I took this photo today in one of my local supermarkets.
In the magazine isle, there is a section which clearly states “women’s interest.” But where is the section for “men’s interest”? Is this simply a mistake and an error of omission? Has the sign gone missing? Or is there something more to it?
I have more than a hunch that there that there is more to the lack of a “men’s interest” section than at first appears.
A couple of years ago, there was a high profile social media complaint made by a young woman, to one of Australia’s largest retailers. The woman accused the retailer of reinforcing sexism and asserted that women also liked ‘science’ and not just glamour and goss. The complainant took a photograph of the magazine isle and demanded to know why magazines focusing science, economics and geography where in the “men’s interest” section, and glamour, gossip and soap magazines were in the “women’s interest” section. A very simple explanation for why this may be the case: perhaps it is because women more often read glamor magazines and men are the main consumers of science magazines? And of course, I am well aware – there are always exceptions.
This shrill complaint sent the retailer’s PR department into a flurry as likes, comments, and sharing of the ‘sexist’ picture went viral.
But I was not completely convinced. I looked at the picture carefully (and unfortunately I can’t share the original with you as it appears to have been expunged from cyberspace), something seemed to be odd. Why was there a science magazine placed in front of a set of magazines on dirt bikes? And why was there a national geographic in front of a copy of ‘Wheels’?* Something was clearly not right as magazines appeared to be out of place.
Then it became patently clear: Someone have taken several magazines and returned them in the wrong sections. This may have been accidental or deliberate, but there was little doubt that several magazines had been ‘misplaced’.
I brought this matter to the attention of the complainant, saying that the magazines had been moved and were in the wrong place, nullifying her accusations of conspiracy and sexism. In fact, the place that the magazines dealing with science and other academic interests belonged in another, nameless and non-gender specific section. My response came, and the complainant came clean. She admitted that she had moved the magazines, in order to clearly demonstrate the actual and underlying ‘sexism’ that was present in society.
Excuse me? A picture needed to be contrived in order to reveal ‘sexism’? I was gobsmacked. Before the magazines had been moved by the complaining photographer, there was not a hint of sexism. But she herself had re-arranged the magazines in order to fit with her firmly held ideology and to protest against the innocent retailer, and what’s more, insisted that she was justified in doing so.
Moving ahead a couple of years, it appears that this contrived photograph and concocted ‘sexism’ has led to be disappearance of “men’s interest” magazine sections. Are men allowed to have magazine interests? It appears not. We are not alone in Australia. In Canada, at least one magazine retailer removed its “men’s interest” section and was forced to apologize because of a complaint. Even though men are the primary consumers of magazines including:
It’s the XYZ
*I can’t remember exactly which magazines had been tampered with, so I am running from memory. Should anyone have the original picture and share it with us, that would be much appreciated.