I think I know what you mean, that, historically, there's been a stereotype of "women's magazines", and you were using it as a familiar illustration. I propose that we figure out different illustrations.
We can see similar, if less-recognized, patterns in many publications labeled as for "men", "lifetyle", "health", "technology", "news", etc.
We've been calling them "women's magazines" so long, and I assume that, before I was born, society let magazine publishers frame how we call and think of the magazine, and its implied assertions about women.
Today, with publishing opened up more, and even literal children posturing as broadcast "influencers", that some of the dynamics of publisher as often posturer, manipulator, and exploiter are more transparent to us.
I don't know how to solve this, and it seems to be many different problems. But I'm thinking that one thing we can do about it (and certainly this is far from a novel idea, including in this particular space), is to reject manipulative terms and labels that self-interested parties try to force on us.
We can see similar, if less-recognized, patterns in many publications labeled as for "men", "lifetyle", "health", "technology", "news", etc.
We've been calling them "women's magazines" so long, and I assume that, before I was born, society let magazine publishers frame how we call and think of the magazine, and its implied assertions about women.
Today, with publishing opened up more, and even literal children posturing as broadcast "influencers", that some of the dynamics of publisher as often posturer, manipulator, and exploiter are more transparent to us.
I don't know how to solve this, and it seems to be many different problems. But I'm thinking that one thing we can do about it (and certainly this is far from a novel idea, including in this particular space), is to reject manipulative terms and labels that self-interested parties try to force on us.