Re: [Gendergap] Magazine sexism (was: Article "Cumshot" in English and German Wikipedia)

4 May 2012

While the courage and enthusiasm of people who go into “the field” to find
things out is to be commended, and I do realise Tom's was a comic effort, I
worry that “original research”, well and truly beyond the scope of our
remit, is leading us further and further away from getting the  “sum of all
human knowledge” out there. We need to be careful not to make it up. We
need to be especially careful not to seek to reinforce our own ideas about
what history ought to have been.

While it is more tempting to “have a go” at research in some fields than in
others, that does not mean we know anything about them. For example, all of
us have an opinion on matters of sociology and psychology because we are
involved in them every day. We also like to pontificate on art when we see
it. At least this is not as damaging as pontificating on science, since
personal response is at least relevant. Sarah has already pointed out the
heights of sexism that the (relatively recent) field of marketing has
reached. However, there is *real* knowledge out there, including
*real*history and
*real* art, and we need to get it in the encyclopaedia, not go off into
amateur sociology half-cocked (so to speak).

As for encyclopaedic balance, especially relating to representations of sex
and nudity, it is like striving for balance in our diets. While sugar and
salt are tasty, and some communities arguably need more of them, in my
country and from what I read, in America, achieving any kind of balance
really means having much, much less.  Unfortunately, in life as in
Wikipedia, it also takes a lot of effort to avoid vast quantities of low
quality imagery. Too much salt or sugar and we are just pickled. Stupidly
insensate.

The encyclopaedia needs the real research and scholarship that is
available. It also needs representations of very high quality, especially
on these topics where everyone and his dog are keen to contribute. (I am
assuming there are men and dog pictures too but please don’t provide the
links.) It seems that the balance between freedom of choice and the value
of the choices made needs still to be struck.

Here is one WP article (food for thought without much salt or sugar?) in
which there is a lot of male nudity by a man who knew a thing or two about
human beauty. You will see that variation in opinion on the representation
of nudity is not a new thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_%28Michelangelo%29

On 4 May 2012 06:41, Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

...
  We don't actually have those over here :) (well,
at least not round my
 way).  I suspect you'd have "won" in that context (not that it's about
 points scoring).

 Although I was planning to see what it looked like in a bigger
 supermarket.

 It would be interesting to see others do this research as well and see
 what results they could find. Might give us a broader set of results - so
 I'd hold off that wiki-beer for a moment ;) I know it's a little off-topic,
 but might be a useful exercise in general.

 Cheers,
 Tom (ErrantX - I thought that everyone new that by now ;))

 On 3 May 2012 21:37, Ryan Kaldari &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

   Well, I did have more of an outdoor magazine
stand in mind (which tend
 to carry more tabloids and 'trashier' fare), but a deal's a deal :) I have
 to admit though that I don't know your username for the wiki-beer delivery.

 Ryan Kaldari

 On 5/3/12 9:52 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:

 Ok, as promised I went into a local store and did this research:
 http://instagr.am/p/KK-RXOwWyt/ I have to say I genuinely expected that
 I might have to admit to being wrong. I'm pleasantly surprised the say I
 don't think I was!

  But first, just to say, I felt like a bit of an idiot taking a photo
 and then jotting down notes in the shop. Which turned into feeling like a
 right prat when one of the shop assisstants asked what I was doing ;)

  Anyway.

  It's immediately obvious from the photo (which cuts off a portion
 either side of the stand, sorry) that there are a LOT of women on these
 covers. However things break down in an interesting way. The vast majority
 of covers featuring a woman, clustered to the right hand side halfway up,
 are female interest magazine (fashion, gossip, etc.). Targetted at women
 they almost exclusively feature a photo of a woman - but they are fully
 clothed, it is often a headshot and the focus is fashion/style (or a
 celebrity). I don't think these are sexist.

  Below them are another set of female interest mags - home and hearth.
 None of these feature a woman on the cover (though some have a person as a
 wider part of the image).

  Opposite these are two male-targetted types of magazine. On the middle
 shelf cars etc. and on the lower shelf computers. These almost entirely
 feature no people at all - with the exception of one PC mag which features
 a tasteful headshot of a computer generated woman (I'm willing for this to
 be included in the next set of figures, if you like) and a few with men on
 the covers.

  Which leaves us the top shelf - a total of 10 magazines, 5 each
 targetted at men and women. Of the 5 targetted at men you can see that 4
 are obviously feature an amount of nudity sexualisation (although there is
 no actual bits on show). The fifth male targetted mag features a woman as
 well, dressed, but with a bared shoulder and a sexualised pose.

  Of the female-oriented magazines three of them feature a man with his
 top off. One doesn't feature a person on the cover. And one (ironically
 going back to the blog post linked last night) features a man with his top
 button undone... and water spilling down his chin and onto his chest.

  I make that 5:4, or 6:4 if you want to include the other image.

  My conclusions?

  Sex sells to men and women, somewhat equally. Tasteful pictures of
 women sell to women. Cars and digital imagery sell to men.

  Tom

 On 2 May 2012 22:52, Ryan Kaldari &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

    On 5/2/12 2:38 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

 On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

   Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite
blog memes:
 http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water

  Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that
 mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a
 magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male
 nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the
 last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1.

 Ryan Kaldari

  On the principle of genuine interest I will take you up on that
 challenge :) and will report back tomorrow.

  Tom

  I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. I'm certainly subject to
 perception bias, but perception isn't always wrong. Don't forget to take a
 cell-phone photo if you want to collect your wiki-beer :)

 Ryan Kaldari

 _______________________________________________
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

 _______________________________________________
 Gendergap mailing
listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

 _______________________________________________
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

 _______________________________________________
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Re: [Gendergap] Magazine sexism (was: Article "Cumshot" in English and German Wikipedia)