Wow, how patronising.

Looking for something to do while your man reads up on his stocks?
Get the latest diet tips and fashion advice from Journal Women! Just like Cosmopolitan, only less vapid looking!

Now, now, be fair with your sampling! There are 4 stupid, patronizing articles. True.

But -- The top article is a survey showing that women and men want the same things in careers, they're just not getting them. There are 2 articles on working mothers / flexible work schedules. 5 Articles on influential women in politics or on wall street (not including the one with Clinton's picture). 2 more about office discourse.

There's an awful lot of substance on this website, and you picked out the 4 worst articles to knock it. I've now read 2 of the top articles and I thought they were pretty ok, as far as WSJ articles go.

It's fair to criticize this section, but make sure your criticism is legitimate -- They put stupid style stuff in the womens' section, not the womens' section is all fluff.

Wow, is Hillary Clinton really the poster girl for "mindless munching"?

I'd laugh if this sort of so-called women's news wasn't already everywhere.

murdoch owns wsj now. are we surprised?

Honestly? This could be A LOT worse, considering the source.

I think the worst, or at least most unfair, thing on the page is the photo next to the "Mindless Munching" article, which is Hillary Clinton if I'm not mistaken. I would imagine that Hillary Clinton is about as tired of the junk food they make her force down at every roadside campaign stop as I am of reading about her campaign.

But shes not mentioned at all in the article... I think we've stumbled upon a little case of subversive editorializing from America's favorite righty rag.

They just had to use a pic of Clinton for the dieting article? Nice, real nice.

Hillary Clinton is a mindless muncher? I don't even know what that means, but she must not be fit to be president!

Ladylinguist, Jessica does mention that there are other articles there, but there's still a lot of "news" on topics that only hurt and continue to oppress women, like stuff about dieting. They can have a women's news section without all the sexist crap.

Uh, women LIKE these stories. They're interested in this stuff. That's why women's magazines print this stuff. Gym, dance, dieting, shopping, wondering what to wear to work... these are all overwhelmingly female things, so what's wrong with a section targetting women writing about them?

Uh, women LIKE these stories. They're interested in this stuff. That's why women's magazines print this stuff. Gym, dance, dieting, shopping, wondering what to wear to work... these are all overwhelmingly female things, so what's wrong with a section targetting women writing about them?

Womble - Exactly. They put these articles in there because these themes appeal to many women.

You're right, ladylinguist. The caps here only show the Style and Health sections. To be fair, the Frontlines, Women on the Move and Managing sections look very different, and they're presented more prominently. (Though I haven't read the articles yet so I don't know what's in them.)

wombie and noname--but why do these things appeal to women in the first place? did we just wake up one day and decide that cellulite was unacceptable?

i don't think anyone thinks that an article about fashion or pilates or whatever is inherently evil in isolation, but the fact is that just about everything that gets labeled as being for women in the MSM is about dieting or clothes or heterosexual dating, etc. it's the pervasiveness and near exclusivity that is the problem.

this typical women's mag fluff writing is there for a reason--it supports a huge and highly profitable beauty industry.

So noname and wombie, are women just "naturally" drawn to dieting and shopping stories?
Don't forget "How to Blow Your Man's Mind in Bed!"
Wonder when that'll get coverage.

It's not a function of socialization or the gendered expectations we face as women?

I just wandered over there, and while there are those few patronizing articles, there are also some interesting ones on women in the workplace, etc. Not the best thing ever, but still...

"The top article is a survey showing that women and men want the same things in careers, they're just not getting them."

Depressingly and unsurprisingly, the comments on that article are mostly rude and patronizing of women. Apparently women don't know what they want and whine about everything. It has nothing to do with the fact that we DON'T get the same things as men...

I'm a magazine/newspaper/internet junkie, but I don't read all the articles on what I believe to be all-to-often useless beauty/diet/get a man information.
I wonder how effective it would be if WSJ and other media outlets were flooded with article submissions by feminist writers, on feminist issues... I'm fairly new to feministing, but the quality of writing and observation I've seen here is amazing and deserves to be taken to another level.

I'm a magazine/newspaper/internet junkie, but I don't read all the articles on what I believe to be all-to-often useless beauty/diet/get a man information.
I wonder how effective it would be if WSJ and other media outlets were flooded with article submissions by feminist writers, on feminist issues... I'm fairly new to feministing, but the quality of writing and observation I've seen here is amazing and deserves to be taken to another level.

I'm a magazine/newspaper/internet junkie, but I don't read all the articles on what I believe to be all-to-often useless beauty/diet/get a man information.
I wonder how effective it would be if WSJ and other media outlets were flooded with article submissions by feminist writers, on feminist issues... I'm fairly new to feministing, but the quality of writing and observation I've seen here is amazing and deserves to be taken to another level.

ugh, this just makes me so upset. It is incredibly patronizing and I feel like it's very pervasive. And Womble, MAYBE some women do like reading about some of these articles, but not only do you have to investigate the source of this want, as SarahMC pointed out, but also if this need is being overly met. I refuse, refuse, refuse to believe that the majority of women like reading repetitive, insipid articles from 'experts' who continuously talk down to their readers. I think the fluff women sections sell for the same reason pink razors sell, what are our other choices? If the articles aren't specifically written by men for men with the male gaze and whatnot, then they're fluff. Thats all main stream is giving us.

Look, it's a free market. This stuff sells. Feminist articles don't.

That means more people want to read about shopping and dieting than about feminism.

It's not that there aren't any other choices! Give me a break. The print media market is completely saturated. There's a magazine out there for every societal niche you can imagine. If people enjoy a particular magazine, its readership will increase and more outlets will stock it. If this isn't happening to the type of publication you personally like, don't blame it on the media itself.

Look, it's a free market. This stuff sells. Feminist articles don't.

That means more people want to read about shopping and dieting than about feminism.

Skipping over the part where Womble demonstrates quite a bit of ignorance about how the mass media function, it's not like patronising articles about landing a man, shopping, and "mindless munching" are exactly a scarce commodity.

Just about every major publication that is primarily marketed towards women contains plenty of it. As Susan Faludi points out in Backlash, it's actually good business to undermine women's self esteem, because women with better self esteem tend to spend less money.

However, the question is, with all of the Cosmos and Glamours and Vogues etc. out there, a) would a woman who specifically picks out the WSJ really looking for this crap? b) would a woman who doesn't read the WSJ already be motivated to buy it in order to get something that hundreds of glossy magazines already specialise in?

Elise
What would you take issue with in the portrayal of the mass media?

This is a bit like a discussion at Blogher recently: Men are from Science, Women are from Fashion and Style (http://tinyurl.com/6kbnbh)

Though this could be much worse, it is very stereotyped. However I especially like that if women are tired of actually working out, try out a frilly empowering work out. Why don't they suggest the same to men? Oh, right, that would be ridiculous, men need to get lifting some weights.

Though this could be much worse, it is very stereotyped. However I especially like that if women are tired of actually working out, try out a frilly empowering work out. Why don't they suggest the same to men? Oh, right, that would be ridiculous, men need to get lifting some weights.

What would you take issue with in the portrayal of the mass media?

It would be a bit space intensive to provide an entire basic course in the political economy of the media here; however, here are some basics.

The customers of the media are not readers. The media sell readers (the product) to advertisers (the customers). In order to ensure the greatest possible ad revenue, it's important to ensure that the content will meet with advertisers' approval.

The readers can prefer something else as much as they want, but keeping them satisfied isn't the core of the business.

Advertisers want content that will ensure a good "buying mood", and generally prefer to avoid negative portrayals of their products.

This is one of various filters that ensure that the content provided by the mass media will keep within certain narrow limits.

A good primer on the subject is Chomsky and Herman's seminal study, Manufacturing Consent.

“wombie and noname--but why do these things appeal to women in the first place? did we just wake up one day and decide that cellulite was unacceptable?� – rileystclair

Those are interesting questions about our society as a whole. Of course, this post criticizes a specific section of a specific organization. The WSJ is intentionally responding to society as it exists (to maximize reader interest, and therefore raise advertizing revenue). While this may reinforce societal standards as you point out, I highly doubt that is the intention of the editor, as his/her job is to make money, not shape the world.