Excuse me, is this the 21st century?

Enjoying a lazy Saturday grocery shopping trip, I was caught quite unaware by a reality check the size of Donald Trump's ego. You see, I had the urge for some new reading material and was feeling adventurous. Being a magazine junkie, I thought it wouldn't be difficult to pick up something, even in Kroger's limited selection, that was new to me.

So I wandered down an otherwise useless aisle and made my way past the initial offerings of paperbacks and coloring books. The first magazine to catch my eye was my beloved National Geographic. Of course, I already had a copy so I refrained from caressing it lest I attract too much attention to myself. Nearby however, I saw some promising titles...Archaeoloy, Discover, that kind of thing. Right up my alley and yet, not ones I usually pick up. But as I reached up to grab a copy of Archaeology that was beckoning, something caught my eye. (Cue suspense music.)

I'm sure you can imagine the emotional whiplash that occurred when my mood was slammed from happy-go-lucky to indignant with the full force of a reality check issued by the Bank of Ignorance. The pleasant-looking, subtle-toned header over the section read "Men's Interest." Now, in the past, my response to this type of affront would have simply been a little head-shaking with or without rolling eyes depending upon the situation. Unfortunately, I've had an awakening of sorts recently and I'm becoming less inclined to accept large, steaming piles of BS with a shrug of the shoulders and "people can be so silly" attitude.

Sure enough, as I investigated the "Men's Interest" section further I saw the likes of Maxim and GQ. Ok, certainly these other publications are tailored toward the male audience and that's absolutely fine. There's no fault in having periodicals that target certain audiences. But why, in the 21st century, the science and nature-oriented materials are the domain of men is simply beyond my comprehension. Add to that, the presence of other titles regarding electronics and digital photography and it becomes downright offensive.

Further perusal of the magazines revealed the perfectly reasonable auto, sports and the ever-generic "lifestyles" categories. But because there was Men's Interest, you know there had to be the lovely "Women's General" section. Apparently, women interests include the likes of weddings, decorating, parenting, and hairstyles.

Now, this conundrum can obviously be approached from both sides. Really, both men and women should be dismayed at the level of stereotyping involved here. That men are only interested in scantily-clad women is equally offensive as the implication that women aren't interested in science and nature, rather only babies and pillow shams. The last time I checked, men were parents, have homes that needed decorating, and got haircuts. And to turn that around, certainly there are plenty of women who could give a big fig about decorating and celebrities, this woman being one of them. So why must these publications be categorized in such a way as to make implications and judgments. It's completely unnecessary.

So in between fits of indignation, the thought kept occurring to me that in 3 days we would be inaugurating our first African-American president. We've come so far and yet the aisles of Kroger revealed, with painful clarity, how much there still is to accomplish. To help that process along I urge magazine retailers to hear the call of the 21st Century....let's categorize by subjects, not out-dated stereotypes. Just in case you need some help, here are some suggestions: sports, home improvement, automotive, computers & electronics, parenting....you get the idea. Let's label them by the subject matter, not who you presume might wish to read them. Agreed?

Now, the lingering question to me that may help me gain some closure is this: Is happening only in the south or in other regions as well? No, no, don't answer that. I'm not sure either scenario will provide consolation, but I may have to conduct additional inquiries at local retail stores to see how pervasive this problem is and determine who will be getting an introduction to The World According to Spacebudgie.

UPDATE (1/23/09): Took my dear hubby down the mag aisle for a "Do You See What I See" experiment. Sure enough came a "Huh, isn't that interesting?" He was puzzled by the scene but, ever the pragmatist, began compiling scenarios that could have resulted in this travesty: they just didn't have time to rearrange after some new titles came in so they just stuck them where there was space, maybe they forgot to put the Geographic (etc.) in both sections, maybe the display headers were old and they hadn't gotten around to replacing them yet.... So either they're lazy, the store display is 50 years old, or they're just plain ____. (I'll let you fill in the blank.)