Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Is Maxim Magazine "Rebranding" Itself Out of Existence?

(Cross-posted at The Megaphone)

One needn't be a Maxim reader - I'm not - to know that the magazine appeals to the sort of guy who likes its annual list of "hot" chicks. As the magazine’s new editor, herself a chick, explains to q radio show host Shad, she has subjected the rag to a "rebranding." 

In the "new" Maxim, "hot" no longer means sexually attractive ('cuz that's just soooo not hot). It has now been tweaked to mean "hot" in the sense of trendy/creating buzz. Hence, buh bye Candice Swanepoelhello Taylor Swift. (If there's a guy out there who thinks Taylor is "hot" in the old sense of hotness, I have yet to meet him.) Also, Taylor Swift ruminating on the significance of "feminism":
Honestly, I didn’t have an accurate definition of feminism when I was younger. I didn’t quite see all the ways that feminism is vital to growing up in the world we live in. I think that when I used to say, “Oh, feminism’s not really on my radar,” it was because when I was just seen as a kid, I wasn’t as threatening. I didn’t see myself being held back until I was a woman. Or the double standards in headlines, the double standards in the way stories are told, the double standards in the way things are perceived.  
A man writing about his feelings from a vulnerable place is brave; a woman writing about her feelings from a vulnerable place is oversharing or whining. Misogyny is ingrained in people from the time they are born. So to me, feminism is probably the most important movement that you could embrace, because it’s just basically another word for equality.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Er, sorry, I nodded off there for a sec. 

Pace Maxim's chick editor, I can't believe that this "rebrand" - which would see Caitlyn Jenner, for example, as being the hottest of the "hot" - is likely to appeal to Maxim readers.

Who would find it appealing? The same people who read, say, Oprah or Ms., I suspect.

No comments: