denlin Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I have plenty of experience of hearing men refer to feminists as mingers, as if this somehow totally undermines their views, although what they look like is wholly irrelevant. I wonder how men would feel if every time they objected to a feminist's views, they were immediately labelled as ugly sexual inadequates? It's so passe. ---------- Post added 27-05-2013 at 18:06 ---------- Do you think that it is right/fair/justified to call feminists 'mingers'? Or perhaps you believe that feminists are all ugly? Perhaps if you weren't so vociferous in expressing the fact that you clearly have a strange impression of feminism you wouldn't get mens backs up, you don't seem to know the difference between equality and wanting superiority. Don't you have a life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Perhaps if you weren't so vociferous in expressing the fact that you clearly have a strange impression of feminism you wouldn't get mens backs up, you don't seem to know the difference between equality and wanting superiority. Don't you have a life? You don't seem to know the difference between wanting equality and superiority; I don't want superiority, I don't believe in it nor would I ever support it. What is your take on feminism then, seeing as I apparently have a 'strange impression' of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 the original topic on the tv, and this thread was about feminism and lads mags YOURE the one that changed it into an arguement between 2 types of magazines Of course I am bringing up 2 types of magazines. Have you actually read the thread? I am trying to show a perfect example of the hypocracy is these Feminists argument and campaign. If it is wrong to sexualise women in such a way as portrayed in "Lads Mags" then the same rule should apply to men being sexualised in "Womens Mags" Its a perfectly obvious point referenced with the two photograph examples I have provided earlier. One is seemed acceptable to be sold in shops and supermarkets and the other is not. Why? Both types are doing the same thing - Showing a boy or girl in skimpy clothing, most likley on a beach or poolside. Are you really saying you do not see the hypocracy here. If the argument covered both sexes I would not have a problem. What I object to is the one sided argument which nobody (particularly the media) seems to be questionning. They are either all to be removed from the shops or not at all. They are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I personally don't support banning them. I do support the ban of page 3 though, if men and women want to look at naked breasts, there are plenty of magazines and online sites available for them to do do. It's outdated, sexist and inappropriate and should be consigned to history. Why? They are just breasts, they are normal and nothing to be embarrassed about, if someone wants to pose topless for a news paper and someone else wants to buy that news paper, then why should it bother anyone, it’s not like anyone is forced to buy the paper. It’s not even a problem if women want to go topless on the beach; I walk round topless, so why shouldn’t a women be able to walk round topless. If people find the images on the front cover of some of these mags offensive they must be offended every time they go out of the house in summer, both male and females tend to wear very little when it warm. Its a step closer to all women having to wear this when they go out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Why? They are just breasts, they are normal and nothing to be embarrassed about, if someone wants to pose topless for a news paper and someone else wants to buy that news paper, then why should it bother anyone, it’s not like anyone is forced to buy the paper. It’s not even a problem if women want to go topless on the beach; I walk round topless, so why shouldn’t a women be able to walk round topless. If people find the images on the front cover of some of these mags offensive they must be offended every time they go out of the house in summer, both male and females tend to wear very little when it warm. Its a step closer to all women having to wear this when they go out. In a word: context. ---------- Post added 27-05-2013 at 18:55 ---------- Of course I am bringing up 2 types of magazines. Have you actually read the thread? I am trying to show a perfect example of the hypocracy is these Feminists argument and campaign. If it is wrong to sexualise women in such a way as portrayed in "Lads Mags" then the same rule should apply to men being sexualised in "Womens Mags" Its a perfectly obvious point referenced with the two photograph examples I have provided earlier. One is seemed acceptable to be sold in shops and supermarkets and the other is not. Why? Both types are doing the same thing - Showing a boy or girl in skimpy clothing, most likley on a beach or poolside. Are you really saying you do not see the hypocracy here. If the argument covered both sexes I would not have a problem. What I object to is the one sided argument which nobody (particularly the media) seems to be questionning. They are either all to be removed from the shops or not at all. They are the same thing. Jessica23 has already addressed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 In a word: context. So it’s not the image you find offensive, it’s your opinion on what that image portrays that you find offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 So it’s not the image you find offensive, it’s your opinion on what that image portrays that you find offensive. As I said, it's about context. Slap bang in the middle of a newspaper is not the place, nor is it for advertising unless one is advertising nipple cream, breastfeeding or bras. You don't even see a nipple in breastfeeding promotion pictures but it's somehow OK to feature bare breasts in a daily paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza58 Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 The feminist campaigner on Sky News earlier was beautiful for a woman with short hair. Shame she wants to ban lads mags though. Theres plenty of stunning woman with short hair,halle berry for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Theres plenty of stunning woman with short hair,halle berry for one. Cop at look at some of these, absolute belters https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=beautiful+women+with+short+hair&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zqGjUezUHceyhAe13YH4Bg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=911&bih=443 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanG Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Ban them for all I care, will they be also be banning the stupid airhead womens mags such as heat or whatever they are called ? the ones with leading titles like ''My staffy made me have 7 orgasms in 1 night so I divorced my husband and married the dog'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.