Comments on: [Guest Post] Magazine Rack Sexism, or Women Read Private Eye Too /2012/07/30/guest-post-magazine-rack-sexism-or-women-read-private-eye-too/ A feminist pop culture adventure Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:31:29 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.6 By: wererogue /2012/07/30/guest-post-magazine-rack-sexism-or-women-read-private-eye-too/#comment-3951 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:31:29 +0000 http://www.badreputation.org.uk/?p=11501#comment-3951 The only thing I can think of for “grammar issues” is if they misunderstood what you were saying about papers having a “femail” section? Even then, that’s a spelling issue.

Also! Congratulations Lizzie and congrats to Sainsburys for not being bigoted dinosaurs!

]]> By: Nanu /2012/07/30/guest-post-magazine-rack-sexism-or-women-read-private-eye-too/#comment-3930 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:31:03 +0000 http://www.badreputation.org.uk/?p=11501#comment-3930 This problem exists in other places too. I was looking for a gift for a friend’s birthday and was confronted on most websites with “gifts for him/gifts for her”.

The gifts for him include things like games consoles, cameras, trainers and action-adventure films while gifts for her suggest romantic comedies, clutch handbags, hair appliances, jewellery and bake ware.

I own most of these things (no clutch handbags for me), and I think most women do too so I don’t really understand why websites feel the need to separate them by gender.

By the way, I think that Sainsburys think you are questioning the apostrophe in “Men’s health”

]]>