Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Wondered Where People Get Some of These Ideas?
Replies
-
smoofinator wrote: »I find it amusing comparing mags from the same publisher but aimed at men vs. women (such as Men's Health and Women's Health).
In the taglines, men usually get "ripped", women "toned". Men get "rock hard abs", women "a flat belly". And so forth.
There was even a set of special issues (photo below) put out by that publisher, one for men and one for women, that were aimed at bodyweight fitness. Inside, based on a flip-through, there were pretty much exactly the same exercises. They just were photographed with models of the appropriate sex. Taglines on the cover slanted very diffently, though.
These are so archaic. Completely failing to recognize the other 67 genders.
Makes me think of this. NB: These magazines are produced by separate publishers. It's not one publisher making two different magazines.
Ugh, gross. This makes me so mad! Also, side note, waking up pretty is not a thing. Even Mila Kunis doesn't wake up pretty. We're all kind of gross in the morning, and that's OKAY!
I suspect some 16-year-olds wake up pretty in the morning, graceful, dewy-complected gazelles that some young women are at that age . . . but they read this kind of s**t and think they're ugly, sadly.Motorsheen wrote: »I find it amusing comparing mags from the same publisher but aimed at men vs. women (such as Men's Health and Women's Health).
In the taglines, men usually get "ripped", women "toned". Men get "rock hard abs", women "a flat belly". And so forth.
There was even a set of special issues (photo below) put out by that publisher, one for men and one for women, that were aimed at bodyweight fitness. Inside, based on a flip-through, there were pretty much exactly the same exercises. They just were photographed with models of the appropriate sex. Taglines on the cover slanted very diffently, though.
Men have to do just 25 exercises but women need 128? *kitten*.
Yes, it's true.
I'm on exercise 23 right now..... so you better get started.
So the last 2 for men are super magical? Duly noted.
(Just kidding - no true personal animus intended. :flowerforyou: )5 -
smoofinator wrote: »I find it amusing comparing mags from the same publisher but aimed at men vs. women (such as Men's Health and Women's Health).
In the taglines, men usually get "ripped", women "toned". Men get "rock hard abs", women "a flat belly". And so forth.
There was even a set of special issues (photo below) put out by that publisher, one for men and one for women, that were aimed at bodyweight fitness. Inside, based on a flip-through, there were pretty much exactly the same exercises. They just were photographed with models of the appropriate sex. Taglines on the cover slanted very diffently, though.
These are so archaic. Completely failing to recognize the other 67 genders.
Makes me think of this. NB: These magazines are produced by separate publishers. It's not one publisher making two different magazines.
Ugh, gross. This makes me so mad! Also, side note, waking up pretty is not a thing. Even Mila Kunis doesn't wake up pretty. We're all kind of gross in the morning, and that's OKAY!
I suspect some 16-year-olds wake up pretty in the morning, graceful, dewy-complected gazelles that some young women are at that age . . . but they read this kind of s**t and think they're ugly, sadly.Motorsheen wrote: »I find it amusing comparing mags from the same publisher but aimed at men vs. women (such as Men's Health and Women's Health).
In the taglines, men usually get "ripped", women "toned". Men get "rock hard abs", women "a flat belly". And so forth.
There was even a set of special issues (photo below) put out by that publisher, one for men and one for women, that were aimed at bodyweight fitness. Inside, based on a flip-through, there were pretty much exactly the same exercises. They just were photographed with models of the appropriate sex. Taglines on the cover slanted very diffently, though.
Men have to do just 25 exercises but women need 128? *kitten*.
Yes, it's true.
I'm on exercise 23 right now..... so you better get started.
So the last 2 for men are super magical? Duly noted.
(Just kidding - no true personal animus intended. :flowerforyou: )
None taken.
Have a fun afternoon!
1 -
And 1960, and 1970...and 80...I remember some variation on the theme since I first learned to read what these magazines said.Geez, 1950 says hello
This is how it was when I was growing up - thought we were past that by now. So sad.
People catch on and it gets slightly changed up to incorporate the newest "Let us enlighten you!" fad.
2 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
3 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
Indeed. Nothing precluding a young woman from being both pretty AND exploring her future as a potential astronaut (or whatever else she wants to be). Or a young man from being pretty if that's his preference.
4 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
I get your point. But where do those desires come from in the first place? It just seems like stereotypes of what a man and woman should want and/or look like are just being perpetuated throughout the ages, sometimes.5 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.7 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.
I'm adopted and have always been fascinated with this and too have looked to twin/adoption studies over nature/nurture. So when I look at the 128 exercises vs 25 I look at why one gender would want something simple over complex or vice versa. Also thinking of the number of posts from new people "Weight loss cannot be this simple" as if the complexity of the process increases the validity.
Advertising is one thing, but "more is caught, then taught" so this behavior is reinforced by example by the parent/guardian up until 18-25. After this genetics establishes the parameters on behavior.1 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.
I'm adopted and have always been fascinated with this and too have looked to twin/adoption studies over nature/nurture. So when I look at the 128 exercises vs 25 I look at why one gender would want something simple over complex or vice versa. Also thinking of the number of posts from new people "Weight loss cannot be this simple" as if the complexity of the process increases the validity.
Advertising is one thing, but "more is caught, then taught" so this behavior is reinforced by example by the parent/guardian up until 18-25. After this genetics establishes the parameters on behavior.
Kind of off topic, but @csardriver, look up studies done by Dr. Nancy Segal. She was the first to take the other end of the nature vs. nurture question and research virtual twins (non-related siblings less than 9 months apart). We already had lots of studies of twins being raised together and even twins being raised apart via adoption, but no one was looking at the other side of it. My boys are 1 month apart and we participated in some of her studies. I haven't seen anything recent by her, but most of her research pointed to nature winning out over nurture in most cases, although of course it's all very complicated and intertwined. In my n=1 case, I can attest to nature being stronger.3 -
mom23mangos wrote: »These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.
I'm adopted and have always been fascinated with this and too have looked to twin/adoption studies over nature/nurture. So when I look at the 128 exercises vs 25 I look at why one gender would want something simple over complex or vice versa. Also thinking of the number of posts from new people "Weight loss cannot be this simple" as if the complexity of the process increases the validity.
Advertising is one thing, but "more is caught, then taught" so this behavior is reinforced by example by the parent/guardian up until 18-25. After this genetics establishes the parameters on behavior.
Kind of off topic, but @CSARdiver, look up studies done by Dr. Nancy Segal. She was the first to take the other end of the nature vs. nurture question and research virtual twins (non-related siblings less than 9 months apart). We already had lots of studies of twins being raised together and even twins being raised apart via adoption, but no one was looking at the other side of it. My boys are 1 month apart and we participated in some of her studies. I haven't seen anything recent by her, but most of her research pointed to nature winning out over nurture in most cases, although of course it's all very complicated and intertwined. In my n=1 case, I can attest to nature being stronger.
I think this lies at the core of the topic. Thanks for the note - I have read Dr. Segal's books and believe she is on a more correct path. That is so cool that you were involved in the studies!
I believe nature establishes the parameters in large over the course of life. This is amplified by nurture during the developmental years and in extreme cases, causes severe limitations and/or expansions - think extreme poverty/wealth or trauma resulting in post traumatic stress or growth situations. Over time as one enters adulthood and becomes more in control over their own person nurture becomes like more of a conscious - the devil/angel/cricket on your shoulder, but genetics dominates.2 -
I find it amusing comparing mags from the same publisher but aimed at men vs. women (such as Men's Health and Women's Health).
In the taglines, men usually get "ripped", women "toned". Men get "rock hard abs", women "a flat belly". And so forth.
There was even a set of special issues (photo below) put out by that publisher, one for men and one for women, that were aimed at bodyweight fitness. Inside, based on a flip-through, there were pretty much exactly the same exercises. They just were photographed with models of the appropriate sex. Taglines on the cover slanted very diffently, though.
Men have to do just 25 exercises but women need 128? *kitten*.
But the men's magazine says 25 WORKOUTS and the women's states 128 exercises. It's still ridiculous and misleading, however.1 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
I get your point. But where do those desires come from in the first place? It just seems like stereotypes of what a man and woman should want and/or look like are just being perpetuated throughout the ages, sometimes.
Genetics and observation primarily.
The Scandanavian nations are much further along in their social experimentation in this and found that as the equality increased, the gender differences increased, so the objective evidence on social norms is diminishing and their is certainly a genetic foundation to gender based wants/needs.1 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
I get your point. But where do those desires come from in the first place? It just seems like stereotypes of what a man and woman should want and/or look like are just being perpetuated throughout the ages, sometimes.
Genetics and observation primarily.
The Scandanavian nations are much further along in their social experimentation in this and found that as the equality increased, the gender differences increased, so the objective evidence on social norms is diminishing and their is certainly a genetic foundation to gender based wants/needs.
Nonetheless, I do think the "nature vs. nurture" framing deprecates the role of social norms in influencing behavior. Women's behavior today (and I do mean behavior, not just roles) is noticeably different than was the case when I was a child.
I'm not launching an argument that biological sex (or deeply-felt psychological gender) has no influence whatsoever on behavior. That would be silly. Still, what you are saying in the bolded, it seems to me, could as easily be framed as an argument that social norms are very important, if behavior changes when opportunity for self-expression ("equality") increases, i.e., something was constraining that self-expression previously.
I suspect that, by nature/genetics, there's quite a broad spectrum in either men or women, for most behavioral inclinations we might pick out as stereotypically gender-based, with the spectrum for men overlapping the spectrum for women by varying degrees for each of those inclinations. Perhaps it's a tortured definition, but to me, gender "equality" has something to do with letting each person find their own happy place on those spectrums, without arbitrary external limitations based on their biological plumbing.4 -
These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.
[ I look at why one gender would want something simple over complex or vice versa. .
Like This ?
7 -
Motorsheen wrote: »These publications are catering to the desires of the target demographic.
Advertising is not the root cause. This is a symptom.
At this point in the idea's life cycle, I think it's just a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating system. The cause and effect are circling conjoined twins.
It may gradually evolve a bit in one direction or another, but any kind of rapid change would require a system disruption.
[ I look at why one gender would want something simple over complex or vice versa. .
Like This ?
Which one of these woke up pretty?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions