Go to the library, local bookstore, or hit the web - check out a magazine that you wouldn’t normally read that is targeted at either men or women. No porn please! For example: Maxim, FHM, Men’s Health Magazine, GQ, Esquire; Cosmopolitan, Ms., Women’s Health, Vogue, W. Describe 3 examples from the magazine (either from images, ads, articles, etc.) that either support or oppose traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Do you think the magazine is constrained by social norms (i.e. broadcasts what the reader expects/wants), or is responsible for maintaining these social norms? Pick one of the major explanations for sex differences from the text (e.g. Social Roles, Socialization, Evolutionary, or Hormone Theory) and use it to explain why the publishers of your magazine might feel justified in presenting a gender in a certain way.
Cosmopolitan magazine is not only constrained by social norms, but it capitalizes on them. The idea that men and women are “opposites” permeates the language, layout, and purpose of the entire magazine. A “woman’s” magazine, it is littered with advice for women (but only feminine, heterosexual women) and their relationships with (judging from the contents) masculine, heterosexual men. (I didn’t see any room for women who are gay or unconcerned with fashion or beauty or sex anywhere within the pages. But I also didn’t expect to.)
Their articles range on their justifications for why they maintain social norms. In the article “8 Times It Plays to Be Cocky” they flat-out blame testosterone (hormonal theory) for the reason men have “always been more comfortable than women with blowing their own horn… and reaping the benefits”, while in the article “Why Guys Cheat on Hot Women” they point to theories of social learning in saying that “Many two-timers come from chauvinistic cultures or families where their fathers cheated. ‘There are internal blueprints (created by watching our parents) that make cheating more of an option for some guys.’” In yet another article, “6 Fascinating Facts About Men Today”, they note socialization theory, that men are “told to be thoughtful, caring, passionate, connected, fathering types [but also] still expected to be ‘macho.’” It seems to me that they will take justification for being sexist and heterosexist from just about any source, even if that means misrepresenting academic studies on gendered behavior. (Almost every article contains something said by somebody with a PhD somewhere and I personally don’t feel that from those studies they could draw the conclusions they drew – at least, not every time.)
And, I can’t blame them. If they instead suggested the truth, that men and women are more alike than different, they would eventually phase out the need for their magazine. You don’t need a magazine to tell you how to interact with men if you have the know-how to do it yourself – so, in order for sales to continue, men need to continue to be “othered” and explained off as some unusual creature from another planet; “pleasing your man” needs to remain among a woman’s top concerns (oh, and she needs to be ignorant about it, too!); and infidelity needs to be explained away by science so as to not fix the problem but sweep it under the rug like everything else.
Above all, I am outraged, I am physically upset to see women presented as sex objects in "their own" magazines. While I don't condone the depiction of women as objects in magazines geared towards heterosexual men (such as Esquire and FHM), it seems somehow less harmful than writing articles to women telling them that all they're good for is... their beauty, their youthfulness, and their sexuality. (Did I miss anything?) I mean, obviously they're not useful for their intellect, because according to Cosmo women spend all of their time thinking about men, sex, fashion, drinking martinis, men, hair, sex, shoes, dresses, men, beauty, sex, and men, and this leaves no time for politics, academics, education, family, work, what really makes a relationship work (hint: not sex... or even beauty), or anything else in life that might matter (like finance).
There's a theory out there called Sexual Objectification Theory that would explain why some women love Cosmo. It's this theory that, because society treats women as little more than an instrument of sexuality or object to use, women can only begin to evaluate themselves in terms of their beauty and sex appeal, which leads to body shame and insecurity... and eventually mental health risks like depression and eating disorders. But anyway, because Cosmo plays into women's insecurities about their body that they've internalized because of our sexist culture, women want to read it because they want to find out how to fix the problems they experience because of our sexist culture. It's an extremely marketable cycle of feeling like shit. Tons of companies (thousands, millions) capitalize on making women feel unattractive. Don't you love capitalism?
To be fair, I study this area more than probably any other area and I could write a million more paragraphs expressing my distaste towards Cosmo and magazines like it. We live in a society that could position things with a lot more gender sensitivity, with much more gender-sensitive language, and people choose not to for the sake of sales. Every day, lives are ruined when gender variant people (feminine men, masculine women, transgender and transsexual people) are bullied, harassed, and even killed for their gender expression… and magazines like this not only maintain but promote a culture where that makes sense. In my world, that’s not okay.
Feel free to discuss this, challenge this, praise this or whatever you want with me. 
Recent Comments