To think Lad Mags aren't the real problem

[Mengog]

Over the last couple of years feminist groups and others have really doubled down on the campaigns against Lads Mags and Page 3.

Yet time and again I'm more shocked at the gossip Mags. This was sparked off by a headline about Cheryl Cole, calling her "a bag of bones" on Heat or something similar.

Not too long ago the front of FHM featured Kelly Brook on the cover with the headline 'Beautiful'. This was next to a gossip mag calling her "Fat".

AIBU to think the wrong magazines have been targeted?

Of course YABU. Are you saying "Lad's Mags" are innocent??

Try the Daily Hate - and all those celeb pics on the website with their judgypants headlines.

They are both a problem which is why both types are banned in my house. And don't get me started on the misery porn type magazines.

It's not an "either" "or" situation, is it? They're both a problem as they objectify women. The nineties were getting fairly cool until lads mags turned up and spoilt the party, it,s gone backwards since then.

YABU. They are both awful just in different ways.

'lads mags' - are you visiting from the 1990's?

anyway yabu - it's possible that all of those things are an issue - not one OR the other

Yup and at the same time feminist groups have also identified body shaming and objectification of women in other media. The Vagenda had a whole section a few years ago where they chnged all the headlines in magazines from "selb looks rough without make up after being dumped by hot boyband mamber" to "sucessful singer leaves other sucessful singer and goes to the shop". I think the "leading human rights lawyer marries actor" (Amal amuddin marries George Clooney) got a fair bit of mainstream coverage.

It's not either or but without a doubt the campaigns against "Lads Mags" (I know it's not the 90's but the campaign was called ditch the lads Mags), are far more publicised, followed and supported than campaigns against gossip mags (if there are any).

Magazines like FHM, Zoo or Nuts arent innocent. Yet the constant abuse about their appearance women get in Heat, Star etc is on another level.

I know these things don't happen in a vacuum but if I was Kelly Brook Brook, Cheryl Cole or a whole host of other famous women, I know which Mags I would prefer.

Neither of them?

I think they are both expressions of the same problem.

The difference is who they're marketed to - and that for me makes a difference in terms of degree of the problem, but not the existence of same.

Yanbu. At least if you appear on page 3 to be objectified it's complimentary, however sexist, rather than body shaming sexism. I'd rather be perved at by people making chauvinist comments than stared at in disgust by people insulting my body, my life and anything else they think of.
There is the degrading aspect, but personally I'd rather be degraded by being ogled and well paid, than be degraded by being forced to work any odd shift they offer on a zero hour contract, be degraded by going to the Jobcentre for ritual humiliation, be degraded by having to claim hb and have landlords assume you'll be a bad tenant, be degraded by people thinking I'm a scrounger while still being boracic lint.
Far more degrading things we inflict on each other than lads mags/ page 3

I agree with pp it isn't an either or scenario, but also can see your point OP, if you looked purely on a circulation basis the movement was going for the low hanging fruit.

in one magazine your paid to be objectified the other you're not paid and slagged off neither is appropriate really but as a general rule i think i would choose to be paid

the point is it is a choice

Is it a choice?
Yes it is, you don't alert the press every time you step out of your house.

They are both as shite as each other.

Good to see a man take such a stand for women's rights. I'd also be interested in a link to the work you're to campaign against all types of objectification of women. Sign me up, I'm right behind you.

I'm not overly concerned either way Buffy. It's more of a question of why, in my opinion, more harmful magazines in terms of the portrayal of women aren't targeted to the same degree.

I think low hanging fruit makes the most sense. The magazines were dying anyway, so giving them a kick on the way down was easy.

Although the Cheryl headline did really annoy me. Just seemed out of order

You don't see this with men. Not really, Not an obsession with appearance and policing other men's appearance.

Unfortunately, it's called living in a patriarchy.

It's always been like this.

But I agree, both are bad. From where I am, I notice the comments against women's mags quite a bit, but I do like that the campaigns about (eg) page 3 have got some real traction.

I don't think it's woman bashing to be aware that these things are written by women - but it lacks analysis, too.

It has, I think, almost always been the case that the most efficient way to get people to police themselves, is to make them do it to themselves, either peer-on-peer or by internalising.

I don't think it's woman bashing.

I do think the fear of been seen to be woman bashing, allows them to get away with it.

Also I don't think men are the best people to start campaigns about magazines read predominantly by woman.

It's like that picture of a man coming into a room and giving his almighty opinion on something that affects women. I've seen it on here a few times.

I think low hanging fruit makes the most sense. The magazines were dying anyway, so giving them a kick on the way down was easy.

Interesting....

So, not only were women in some way wrong for campaigning against lad's mags and Page 3, they also can't take any credit for the campaigns run because they were dying anyway. With a subtle dusting of 'women doing the wrong thing again"

Maybe my first thought that this was a thread in order to raise awareness of a subject close to many feminists hearts was wrong, and it really is more of a woman bash.

Good luck with that.