The Portrayal of Elements Historically Associated with Masculine and Feminine Domains in Lad and Metrosexual Men’s Lifestyle Magazines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differing presentations of masculinity exist that appear to differentially embody elements historically associated with masculine and feminine domains. Metrosexuality, for instance, has been associated with more feminine characteristics and lifestyle choices (Simpson, 1994a) while laddist masculinity was presumed to be more traditionally masculine given its focus on bachelorhood and hedonistic consumption. The present research investigated representations of stereotypical or hyper-masculine (sports, strength, cars) and stereotypical or hyper-feminine (fashion, beauty, dieting) content in a metrosexual and laddist men’s lifestyle magazine. Qualitative and quantitative analyses suggest that the magazines differed in the amount of hyper-masculine material related to sports and strength, but not cars, with laddist magazines portraying this information more than metrosexual magazines. In terms of stereotypical or hyper-feminine material, both laddist and metrosexual magazines depicted fashion frequently, but the metrosexual magazines did portray this information significantly more often. The magazines did not differ in the frequency of portrayals of beauty or dieting; however they did differ in how they portrayed these topics. Implications for masculinities are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".