Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
With the lamented demise of Toro, we continue to weigh in on the future of men’s magazines (for a past example, read this). Will they last? Do all middle-class men aspire to have a walk-in humidor? If you accidentally look at UMM, will you turn into one of these guys?
In many ways, the talk surrounding their legitimacy is part and parcel of the fact that masculinity, now more than ever, is in crisis. Manhood has shifted from a given to something that is increasingly policed, and with this comes heated debate and bruised egos. While Cosmopolitan has made a name for itself as a gal’s manual for staying thin and becoming proficient in fellatio (killing two birds with one stone, one might argue), the majority of criticisms levelled at men’s magazines suggest that the purchasable components of manhood are somehow more offensive and, interestingly, not indicative of the same larger issues. (There is one glaring exception: the assumption that there is a thinner tissue between the male consumer and a publication’s ideology. The guy who flips through Maxim is a misogynist; the woman who reads Cosmopolitan isn’t necessarily a vapid twit.)
Part of this can be attributed to the fact that men’s magazines are marketed in a more homogeneous manner, much to the detriment of publications like Toro. Once the territory of women, it would seem as if men are starting to feel universalized, and so it’s not surprising that many feel a similar frustration at having to differentiate themselves from what some publishers have decided are their interests and values.The truth of the matter is that men’s lifestyle publications are attempting to capitalize on the goods that women have been sold for decades: that desirability can be purchased, regardless of the distance between cover model and average reader.
One thing is clear: men’s magazines have a tough road ahead, and it would be a damn shame if they all went the way of the dodo (that said, the world would be a little less gross without some). They will be faced with successfully addressing a different male consumer—someone who does not objectify women, is critical of phallic substitution, and who’s unashamedly interested in the traditionally female pursuits of the arts, fashion, bodily discipline, and domesticity.
If men’s magazines want to cash in (particularly in the brutal Canadian publishing industry), they need to keep in step with the rapidly shifting and diverse definitions of manhood. What’s needed, now more than ever, is a platform which doesn't mirror the dominant formula that a lot of women are treating with increasing disdain.
Photo by phennessey19 from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Right on! Let's see a men's magazine that isn't a Sears catalogue for the 1950s misogynist! A Canadian one would be nicer still; I'd buy that until it goes under.
You should read the Toro vs. Driven argument on the Canadian Magazine blog. Nothing like catty media types making fun of each other.
http://canadianmags.blogspot.com/2007/02/driven-says-its-no-toro.html
I for one hate Driven. But I don't like cars.
Someday in the future, anthropologists will unearth that Hot Chicks with Douchebags site (linked in the article) and write articles about the eveolution of our species, studied and marveled-at in sociology classes throughout the world.
In the meantime, every male should use it as a "What Not To Do" guide, particularly those males who attend events where models are paid to pretend they like you.
You guys are wasting time waiting for wishes to become horses. If "men's magazines" feature a lot of gadgetry, stupidity and skin it is because their focus group polling has indicated that these things poll well with the target demographic.
There are plenty of interesting magazines out there targeted at specific niche markets, but to expect a broad-based generic men's magazine to cater to every possible permutation of male interest -- and not just the obvious, demographically significant ones that poll well -- is just silly.
If I want to read poli sci/foreign policy then I'll buy The National Interest, Foreign Affairs and The Atlantic Monthly. If I want to read about archaeology and anthropology then I'll buy Current Archaeology or Evolutionary Anthropology. I wouldn't expect a toned-down Maxim or FHM to ever approach those interests.
Your point is well taken, Chris. However, I’m more interested in the fact that the market is so narrowly defined, and what this says about how masculinity is regulated. Women have a far broader range of lifestyle publications to choose from, and while the theory-of-everything magazine is, like you said, impossible, I don’t think a discussion on why there is such a limited choice is “silly”.
I love the random humour of the UK FHM, but it's one of those mags that I wouldn't read on the subway because of the same old women-in-bikinis shots that are sprinkled throughout (and always on the cover). It's even embarrassing buying one in the infrequent occasion I do.
Don't even get me started on some of those car magazines. I mean, can you be any more of a loser stereotype? Souped-up cars with babes in bathing suits draped over them...I picture guys throwing the magazine at home while swinging from the furniture and thumping their chests before settling-down to pick nits out of their fur and birthing some poop to fling.
There's a certain point with those type of magazines where things just become creepy. Plus, who wears high heels to the beach?
Stephanie, with all due respect, I think the problem is the flawed premise that self-proclaimed men's magazines are somehow indicative of a highly regulated male gender role.
You could make an identical argument for femininity on the grounds that general-interest women's magazines also uniformly fail to carry articles on interesting developments in the worlds of molecular science, commercial aviation and exogeology, although there are many notable women interested (and employed) in those fields.
There are plenty of avenues of human effort and knowledge worthy of understanding that are statistically insignificant from the perspective of male- or female-interest magazines.
This doesn't mean that the gender roles are highly defined or regulated; it means that the average publisher doesn't think that a gender-specific slant on a wide variety of particular topics is going to move a lot of magazines. And they are probably correct.
Would a female-specific view of say, calculus, differ significantly from that of a male? Would the formulas and answers be different? I highly doubt it. If anything such an exercise would rightly invite ridicule for positing the idea that every avenue of human endeavour has to be seen through the narrowly focused lens of gender.
I don't think the decline of men's mags is that complicated. They're losing their key demo as the boob-gadget-violence afficianados migrate to the web, where the porn is harder core and the misogyny is unfettered.
With mutual respect to you, Chris, we will have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, the Western world has inherited an intellectual tradition that genders almost everything: from Plato to the Bible to Cartesian dualism to mechanistic science and on and on, this has played itself out in how men and women are taught to communicate, for ourselves and with each other.
As for your calculus comment, I agree that the answers would not differ, and I’m certainly not endorsing some sort of Mars/Venus shite. That said, math and science are seen as rational pursuits, and have therefore been gendered as masculine. From this logic, a lot of things have been excluded from masculinity. I realize that I’m waaaaaaay more interested in gender stuff than most people; however, if gender is a narrow lens, imagine if we all woke up tomorrow genderless. It’d be chaos (example: the uber-macho man or the manufactured woman--imagine if all the power they’ve received from this investment became totally invalid). Culture doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and while you’re right in pointing out that people can easily find cool stuff based on their interests, it’s how these interests are produced that is highly problematic.
Original Playboy happily married tittie with literature, a high-minded attitude about socializing with the opposite sex (i.e. wining, dining and the finer things in life vs. just being in the same room with one of 'em for drinkin' and bangin' purposes), insightful commentary and the whole shebang. While I'm not arguing that the inclusion of tittie is not problematic (nobody could argue that Playboy is not EXTREMELY hegemonic and excludes women as intended and invited readers of their great articles), Maxim/FHM have WAY more explicit pictures (despite not "showing anything") than Playboy could ever dream up. There's a distinct ickiness to the lens that most men's mags nowaday see the world, and especially women, that's equally bad for both sexes.
Scientific inquiry is in fact influenced by a gendered society. Just because women are allowed (though, clearly, outnumbered) in the sciences doesn't mean Cosmo is not indicative of gender regulation in the media. Furthermore, magazines like Cosmo and FHM are not only indicative, but rather productive of accepted gender roles, which is why their content is kind of scary in the year 2007. I think it's a great point Stephanie makes that the mindless tripe in "women's mags" is generally deemed more palatable than its counterpart in publications aimed at men. All I can gather from this is that this particular packaging of femininity has been more pervasive for a longer time than the masculine version (and thus taken as a given)?