Girls' Life versus Boys' Life

[author_by_night]

Although I'm VERY glad we're addressing the emphasis on fashion and dating in girl's magazines (with disregard for the fact that girls do care about other things), I want to point out that Boys' Life isn't the boy version of Girls' Life. I thought that originally too, a few years ago when we happened to get both copies at work, but Boys' Life is for Boy Scouts, hence the emphasis on camping and such. So it's not like the same company is releasing two magazines, a girly one for chicks, a manly one for boys.

Also, from what I remember of Girls' Life (when I read it back in the late 90's and early 00's), they always seemed to have a fair balance between "fashion and boys" and other things. If some issues more than others. (And I will say that even at thirteen, I definitely noticed the number of white, thin, able-bodied models over... anyone else). That may have changed, or maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I seem to recall there were worse magazines when it came to that.

Again, I'm glad the issue is being addressed, I just hope people aren't coming away with the impression that Boys' Life is supposed to be "Girls' Life for Boys." (Although I do wonder if there's a Girl Scouts magazine, and if not, why that is.)

Comments

[cloudsinvenice]

That's interesting context to have - I'd seen a meme going round about it on Facebook and had indeed thought that it was a pair of complementary magazines published by the same group!

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's definitely how they're positioning it! Although I at least haven't noticed any real backlash against Boys' Life itself, which is good because that would suck. Although I'm actually surprised there hasn't been. But it may be because the second you look up BL, it's clearly a Boy Scout magazine. That's how I figured it out.

[nowiamsix.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that you clarified this a bit because I remember thinking to myself, "Aren't those different magazines?" when I saw the original post. Obviously there is a disconnect between what is "for boys" and "for girls," but if each of those publications are their own independent entity I think that's important to note.

It might be nice if they changed the name of both publications to something more generic so that it wouldn't immediately be gendered in the title.

[nucleosides.livejournal.com]

This. (Echoing this comment's sentiments because I thought the same exact things.)

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

Obviously there is a disconnect between what is "for boys" and "for girls," but if each of those publications are their own independent entity I think that's important to note.

Yeah. I found an argument where someone did and was told "oh you're taking away from the issue", but I don't think it is. I think it's just a slightly different conversation than if it was the same company.

(One more direct example might be one I noticed when I read Teen People as a, well, teen. They had article after article about how bad smoking was, yet People magazine - which I also read - advertised cigarettes. I had nothing against people smoking if they chose, but I found it hypocritical for them to pose two different stances, especially when there might be an overlap in audience. I actually complained, but forget what they said. I think they just said they had to run what they run or something. This wasn't really about sexism or anything, but it was the same company being a little hypocritical.)

[chelseagirl.livejournal.com]

I had a subscription to a magazine called American Girl for a few years back in the *cough* 70s, that was associated with the Girl Scouts.

[ravensong.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I was not familiar with either magazine. I'd never heard of either until a few days ago when I saw their covers side by side. And I totally thought it was one was for girls and the other for boys (like most people assume).