Interesting you make the same mistake. Actually, woman magazines are bought by women interested in woman's magazines - this is a subset of all women, and may or may not be particularly representative of women as a whole.
Women who buy women's magazines are women who first and foremost are interested in reading magazines. Out of that subset of women, one can begin measuring who are interested in women's magazines. I would assume the percentage here becomes quite large. I'll leave it up to a potential child to find that magic number and whether or not it can be representative of women in general.
Although, quite frankly, I am quite tired of this kind of "woman analysis" as if there's something inherently wrong with women in our society.
Are you a woman? If not, then you have no right to be tired of this kind of “woman analysis” (which is not, in fact, what the attached article is). It’s analyzing media and its approach to the spending habits of its target market, and how they miss the opportunity to introduce new advertisers to cover the fact that women in the UK spend on average 40% more annually on technology purchases than they do cosmetic purchases.
This is not asking for a Pink Power Wired; it's saying that the publishers of “women’s” magazines are leaving advertising dollars on the table and potentially missing the needs and/or interests of their purported audience by ignoring technology purchases and dealing with them in a non-sexist, adult way.
Quite specifically, this article isn't about you—especially if you're a man. It's about how the magazines, their advertisers, and manufacturers are missing an opportunity to be more meaningful and targeted toward the needs of their audience, which is increasingly more sophisticated than the magazines themselves.
