes:
The first is that women's concerns about security differ from men's and are warier of broadcasting their physical location. The second is that Foursquare and Gowalla are partly about competition: if users check in frequently, they can win points and badges. And broadly speaking, I don’t think women are as motivated by badges as much as men are.
Huh. They kind of both apply to me! Do they apply to you? I'm leery of announcing my every position to the world at large, yes. The urge to win a badge definitely does not trump that leeriness. I wonder how many other women this applies to? Food for thought!
Economist, you don't always suck. But, really, this ad fiasco sort of drives home more than ever the societal perception of women as dumb or more concerned with make-up and clothes than intellectual debate of economics or politics (or whatever The Economist is offering only to accomplished and influential people).
(Full disclosure: I am concerned with make-up and clothes and hot porn. However! It is not the only thing I am concerned with. I think the fact that women can be involved with/concerned about topics both "frivolous" (as defined by who? men) and "serious" applies to, um...100% of all women.)
So on this topic of the undervaluing of intellectualism in women and the overemphasis on how we look (the defining of our worth so often tied to how 'attractive' we are to others, i.e., men), here is a trailer of a documentary on the (mis)representation of women in the media! Also via
swingingstars. Miss Representation 8 min. Trailer 8/23/11 from Miss Representation on Vimeo.
It's been out for almost a month! Check the website to see if there are any screenings in your area; there's one around me after Thanksgiving, so hoping I can make that.
And one last note! How to Talk to Little Girls is relevant to this topic of giving worth to girls (starting from a young age!) of their interests and their passions and their mind, rather than their looks (alone). Like some of the comments do a fair job pointing out, it's important to give positive reinforcement on appearance sometimes, too, particularly during the horrible years of endless self-doubt and insecurity (read: adolescence, but maybe it never ends...), but not to make appearance the sole defining feature of worth.
So this has been a post about women! I was going to link to some more Wonder Girls stuff (I love theeeeeem ♥) but maybe I'll save that for next time. Maybe one day I will make a post about my very conflicted feelings on kpop girl groups and ~feminism!
Right now I'm going to put on some socks because my feet are cold. :(