Yahoo’s pink shine

Yahoo just launched a new web portal called Shine, “for women between ages 25 and 54, calling it a key demographic underserved by current Yahoo properties.â€? Topics of the site include “fashion + beauty, healthy living, entertainment, parenting, love +sex, work + money, food, at home, and astrology.â€? And the site’s signature color is, of course, pink.
yahoo-shine.jpg
Would it be possible, maybe, please, for a website “for women� to not be pink? I mean, honestly, I couldn’t even get past that to see what the content is. It’s not breast cancer pink (light pink), so I think that means it must be Sex and the City pink. Hot pink, some sparkes. Yup.
Sigh.

Join the Conversation

  • Genetic_Mishap

    Make an Unsexiest Men list- yeah, that’s an empowerful idea, and not at all scummy or lookist. Thank you Yahoo!

  • jeff

    Hmm… I’d be more insulted by the inclusion of astrology than the pink. But then again, it’s not like every “man” site is blue or something. So I guess we get all the other colors and ya’ll get one. Which is bogus.

  • Katwoman7

    Only the heading fonts are pink – at least they spared us a pink background and/or header. I’m more depressed by the content – typical women’s mag stuff (“Eat bread and still lose weight!”). Yawn.

  • the15th

    This really doesn’t look too bad from the screenshot — it’s got a swipe at Maxim’s sexism, some real news and Tina Fey. It looks way, way better than MSN’s “women” site, anyway, which is blue. The pink is unoriginal but doesn’t really bother me.

  • FeministaFrankie

    I thought it wasn’t too bad either, there was even an op ed on misogynistic celebrity bloggers and their fingerpointing of ‘fat’ celebrities whilst they are pregnant. Only then I found a ‘what were you thinking Jessica Alba’ section where they just poked fun out of her for being pregnant and called her a ‘blimp’. Charming and not at all hypocritical

  • http://impersonated.blogspot.com FeministMe

    When I first read Jen’s post, I had the same, “Great, more typical women’s mag stuff” reaction is some other people.
    I have been a woman for 19 years, and those sorta of topics have never interested me (actually, I know of only a very few mags marketed toward women that interest me).
    But then again, I’m not in Yahoo’s target age group.

  • http://feministstotherescue.blogspot.com FEMily!

    What bothers me more than the pink (the pink doesn’t bother me at all, because it’s hot pink, which is, surprisingly, a much more mature pink than the baby pink used to symbolize breast cancer awareness) is that news that affects women should be included in Yahoo’s regular news section. Furthermore, things like healthy living, parenting, and fashion should be marketed towards men and shouldn’t be seen as things that only women are interested in, because all are important for women and men.

  • http://jfpbookworm.blogspot.com/ Jeff

    Would it be possible, maybe, please, for a website “for women� to not be pink?
    sk*rt seems to manage it.

  • http://www.kjalepepper.blogspot.com kjalepepper

    I wouldn’t go out of my way to use Shine over the regular Yahoo web portal, and that’s pretty much what it comes down to. If I want bullshit articles on bullshit topics, well, I can get that anywhere.
    But I have nothing against the astrology…

  • http://www.feminocracy.blogspot.com outcrazyophelia

    I heard that ask.com is planning a similar shift to the same demographic.

  • strong female

    Hi. I am in the targeted age range. I just whent and looked at it, and all i can say is that it really does not intrest me, and I do not like it. I t really dumbs us down, and makes women look silly. I do not like it. it is not intellegent enough for me.

  • noueux

    So, I don’t know if I can leave a link, so I’ll just leave a path.
    The front page> Entertainment> RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST THREE LINKS
    It might be a blogger, but WTG, Yahoo. Your new site for women has what might, to some, appear to be a large feature about how pregnant women look fat. Congrats.

  • Olivia

    I hadn’t realized women were being underserved by yahoo. I usually just do a seach for what I’m interested in. Does the old yahoo site not work that way for everyone? *snark*

  • JohanBotemill

    I love how the first three categories are fashion + beauty, healthy living, and entertainment. AKA buy stuff to look pretty, do stuff to look pretty, and talk about people who look pretty.

  • heller

    Yes, the pink is stupid, the content is boring, but at least it is not (overtly) misogynistic, yet.

  • stanna

    Is the ‘Cheat Sheet’ supposed to be news? Why couldn’t they call it news rather than implying it’s stuff their female readers don’t actually want to know? (Too much work for the poor female brain, better to discuss, uh, diets.)

  • femme_fatale

    I saw the article on my home page and couldn’t believe it. The fact that people think health, fitness, and fashion is all people like me think about is ridiculous. Well, I guess being 19 it really isn’t supposed to be directed to my age group, but still. It’s ridiculous. You know, pink (contrary to popular belief) is not my favorite color.

  • http://terose.blogspot.com/ T-Monster

    Nouex, Just 2 below the post you reference is one about Donald Trump offering Ashley Dupree a job. It starts like this:
    “Who knew that ruining a governor’s career would only be the jumping off point for Ashley Alexandra Dupre?”
    He ruined his own damned career! Let’s just forget that she didn’t knock on his door and say “Hey. I want to let you know that you’ve been really wrong prosecuting those prostitution rings for all those years. Why don’t you try it out?” That hypocrisy was all his.
    I went from apathetic about just another BS “women’s” site to angry in -11 seconds. Yahoo is just pandering to female-on-female hate while simultaneously absolving men of sexual responsibility. Fantastic.

  • http://www.in-misery.blogspot.com comoprozac

    The only thing worse than using pink is if they had chosen the other hideous fem color of purp…er…I mean…nevermind.

  • http://terose.blogspot.com/ T-Monster

    I forgot to mention that the show Donald Trump wants her to be on is some type of Charm School reality program. They’re calling it a modern adaptation of My Fair Lady.
    Trump is trying to teach women how to act… this is just too absurd.

  • Clare

    “Cheat sheet”? What, so we don’t have to read the actual news, we can just read that and pretend we know about what’s going on in the world?
    I have to say I like the look of this, though. The colors are nice (okay, I am inordinately fond of pink, but it’s not overwhelming anyway) and it seems less cluttered than the regular Yahoo site. Still not going to use it, though, unless maybe they give me the option to get my Yahoo email in those colors…

  • aspera

    I am SO GLAD some of you commented on the “Cheat Sheet” section already.
    As a Georgetown PHD student in Government I can tell you that I don’t need and damned cheat sheet to get me through today’s news, nor do I think anyone else my age does – remember, the average news article is meant for someone with a reading level equal to a 5th grader. So unless you’re implying that us poor small-brained women need EVEN MORE dumbed down news…
    And also, as someone who is 1 year away from their “target age group” – this stuff doesn’t interest me yet but if this is what I have to look forward to I think I’ll give it all up now!

  • Liz M

    Genetic_Mishap, I think the article in question was focused more on unsexy behavior than on looks. Not that this makes it much better, since it reminded me of Maxim’s 5 Unsexiest Women list…
    FEMily!, Yahoo! is retaining its health section so that men & women of ages that aren’t targeted by Shine can continue to use it. And last time I checked, far more women were into fashion than were men. Not saying all are – I’m not – but if you’re going by sheer numbers, well, that’s what you get. Shine is just giving many women what they profess to want.
    strong female, it’s not intelligent enough for you? Can we all please get off our high horses and stop pretending we don’t engage in frivolous activities? Whether you watch sports, read Vogue, play Wii all day or read People Magazine, we all do mindless activities sometimes. I am sick of this assumption that if a woman does things that are traditionally “girly,” she’s deemed somehow less intelligent by both men & women.
    I’m defensive of this new site not because I’m in love with it but because every time a market reaches out to women as a demographic based on market research, we rip their products to pieces. Sometimes they are admittedly dumb, but is it necessarily a bad thing that products are geared toward women? I personally think it’s something to celebrate, even with my awareness that advertisers are not my friends, merely people who want to part me from my hard-earned money.

  • Liz M

    stanna, I think the term “Cheat Sheet” implies that it’s fast news for women who don’t have time to read entire newspaper articles, not an implication that women don’t want to know the news. I know my mom, for instance, would appreciate something like this, because she generally doesn’t have much time during the day to read entire news articles, and with something like this she would at least know the basic headlines & a few choice details.

  • corydalus

    What i really look forward to is how FHM and Maxim use the color when they discover this demographic….
    (runs away)

  • wilfhh29

    I hate the color pink.
    On the other hand, it is my 2 year old son’s favorite color.

  • http://feministstotherescue.blogspot.com FEMily!

    And last time I checked, far more women were into fashion than were men.
    Men and women wear clothes. Men and women shop for their own clothes. Men and women like to look nice. Use of fashion crosses gender lines, even if, stereotypically, the interest does not.

  • Mina

    “and with something like this she would at least know the basic headlines & a few choice details.”
    She could get that with something like this too:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/
    :)

  • Crotchfire

    The inclusion of astrology irritates me the most.
    Forgive me, for I’m about to say something inflammatory…
    But I feel that a site that supposedly caters to women that specifically talks of astrology is at best condescending and at worst a horrific insult to the intelligence of any woman to view the site.
    Next thing you know, they’ll start putting up sections about acupuncture, homeopathy, and psychic spoonbending. Informed, critical-thinking women everywhere should let them know that this shit is inexcusable!
    /rant
    Sorry, but insults to intelligence such as this hit me extra hard.

  • Rock Star

    I just read part of the 100 Unsexiest Men, and I don’t think it’s completely horrible because it’s based on things like “people joking about date-rape” and other things that are decidedly horrific behavior in humans. That said, the entire list isn’t like that, and I take issue with people bashing people based on no reason at all.

  • waxghost

    My “cheat sheet” is reading the headlines in the little box on the front page of Yahoo. If I want to read an article (and have the time), I then read it. So why is an entirely separate women’s site needed for that?
    Also, the reason we rip these products is because they treat women as though 1) we’re all completely (not just momentarily, which I will freely admit) superficial, 2) we’re so different, we have to have a whole different site from everyone else, and 3) we are all always exactly alike. These three ideas are a huge reason I’m a feminist, so yeah, I am going to get pissed off about it.
    Although, I was imagining what might happen if they actually decided to break the mold and have a “women’s” website that actually had things like politics and news, hobbies that didn’t involve being pretty, etc. I can’t help but think that the same thing that happens on so many feminist sites would happen there too: men would complain that women weren’t the only one’s interested in that stuff, and that in fact men were being discriminated against for not having their own special website (nevermind the fact that the general website is de facto male) so they needed their own special website too, blah blah blah. So it really seems like it’s “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.
    Ooh, I know! We could just have one website for both sexes, with the interests and issues of both given equal space!
    ;)

  • Monika

    I agree especially with Crotchfire – the astrology is the most insulting thing.
    Overall the site seems to be saying women are more superficial and gullible than their male counterparts.
    Some of these topics may well interest me but I can already find out about them on other non-gender-specific websites.
    Websites for women seem redundant don’t they?

  • Rock Star

    I wasn’t that eloquent before, but what I was trying to say was that the list isn’t total bullshit, the way Maxim’s Unsexiest list was. This list was based on people just being general douchebags (mostly). Also, it’s not Yahoo’s list, it’s Phoenix’s.

  • aussieblossie

    Hi everyone, I’ve been following Feministing for a long time, but this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to respond.
    “But I feel that a site that supposedly caters to women that specifically talks of astrology is at best condescending and at worst a horrific insult to the intelligence of any woman to view the site.
    Next thing you know, they’ll start putting up sections about acupuncture, homeopathy, and psychic spoonbending. Informed, critical-thinking women everywhere should let them know that this shit is inexcusable”
    Why is astrology, psychic ability or alternative so offensive to you Crotchfire?
    Are these things too “feminine” and therefore they are something to be fought against?
    I think that a site for “women” is ridiculous; current news, sports, lifestyle and entertainment stories should never be gender specific.
    But your ark-up above disturbs me a little; rationalism is NOT an end in itself. The modernist project that can be traced back to 17th century Europe tried to pigeonhole the complexity of nature using reason, and is the basis of mysogynist thought. It led to modern science, politics and assumptions of western society’s gender roles.
    Hyper-rationalism, the backbone of the US, is a hater of all things “irrational”, hence negative perceptions about what it means to be female have pushed women to the side.
    By dismissing “alternative” ways of thinking, you are perpetuating this way of thinking.
    Rather than trying to say “women should not be labeled as irrational”, we should be saying, “humans are ALL irrational creatures, get over it and bring us the damn news and horoscopes”

  • http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7951639350 lizadilly

    @ Liz M : we’d be fooling ourselves to be flattered by this direction in “inclusive” marketing, when really it’s segregating women based on gendered stereotypes. If Yahoo! wants to target women, it should broaden its news and entertainment coverage in its existing site to include issues that intrigue and affect women. Instead they opt to reinforce the myth of “otherness” and pander to all of the self-loathing, superficial message-makers that, sadly, exist with or without them.
    If they were smart/gave a shit about women, they would develop one navigation-friendly site for anyone who wants in-depth news, and another one for anyone who wants news in short and lifestyle pieces. But they’ll never do that because this wasn’t developed to better serve women, it was developed to double their ad-revenue with narrowed demographics.

  • aussieblossie

    Hi everyone, I’ve been following Feministing for a long time, but this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to respond.
    “But I feel that a site that supposedly caters to women that specifically talks of astrology is at best condescending and at worst a horrific insult to the intelligence of any woman to view the site.
    Next thing you know, they’ll start putting up sections about acupuncture, homeopathy, and psychic spoonbending. Informed, critical-thinking women everywhere should let them know that this shit is inexcusable”
    Why is astrology, psychic ability or alternative so offensive to you Crotchfire?
    Are these things too “feminine” and therefore they are something to be fought against?
    I think that a site for “women” is ridiculous; current news, sports, lifestyle and entertainment stories should never be gender specific.
    But your ark-up above disturbs me a little; rationalism is NOT an end in itself. The modernist project that can be traced back to 17th century Europe tried to pigeonhole the complexity of nature using reason, and is the basis of mysogynist thought. It led to modern science, politics and assumptions of western society’s gender roles.
    Hyper-rationalism, the backbone of the US, is a hater of all things “irrational”, hence negative perceptions about what it means to be female have pushed women to the side.
    By dismissing “alternative” ways of thinking, you are perpetuating this way of thinking.
    Rather than trying to say “women should not be labeled as irrational”, we should be saying, “humans are ALL irrational creatures, get over it and bring us the damn news and horoscopes”

  • Jovan1984

    Liz, you’re wrong to paint everyone with the same brush of engaging in frivolous activites. I don’t engage in frivolous activites anymore, nor do I plan on doing so.

  • Crotchfire

    “Why is astrology, psychic ability or alternative so offensive to you Crotchfire?”
    Bear with me, this might seem a little circuitous, but there is a point, and it is relevant to feminism.
    You’re right, people ARE irrational, everyone is at some point in time, but this is hardly something that people should just lie down and accept, and simply say “Oh, I’m irrational. I should just continue lying to myself.”
    Astrology, psychic advice, homeopathy (NOT herbalism. Herbalism is an alternative that actually has merit in some circumstances) have never stood up to any sort of double-blinded testing. Far too often, believers will simply ignore the questions asked by the skeptics, regarding them as being “closed-minded”.
    Asking questions is vital and necessary for us to progress in EVERY realm, (including socially!) and whenever the answers to these questions overturn conventional wisdom, we need to rethink our damned worldviews!
    DEMAND EVIDENCE!
    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You can predict the future? Prove it, and don’t just give 2 or three anecdotes, test it rigorously! Measure your accuracy over many times and count your failures as much as you count your successes!
    You say men are naturally better at math? More rational? Better at abstract thought? Less emotional?
    Show me compelling evidence that says so that can clearly discard the social influences at work, OTHERWISE YOUR BELIEF IS NOT WORTH CONSIDERING.
    Perhaps what pisses me off specifically about Astrology as a major section of a site geared toward women is the assumption that, when it comes to spiritual matters, women simply don’t ask questions and will believe anything. If that’s the case, then I don’t even know why I should even bother supporting feminism. I think all PEOPLE should be treated equally well… but I find it hard to care about sheep.

  • aussieblossie

    Crotchfire,
    Nature was never meant to be ‘proven’. Eg, there are five or more sexes, but that is not orderly enough so we insist on cramming humans into two categories.
    Evidence will always be incomplete. Feminists should be fighting against this quest to conquer the unconquerable, because the very quest is the basis of sexism.
    I point you towards Descartes. He said “I think therefore I am”, the foundation for modern western society’s furious quest to articulate and categorise everything under the sun. The categories become narrower and narrower, yet more powerful over time. Hence, perceptions of women today.
    “Men” (scientists, philosophers) have been furiously “proving” things to provide explanations for centuries and look where it has got us. Division and ignorance.
    Don’t fight the fire with fire. “Evidence” will be shot back and forth, leading to more frustration and generalisation. Rather, eliminate reason as our ONLY option for decision making, as the majority of the global population (mainly ‘eastern’ societies) already do.
    Consider the power of making reason as merely one of many tools of the mind, rather than the one and only. THAT is the message we should be fighting for as feminists.

  • Mina

    “Don’t fight the fire with fire. ‘Evidence’ will be shot back and forth, leading to more frustration and generalisation. Rather, eliminate reason as our ONLY option for decision making, as the majority of the global population (mainly ‘eastern’ societies) already do.”
    As if they’re always so much less sexist? What about all the unreasonable claims that women and girls are inferior?