3 ms·

How about: Because they are male focused magazines. Sure, it is women buying them at the checkout -- but only to better live up to what men are demanding from t

by crux_ 16y ago

How about: Because they are male focused magazines. Sure, it is women buying them at the checkout -- but only to better live up to what men are demanding from them. (This answer is slightly more radical than I am.... but that doesn't necessarily make it an uninteresting thought!)

Tichy 16y ago
Let's sue Darwin, or god (take your pick).
- crux_ 16y ago
  Or, you know, since one way of defining "humanity" is by our ability to transcend the merely animal, change. (Edit to add: by answering that way I'm absolutely not agreeing that "sexism is natural" -- just that even if it were, it wouldn't matter.)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I am pretty confident that women who don't read Cosmopolitan can also find mates.
    - crux_ 16y ago
      Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier comment? I was responding to the idea that the stuff you see on Cosmo/society-at-large is just natural expressions of hard-wired biology -- what I see as a classic sexist cop-out.
      - Tichy 16y ago
        I was about to write an answer, but I suddenly find I have troubles even understanding what it is you want. Do you want to change the laws of attraction? Should men (and women) be blamed for wanting attractive mates? You think attraction has nothing to do with biology at all? How guilty should I feel for being a man, knowing that my mere existence apparently forces some women to buy Cosmopolitan (the horror!!!)?
        crux_ 16y ago
        You think the "laws" of attraction are somehow writ in stone, unchanging, dictated by biology only and unrelated to culture? Here's a quick counterexample of the western standard of skinny=attractive: http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-workers-20100708 http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-wor... The problem isn't what we do/don't find attractive: it is the double standard of (de) valuing women solely based upon their (un) attractiveness, while men are judged upon a much wider range of criteria or not judged at all.
        Tichy 16y ago
        The only real thing I have read about attraction so far is that it is probably coined by early experiences (like siblings, parents,...). Also, despite a continued effort by the fashion industry, I never had the impression that anorexia is attractive (hint, think Playboy, not Cosmopolitan). Your link doesn't tell me all that much without photos. In any case, it is obvious that there are all sorts of people (ie men who like fat women, men who like thin women, men who like old women, and so on). I honestly don't know how to argue with you since I am not sure I agree with your assumption that women are valued solely based upon their attractiveness. As for biology, there is a difference between men and women - the latter can bear children. Hence the "pairing" market is asymmetric.

by crux_ 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago

Let's sue Darwin, or god (take your pick).

crux_ 16y ago
Or, you know, since one way of defining "humanity" is by our ability to transcend the merely animal, change. (Edit to add: by answering that way I'm absolutely not agreeing that "sexism is natural" -- just that even if it were, it wouldn't matter.)
- Tichy 16y ago
  I am pretty confident that women who don't read Cosmopolitan can also find mates.
  - crux_ 16y ago
    Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier comment? I was responding to the idea that the stuff you see on Cosmo/society-at-large is just natural expressions of hard-wired biology -- what I see as a classic sexist cop-out.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      I was about to write an answer, but I suddenly find I have troubles even understanding what it is you want. Do you want to change the laws of attraction? Should men (and women) be blamed for wanting attractive mates? You think attraction has nothing to do with biology at all? How guilty should I feel for being a man, knowing that my mere existence apparently forces some women to buy Cosmopolitan (the horror!!!)?
      - crux_ 16y ago
        You think the "laws" of attraction are somehow writ in stone, unchanging, dictated by biology only and unrelated to culture? Here's a quick counterexample of the western standard of skinny=attractive: http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-workers-20100708 http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-wor... The problem isn't what we do/don't find attractive: it is the double standard of (de) valuing women solely based upon their (un) attractiveness, while men are judged upon a much wider range of criteria or not judged at all.
        Tichy 16y ago
        The only real thing I have read about attraction so far is that it is probably coined by early experiences (like siblings, parents,...). Also, despite a continued effort by the fashion industry, I never had the impression that anorexia is attractive (hint, think Playboy, not Cosmopolitan). Your link doesn't tell me all that much without photos. In any case, it is obvious that there are all sorts of people (ie men who like fat women, men who like thin women, men who like old women, and so on). I honestly don't know how to argue with you since I am not sure I agree with your assumption that women are valued solely based upon their attractiveness. As for biology, there is a difference between men and women - the latter can bear children. Hence the "pairing" market is asymmetric.