On my way to a meeting recently, I passed a bricks & mortar book store that I hadn’t been in since the pandemic. With about 5 minutes to spare, I stepped inside and found myself perusing the magazines – also a novelty. I strolled past the fitness, health, current events, business and other sections & stopped short in front of the “Women’s Interest” section (see the “before” photo above left). Was there a “Men’s Interest” section you might ask? No.

What I saw was surprising & infuriating: fashion, accessories, beauty, weight loss, celebrities, gardening, home care, a “lifestyle” magazine that promises a “return to loveliness,” and at least 10 different bride/wedding magazines.

Don’t get me wrong – I shop for clothes & I’ve been happily married for a long time. What I object to is the stereotypical approach to what women are (or by implication should be), interested in. Most of the women I know follow current events, vote, are active in their careers, and in the community. Everything in the other magazine sections could have been “Women’s Interest.” For example: Capital One Shopping published U.S. Dept. of Labor data showing that single males spend 1.8% of their after-tax income on apparel & services and women spend 2.5% – a difference of less than a 1%.

Further, the website for this bricks & mortar store is not sectioned off – it is alphabetical. “House Beautiful” is next to “Handguns” magazine, and “Elle” is next to “Esquire.” In other words, the bricks & mortar store had to intentionally section off certain types of magazines as “Women’s Interest.” Why are we still using gender to classify people?!?

So, what did I do? Already late for my meeting, I resorted to some fast guerilla tactics. I grabbed a magazine from another section and placed it on top of one in the Women’s Interest section. Which one? See the “after” photo above right. My next step? I’ll write a letter to the company & enclose a copy of this blog.