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 <rkald...@wikimedia.org> 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 <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> On 5/2/12 2:38 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: >> >> On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
