Really makes you think

...

Yeah, makes you think why patriarchal magazines are still printed that perpetuate the myth that there are only two genders.

boys build and invent things. stacy just wants to look pretty

They wouldn't print these if they didn't sell. That's what girls want to read and that's what boys want to read.

They print double of Girl's Life.

boys are autistic

girls are human

When I was a kid the back of the boys life magazine had little ads for cool things. One in particular was a kit to build your own hovercraft from a vacuum cleaner. I always wondered if that worked. But I haven't seen one, or a boys life magazine in 20 years, so who knows.

Give us your first kiss confessional Stacy

>rag put out by the Scouts compared to generic teen girl rag
Really makes you think. But it is kind of weird Girls' Life isn't the Girl Scouts counterpart to Boys' Life

What kind of a society hates men so much that it propagandizes them with career choices while indulging women in fashion and parties?

But when the boys turn to men ... women are on the covers again.

They had the same ad in popular mechanics. Also one for building your own jet engine.

I'm guessing boys life didn't run ads for Athena 10X.

The market demands it. They dont have to change just because a rare snowflake gets assblasted

Perhaps, but you are ignoring the effects of social conditioning and people's susceptibility to marketing. I think thing would be a little bit different if we socialized boys and girls the same. Not completely different, but I think you would find girls to be slightly less superficial.

>No Boy's Life

so start your own magazine

Not really.

They suit their markets.

happy now?

Bought that issue at airport.
Was highly disappointing.

That isn't what I said. I'm talking about the way children are raised in general. It is different for boys and girls from day one. If we didn't dote on little girls they might not be permanently infantalized when they grow up.

I suspect you find similar trends to what you see now, but I think it would be a slightly less extreme differential.

Because girls and boys are inherently different. Get out of your sociology class, you freshman faggolio

>NO Boys' Life
what did they mean?

Girls are focused inward
>How can I change myself
Boys are focused outward
>How can I change the world

Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

I didn't say there weren't any differences, but rather that socialization practices may exacerbate those differences.

You are claiming that the differences between the sexes are absolutely genetically deterministic. There is not a single credible scientist who would so completely discount the role of environment. How significant that role is can be debated, but it is most definitely a factor.

Then how come gender roles developed similarly in almost every culture?

Again, read carefully. All I said was that I think that the differences in child rear practice between the two sexes accentuates the differences. That is to say that it cause them to be somewhat more extreme that would be dictated by genetics alone. Personally I think it does a disservice to girls, but that is a separate issue.

Take two bell curves ... shifted apart but with some overlap. A bulk of the girls are in the feminine category and a bulk of the males are in the masculine category. Some men are hyper masculine and some female are hyper feminine. Then there are a few feminine males, a few masculine females, and a few amles/females that are pretty much neutral. It's these last few groups that see/feel societal pressures because it is against there nature. The others are being sold what they already favor.

that doesn't answer the question why every culture rears their children in the same manner. It may be partly an environmental factor, but it sure seems that biology is dictating how culture/society ends up raising children nearly every where around the globe.

so your whole argument is
>yeah there's an inherent difference, but it isn't THAT big.
>muh centrist
what a waste of time

>baseless speculation presented as fact

Thanks for the enlightening discussion.

I built it, it was awesome, I was branded a nerd for life by the girls though

>every culture rears their children in the same manner

Citation needed.

>unless you adopt a view of pure genetic or environmental determinism it isn't worth considering

Thanks for you contribution.

This is all about this pre-conceived notion that humans are born this blank slate and their minds are completely warped and molded by society.

Look at is not that humans are molded by society, but rather society molded by humans wants and needs.

I think girls life should be more oriented around women oriented careers. Maybe something on biology, veternarians, or other secular motherhood type jobs?

It surely is better than creating vapid whores.

But you're right, this is what sells.

please show me a culture other than people who live in a rainforest that have different gender roles than we currently have

is that rs gp?

>Moving the target from child rearing to gender roles

I have to go to bed anyways.

Since feminists have so many theories around toxic masculinity, I am curious if they ever came up with theories or concepts around the idea of toxic femininity.

Why would I want brush a Dog's teeth?

humans don't achieve much huh

As opposed to anything you said? Just open your eyes an look around. Or study evolutionary biology. You see male and female behavior in different species too.

night ameribro

Dancing for money

>Boys' Life
Fuck, I used to read that all the time as a grade-schooler; their website was the shit. Probably the only thing I ever really got out of being in the scouts for a few years.

When I was a kid I didn't realize it was basically the same fucking magazine reformatted every month; a decade later that still looks to be the case.

This isn't what the publishers want. I'm sure they want girls and boys to want the same thing. But they have to make the money. These decisions aren't made by gender studies majors. They're made by people with experience advertising and interpreting data. This is what SELLS. Marketing is a very red-pilled field.

Jews know this.

>magazine of naked women where they show no reproductive organs or sex at all
i never understood this magazine or the people who bought it

Are we judging books by their covers?

Is boys life still any good?

Magazines always list their main sections on the cover.

>fashion
>hair
>wake up pretty
>best. year. ever.
>implying trannys and other genderfluid faggots don't try and do everything in the girl magazine.

>no naked pictures might as well get a sears catalog

There was only one magazine I ever needed

...

Meh. I wack to it every now and then but the bois on Omegle are hotter.

Bees are the final redpill

Fucking kek.

>Used to read Mother Earth News
>Always a bit hippie but it was tolerable
>Obama got elected and the liberal was turned to 10
I want a off the grid magazine that isn't a liberal rag.
Oh, Shotgun News is still the best gun magazine out there.

>marketing content that demographics want to see based on sales and market research

Really makes you think.

One of the professors at my high school built something like that. It ran on a shop vac. It was kinda neat pushing it around the school halls, but it only really had enough power to lift some of the smaller girls.

Pay gap explained.

airport is the only place i have ever purchased porn. almost consider it a tradition at this point

Looks like this post could use some more beez

Popular Science and Popular Mechanics used to have all kinds of cool shit advertised in the back, right next to the old guy male vitality pills.

What, like 20 ads for Bose products? Yeah, great stuff....

You'll never be Chris Cassidy, why even live?

EVERYONE GET IN THE BUNKERS WE ARE BEING RAIDED. STAY CALM AND REPORT TO YOU'RE LOCAL RAID BUNKER

Dumb BITCH!

>Not Chick's Galore