Banning Lads Magazines

[Expat owl]

I don't agree with banning lads' mags, or Page 3, or pornography for that matter.

 

But I also don't agree with the simplistic 'but women objectify men too' argument. It overlooks the structural inequality between men and women, and it overlooks the fact that women are more heavily and intensively objectified by the media and wider culture than men are. It doesn't work both ways in any meaningful sense, and won't until that structural inequality is addressed.

 

Presumably the campaigners think that banning lads' mags is one small step along the way to achieving that equality, but for me the negatives implied by banning them aren't worth it. I'd rather see sustained, focused attempts to educate about objectification, dehumanisation, the problems of gender stereotyping, etc.

 

Women suffer disproportionately from these things, but they don't do men much good either.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2013 at 16:18 ----------

 

 

On the other hand, when I see comments like this I do wonder if perhaps re-reading Valerie Solanis would be more a more productive use of my time than wading in amongst the misogynist, reactionary swamp on here.

 

 

Valerie Solanas, another minger best known for a failed assassination attempt on Andy Warhol. Obviously another 'nutter' so you go right ahead love.

[Resident]

I don't agree with banning lads' mags, or Page 3, or pornography for that matter.

 

But I also don't agree with the simplistic 'but women objectify men too' argument. It overlooks the structural inequality between men and women, and it overlooks the fact that women are more heavily and intensively objectified by the media and wider culture than men are. It doesn't work both ways in any meaningful sense, and won't until that structural inequality is addressed.

 

Presumably the campaigners think that banning lads' mags is one small step along the way to achieving that equality, but for me the negatives implied by banning them aren't worth it. I'd rather see sustained, focused attempts to educate about objectification, dehumanisation, the problems of gender stereotyping, etc.

 

Women suffer disproportionately from these things, but they don't do men much good either.

 

Nonsense. It's blatant female hypocrisy.

 

Point in case, my best mate went to Spearmint rhinos for a work-mates birthday and his missus went ballistic, calling him all the names under the sun.

A month later she went to see some type of chippendales show, when my mate brought up the tongue lashing he gotten she went up the wall again, using all the same arguments he'd used in defence of him going to rhinos.

 

 

 

It's the same with this:

 

A man attacks me and I hit him back - That's fine and fair.

 

A woman attacks me and I hit her back - I'm a woman-beater, vile man etc.

 

Women only want equality when it SUITS THEM.

 

Please note, I'm not against equality but I am against the equality argument being used when it's clearly hypocritical.

[MrSmith]

Being organised by a 'Womens Group' (aka Ugly Mingers !!) in Birmingham. This argument crops up every few years and nothing ever happens !!

If you don't want your kids to see ladies in swimming costumes or bikinis, I suggest you keep them indoors and don't let them watch the TV either !!!

 

I felt the need to correct you, the young lady on TV this morning was no minger, the lads would have been drooling over their breakfast.

 

Here she is.

 

Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Jessica23]

You go on, lads. Let it all out. All the lechery, all the insults, all the pent-up rage. All the patronising comments, all the shouting in bold type.

 

Do you feel better now? A bit more like you've managed to convince some 'mingers' to see the error of their ways? Feel you've made a significant contribution to the gender debate?

[ECCOnoob]

This isn't a gender debate.

 

Is a debate about whether it is fair that people are on the campaign against lads mags when womens magazines do the same thing. Ban then all or none at all. I see no reason how legally you can challege one aspect only.

 

Why didn't Diane Abbott, Kat Banyard or any of the journalists who are supposed to be responsible for "balanced" reporting make reference or even question More magazine, Sugar, Closer, Cosmo.

 

Its nothing but hypocracy and nobody has addressed this yet.

[Jessica23]

Not a gender debate? Nothing to do with gender whatsoever? Okay then!

[ECCOnoob]

You go on, lads. Let it all out. All the lechery, all the insults, all the pent-up rage. All the patronising comments, all the shouting in bold type.

 

Do you feel better now? A bit more like you've managed to convince some 'mingers' to see the error of their ways? Feel you've made a significant contribution to the gender debate?

 

Its not about a gender debate.

 

Its about hypocracy between two identical genres of magazines.

They are either all banned or none at all.

 

I really dont see how people are differential between the two.

 

What stinks in this entire debate is nobody in the world of supposed "balanced jornalism" has even bothered to question to Diane Abbot or Kat Banyard about Closer, More, Sugar, Cosmo magazines.

 

Prey tell, what exactly is the difference between these two images:

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hln2AEigAz4/SdJaZEADzEI/AAAAAAAASFE/ipAG01tKHZA/s1600/Heat+torso+2.jpg

 

http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/danielle-lloyd-shows-off-her-bikini-body-in-nuts-magazine-1.jpg

 

Why is one supposed to be acceptable and the other not?

 

Why can one magazine containing these images be sold without a quibble but the other one be banned?

[Jessica23]

Well, like I said, I don't agree with banning. So you'll have to hope that someone who does comes on to answer those questions, but I wouldn't hold your breath now they've been referred to as ugly mingers and nutters.

[MrSmith]

Its about hypocracy between two identical genres of magazines.

They are either all banned or none at all.

 

She doesn't want them banned, she just wants shops to stop selling them. And people to take legal action against shops that do sell them, her campaign is like and advertising campaign for lawyers.

[Watson B]

Well, looks like the law is working with campaigners to ban these from being sold in public.

 

I will hold my hands up to never ever buying a lads or porn book in my life, would never dream of it

 

I think these days, people can find far more graphic stuff on the internet so things like Page 3 and lads books should be binned.

 

We are 2013 not 1999.

 

I dont read em, used to many moons ago and they are harmless enough.

Besides, the girls in them arent forced in any way, most of them are really pretty and use their looks to earn big bucks.

What i cant get is how come some extremist thinks its ok to deprive these girls of their income and the people that buy them from their mag just because its not something they like.