In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Econ Linkage
  2. Dealing With Divided School Loyalties
  3. Techie Opinions Wanted: Apply Within
  4. Q&A With Mark Sisson, Part Two
  5. Q&A With Mark Sisson, Part One
  6. Introducing Mark Sisson
  7. Terence Cuneo, Literal Artistic Icon
  8. Health Care Reform and the Golden Rule
  9. Jazz Goes Geriatric
  10. Budd Schulberg R.I.P.


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Climate Models Written in ... Fortran?!? | Main | Political Linkage »

August 01, 2009

The Fantasies That Women's Magazines Sell

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Killing time waiting for The Wife at the hair salon, I leafed through some women's magazines. Not for the first time I found myself thinking: What a weird and terrifying world is the mental landscape of the human female!

I had a good time noting down some of the fantasies the editors of women's magazines -- and presumably some of these magazines' readers -- enjoy indulging in:


  • Spend a year in a foreign country, and you'll discover your true self.

  • The right combo of leotard and jogbra top will make your workout easier.

  • Applying the right lip gloss and eating some whole grains will solve whatever's bothering you today.

  • Embracing who and what you are -- whatever that means -- will make you look ten years younger.

  • Jobs aren't about selling something others are willing to pay for. Jobs are about personal fulfillment.

  • Plastic surgery won't make you look weird.

  • Driving a Prius and installing compact flourescent lightbulbs will save the world.

  • Drinking green tea and pomegranate juice will ensure that you'll never get sick.

  • Nevertheless, you're always just this far from discovering that you have breast cancer.

  • Emotions -- no matter which, no matter when -- need to be faced and worked-through. Then you'll feel great.

  • Following your instincts and your feelings will always work out for the best.

  • You can eat yourself slim.

  • The troubles of movie stars are just like yours.

  • The right fabric patterns and colors will successfully disguise your fat ass.

What did I miss?

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at August 1, 2009




Comments

Humph. Some of the recommendations these magazines make are true. Some are not. But the fantasies are of a kind we - that is, women - know to be fantasies, and are not over-troubled by them as a result.

The ones that have the greatest hold on us are that work is about personal fulfillment, which I admit is not a fantasy that men share; and that spending a year in a foreign country will help you to find your true self - which is one that men DO share.

So which of the fantasies have some claim to truth?

1. Well, the right exercise clothes *will* make your workout easier. You see, wearing the wrong bra means bouncing boobs, which make movement impossible.

2. Yes, embracing who and what you are will make you look ten years younger. Women who don't do this kind of embracing will insist on trying to dress younger, hipper, and sexier than they are - and for some reason all these have a catastrophically aging effect.

3. That you can eat yourself slim is more or less true for some women, given that some women think that eating nothing at all, all day, followed (inevitably but not deliberately) by a big pigout at night, is a good way to lose weight.

4. And yes, the right fabric patterns and colors WILL disguise your fat ass. Oh, they won't make it disappear altogether, of course. But disguise it? Oh my, yes of course they will. Trust me, this one is perfectly accurate.

Wearing pale colours and thin fabrics that provide little support will make one's posterior look enormous, sometimes even when it isn't. Have you never noticed the unfortunate appearance of those women who insist on wearing loose white cotton trousers, no matter how unsuited they are for this look?

So there you are. Not all the fantasies of women's mags are as fantastic as you think.


Posted by: alias clio on August 1, 2009 1:20 PM



Clearly Cosmopolitan wasn't in that mag stack. From their covers alone it would be sex, sex, sex and um, lemme see ... SEX!

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on August 1, 2009 1:25 PM



And let's not forget the middle aged Mom's magazines in the grocery checkout line: scrumptious holiday desserts you can make in under 5 minutes, AND the simple household secret that will melt away 15 pounds of belly fat in 2 weeks.

"Spend a year in a foreign country, and you'll discover your true self."
For all the time I put in looking at these kinds of magazines when I was much younger, I don't recall this one. But I think there may be some truth to it, provided you choose a foreign country where you face a few minor challenges. My neighbors did just that, and from what they said about the experience it does change how you view life in this country.

Posted by: KR on August 1, 2009 2:00 PM



A. Clio -- Fantasies sometimes do correspond a bit to reality, don't they? For instance: Like many guys, I marvel over the way the right scarf or haircut really does seem to make many women feel better. As a guy ... well, wildly wrong clothes can make me feel like an ass, but there's no such thing as an item of clothing that can really transform my day.

Meta-question: Why are women so preoccupied with "feeling better"? Is being a woman such a draggy, self-centered, hormonal swamp that all many gals can really enjoy thinking about is a little relief from the muddy weight of it?

As for clothing "successfully" disguising a fat ass ... Well, god knows there are better and worse ways of draping a fat ass. But I think many women would be surprised by how semi-wise men can be to women's tricks. For instance: You won't run into many guys who bed a woman for the first time and who afterwards think, "Wow, I was completely surprised by how fat her ass turned out to be!" We usually know it's a fat ass long before we pull the pants off it.

"Wise to" women's tricks doesn't necessarily mean "unappreciative of" them, by the way.

Donald -- Cosmo is worth any number of blogpostings of its own!

KR -- You're a brave soul. I'm not man enough to face the Mom's mags. The "traveling will aid self-discovery" trope usually seems to be peddled by the bookworld, doesn't it? A year in Tuscany connecting with food and sunlight ... A year in China helping peasants ... And suddenly I'm like Diane Lane, only smiley and without the wrinkles! But yesterday a few of the magazines I leafed thru were peddling the notion too. Maybe they were piggybacking on the book-publishing world ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 1, 2009 2:44 PM



"What a weird and terrifying world is the mental landscape of the human female!"


Not so mcuh scary as empty.

Posted by: Anon on August 1, 2009 2:53 PM



Ah, Michael, the influence of Roissy is showing
:-)

Posted by: PA on August 1, 2009 3:34 PM



Being a woman is often draggy, to use your word, and subject to the influence of hormonal fluctation, which can leave one feeling exhausted and wrung out. But self-centred? No indeed. Don't you recall the words of wisdom from a certain male reader who had to take female hormones for a short time, and noted how tiring it was to be so "for others" all the time? Of course there are women who are truly self-centred, in that their actions are directed mainly or solely to their own welfare. But I suspect that most of even these women are acutely aware of others and their feelings - that's what female hormones tend to do to you. Women of this type simply learn to use that kind of awareness for their own benefit.

Posted by: aliasclio on August 1, 2009 3:41 PM



Sounds about right to me. That year in a foreign country thing is huge for some women. The idea is that these places exist to promote your personal growth, pay no mind to the grinding third world poverty or whatever.

Posted by: Ed on August 1, 2009 4:47 PM



"Killing time waiting for The Wife at the hair salon..."

Brave man.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on August 1, 2009 6:52 PM



"What did I miss?"

That there were no men's magazines around, or you would've seen they say pretty much the same thing except the large-breasted women in them are propped up to look like they want YOU right now! Pop culture magazines are for the mentally lax of both sexes.

Posted by: Upstate Guy on August 1, 2009 7:55 PM



Anon -- You're farther out on that limb than even I am.

PA -- It makes more sense to lift from the good ones than the bad ones, no?

A. Clio -- I know that women love thinking that they're overdoing it for everyone else's sake. But that's often not how it seems to men. We sit there watching them spend hours in the mirror, listening to them talk about their feelings and "careers," and we think, "Wow, these creatures care about almost nothing beyond how they feel about themselves." Hey, did you see Sailer's funny piece about women and journalism?

http://bit.ly/11nw6j

But we may have hit a real "she says / he says" moment ...

Ed -- Funny!

Charlton -- Actually I was taking a walk and snapping photos while The Wife was having her hair done. I showed up when it was supposed to be over. And -- quel surprise! -- the chemical processing and the gabbing-with-the-hairdresser took another 30 minutes. A woman who keeps you waiting, who'd a thunk it?

Upstate -- You're certainly right about men's mags, but this was a posting about women's mags. Besides, balance is overrated.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 1, 2009 8:19 PM



"The troubles of movie stars are just like yours."

Conversely, the celebrity culture also says, Movie stars live fabulous, perfect lives, unlike you or me.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on August 1, 2009 8:21 PM



Michael:

What did I miss?

The survivor story: Rape, child abuse, cancer, etc.

Articles on how to live without a man followed by articles on where to find a man.

What Brad and Angelina are doing.(subject on its own)

Gossip about the stars.

The mega-weight loss story.

Michael: I wouldn't underestimate the importance of women's magazines as a vehicle for cultural transmission.

I'm wary of approaching your meta-question, but as I'm a glutton for punishment; here's my two cents.

I've been crawling around in women's heads now for years, and I have to disagree with you that women are self-centred. The best way to describe them is that they--as a general rule--are very self-conscious; a subtle but important difference. Their standing in relation to others is constantly being monitored by themselves; be that in how they dress, how their kids behave, what type of house, etc. The opinion of their peers matters a lot more to them than it does to men. This constant comparing has the long term effect of inducing anxiety. The classic example is the Stepford wife types who superficially look perfect, but when looked at more closely, are wracked with neurosis and insecurity. For them life is constant struggle of keeping up appearances in order to maintain social approval or social dominance. Their brains never rest. One way to induce anxiety in a woman is to excessively praise her competitor. Notice, you don't need to criticise the woman directly, she will immediately infer her inferior status.(For those literalists out there who might be reading this IT IS A GENERAL RULE, there are exceptions). The worst aspects of Game exploit this phenomena.

Quite naturally, women are always looking for ways to reduce this anxiety and hence the recurring themes in women's magazines. They all want to be pretty, well rounded individuals who are great cooks, mothers and lovers. Like men, they want to achieve their goal efficiently.

I don't think it's all hormonal, I a lot of the difference is "hard wired". I think the feminine way of thinking has many benefits for society, but that's for a different post. And before any indignant feminist puts words in my mouth stating that I think women are inferior to men by my comment, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that women think differently to men and there are both pluses and minuses with their approach.

Posted by: slumlord on August 1, 2009 9:03 PM



"balance is overrated"

Eh, I neither agree nor disagree. ;-)

Posted by: Upstate Guy on August 1, 2009 11:18 PM



I wonder why you dont report the main subject of women's magazines, which is sex. Maybe...
(1) Your wife was watching you and you skipped the pages doing with sex
(2) You did not skip those pages but you dont want your wife to know
(3) You are a perfect Victorian gentleman who never sees nor talks about those dirty things.
There is also a remote possibility that your wife's hair salon is in an ultraorthodox neighborhood in New York, where papers carry no pictures of women (not even Hillary Clinton) nor is there any mention of sex.

Posted by: j on August 2, 2009 1:11 AM



Peter -- It's a conundrum. Thank god that, in our fantasy lives, we never have to reconcile anything.

slumlord -- You're more charitable and insightful than I am by a long shot. And maybe "self-centered" was a bad word choice. But I still maintain that, whatever the reasons for it, women spend an amazing amount of their time and energy concerned about how their feelings are doing. Possibly a good thing, possibly a bad thing. In any event, definitely something to contend with.

Upstate -- LOL.

J -- I know, there isn't much about sex in the posting, is there. It's bizarre, but there actually wasn't much about sex in the three gals' mags that I had time to thumb through at the hair salon either. I assume this was just a freaky coincidence. The gals' mags whose covers I glimpse at newsstands certainly seem to feature tons of stories about sex.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 2, 2009 2:48 AM



It's not a matter of women "overdoing it" for everyone else's sake, Michael.

You're confusing actions with states of being. I expect there's a better and more established way of putting this, but bear with me for a moment.

Women are probably "hard-wired", or hormonally driven, if there's a difference, to be acutely, even physically, conscious of other people and their feelings - and their own feelings too. That is not a virtue and I did not say it was. It's a biological state that most of us have to learn to live with, one way or another. Some of us put that capacity to virtuous ends, and actually cultivate charity,patience and their ability to minister to family, friends, neighbours, etc.

Other women who have this capacity but no interest in cultivating it as a virtue, are still stuck with the "hard-wired" tendency to hyper-awareness of others' feelings, and, of course, their own. They experience this as a burden and try to suppress it or exploit it for their own ends, perhaps via therapy and self-help and other methods, or perhaps making use of it in their "careers", as you put it. (Why the scare-quotes around careers, anyway?)

Most women today fall somewhere between these two extremes, having that innate capacity for tuning in to other people's feelings, and our own, sometimes trying to escape or exploit it, and at other times trying to use it for others' benefit.

Posted by: aliasclio on August 2, 2009 12:02 PM



Sounds suspiciously like Oprah...not that I want to put words in your mouth.

Although, the point about the right fabric patterns and colors is definitely true - to a certain, non-obese extent.

Posted by: Neha on August 2, 2009 12:07 PM



slumlord: I don't think it's all hormonal, I a lot of the difference is "hard wired". I think the feminine way of thinking has many benefits for society, but that's for a different post. And before any indignant feminist puts words in my mouth stating that I think women are inferior to men by my comment, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that women think differently to men and there are both pluses and minuses with their approach.

Agreed. I realized this with crystal clarity when I was shopping in a fabric store with my husband for supplies to make him a nifty vest. We had the pattern, but needed the actual materials. I was heading straight off toward the general direction of the fabrics, but he came up to me with the *buttons* first. I realized then that theirs was a whole other way of viewing and being in the world. Not better or worse, just different.

Posted by: KR on August 2, 2009 6:53 PM



Is being a woman such a draggy, self-centered, hormonal swamp that all many gals can really enjoy thinking about is a little relief from the muddy weight of it?

Yes, except for the "self-centred". Women are obsessed with their immediate surroundings, social and physical, and especially the emotional tenor, tincture, tone of those surroundings. Their nesting drive, their obsession with cleanliness (compared on average to men), their overwhelming obsession with what friends and family are up to, their corresponding indifference to or disdain of abstraction (too distant intellectually), great big causes (too distant socially), and international affairs (too distant physically) all grow out of this hyper-vigilant focus on their immediate surroundings.

Women are not self-centered, but are focused on what is in their immediate vicinity. Even when they go on and on and on about their jobs, the actual content of the conversation is focused on the people there, the feelings and conversations that make up that part of the reality of work that interests them.

Women are probably less genuinely self-centered than men on average. That doesn't mean they're any less selfish.

spending a year in a foreign country will help you to find your true self - which is one that men DO share.

I disagree with clio about this. Men are not generally interested in "finding themselves" at all, let alone doing so by living somewhere else for a year. The whole Shirley Valentine/Tuscan Sun/Eat Pray Love thing that has so entranced women is, I believe, an inevitable consequence of the same hyper-vigilant social focus that so consumes them. They are so "for others" that they lose a sense of what it's like just to "be me", i.e. not for any one else. Only women seem to suffer from this, and the urge to do a Womanly Sabbatical Year is, IMO, a perfectly understandable response to the fact that in being so "for others", women forget who they are as individuals. This particular kind of identity loss is precisely an outcome of women's hyper-vigilant social consciousness, and is, I believe, much rarer among men. The whole young man Grand Tour thing is entirely different...a rite of initiation into manhood, not an attempt (usually by a middle-aged woman) to discover a lost "real" self.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 3, 2009 9:54 AM



Men are not generally interested in "finding themselves" at all

True, however the Midlife Crisis could be seen as something relatively similar.

Posted by: Peter on August 3, 2009 10:54 AM



Dear, sweet Clio -- News Flash: You're critiquing a cartoon for not being a dissertation. You're so wildly off-base that you've got me musing about another characteristic of da galz: a tendency to misplace ye olde sense of humor ...

PatrickH -- Still, it's funny how regularly the supposed "other centeredness" of women results in things working out just how the woman would like them to work out, isn't it? Funny too how often women push their personal feelings to the fore no matter what the discussion. Typical guy experience: "Hey, for a few secs there I thought we were talking about something out in the world. But once again she's got us focusing on how this thing-out-in-the-world affects her emotional state. It's as though Objective Reality exists only to the extent that it affects her feelings about herself. How does this happen?"

Hmmm. I think I'm going to go back to using "self-centered" ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 3, 2009 12:11 PM



I'm with PatrickH (surprise, surprise), I thought he gave a very good summary.

Men have a whole series of anxieties around aggression, dominance, proving themselves through testing or conquest, etc. that women don't share. Those male anxieties can make men just as much of a pain in the ass as women to be around -- as in the guy who just has to Win the Conversation.

Jobs aren't about selling something others are willing to pay for. Jobs are about personal fulfillment.

This isn't a fantasy, just an aspiration that's difficult to achieve. Some people really can and do fulfill themselves personally through their work, and such people tend to be happier than the norm. But only a minority achieve it -- it's a lot harder to do than we're brought up to believe. Kind of like how only a minority of marriages bring lifetime romantic happiness.

Posted by: MQ on August 3, 2009 1:03 PM



Women can be just as selfish as men; in fact one of the differences between the sexes is how clueless women can be about their own motivations. How often have you had an argument with a woman who accuses you of being "selfish" for not giving her what she wants? Irony alert!

Still, I'm going to stick to my point that women aren't self-centered when they go on and on about their emotions. I take self-centredness to involve a degree of deliberate focus on the self. Women may end up inserting their feelings into everything they talk about, but the degree of obsessive focus on others' motivations, feelings, the Talmudic hair-splitting multi-layered over-interpretations of the simplest social cues (from men), that's not self-centeredness. I don't mean that women are "other-focused" in the sense of being altruistic or self-sacrificing. Only that the emotional signals from their immediate environment are what push their buttons.

If women really were self-centered in the sense of being introspectively focused, they would have far more insight into themselves than they seem to exhibit.

I guess I'm just saying that if a woman is self-centered, it's only in the sense that she is centered on a "self" that is a diffuse ten-feet-around-her nimbus, filled with objects and people and emotions all bound together in this single me/them network, all therefore both expressing and relating to her because in some sense they're part of her and she's part of them, and all of the nimbus and everyone in it, her included, quivering with undifferentiated multi-hued multifarious just-on-the-edge-of-meaning-something emotional significance.

And it's that whole thing--the whole mushed-together togetherness of the me/them nimbus network--that constitutes a woman's "self". And it's in that sense that women can indeed be said to be self-centered.

Thank God I'm a man.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 3, 2009 2:28 PM



A word about this question:

"Why are women so preoccupied with 'feeling better'? Is being a woman such a draggy, self-centered, hormonal swamp..."

Sociological studies are constantly finding that women do something like three times the housework men do, even when both people work full time and when both people estimate that the work is divided more fairly.

When there are children to tend to, women are expected to do it. In both cases, men's involvement is often framed as "helping" the woman.

As others have pointed out, women are wired to help others even when no one is demanding it.

Now I realize that much of this has changed, that many women don't have kids, that we stay single longer and arrange ourselves in different family structures these days and so forth, but I suggest that this impulse to stop working so much and to sit with a pillow and a cup of tea and to "feel better" is entrenched in this history.

I'm a woman, but I HATE women's magazines. The beauty obsession bores me to tears and the articles haven't changed since I read Seventeen in 1982.

To the first poster, I think the question is not whether some of these things are true but why in the hell they matter. There are more important things than looking good in a bikini and what Brad and Angelina are doing. Almost EVERYTHING is more important.

In the end it's just the dominate culture replicating itself. Women like to read Smithsonian and National Geographic, but probably don't feel like they have time after waxing their eyebrows and making the kids look perfect and bringing the perfect potluck dish and soaking their cankles all the livelong day.

Posted by: Shae on August 3, 2009 3:27 PM



Yeah...but we all know the real things that women fantasize about...

Posted by: JennaJay on August 3, 2009 4:03 PM



--Dear, sweet Clio -- News Flash: You're critiquing a cartoon for not being a dissertation. You're so wildly off-base that you've got me musing about another characteristic of da galz: a tendency to misplace ye olde sense of humor ...--

See what I mean? No there there!

Posted by: Anon on August 3, 2009 11:31 PM



Dear, sweet Clio -- News Flash: You're critiquing a cartoon for not being a dissertation. You're so wildly off-base that you've got me musing about another characteristic of da galz: a tendency to misplace ye olde sense of humor ...

Er, oh, really Michael? And where's the humour in the male responses to this piece of yours, my dear man? They all seem to be responding to it with the kind of gravity that one might expect in, you know, a dissertation.

Sigh. You made a throwaway comment about women as a group, without intending it to be taken all that seriously. I responded in kind. Tell me, where and how did I go wrong?

Odd, but although I grew very tired of the unthinking assumption of women's moral superiority over the years of feminist-dominated moral discourse, I find men's response to it equally annoying. For heaven's sake, fellows, will you not grant the female sex ANY virtues at all? Are we back to the days when men pronounced that women have NO moral life?

Argh. It's enough to turn me into a 1970s feminist.

Posted by: aliasclio on August 3, 2009 11:58 PM



I LOLed at, "what a weird and terrifying mental landscape"....

Okay, that's enough about you.

You know what I like? Those magazines like Lucky and Instyle. No articles, just 'how to' pages. Do you know what I am talking about? Practical advice for the woman who wants to look put together and doesn't much care about the Oprah stuff. So, Lucky will have pages of jeans that you can buy, priced out and displayed in various ways. Ten jeans under forty bucks, or ten jeans for a certain body type, or ten 'boyfriend' jeans or in some other style. It's the companion to youtube videos, five minutes long, showing you how to put on mascara or eyeliner in the latest fashion.

So. Whatever. There are magazines for drips and whiners and dopes and divas and the practical. And you don't have to read any of those. You can read 2Blowhards.

:)

Posted by: onparkstreet on August 4, 2009 12:50 AM



Shae:
Sociological studies are constantly finding that women do something like three times the housework men do, even when both people work full time and when both people estimate that the work is divided more fairly.

You mean like this small study.


Michael:
Typical guy experience: "Hey, for a few secs there I thought we were talking about something out in the world. But once again she's got us focusing on how this thing-out-in-the-world affects her emotional state.

Men talk to the subject, women to the person. (Hat tip, G.K.C)

It's as though Objective Reality exists only to the extent that it affects her feelings about herself.

Profound but wrong. Her feelings affect her perception of reality. There is a fine line between seduction and coercion, and it lies in the mind and mood of a woman.

(That last line was borrowed from a show that was on the box tonight. It dealt with subject of sexual consent. Some of the commentators on this blog might find it very interesting. Link.
Daisy from Salt Lake City, who features towards the end of part two(21:00 listen carefully), is priceless. Comments made from about 11:20 in Part are also worth noting)

How does this happen?"
XX series processor. The XY series operates totally differently.

Posted by: slumlord on August 4, 2009 9:36 AM



Women like to read Smithsonian and National Geographic, but probably don't feel like they have time after waxing their eyebrows

Or waxing their ... oh, no :(

Posted by: Peter on August 4, 2009 10:13 AM



In response to the meta-question: women *who read these retarded magazines* are obsessed with "feeling better" cos the ads between all the articles are specifically calibrated to make them feel like shit! They sell you the disease, they sell you the cure, in one convenient package that smells like chemical perfume. Women who are getting on with their lives are too busy to read these stupid magazines, and are adept at filtering out the ads.

Posted by: TeratoMarty on August 4, 2009 12:19 PM



You can eat yourself slim as long as its your own flesh you are eating.

Posted by: rico lebrun on August 5, 2009 12:21 AM



Y'know, a few of these are identical to fantasies that male musicians love to indulge in. Not the leotard and jogbra one, fortunately.

Posted by: Martin Regnen on August 5, 2009 3:46 AM



This comment thread is strongly reminiscent of a 70's-era Saturday Night Live sketch – a TV show called "Women's Problems", where a bunch of guys sit around and talk about what's wrong with women – which turns out to be pretty much everything, except for features of anatomy.

M.B. – you really come across like quite the patronizing tool when addressing Clio, above. Just thought you'd like to know.

Posted by: David Fleck on August 5, 2009 8:04 AM



"Sociological studies are constantly finding that women do something like three times the housework men do, even when both people work full time and when both people estimate that the work is divided more fairly."

Agreed. So, uh, nice going, feminist movement. Ha. Slumlord, also agree that men work as many hours as women, both at the office and at home, but the tasks are different and usually not under the same time-constraints. Dishes must be done now. Fixing the fence can be done a little at a time. I'm a guy and appreciate very much that difference, in both senses of the word "appreciate."

Posted by: JV on August 5, 2009 3:09 PM



Clio: For heaven's sake, fellows, will you not grant the female sex ANY virtues at all? Are we back to the days when men pronounced that women have NO moral life?

Clio, you're mistaking the venue. This is a Lifetime for Men thread. Toss up some lumpen-feminist clay pigeons like "Shae", or nod agreeably about how contemptible women are. Any other sort of input from you is neither required or desired. Tsk, Clio, for somebody advancing the claim of acute female social sensitivity, you are showing a remarkably boorish obtuseness about appropriate social-venue specific behavior. And not for the first time! Is there no limit to the oblivious selfishness of women, that you presume to venture contrary opinions about the subjective female experience or the content of women's magazines? Does everything have to be all about how your twerpy little sex thinks and feels? Some stuff is just men's stuff, and you should just butt out and respect that.

Michael - So, could you share the latest word on exercise bras, what with you speaking with such confident authority on their utility or lack thereof? And while we're at it, girlfriend, I can sure use some advice on where to find a comfortable, well-fitting balconette. Like, I've been completely at a loss since Vicky S. discontinued my favorite style, you know how it is. Please rush disinterested expert info, else I'll be stuck consulting my own experience or that of other deluded females. P.S. Tampons - which should I prefer - applicator or non-applicator?

Posted by: Moira Breen on August 5, 2009 5:56 PM



David -- Good for you for picking up the "patronizing tool" tone. Bad for you for not imagining that it might have been chosen deliberately. Small hint: Check out Clio's exasperated and scoldy tone in her previous comment to me. Clio's always smart and interesting, but she does sometimes lose track of her sense of humor. So the scoldiness was what I was responding to. She gave me a stern -- I daresay "head nun-ish" -- nyah-nyah, so I gave her a "patronizing tool" nyah-nyah right back. High-level stuff! But Clio and I are cool. She's brainy and sexy and always welcome.

Moira -- Whew, the panties do get into a bunch sometimes, don't they? Why you're trying so hard to work up some mockery of my pretentions to expertise where the gals are concerned is a baffler. There's no need to subject yourself to such stress given that I tendered no such pretentions. Reminder: This posting was occasioned by 30 minutes of flipping through a random selection of gals' mags. And this posting was intended to be nothing more than a bit of offhanded merriment at the expense of gals' mags.

Now, if you want to argue that the women's mags aren't selling the idea that pomegranate juice and green tea can deliver world peace, or if you think that the posting would have been funnier if the "fat ass" entry had come at the midway point rather than at the end of the list, then maybe we've got ourselves a discussion ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 6, 2009 1:52 AM



Since I’m living in a female dominated universe at the moment... the nursing profession... I’ll give you a little different point of view.

White women and Filipino women offer up some very different explanations of why they became nurses. White women like to tell you that they entered the profession because they are so “caring.” Filipino women will likely tell you that they did so because they wanted to make a good living.

The “caring” mantra has its pros and cons. Nurses make a very good living. It’s possible for an RN to make in excess of $100,000.

The “caring” crowd will almost never admit to self-interest as part of their profession. This is where that female narcissism comes into play.

If the nurses I know are any indication (and I think that they are), they are mostly very liberal Democrats who favor every entitlement and social welfare program you can imagine. They will tell you that they do so because they are so “caring.” I've tried suggesting to them that they might be in favor of these entitlements and welfare program because those things put more money in their pockets, by producing more customers. This does not elicit a pleasant response.

I’ve seen quite a few recipients of this “caring” in nursing homes and hospitals who weren’t that happy with the result. Almost all of them were men.

Think Nurse Ratchet. Or think of Indian Larry, the great motorcycle stunt rider and custom builder, who was asked why he took all those crazy chances. His response (which I paraphrase because I’m too lazy to look it up):

“Going out in a blaze of glory beats spending the last 10 years of your life drooling in your diapers.”

Bless Indian Larry. He went out in a blaze of glory.

I’ve related this story to a couple of white nurses. They were outraged that Larry refused to live up to his responsibility to become a customer of their “caring.”

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 6, 2009 8:25 AM



ST, did a white nurse actually say to you she entered nursing because she's so caring and wanted to spread that around? I highly doubt it. I know a few white nurses, one of them my mother-in-law, and they all say they went into the profession because it pays well, has flexible schedules and they can get a job most anywhere. My mother-in-law actually went on to become a Nurse Practitioner because she could make more money and have more responsibility.

I know this is all anecdotal, but as always, your experiences with familiar situations, in this case, dealing with nurses, seem otherworldly to me.

Posted by: JV on August 6, 2009 1:39 PM



Any useful article about sex and love will contain a list of tips/advice/recommendations that is a nice round number (usually a multiple of ten).

I look forward to the day where I look at a Cosmo cover and see "19 Signs He is Cheating on you" or "34 Bedroom Games to Recharge the Romance."

Posted by: Robert Nagle on August 6, 2009 11:33 PM



I'm definitely late to this party so all I have are disjointed observations:

women's mags: Elle has witty writing and offers interesting glimpses of the humorless narcissists that seem to predominate the New York art scene. Beyond that I certainly admire the chuztpa of magazines who publish a new diet every month while never suggesting that the diet they published last month was a waste of time. And I never take their cosmetics recommendations seriously because they base their recommendations on how much advertising a particular company buys.

Traveling: In my circle the love of international travel is not split between the genders but I have indeed noticed that American men tend not to like international travel as much as women. Why is that?

Slumlord: great observations and I have nothing to add.

Self-centeredness: I think a better way to frame it is that men will defend their egos and women will defend their feelings. On average, of course. Is one more objectively worthy than the other?

Female caring: Women frequently use caring in schools, hospitals etc. as a method to express dominance. I don't see why this is any worse than men's more straightforward methods unless you harbor ideals of women as Victorian angels or unless you're somewhat aspie and take people entirely at face value.

Also while many men who aspire to leadership positions are lazy narcissists who want to bleed their underlings dry men who are the most successful over the long term mentor their subordinates, reward them, and otherwise make it worth their while to follow them. Women who domineer in the name of compassion benefit their minions, in my opinion, about as often as do male leaders and Nurse Ratchets are no more common than Marion Barrys.

Fat asses: Many white women seem to think that the ideal ass is one that appears to be impacted. However, though I have heard men complain that women can be too fat, too thin, wear too much make-up, not even make the effort, wear trampy clothes, wear too conservative clothes, have overdone hairstyles, be too tanned etc. I have almost never heard a man complain about a woman's ass being too fat if she wasn't overweight and her ass was proportional to her body. That said generous glutes are better clothed in dark colors and tailored fits rather than the loose white pants Clio metioned. And since picking clothes that are flattering to their booties often gives women self confidence I don't see why it is an unworthy

Women's magazines bore me. Here's a better question: Why do otherwise rational people, when they are annoyed with their spouse or lover, decide that all the men or women in the world have had a democratic election and chosen that particular partner to be their representative in the battle of the sexes?

Posted by: hello on August 6, 2009 11:41 PM



hello: American men tend not to like international travel as much as women. Why is that?

Men hate having to ask directions. Men hate not being in control of a situation. Travelling puts men in a situation where they aren't in control. Stressful! Especially if they don't know the language.

Yesterday I got my hair cut. The place caters to men only and styles itself an old school barber shop. It's great! Hot towels, straight razor shaves, the works.

They stock magazines for customers to read, overwhelmingly Maxim, Details and Sports Illustrated. It's interesting how much overlap there is between the topics in Maxim and Details and the list of women's mag things Michael pointed to.

How clothes flatter your body type.
Celebrity profiles (of men).
Diet advice (like hello's example, different every month).
Advice on how to make decisions.
Advice on how to talk to women.
Advice on sex with women. Great positions, how to get her in the mood, you know.
Health advice.

You get the point, right? Though there are obvious differences in style and in the details of the advice given, Maxim and the womens mags have a LOT IN COMMON.

Note: both samples of magazines were perused in hair places. Take away point: don't draw too many conclusions from the kind of reading on display in hair salons. Men's or women's.

I'm actually reassured somewhat by the fact that both types of magazines spend a lot of time advising readers how to get together with, and get along with, the other sex.

Men and women. We still love another, despite the talk otherwise.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 7, 2009 11:11 AM



@Michael,
Your hair shop indulgence strongly reverberated with me. I don't otherwise read those magazines, but I unapologetically indulge during my hair color/cut/style.

Posted by: jz on August 8, 2009 12:43 PM



I didn't finish with all the comments, so sorry if this one seems out of place based on the sum total of them all.

Our society and culture is a f***ing joke and no wonder men and women are messed up. It is all based on lies and deceptions. People have become sick representations of what humans should really be. Most people have become shallow and self-centered in many ways, that is just the nature of our current socialization. Catty and vindictive? The world is full of it. So what's the point of this post then, this much has been obvious for a long time already. Oh, I see, you recommend a new tattoo to deal with it all? Okay, after I finish watching my reality TV for the evening, maybe if I can get it done before American Idol comes on. Ciao.

Eric

Posted by: Eric on August 14, 2009 3:27 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?