Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: The mansplaining thread

  1. Top | #1
    Intergalactic Villainess Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sector 001
    Posts
    9,174
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    23,609
    Rep Power
    59

    The mansplaining thread

    Appalled Graphic Designer Shows Girls’ Life Magazine What Their Cover Should Look Like

    A magazine that does not exist to do anything but reinforce ignorance and insecurity.

    The contrast between these two covers speaks for itself.

    The Authoritarians

    GOP and Trump supporters will not be able to say they didn't know. Vote in numbers too big to manipulate.

  2. Top | #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,275
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    60
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.
    Last edited by fast; 09-09-2019 at 06:49 PM.

  3. Top | #3
    Intergalactic Villainess Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sector 001
    Posts
    9,174
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    23,609
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




    the professionaly done picture
    Is this supposed to be funny or something?
    The Authoritarians

    GOP and Trump supporters will not be able to say they didn't know. Vote in numbers too big to manipulate.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member TV and credit cards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    muh-dahy-nuh
    Posts
    2,436
    Archived
    174
    Total Posts
    2,610
    Rep Power
    24
    Why don't more women go into STEM? We could start here.
    Dwight

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,626
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,099
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Why don't more women go into STEM? We could start here.
    You are going to trigger people saying that.

  6. Top | #6
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,385
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,040
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.

    Something.


    the professionaly done picture
    Is this supposed to be funny or something?
    Something.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,846
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




    the professionaly done picture
    Is this supposed to be funny or something?
    Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
    Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

    While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

    Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

    IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,385
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,040
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




    the professionaly done picture
    Is this supposed to be funny or something?
    Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
    Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

    While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

    Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

    IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.
    How do you know that the first cover would sell more copies?

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,626
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,099
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    How do you know that the first cover would sell more copies?
    The market, probably.

    What does marketing prize most of all? Your insecurity.... and gossip.

  10. Top | #10
    Intergalactic Villainess Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sector 001
    Posts
    9,174
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    23,609
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    At first glance, I thought the shoddy boring cover was replaced by the professional cover with marketing appeal. After reading the article, there was talk about artistic talent or some such, and that made it even more confusing. If I have it straight now, it’s the professional version that was done first and then the make shift dreary and unappealing version is the one put forward as which ought to be displayed.




    the professionaly done picture
    Is this supposed to be funny or something?
    Well, it at least touches on the valid point that the actual cover is the one that would sell way more copies, which is why it exists, b/c it is a magazine whose sole function is to make profit, mostly for the 23 year old woman who created the magazine to market to 9-14 year old girls.
    Appealing to fears and insecurities is what these magazines, b/c that sells, and if you frame ever problem as something to be solved by more consumption then it's a double bonus. That's why Men's Health and Maxim cover are quite similar.

    While peddling such crap to vulnerable young girls is crass and ugly, it is about profit motive and it's inherent conflict with ethics and decency, not about any kind of gender bias.

    Note that this 3 year old story and cover redo was a reaction to a viral FB post where that "Girl's Life" cover was contrasted with a "Boy's Life" cover which focused upon on paths to various careers. The invalid comparison ignored the critical fact that Boy's Life is a 108 year old publication created and published by the non-profit Boy Scouts of America whose target audience is Boy Scouts. They had 2 versions of each pub for different age groups, with that particular one being targeted to 11-18 year olds (IOW, includes young men graduating H.S.). In contrast, Girl's Life is an entirely for-profit magazine created by a 23 year old woman who got very rich off it, by designing it to do nothing but profit by appealing to the concerns of all pre-teen and young teen girls within a culture that seeks to make all solutions to all problems about more consumerism.

    IOW, the difference in the nature of the covers is not about gender bias, but about being a non-profit vs. for profit where they do whatever sells the most copies, plus the younger age skew of Girl's Life.
    Well, I never mentioned the Boys' Life cover, so not really relevant. And my point was not about gender bias. It's about what poisonous, inhumane beliefs we allow greedy morons to reinforce in our children as a means of making money for themselves.
    The Authoritarians

    GOP and Trump supporters will not be able to say they didn't know. Vote in numbers too big to manipulate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •