meitachi | sometimes I turn off my capslock & use multisyllabic words: shocker, I know

Entry tags:

sometimes I turn off my capslock & use multisyllabic words: shocker, I know

I was chatting with

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. :(

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Part of the reason I don't like Foursquare and the like is for the great potential for stalking. Then [insert musings on gender dynamics] and so women do have more to fear. Which is why take back the night events are great, even if some find reason to criticise.

I'm lucky that my parents praised my skills and encouraged me. So yay! but if you read Sociological Images, well, nearly every week there is a post about how little boys and girls are treated differently. Girls are pretty and boys are adventurous. The greeting card industry perpetrates these ideas so much.

Yay this is a good post! Also this is worth checking out (TW for gross sexual threats & sexism), it is the root of why I was screaming all over twitter earlier: http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/11/10/but-how-do-you-know-its-sexist-the-mencallmethings-round-up/

Essentially, it was over the trending topic #mencallmethings and the poor, poor men who wanted to yell at women about how unfair it was to call it misogyny

Edited 2011-11-14 22:35 (UTC)

+1 post

I didn't know I was in the mood for feminism until I read your post.

Wait ... I'm always in the mood for it.

PS I enjoyed that video Thanks for sharing~

oh, I remember seeing that ad and blinking because my gut reaction was OMG BETRAYAL WRAIIIII and then the intellectual side took over and I realised they wanted to to encourage gender neutrality. but I think it is telling that they say "women" and not "men", like the default for non-influential, non-intellectual people is "women". so, nice try, The Economist, but you still made me cry a bit inside.

that video made me remember that whole hoo-ha about the a&f advertisement on orchard road and I was like "man, if the powers that be find issue with really low slung jeans on a really ripped guy's hips, then they'd better fucking find issue with all the lingerie, massager, fashion, perfume, beer &c &c advertisements with women bursting to full in their skimpy clothes". but of course they didn't.

I didn't even get what the message was (intended to be) at first and spent a good 30 seconds just brewing in disbelieving rage. What kind of advertising is that?

Also, agreeing on the hesitance to divulge location, and I've never noticed that particular gendered divide before. I think most guys I know also don't care about sharing their location, nor are they especially competitive, and they're kind of aware that they're 'lacking' that broadly accepted 'masculine' drive.

Oh yeah, that was me at first too. I only figured out the "intended" message after seeing the emphasis on people and realizing wtf it was trying to say. Really, really horrible ad committee that didn't manage to figure out how badly this would come off upon first glance.

I've just never understood the need to share exact locations indiscriminately. If I have info I want to share with certain people, I have more direct and private methods than announcing it to the world through a third party that will probably sell my info. D:

I grew up in an all female family that simply got it done. I am always astounded by the notion that men are more successful or better because they don't use their emotions. I have seen women subscribe to this theory, to try and blend in to "a man's world" to be taken seriously.
No one ever seems to think of changing the rules completely, there is always a desire to win over the system and prove them wrong playing by their own rules. I never understood this because the goals while relatively the same of both men and women are also coming from different perspectives. Success as defined by who? is right.
I am rambling... but I get the point of what you are trying to say.
(and for the record having grown up in an all female family when I finally grew up and had my own I was privileged to find out that men are honestly the more emotional of the two sexes. Ask any married woman. Heck any woman that has ever been in a relationship!)

Book recommendation for you then since you were talking about girls and self worth http://www.ingalagringa.com/cunt/
Fabulous book that every girl/woman should check out.

yess I thought of you because I know you read The Economist and I was like DDD: because they do have a lot of great articles, but what on earth is that ad. Seriously.

Ah, yes, the double standards re: objectification of men vs. women. Guess which one is considered the norm and and hardly ever questioned? And the one that has the gross history behind it? :( That sucks. I like staring at pretty women but goddman let me objectify some pretty men too, you know?

Why can't we be pretty and adventurous? Pretty while adventurous? Pretty because we're adventurous? "Pretty", ugh. It's all so subjective. Even with my somewhat facetious examples, it bothers me that I still used pretty as a positive defining feature. Boys don't have to be handsome and adventurous, or handsome while adventurous, or handsome because they're adventurous, because if you're a boy, "adventurous" by itself is a good enough quality. But not enough for a girl. alskdfj dumping my thoughts on you, sorry.

But definitely +1 on the stalking bit.

♥♥

I was afraid for my blood pressure (and still am, ngl!) but will take a look. alksdfjdkl men.

haha that's me basically. I wasn't even particularly hunting down articles or anything today, they sort of just came up and I was like !!! because, yeah. Stuff that talks about women is sort of always relevant, even if we're not always posting about it.

NP! The video is great - definitely makes me want to check out the full documentary it's advertising.

Ha, in my family we're kind of the stereotypes regarding emotion: my mom and I are really emotional, my dad is super stoic and not up to all this touchy-feely emotional-sharing crap. But college and law school and generally growing up and growing aware of these issues helps me have better perspective on the world around us and how much of it is tailored to help men succeed, or define success by things that come more naturally to them. And then women who try to subscribe to that success structure are called "cold" or "emotionally unavailable" or worse names, like they're failures at being women simply because they've suddenly crossed the stream of gender norms, oh no!

It's all really, really interesting! Albeit often frustrating or anger-inducing or depressing.

But thanks for sharing your perspective! I sometimes wonder what it'd be like to grow up in an environment like that and how it'd change my world outlook. And thanks for the book rec too!

Well there is the hot warrior princess type. But female athleticism and strength is downplayed and if she is pretty often that is all that is focused on. Sigh!

you put it perfectly :| if there was a similar ad for men (or hell, the same ad, i think that would actually be interesting) it would at least establish the economist as setting men and women off on equal ground. except by having only an ad for women, the economist seems to be demonstrating just how uneven the balance already is. yet again, women are singled out in comparison to the norm of society - men. :/

Please understand that I am the oddball out in my family. They all generally think of success on society's terms and I ... I am the one that just never caught on to that ... My cousins are lawyers and doctors and insurance underwriters. I see the struggle all the time to choose between being "emotional" and being business like and trying to figure out how to balance the two.
I am currently a full time mom and a doula, a crafter, and a reader, no certifications or degrees. The one that they all shake their heads about. It all comes down to how you personally define success. At the end of the day no one can live your life for you and you can't be happy living someone else's dream(s). What makes you happy? What will you be satisfied with? How will you eat, sleep and enjoy yourself? What will you fight for? and What will you do to make it all happen?
What is your definition of success?

And IMHO it is not that these things come more naturally to men, but it is the mold they tell themselves they have to fit, and nothing they see tells them otherwise. It is a hard habit to break.

This is a fair point, I think. Society does a lot of gender essentialism, telling boys they must be this and girls they must be that. The structure right now is of success of the traits linked to what is considered masculine: competition, aggressiveness, etc.

Oh, I am actually struggling to define success for myself right now. There's what I've grown up hearing from my parents and what they are even now pressing on me (and the guilt of what I owe them and wanting to do them proud) versus my own fledgling definition of know who you are, what you stand for, and having people around you whom you love... It's not easy to say the traditional standards of success no longer apply, especially when society is pressuring you with them constantly.

You're pretty amazing, I think! Like you said, only you can live your life, so you have to make sure you're not living someone else's dreams. It's something I'm working on right now, definitely.

Yeah, way to go about trying to address a gender imbalance in the worst possible way. With, you said it, men being the standard of the norm. It's everywhere!

http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/

this is a really good article about it!

It is a hard road to define for yourself and one that never ends. Still don't know if that is a good or bad thing.
Thanks but I am still very much on that road questioning it all everyday.
I think you are amazing too.

Yes, it is also hard as hell to figure out what it all means when everyone else is telling you what you should be, want, feel.
Kudos for even trying.

Actually, when I thought about the first ad, I thought it actually was targeting women who wanted to be successful and influential, because they are the ones who would be most likely to say 'screw this shit, my priorities are mutually exclusive from my gender' and therefore will still read The Economist. In short I saw the ad as a challenge.

Doesn't change the kinds of social issues at hand, but just pointing out the targeted marketing aspect of it.

That was a really a good post! aksldf that attitude by that dude, god. "It's called The Economist," he replied. "It's like Maxim for nerds."

Like, duh, of course the magazine has masculine content, because we're written by and for guys, and if you find it weird it's because you're a woman. Sucks to be you!

Yes, that really makes me want to read it. Oh wait, it's probably because I'm not sufficiently "influential and accomplished".

Yeah, I get that message, sort of, but I don't think it's any better a message, because it still says to me: women are by default not successful and influential, but the ones who are will of course be drawn to The Economist (which is predominantly masculine in terms of not just readership but apparently also writers and content (http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/)).

The challenge is to be different from the other women, who are silly and frivolous. Read a REAL magazine, with content that will challenge you. "Real" here being again defined by men, as the higher standard that most women do not meet.

I mean, the point is, they don't have an ad that says: HEY MEN. DON'T READ THE ECONOMIST. UNLESS YOU'RE INFLUENTIAL AND ACCOMPLISHED. They chose to direct this ad to women for a reason.

and that is why the youareanobject tumblr is REALLY GREAT :D

I saw this ad on Tumblr and couldn't believe it. I think the intended message flew by me because at first, I thought the message was more like: "Hey, women, don't read this because only accomplished people read this, and obviously you're not accomplished at all." >:( Ugh, who thought this was a good idea?

Re: Foursquare, the first thing I thought of when I read that excerpt was Schrodinger's Rapist. E.g., some men might not think it's a big deal to hit on women, but to some women, it IS because a guy might be True Love waiting to happen or someone who's extremely harmful and creepy. Like, yeah, competing for badges sounds fun but not really at the possible expense of safety.

I read that article, too a while ago and it made me realize that a lot of the compliments I gave to my students were: "Oh, you look so cute today!" or "I like what you're wearing", etc. I don't think I've completely kicked the habit, but I'm trying to ask more about their day and what they're interested in.

If only the film would screen in DC at some point...

It had DC screenings earlier! But none slated for the future, I see. D:

Yes, Schrodinger's Rapist is really applicable to the Foursquare thing; I thought of it too. We have security concerns as women that men don't have because we don't know if that guy is a rapist or not. So better safe than sorry: don't announce your location. Such is our world...

IT IS A GREAT TUMLBR I AGREE :D there was another really good one but I forgot what it is now... I'll let you know if I ever remember, lol.

is it the one with cute boys and cats? :D? (lol look at my tumblr tastes ... everyone else goes on fannish ones or political ones and I'm like, PRETTY PEOPLE YEYZ)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

sometimes I turn off my capslock & use multisyllabic words: shocker, I know

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject