Lads' mags have 6 weeks to "cover up": your reaction, please!(290 Posts)
You may already have seen/heard the news today that the Co-op has given "lads' mags" six weeks to cover up their front page with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores.
The Co-op says it's responding to concerns by its members, customers and colleagues about images of scantily-clad women on magazine covers.
We're being asked what Mumsnetters think of this move by the Co-op. So we'd love you to let us know: please do post up your views on this thread.
I think it's excellent. You can't stop stocking them unfortunately because people buy the sodding things, but I hate seeing them when out shopping with my 3 year old DS especially as they are often at his eye level. Sometimes they are quite explicit thank goodness he can't read yet!
I don't want him to grow up and think that the women on the covers are the norm and something to aspire to in a girlfriend so the less he sees of this at such a young age the better.
And I don't believe covering them amounts to censorship. Censorship would be if they and any publication like this were banned altogether. Covering them enables those that want to buy this awful stuff to continue to whilst protecting children from growing up seeing images like this and growing up thinking this is something that they must aspire to and/or find attractive.
I think we should cover all magazines that show naked flesh not just lads mags but some women's magazines doing "art" covers and the mens health magazines then it's fair blanket rule and my children are not exposed to this kind of sexualisation
I support the principle just wish our society wasn't so obsessed with using sex to sell
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I think its a good move.
It gets them out of sight of kids - not just toddlers but older kids too - I dont' really want my 14 yr old DD seeing these on a rack.
Despite the huffing of the former editor of Front (and no doubt others) its nothing like censorship. I don't know but I'd guess that these publications can give the content information from the cover on-line somewhere.
I understand the POV that these mags should be entirely banned but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon so this is a pragmatic solution. Hopefully where the Co-op leads, other retailers will follow.
I'm in favour of it. I hate these mags with a passion. In my local shop that mags are all at children's eye level, the shelves are only about four feet high, so its particularly horrible to see them sat there just a few inches from the My Little Pony magazines etc.
It's a very good development. But as soon as you see a shop taking seriously the awfulness of these publications, it makes you realise that covering them up is an odd sort of half-way house. Now we have seen a company recognise that a product is so awful it doesn't want its staff and most of its customers to even glimpse it, it seems more unquestionably bizarre and wrongful to stock the thing at all.
So I think and hope this will lead to a revolution of rising expectations: once its covered, we should step up the pressure and get it gone altogther.
(I think that the Co-op has already "denied me the freedom" to buy battery eggs and other welfare-compromised animal products, as well as some non-fair-trade products, so I don't see any crashingly awful new threat to hiuman freedom involved in denying me the right to buy the humiliation and objectification of women from them.)
Excellent move, well done coop.
The front covers are revolting.
Agree with all the above.
Of course it is a complete no-brainer. Allow them to be sold without inflicting the images on the vast majority of shoppers who would rather not see a thonged backside thrust in their face when popping out for bread and milk.
The fact that our children have been subjected to these images for so long is really shameful but I think the images have become progressively worse over the years and it has crept up on all of us.
Huge cheer for step in the right direction. Now we just need the rest of the retailers to get on board.
This is a fantastic step in the right direction- thank you, Co-op, for listening and not simply blathering on about consumer choice. It's a big deal for a major retailer to finally say that having this kind of imagery everywhere is not acceptable.
Hopefully this will just be the beginning and we'll see women being presented less as sex objects and more as actual human beings.
Actually in our little local Tesco I turn the mags over if the front covers are particularly offensive. Generally it's an aftershave advert on the back, much less revolting.
I think this is brilliant news. Co-op are completely entitled to refuse to sell items that don't match with their corporate ethics. The fact that they're listening to what a large number of people want, and that they're not afraid to put their money where their mouth is makes me much more likely to shop there. (Just have to find out where my local Co-op is!)
And anyway; they're not necessarily refusing to sell these lads' mags; just refusing to sell them if they're displaying images deemed unsuitable for display around children. I'm completely in favour of this compromise. The bonus is that it's challenging the normalisation of treating women like sexual objects. Nothing bad about that!
I think that being behind the opague boards is good enough to be honest. As long as you can't see the front.Both my local Asda and Sainsbury do this, you can only see the title. Next to the covered lads mags in Asda was Attitude magazine with a very buff man lounging back in his skimpy underpants. Really these type of covers should be covered up too.
I've said this on the Femisit boards as well. I think it's a cop out on the Cooperative's front. they still want to financially gain from selling sexually exploitative images of women. All they are doing by putting the covers on is turning a blind eye to their own involvement in the industry.
They should stop stocking them all together.
I think it is great, and hope to see all shops following suit. I will rethink where I but my craft, ar, history and science mags and journals and try to get them from the co-op to support them.
I am really impressed with Co op for making a stand and actually listening to what consumers want.
It's soft porn that has been thrust into mainstream society, and having it close to children's magazines was disgusting.
Well done Co op, lets hope other big chains take note (maybe Tesco can try to reclaim some popularity after the horse meat scandal by taking a stand against these lads mags too!)
Great development - but what about papers like the Sun and the Star.
Just look at the front page of those on most days.
think I should spend more money at the co-op. For those who dont have a co-op nearby maybe consider using www.co-operativetravel.co.uk/ and www.coopelectricalshop.co.uk/?gclid=CJGY1OTD1LgCFXLLtAodQV4AzQ&gclsrc=aw.ds
The electrical shop gives 60 minutes delivery slots too
Now we have seen a company recognise that a product is so awful it doesn't want its staff and most of its customers to even glimpse it
Except they've not done it because they don't think anyone should see it, it's to protect children and those who are offended by the covers. That's not the same thing at all and is a good compromise.
I agree with a lot of the other posters - great move! It saddens me that at least half of the magazine stands are covered in mostly naked women with the odd token half naked man thrown in. Is that all we are interested in now?
I'm certainly not interested in it and I'd much prefer it if my children were not subjected to it in every supermarket and newsagent. If they choose to be interested I'm it at an appropriate age then fine, but I feel it should be a choice, not on display for all to see.
Excellent news! I am really, really pleased about this and shall be continuing to shop at the Co-Op as much as I can.
I've just read the BBC news website article on this and this little gem jumped out at me...
'A former editor of Front magazine, Piers Hernu, said the Co-op's decision was "very dangerous" and amounted to "censorship".
The firm had "caved in" to a "vociferous campaign from some fanatical feminists", showing itself to be "weak-willed and spineless", he argued on BBC Radio 5 live.'
What a twat!
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Join the discussion
Please login first.