Comments on: What Girls Aren’t Reading…

By: Pumeza

Pumeza — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:09:53 +0000

Yes to moving the mags off the mens’ shelves — and some thought about unnecessarily gendered content might be appropriate as well. Was reading Popular Mechanics recently and the phrase “the little boy in all of us” snagged my eye – they meant “the child in all of us”, surely? This kind of thoughtless, lazy sexism, repeated often enough, accumulates to create a strong impression that women and girls are *not wanted*. I like the content, but not enough that it’s worth battling the strong headwind that shrieks “you don’t belong here”.

By: Casey Rentz

Casey Rentz — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:54:41 +0000

I secong–moving the magazines off the men’s shelves.

By: Chris Emrys

Chris Emrys — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:59:59 +0000

What about the demographics of subscribers? Or is the end result still the same?

By: Roger Harris

Roger Harris — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:35:39 +0000

Obviously, no two bookstore shelves are alike. Yes, we see tendencies, but each arrangement of magazines will depend on the bookstore’s available space, policies dictated by management and the vagaries of clerks who have to arrange the items. (Not to mention random jostling when customers replace magazines they flip through.)

Rather than ruminate over such variation, perhaps we, as science advocates, should consider an initiative that rewards bookstores for placing science magazines more prominently on their shelves (science mags are often below eye-level, for example).

Imagine this: each of us went to a local bookstore and took a picture such as the one by Sheril. We then mapped the placement of magazines in the photos and on the basis of the placements assigned a “science-friendliness” score to each store. Then we put the scores online. I think you might see an interesting response from the bookstores.

This is an example of where the science communicator community could rally around a cause to promote the advancement of science in society.

By: Wavefunction

Wavefunction — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:17:47 +0000

This might be an exception. In most places I have seen the science/tech/computer magazines occupy independent shelves.

By: Naomi Most

Naomi Most — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:34:06 +0000

…As if women don’t spend ridiculous amounts of money on products advertised in magazines?

Someone needs to test the market for a “female-friendly” science magazine, if such a thing is even reasonable. (But for goodness sakes, if you make one, please don’t put “FOR WOMEN” anywhere in the magazine. That’s like kryptonite for self-respecting women interested in science.)

By: Bee

Bee — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:18:58 +0000

Kevin: “Erotik” isn’t the same as porn. Go open a dictionary or ask your mom.

By: Bee

Bee — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:18:03 +0000

? They’re not, actually. They are typically with the arts, photo and computer magazines, etc. I wouldn’t call that “men’s.” Men’s magazines for me is the stuff with the big boobs if you know what I mean.

By: Kevin N

Kevin N — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:02:05 +0000

I noticed while living in Germany this summer that in many bookstores, finance magazines were to be found under the sign “Wirtschaft und Erotik”, or “Business and Porn”.

By: Quick Links | A Blog Around The Clock

Quick Links | A Blog Around The Clock — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:52:16 +0000

[...] What Girls Aren’t Reading… [...]