IIRC, Boy's Life magazine is run by a boy scout organization while Girl's Life is run by a corporation chasing for the most eyeballs possible.
Maybe it's just my lack of need for external influence, but why is this a big deal? I think women can and should be whatever they want to be. A trashy magazine shouldn't change that.
Should A Girl's Life change the tone of their stories? That's up to the market. As long as their demographic enjoys what they print (which translates to $$$), they'll continue to run it. Should people be outraged by it? If they choose to be, yes. But at the end of the day a consumer is a consumer, and if they want trash they'll get it.
There are plenty of men's magazines that will offer you a "denim checklist."
This is indeed a humorous juxtaposition, but they wouldn't make crap like that if our society didn't gobble it up.
Why was this flagged?
Once for all you'll have to understand that without a good distribution of roles (girls must grow to be moms making and educating babies; boys must grow to be warriors (including scientists, explorers, farmers, etc) to defend women and children against invaders of all kinds, then you won't live happy old days, because you'll be invaded, raped and dead by then.
The uproar should be against that uproar!
The problem is that with all of the bullshit aside, they need to sell the magazine to some dwindling population still buying them.
The "heartwarming", positive cover is indeed heartwarming and a good message, but is also pretty lame, and unlikely to sell magazines.
I also question whether this is typical shallow/ignorant internet outrage. When I was a kid, Boy'a Life was a Boy Scouts magazine, and had annual themes that appeared every year at the same time. If you looked at the May/June cover, the annual Boy Scout Jamboree issue wouldn't be as "internet offensive".