Is there still a place for women’s pages in the media?
Not for us ladyfolk the stern black and white logic of the business pages! Not for us the brain-taxing Sudoku, with its spiky numbers and glaring empty boxes, says Natalie Guest.
By Natalie Guest Published 03 October 2012 14:43
This week, the Telegraph has unveiled its new women’s pages, entitled (CRINGE ALERT) “Wonder Woman”; a section offering “irreverent and intelligent writing about politics, business, family, life and sex.” An introductory blog explains:
All too often ‘women’s content’ is either lipsticks and handbags or BMW - bitching, moaning and whining about the ‘plight of being a woman’ – a tone of coverage this generation of women rarely identify with or enjoy reading.
Wonder Women, with its raft of brilliant writers defined by their reactive, witty and honest style, aims to articulate views which will get both women and men fired up, shine a light on individuals, issues and stories people will want to discuss with their mates down the pub and crucially, make readers laugh too.
Definitely a laudable goal, and one which those of us sick of “lifestyle” pieces about dieting and manicures can certainly identify with. But is there still a place for so-called women’s pages, and isn’t there something a little regressive about the entire concept?
The argument most often raised against women’s pages (along with women’s television programmes, and women’s radio shows) is that they are necessarily divisive, bringing with them an implication that women aren’t welcome amongst the other pages of the paper, and must be relegated into their own glossy pull-out harem. Not for us ladyfolk the stern black & white logic of the business pages! Not for us the brain-taxing Sudoku, with its spiky numbers and glaring empty boxes! No, the women need their own special place, full of pretty pictures of shoes (ALL WOMEN LOVE SHOES) and tearful confessions about lost love (ALL WOMEN LOVE TEARS).
As Wonder Women rightfully points out, the view of womanhood espoused by these pages is all-too often a patronising and outmoded one. We’re still dealing with a 50s housewife hangover, where every article is built around how to please a man, or make a good pavlova. Pavlovas have no place in modern-day society. I mean, what even IS a pavlova?
In an ideal world, of course, the media (and, indeed, society at large) would have embraced diversity enough for us not to need segregated content. Unfortunately, that’s a long way off – and if we said goodbye to the women’s page, many important topics simply wouldn’t be covered at all. And with current policies disproportionately affecting women and threatening to erode female bodily autonomy, drawing attention to women’s issues remains as important as ever – which includes covering the superficial as well as the serious.
The difficulty lies in changing the editorial view of what a “women’s page” is; whilst the Telegraph’s manifesto for Wonder Women hits all of the right notes, we’re only two days into publication and they’re already making missteps and lapsing into old bad habits. Take the “Board Babe” series, for example; a weekly column penned by an anonymous high-powered business woman, which raised eyebrows and prodded gag reflexes in the Twitter-sphere today on the publication of their very first article: Secret Diary: Our Board Babe on Naked Ambition. Go ahead and read it; I’ll wait.
Pieces like this are misogyny masquerading as empowerment: the “Board Babe” is set up as a challenger to the patriarchal status quo of the business world, whilst simultaneously being patronised and belittled (in this case, mostly by the sub-editor who chose the headline, although the article is fairly problematic in itself). Despite our writer having ascended to the top levels of the boardroom, she’s still referred as a “babe”, a term that both sexualises and infantilises at once. Her ambition is “naked”; as is she, underneath that trouser suit - because just in case you’d forgotten, women are there to be looked at. And (despite the fact that she presumably has a high degree of expertise and business savvy within her field), the piece is marketed as a titillating “confessional”, as though she’s moonlighting as a high-class hooker in her lunchbreak.
But it doesn’t have to be like this – and there are some real rumblings of change. With the growing popularity of blogs such as Vagenda, Jezebel, The F Word and Bad Reputation, we’re seeing a real desire for writing that deals with the issues of being a woman in a way that’s genuinely funny, fierce, intelligent and empowering (let’s call it the Caitlin Moran school of feminism, for now). From the Vagenda team’s six-figure book deal, to the success of Lena Dunham’s smash HBO hit Girls, to Moran’s own How to Be a Woman, all signs point to the fact that the more mainstream press is sitting up and taking notice of what we’ve known for a very long time: that women are hungry to read things that matter to them, written by people that they identify with.
So, is there still a place for women’s pages? For me, the answer is an unequivocal “YES” - but they need to be progressive, not regressive. Let’s see more women’s pages focusing on what we are, and what we want to be, instead of on what we used to be made to be. Ladies of the world take note: the time for pavlova is over.
The photo is from Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence. You can view the original here.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















11 comments
This is outrage, last time, I ate pavolova, it was a joke pavolova that my wife had made, and it looked like, so delight, I taste the edge of the pavolvola and such a burst of flavour in the crust edge like pizza but sweet, and my mouth move in all direction at once, and then like glory, I take a giant bite, taking about two thirds of entire pavolova into, my mouth, and then, as I chew, and she kick up her heel and laugh, I realis that it contains Foreign Object, including, rusty nail, glass, marshmallow, grape with Pips in, bits of wool, lemsip, including sachet, the ball out of a mouse, and a lid of Pen. And I sputter and the nail and glass is goughing into throat, and I am feeling sick and wife is photographing my roll-eye, and I spit the pavolova onto the table and it is still moving and I have cut my lip and the edge of my mouth, and she is laughing at me because, I have fallen for her trick, and I am feeling ashamed and angry, and she is now in convulse with laughter, and saying this is the revenge for the Cat thing, and I am wanting to act but am still injured due to contents, and to cut, a long story short, we had a trial separation but, we are back together, and went on holiday to the Canaray Island and could not be happier this very day.
I just don't get women's pages. Where is the need? Women's sections, pages and indeed ministers help to sideline women in the mainstream. If a publication feels that certain content will attract a certain type of person to increase sales why not just include more of that content without sectioning it off with the patronising women's page label?
Forgive me if I am reading this wrong but the author seems to be implying that you can somehow stitch a goat's head onto, for example, the torso and legs of an octopos, and make some kind of terrifying OCTOGOAT beast, which would somehow rampage around the cities of Birmingham and other large towns perhaps Cardiff, reaching its long tentacled arms around the residents in an unsettling caress whilst bleating, bleating out its terrible message.
As someone who has been present at a similar situation, I for one would not approve of any practice which would bring about this terrifying spectacle.
I want a woman that makes me pavlova, feck that, I'll just buy a pavlova. I have no opinions about women. Sure is a lot of them though.
@Des Demona
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even spot a joke? Or are pavlovas such a serious topic that one is never to joke about them? ;)
As to your more substantive point, it's not that the existence of a women's section precludes women from reading the rest of the paper, it's the implicit suggestion by creating a women's section (or children's section, or whatever other section) that the rest is somehow less intended for women than it is for men. It makes being a man the 'default'. Sometimes it's hard to see this, but once you do see it you become aware of how pervasive this 'default' setting is.
I think you'd find that the writer WOULD complain if there was a section for men, but for exactly the same reason. I'd assume you don't have a problem with that, but given you have problems with jokes about pavlovas I can't be sure! ;) Have a good day, Des :)
Your middle paragraph sums up exactly how I see it, too! But it can take a long time to notice this (usually because you're too busy making pavlova and worrying about not being sufficiently obsessed with shoes...)
Well it appears that my joke was just as bad as the authors Captain.
And my substantive point is that contrary to the author's view creating a women's section in no way indicates that the rest is not intended for them. How ludicrous to even suggest it. A woman would have to be a bit of a moron to believe that she could only read the women's section as the rest wasn't intended for her.
In the real world many women like to read about fashion, women's issues, feminism, health etc - many more so than men - you only have to look at the vast sales of women's magazines to discern that. Most men don't to nearly the same extend as witnessed by the relatively tiny sales of men's lifestyle magazines.
Having a women's section means men don't have to trawl through a load of stuff they are not interested in and women who are know exactly where to go if they want to read that kind of material.
"Contrary to the author's view"?
I think you're reading me wrong. What I actually put, at the beginning of the paragraph you're referring to, was "The argument most often raised [against women's pages]".
I didn't say that I believed that, or that it was an argument that I would use against women's pages.
Those are fine words coming from you, spindle-hands! You might not remember me from the heady days of my use, Demonner, but I distinctly recall how you used to repeatedly plunge your great puffy hairy hands onto a cactus, flailing and jabbing and the spiky plant whilst exclaiming "I am the true spindle-hands! I am! I am so!"
And now you come here like a man with a great octogoat wrapped around his unusual elongated head (for who but you bears the nickname "Michael J Longhead?"), japping and flapping at the poor hybrid with your big puffy spindle hands! There will be no victory for you today, spindle-hands-long-head!
Oh dear - how can I take seriously the rantings of someone who is apparently either so inexperienced in life or so ignorant that they don't even know what a pavlova is?
And by the way, it is only in your on fantasy land that the addition of a section created especially for women precludes them from or makes any judgement upon their ability to read the business pages.
I guess some women are just never happy. No doubt you'd be complaining if there was a section created specifically for men?
Judging from the language you have used to the opinions that you harbour to the fact that you felt the need to post this comment at all, I can tell that it is in fact you who is "never happy"