Quote:
magazinese
Fucking hell, same typo twice. Delete me.
Lifestyle magazines?
Joseph K. wrote:
what are you studying again? when i did a business studies a-level the greasy letchy kid did his research project on Nuts' 'marketing techniques.' i bet
Studying journalism. It's on the construction of mythic gender indentities in lifestyle magazines, how it serves bourgeois ideology and works to suppress and absorb negation.
I got to do a powerpoint presentation on it a while ago, it was great fun explaining Lacan to a sea of empty faces while my lecturer went absolutely nuts that someone knew who he was.
Thank you wikipedia 
guydebordisdead wrote:
Studying journalism. It's on the construction of mythic gender indentities in lifestyle magazines, how it serves bourgeois ideology and works to suppress and absorb negation.
i bet someone will claim you're being a conspiracy theorist, as liberal media muppets constantly accuse chomsky of (thus missing the point spectacularly) ... 'are you really saying all the editors get together and decide what is 'male' and 'female' for the beneift of capitalism? blah blah blah'
Joseph K. wrote:
guydebordisdead wrote:
Studying journalism. It's on the construction of mythic gender indentities in lifestyle magazines, how it serves bourgeois ideology and works to suppress and absorb negation.i bet someone will claim you're being a conspiracy theorist, as liberal media muppets constantly accuse chomsky of (thus missing the point spectacularly) ... 'are you really saying all the editors get together and decide what is 'male' and 'female' for the beneift of capitalism? blah blah blah'
I covered that pretty well, stated that it wasn't a conspiracy, that I didn't think readers were like zombies who did whatever magazines told them and luckily people have the ability to read critically. But that the magazines playing on our sense of lack and create mythic identities which they sell us blahblah..
Kbranno who posts here sometimes was there maybe he'll tell you how great it was, although he has joined a trot group for some strange reason, maybe I explained it wrong.
my ex had a similar assignment at uni (doing information & media studies), only with adverts/film and got marked down for suggesting male gender roles are just as constructed. stupid radical feminist lecturer (who had trouble accepting the yorkie 'not for girls' ads could have been designed by a woman 
).
Joseph K. wrote:
constitutive lack requires a vanguard party, obviously.
"The existing social conditions make the individual feel powerless, He lives in contradiction between what he is and what he would like to be...Either he then becomes fully conscious of the contradiction and it’s causes and so joins the political struggle for Leninist dictatorship which entails…the establishment of state capitalism"
It doesn't have quite the same ring to it from a leninist slant.
Joseph K. wrote:
my ex had a similar assignment at uni (doing information & media studies), only with adverts/film and got marked down for suggesting male gender roles are just as constructed. stupid radical feminist lecturer (who had trouble accepting the yorkie 'not for girls' ads could have been designed by a woman
All gender roles are constructed! We're not bloody born with these gender identities - it's a known requirement of our society, there's a chap who reckons discourse in male mags is progressive. Smug cunt he is. (www.theory.org.uk)
Quote:
All gender roles are constructed!
i know that, but this lecturer banged on about how female portrayals on film create impossible role models, questioned on james bond she said something like 'that's different.' i mean this is second hand information, but as long as i don't name her it isn't libel* 
* edit: that's not strictly accurate for any lurkers thinking of libelling someone, libel can involve naming a suitably small identifiable group too, like lecturers at a named faculty for example. [/legal nerd]
Yeh, I can see how bond does more for patriarchy through creating a myth of beauty and also taming "wild" women (they resist at first but later he get them in his hot-tub or revolving bed) than he does for impossible male stereotypes. The whole film is from the subject position of a straight male, as far as I'm concerned when I'm watching I am james bond.
The most offensive one is GQ. At least Zoo and Nuts are tongue-in-cheek, but GQ has awful sexist shit for rich city fucks like bits about how stupid your secretary is and bollocks like that. Not to mention its awful fashion suggestions.
My favourite girl magazine is Glamour. FHM's probably the best men's one, but those magazines are too expensive to bother with. At least Vice is free, though I hardly see it anywhere.
I read an article in a local mag called The Vacuum which described Nuts and Zoo as "rapist manuals". I nearly fucking choked laughing, then got really annoyed at what obvious bollocks it was. It wasn't even ironic.
It was in an otherwise good article on the abyss of daytime TV. But there was some throwaway bit about gender inequalities and those mags being rapist manuals. I'm pretty sure it was a fella that wrote it, not realising that trying to impress feminists this way is something 18 yr PC punks do.
xConorx wrote:
I read an article in a local mag called The Vacuum which described Nuts and Zoo as "rapist manuals". I nearly fucking choked laughing, then got really annoyed at what obvious bollocks it was. It wasn't even ironic.It was in an otherwise good article on the abyss of daytime TV. But there was some throwaway bit about gender inequalities and those mags being rapist manuals. I'm pretty sure it was a fella that wrote it, not realising that trying to impress feminists this way is something 18 yr PC punks do.
That's lazy journalism, the magazines at best just reinforce all the classic gender roles in society while also doing the good service (and every male lifestyle mag I "studied" had this) of telling lads how to not be a bumbling selfish oaf in the bedrooom.
guydebordisdead wrote:
xConorx wrote:
I read an article in a local mag called The Vacuum which described Nuts and Zoo as "rapist manuals". I nearly fucking choked laughing, then got really annoyed at what obvious bollocks it was. It wasn't even ironic.It was in an otherwise good article on the abyss of daytime TV. But there was some throwaway bit about gender inequalities and those mags being rapist manuals. I'm pretty sure it was a fella that wrote it, not realising that trying to impress feminists this way is something 18 yr PC punks do.
That's lazy journalism, the magazines at best just reinforce all the classic gender roles in society while also doing the good service (and every male lifestyle mag I "studied" had this) of telling lads how to not be a bumbling selfish oaf in the bedrooom.
yeah and there is the small matter of the laddism being pretty damn self deprecating.
I just read that article that calls them 'rape manuals', it's written by some loser called Stuart, so atleast the chances are he's some pathetic prod who probably divides his time equally apologisng for his penis and the battle of the boyne.
revol68 wrote:
guydebordisdead wrote:
xConorx wrote:
I read an article in a local mag called The Vacuum which described Nuts and Zoo as "rapist manuals". I nearly fucking choked laughing, then got really annoyed at what obvious bollocks it was. It wasn't even ironic.It was in an otherwise good article on the abyss of daytime TV. But there was some throwaway bit about gender inequalities and those mags being rapist manuals. I'm pretty sure it was a fella that wrote it, not realising that trying to impress feminists this way is something 18 yr PC punks do.
That's lazy journalism, the magazines at best just reinforce all the classic gender roles in society while also doing the good service (and every male lifestyle mag I "studied" had this) of telling lads how to not be a bumbling selfish oaf in the bedrooom.
yeah and there is the small matter of the laddism being pretty damn self deprecating.
Yeh they seem to coat everything in a jokey laddish irony "How to have a laugh checking for prostate cancer" or whatever. I think it's probably the only way lads will think it's ok to read what is essentially a beauty mag.
Masculinity is in crisis.
Jack wrote:
rkn wrote:
But Nuts is better than shit like Vice.Word to that.
You ever read Vice Jack? I'm no fan but I'd certainly prefer reading it to Nuts. They had an interesting article by a guy who was stranded in the Megadrome (what was it called again?) during the Katrina crisis. And isn't it free anyway?
Nuts is pretty wack. I don't really think many people over the age of 14 buy it. Those who do tend not to have any friends or much of a life in my experience. I mean, what's the point when you have an internet connection?
Alan wrote:
You ever read Vice Jack? I'm no fan but I'd certainly prefer reading it to Nuts.
Yes.
I've never read Nuts, so I dunno. But I'm not going to try and ironically reclaim Nuts, because it's obviously shit.. But I certainly prefer to read Heat.
Quote:
They had an interesting article by a guy who was stranded in the Megadrome (what was it called again?) during the Katrina crisis. And isn't it free anyway?
Remember that ace racist anti-immigration one?
Vice is utter shite - i read two copies - both of them had this bizarre 'neo-liberalist free-marketism is radical' angle. That coupled with the porn 'reviews' and trendy shitty brand lifestyle ad's for no product in particular made it worse than nuts. At least N gets to the point. Even if its just telling you are a retard.
Just out of curiousity, I'm working on some homework that involves having to read and analyse gender construction in lifestyle magazinese, so I had to buy FHM, Nuts, Mens Health and a load of women's magazinese too.
Does anyone else read these? They're pretty funny and packed with tits too obviously. My favourite article so far was a step by step workout guide used by yerman Leonidas to prepare for 300.