|
Post by Ceeb on Jan 16, 2008 20:35:06 GMT
Two new ones I saw advetised today - The Ronnie Barker complete dvd magazine (which made me a bit sad as I like him and they are clearly cashing in on his memory) and a Zoey 101 which seems to be predominantly about make up and stickers
|
|
|
Post by [james] on Jan 17, 2008 9:30:03 GMT
Zoey 101 issue two comes with a free pregnancy kit!
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Jan 17, 2008 9:53:27 GMT
Who the hell is Zoey 101?
The likes of her, the Cheetah Girls and Hannah Montana make me feel OLD. I know nothing about them.
|
|
mcflooze
Su Pollard
Uhhhhh.....
Posts: 255
|
Post by mcflooze on Jan 17, 2008 10:35:51 GMT
Who the hell is Zoey 101? The likes of her, the Cheetah Girls and Hannah Montana make me feel OLD. I know nothing about them. It's a TV show for The Kids, starring Jamie Lynn Spears. I almost wet myself laughing when I saw the magazine advertised.
|
|
boxedjoy
Su Pollard
Don't you wish your snack was as tempting as this?
Posts: 369
|
Post by boxedjoy on Jan 17, 2008 11:30:23 GMT
There is a really offensive magazine advert for one which I think was called "Shortcake". Which is a shit name. The magazine is basically an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes of women as belonging in the kitchen as housewives.
Learn to cook likeMum! it cries. What if my mother is dead? My cakes might not turn out like the ones in the adverts, for a start.
|
|
|
Post by al on Jan 17, 2008 13:35:51 GMT
If your mother is dead, you don't need to make cakes. You get to enjoy the catering backstage at The X Factor live shows.
|
|
|
Post by schmindie on Jan 17, 2008 16:05:16 GMT
There is a really offensive magazine advert for one which I think was called "Shortcake". Which is a shit name. The magazine is basically an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes of women as belonging in the kitchen as housewives. Learn to cook likeMum! it cries. What if my mother is dead? My cakes might not turn out like the ones in the adverts, for a start. I saw that advert last night and went into a big feminist rant about it. Colour in! Do some baking! Follow your mother into a miserable marriage and spawn some precocious brats! Get a gin and valium habit! Bake some more!
|
|
charliepops
Jane Asher
Most Slut Potential? Do you love it!
Posts: 216
|
Post by charliepops on Jan 18, 2008 2:03:02 GMT
The "Shortcake" advert is fantastic, especially with it's pro-cannibal subliminal advertising.
"Cook and play with your friends!"
|
|
fezza
Jane Asher
I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I can make anything right or wrong
Posts: 208
|
Post by fezza on Jan 18, 2008 13:34:43 GMT
Zoey 101 issue two comes with a free pregnancy kit! Don't forget Zoey's secret journal. November 2007 Shit I iz pregnant...
|
|
|
Post by SweatShop on Jan 18, 2008 17:34:09 GMT
It's a TV show for The Kids, starring Jamie Lynn Spears. I almost wet myself laughing when I saw the magazine advertised. Nothing to say but ditto.
|
|
charliepops
Jane Asher
Most Slut Potential? Do you love it!
Posts: 216
|
Post by charliepops on Jan 20, 2008 1:32:27 GMT
The "Shortcakes" advert has now become my favourite-advert-to-hate on television. I hope a generation of young girls will look upon it and think "Do I want to cook like Mum? No, I want to spend my time forging my own career so my husband can cook for me"
What gives me some hope is the closing second of the advert, in which the girl on the second from the right is smiling and clapping and laughing but her eyes just say that she is miserable and humiliated at being part of this sadvert and can't believe her parents made her do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 1:45:41 GMT
At the risk of being shot down, is there anything wrong with little girls wanting to learn how to cook? Surely it should be encouraged for both sexes?
|
|
boxedjoy
Su Pollard
Don't you wish your snack was as tempting as this?
Posts: 369
|
Post by boxedjoy on Jan 20, 2008 10:52:11 GMT
There's nothing wrong with encouraging children to cook, but this magazine just seems to be promoting some sort of stereotype ideal. I'm waiting for the companion magazine for boys.
Electric Sander Magazine!
While your bitch is in the kitchen doing everything she is supposed to be doing, let's us boys have some fun! No, not like that, that's wrong - let's have power tool fun! Build things! Drive a big car! Beat your wife! Make her solely dependent on you!
And so on.
If there had been a cooking magazine that was gender neutral and inoffensive when I was younger I would have made my parents buy me it, but the sad fact is that it's unlikely any young boy is going to ask his father to buy him this, and even less likely that the father will buy it and no't make a comment along the lines of "that one's for girls."
The fact the magazine is targeted at young girls wouldn't be offensive if it was empowering and encouraging, instead of backwards and reliant on outdated models of family life.
|
|
|
Post by Ugly Netty on Jan 20, 2008 14:17:33 GMT
The "Shortcakes" advert has now become my favourite-advert-to-hate on television. I hope a generation of young girls will look upon it and think "Do I want to cook like Mum? No, I want to spend my time forging my own career so my husband can cook for me" But mums don't cook nowadays anyway, they go to Iceland and buy turkey twizzlers. Hell, even dinner ladies, whose job it is to cook, can't even cook these days!
|
|
|
Post by raspberry on Jan 20, 2008 14:24:51 GMT
At the risk of being shot down, is there anything wrong with little girls wanting to learn how to cook? Surely it should be encouraged for both sexes? I'm sensing Jamie Olivier is missing a trick here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 14:37:43 GMT
There's nothing wrong with encouraging children to cook, but this magazine just seems to be promoting some sort of stereotype ideal. I'm waiting for the companion magazine for boys. Electric Sander Magazine!
While your bitch is in the kitchen doing everything she is supposed to be doing, let's us boys have some fun! No, not like that, that's wrong - let's have power tool fun! Build things! Drive a big car! Beat your wife! Make her solely dependent on you!
And so on. If there had been a cooking magazine that was gender neutral and inoffensive when I was younger I would have made my parents buy me it, but the sad fact is that it's unlikely any young boy is going to ask his father to buy him this, and even less likely that the father will buy it and no't make a comment along the lines of "that one's for girls." The fact the magazine is targeted at young girls wouldn't be offensive if it was empowering and encouraging, instead of backwards and reliant on outdated models of family life. Is any of that any different from Mens Health being targeted at men, or Heat from being targeted at women? After all stereotypically men must be big and strong, and women all gossipy. Magazines and the media shouldn't be put down for targeting their audiences, "empowerment" should come from within. Surely anything that is helping young people of either sex get into the habit of cooing and baking for themselves should be encouraged and not put down? Yes it would be great if it was a gender neautral magazine, but it's not, it is however a step forward. Do you honestly believe that something like this is backwards and does anything but promote cooking and family relationships? After all Delia Smith made a career out of staying at home and baking in the midst of women "having it all", and she's immensly popular. The fact is is that some women are happy to stay at home and bake and raise a family, whereas others are happ to have careers. Neither is the best, and each one if as good as the other, just different. And it would be ridiculous to suggest that either is. Everyone is different and everyone should be catered for. Excuse the pun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 14:38:29 GMT
At the risk of being shot down, is there anything wrong with little girls wanting to learn how to cook? Surely it should be encouraged for both sexes? I'm sensing Jamie Olivier is missing a trick here. It's already been done with Gary Rhodes. I remember that CBBC show!
|
|
boxedjoy
Su Pollard
Don't you wish your snack was as tempting as this?
Posts: 369
|
Post by boxedjoy on Jan 20, 2008 15:09:35 GMT
Is any of that any different from Mens Health being targeted at men, or Heat from being targeted at women? After all stereotypically men must be big and strong, and women all gossipy. Magazines and the media shouldn't be put down for targeting their audiences, "empowerment" should come from within. Surely anything that is helping young people of either sex get into the habit of cooing and baking for themselves should be encouraged and not put down? Yes it would be great if it was a gender neautral magazine, but it's not, it is however a step forward. Do you honestly believe that something like this is backwards and does anything but promote cooking and family relationships? After all Delia Smith made a career out of staying at home and baking in the midst of women "having it all", and she's immensly popular. The fact is is that some women are happy to stay at home and bake and raise a family, whereas others are happ to have careers. Neither is the best, and each one if as good as the other, just different. And it would be ridiculous to suggest that either is. Everyone is different and everyone should be catered for. Excuse the pun. I think part of the problem is here is that children are the target audience. There is nothing wrong with a woman - or a man - choosing to not have a career and be a family person, but I don't think it's correct to advertise a product to children that works on such an outdated gender model. If I had a daughter, I would support her no matter what she chose to do, but I don't think I'd be comfortable with this. The woman who buys gossip magazines is, for the most part, aware of what she is buying, whereas a young child really might not know better. Career woman or family woman, I don't think its right that any person should have to conform to a "role" in a family, and as far as I can see this magazine strongly suggests a role to impressionable children. This is the 21st Century and there are so many different types of family that, thankfully, are socially acceptable now that there's no reason why any person should feel obligated to behave and perform tasks just because of their body. My former step-father did everything he could to make me into a "proper lad" that I didn't really want to be. I wanted to read books and draw; he had me join the Boys Brigade and football teams. I was miserable until he finally accepted that it wasn't the person I wanted to be. I wouldn't wish that experience upon anyone, and I honestly believe that a magazine like this would do nothing to help prevent that situation repeating itself in someone else's life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 16:26:31 GMT
Is any of that any different from Mens Health being targeted at men, or Heat from being targeted at women? After all stereotypically men must be big and strong, and women all gossipy. Magazines and the media shouldn't be put down for targeting their audiences, "empowerment" should come from within. Surely anything that is helping young people of either sex get into the habit of cooing and baking for themselves should be encouraged and not put down? Yes it would be great if it was a gender neautral magazine, but it's not, it is however a step forward. Do you honestly believe that something like this is backwards and does anything but promote cooking and family relationships? After all Delia Smith made a career out of staying at home and baking in the midst of women "having it all", and she's immensly popular. The fact is is that some women are happy to stay at home and bake and raise a family, whereas others are happ to have careers. Neither is the best, and each one if as good as the other, just different. And it would be ridiculous to suggest that either is. Everyone is different and everyone should be catered for. Excuse the pun. I think part of the problem is here is that children are the target audience. There is nothing wrong with a woman - or a man - choosing to not have a career and be a family person, but I don't think it's correct to advertise a product to children that works on such an outdated gender model. If I had a daughter, I would support her no matter what she chose to do, but I don't think I'd be comfortable with this. The woman who buys gossip magazines is, for the most part, aware of what she is buying, whereas a young child really might not know better. Career woman or family woman, I don't think its right that any person should have to conform to a "role" in a family, and as far as I can see this magazine strongly suggests a role to impressionable children. This is the 21st Century and there are so many different types of family that, thankfully, are socially acceptable now that there's no reason why any person should feel obligated to behave and perform tasks just because of their body. My former step-father did everything he could to make me into a "proper lad" that I didn't really want to be. I wanted to read books and draw; he had me join the Boys Brigade and football teams. I was miserable until he finally accepted that it wasn't the person I wanted to be. I wouldn't wish that experience upon anyone, and I honestly believe that a magazine like this would do nothing to help prevent that situation repeating itself in someone else's life. You're projecting your experiences onto everyone else though. Like you said, every family model should be acceptable, so why would you deny them this magazine? It's not going to turn anyone into something that they're not. A little girl is going to see this magazine and think it would be a nice idea to learn to bake. This isn't teaching her that she should stay at home and serve her husband, no more than Cinderella is teaching her that she has to wait for a man to save her. Perhaps it would be better if wasn't a gender specific magazine, but it's not doing any harm. There may even be an argument that suggests if the "traditional" family unit was more common then this country wouldn't be in such a state, but I think we all know that it's not as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Jan 20, 2008 17:27:13 GMT
You're projecting your experiences onto everyone else though. Like you said, every family model should be acceptable, so why would you deny them this magazine? It's not going to turn anyone into something that they're not. A little girl is going to see this magazine and think it would be a nice idea to learn to bake. This isn't teaching her that she should stay at home and serve her husband, no more than Cinderella is teaching her that she has to wait for a man to save her. Perhaps it would be better if wasn't a gender specific magazine, but it's not doing any harm. There may even be an argument that suggests if the "traditional" family unit was more common then this country wouldn't be in such a state, but I think we all know that it's not as simple as that. I'm not quite sure why you think learning to bake is such a virtue. I can bake, but it doesn't make me a better person or mean I live a happier and more fulfilled life than someone who can't. Even if we accept your slightly odd proposition, this magazine might discourage as many boys from cooking as it will encourage girls. If boys see cooking as a feminised activity then they won't want to learn how to do it, as much as they need to. As feminism has developed, it has allowed a much greater freedom of expectation in women. Most little girls now know that their sex should not be a barrier to doing what they wish to in life. However as women have diversified their role in society this has not been matched by a willingness by men to undertake some of the roles that women are vacating. Strawberry Shortcake is reactionary in that it is trying to convince girls of the virtue of being a 'baking mum', forms ideas of inadequacy in the minds of those who's mum is not virtuous and baking (children being very suggestible and prone to societal conformity) and reinforces the idea in boys minds that there are specifically female roles that they do not have to learn to perform. There are obviously much worse things in the world, but the idea that kids are 'baking rather than getting pregnant', or whatever Daily Mailism you're implying is worthwhile justification for the absurdly anachronistic gender roles portrayed in SS is crap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 17:56:40 GMT
You're projecting your experiences onto everyone else though. Like you said, every family model should be acceptable, so why would you deny them this magazine? It's not going to turn anyone into something that they're not. A little girl is going to see this magazine and think it would be a nice idea to learn to bake. This isn't teaching her that she should stay at home and serve her husband, no more than Cinderella is teaching her that she has to wait for a man to save her. Perhaps it would be better if wasn't a gender specific magazine, but it's not doing any harm. There may even be an argument that suggests if the "traditional" family unit was more common then this country wouldn't be in such a state, but I think we all know that it's not as simple as that. I'm not quite sure why you think learning to bake is such a virtue. I can bake, but it doesn't make me a better person or mean I live a happier and more fulfilled life than someone who can't. If someone learns to cook from a young age then it will obviously discourage them from eating microwaved processed crap. Which would presumably make them healthier.Even if we accept your slightly odd proposition, this magazine might discourage as many boys from cooking as it will encourage girls. If boys see cooking as a feminised activity then they won't want to learn how to do it, as much as they need to. I don't disagree that it would be better if it was a gender unspecific magazine, however, anything that gets children cooking from scratch is a good thing. It's not perfect but it is better than nothing.As feminism has developed, it has allowed a much greater freedom of expectation in women. Most little girls now know that their sex should not be a barrier to doing what they wish to in life. However as women have diversified their role in society this has not been matched by a willingness by men to undertake some of the roles that women are vacating. Strawberry Shortcake is reactionary in that it is trying to convince girls of the virtue of being a 'baking mum', forms ideas of inadequacy in the minds of those who's mum is not virtuous and baking (children being very suggestible and prone to societal conformity) and reinforces the idea in boys minds that there are specifically female roles that they do not have to learn to perform. But as many feminists now concede, the whole situation of "having it all" and being seen to have it all is an unwanted and unfair product of equality. It's also worth noting that the both camps, if you like, reserve their most poisonous vitriol for each other. It isn't all "men wont pick up the slack" but a general feeling that you have to either be a working woman or a stay at home domestic goddess and if you try and find a balance then you will fail. As for the gender roles, I totally agree, however it is far more to do with the parents and how they bring up their children, than what magazines they read. There's a ridiculous notion in this country that we shouldn't show children things that would encourage the supposed ideal, but guess what, there is a generation of women living today who had mothers who stayed at home and baked, and they've not done the same. If growing up with it as the norm doesn't guarantee it then making assumptions that a magazine and it's advert will do it is misguided and silly.There are obviously much worse things in the world, but the idea that kids are 'baking rather than getting pregnant', or whatever Daily Mailism you're implying is worthwhile justification for the absurdly anachronistic gender roles portrayed in SS is crap. I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that contrary to some sections of society, there is something in having one parent at home, and when this was the norm, there was much less violent crime and anti-social behaviour. That isn't a Daily Mailism, as you put it, but a blatent fact. And as I pointed out, there are probably many other reasons for this, but trying to infer that the ideal would not be two good parents, so as not to upset others from differing family units is again, ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Robbing the Dead on Jan 20, 2008 18:34:08 GMT
Bold font is the Internet equivalent of raising your voice, so watch it! Don't make me turn the caps lock on.
|
|
|
Post by xenomaniac on Jan 20, 2008 18:35:20 GMT
The cake does look quite nice though doesn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 18:38:38 GMT
Bold font is the Internet equivalent of raising your voice, so watch it! Don't make me turn the caps lock on. Sorry! I just wanted it to stand out from the other text as I can't grasp the multi quote.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Jan 20, 2008 22:42:04 GMT
I am worried this thread is going to go the way of the American Strikes one...
|
|