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?

YY, I take your point fine - I don't really think there are that many (any?) basic gender differences (as opposed to what I'd see as sex differences), but even if there are, it doesn't mean we have to accept this stuff.

Fine We can only generalise, because individuals are unique. The issue is also gender specific. Men have an 'obsession' with women's bodies, but women do not. Women have an 'obsession' with pleasing men. Girls tend to be taught that they have to be pleasing to others, where as boys tend to be taught that they have to be of value to others.

Jeanie You can object as much as you like, but it will not change the way men think about women and visa versa. It is driven by primal instinct. it just happens that we are now able to vocalise. But it is fundamentally unchanged in human history. You only happen to have a label for it now, and even that appears to have a very non-specific meaning depending on an individuals politics on the subject.

Buffy Not impossible to overcome. Simply that there is no tangible benefit to overcoming an issue that is non-specific, and of interest to only a vocal minority. If it were proven for example that factories and businesses were 20% more profitable when run by women and men who has spent their lives in 'gender stereotype' isolation, the funding to roll out change in society would be immediate and over whelming. but this society is fundamentally capitalist, and without a credible benefit that can be demonstrated to be real, and quantified as so, there is only an interest to change by the political minorities.

Lets face it, 'gossip mags' are the biggest offenders in objectifying and degrading women, short of the now almost obsolete 'top shelf' (although internet pornography is a whole different discussion). Yet women buy them in the millions every week, just to see who is going to slag off whom, and how awful someone's cellulite has become. Why do we do this?

We can't very well attack 'lads mags' without putting our own house in order first. That is plain hypocrisy, and it demonstrated that this is politically motivated and not altruistic as vocal activists would have us believe.

ellie, I'm not objecting out of some misplaced desire to disagree - I actually do think you're wrong, you know? It's not about what I 'like', it's that I think you have no evidence to support your case.

It is driven by primal instinct. ... But it is fundamentally unchanged in human history.

This sort of statement is the real problem here. As I've already demonstrated upthread, research into this purported 'primal instinct' is generally very, very shaky.

We began by discussing whether magazines represent women in a certain way, because men are evolved to like that. Clearly, this cannot be the case, or it would be 'unchanged in human history', and these images aren't even considered universally attractive across the world - let alone across different historic time periods.

There is a prevalent myth that men just want to procreate, and women want to nurture, but the weight of historical evidence shows men who are involved parents (including to children not biologically their own), as well as men and women who do not seem to have any drive to parent (whether to spread genetic material or to nurture), and men and women who remove themselves from a heteronormative context entirely.

How is it "biology" that men like looking at (and profiting from) photos of breasts, and not "biology" that (many) women object to being construed as a pair of tits? It all arises from bodies, brains, genes. There are probably demonstrable biological correlates of all manner of political opinions, personalities, preferences, etc. etc.. Sometimes I think we draw odd and arbitrary distinctions between what's "biological/nature" and what's not (in which case, what the hell is it?). Most human behaviours can be found to have biological correlates (known genetic variants, types of brain activation, etc), and most are also shaped by things which are less directly and easily accounted for in terms of individuals' bodies/brains, which we term "society", and which must also be formed by complex interactions of lots of biological entities.

I think it's shite that girls and women are exposed to so many body images and judgments. It's my biology (brain and body) that thinks that and I also want to shag Damian Lewis, which is also definitely my biology speaking

I don't agree with those women, but I don't deny them the right to think this, nor do I want to sneer at them for it. So you shouldn't also deny men the right to think what they wish also. You cannot hold a double standard in regards to rights as it undermines the very premise of this being 'nasty' and 'oppressive'. We either have the freedom to do as we please, in regard to an issue, or we do not. And we still fail to keep our house in order. Far more 'gossip mags' are sold in Britain than 'lads mags', and newspapers play both sides of the coin.

I'm not objecting out of some misplaced desire to disagree, I didn't say it was 'misplaced'. We all have the right to question the world we live in and try to improve upon it in the ways we see fit.

We began by discussing whether magazines represent women in a certain way, because men are evolved to like that. I think women are represent a certain way (sexually) in men's magazines because it is what they want and it creates wealth for those who participate in their production, sale and distribution. I think women are represented in a certain way (derogatory) in women's magazines because it is what women want and it generated wealth for the same reason. You have to address why men and women WANT to objectify their fellow citizens, and marginalising the issue of women oppressing other women and concentrating on men oppressing women is clearly politically motivated and not representative of the real issues in society as a whole.

A magazine can be closed down by a peoples in an instant (proverbially). If no woman bought Gossip Mag X this week, or next week, or next month, no matter how far they dropped the price, and refused to take 'free' copies that were handed out in desperation, the magazine would cease to exist in a month. That is the power people possess.

But we will not do that, because we WANT those magazines. We NEED those magazines, because objectifying other women (and men) makes us feel good. That is the elephant in the room that we all tiptoe around.

it is the same with men. It makes then feel good.

But ellie, we are addressing why men and women want to objectify each other - that is what the whole debate has been about. I'm trying to explain to you that I don't believe it's an innate and gender-differentiated drive, but a product of socialisation. Nothing you've said has challenged that.

But, I don't think you can claim men and women are different and then claim it's applying a 'double standard' to acknowledge difference?

I don't think men and women are innately different, but men (as a group) do have different levels of privilege, and so I don't think it is a double standard to recognise that.

Sorry, Jeanne. I thought the whole issue at stake was the why 'lads mags' are vilified for 'degrading' women by consent rating of their sexuality and their appeal to men, when women's magazines are not similarly vilified for concentrating on women's inadequacies and what is wrong with their bodies?

We have established that we disagree on the cause and mechanic of the phenomenon, but we agree that it exists. That leaves the question of whether or not is can be removed from society (assuming your supposition is correct) , and how that removal can be achieved.

Putting aside any belief that I may have about human instinct, I would suggest that the ONLY way to successfully remove the phenomenon from society is to remove what creates it in the first place.

Those are money (profit) and the enjoyment both men and women get from objectifying women. As another poster has pointed out, this is a feminist issue, and so, if that is to be the case, one must first get ones own house in order before one can go ranting to the public about these 'nasty' magazines.

IMO, there is a worse message in a story about how celebrities hide their disgusting bodies and how Miss XYZ has really let herself go, than there is in an article talking about the best 20 pairs of tits in Britain and how Miss XYZ pretends to like cars and football and playing on her Playstation.

And it is us (presumably not anyone here, and certainly not me) who are paying money out of our own pockets, to degrade and humiliate other women.

Why?

Because we enjoy it.
It's what we want to buy.

Buffy Well, if the cause is noble and just...
Good luck, but I won't hold my breath. For the sake of my daughter I wish you well, but I'll take a different approach and if we end up in a world where 'objectification' as this thread means it, does not exist, then we're all winners.

Sorry, Jeanne. I thought the whole issue at stake was the why 'lads mags' are vilified for 'degrading' women by consent rating of their sexuality and their appeal to men, when women's magazines are not similarly vilified for concentrating on women's inadequacies and what is wrong with their bodies?

Isn't that the same thing as what I said?

I can't help feeling we are miscommunicating somehow. I know people want to buy this stuff - why do you think that's a surprising thing to say? And I know that, to get rid of it, we'd need to get rid of demand for it. Surely we're on the same page here?

*I think celeb magazines and men's magazines are both flip sides of same coin. One objectifies women in a 'cor look at the tits on that' way, whilst the other demoralizes probably the same woman in a 'oh my god look how fat she's got' way.
*
^^ this. Brilliantly put and not something I had thought of before.

However, I wish people would give informed opinions. I am no particular fan of heat [sic] magazine, but they constantly get the flack for body shaming (perhaps they are being overtaken by the DM now, rightly so) and in fact, if you actually look at or read them (yes, yes, I know you never reaf that rubbish) you'll see that they absolutely do not body shame. They represent people, men and women, of all ethnic backgrounds, and tend towards celebration of all body types. They really do; I understand it's policy. So it's lazy to blame heat for body shaming simply because they are high-profile within the industry, even if you dislike the genre.

I think it happend because we (society) want to to happen. We like it. We enjoy it. It makes us feel good to reduce people to a piece of meat. We put our hands in our pockets and we pay for it.

Maybe not you. Maybe not me. But almost everyone we know and everyone we pass in the street.

If we did not want it to happen, and we were not willing to make it happen, and we were not willing to go to work and then pay our earnings to people who did this for us, it would not be so.

It is this way because we wish it to be so.

Oh, absolutely - that is the basic theory behind patriarchy.

So it is men who are to blame for our actions? It is their fault that we buy magazines telling us how fat CelebX is, how bad. CelebYs cellulite has become, and how to make our bodies 'hot' this summer?

Therein lies the problem. All the ills at the world are because men make us do it. They make us treat other women like meat. They make us tear each other apart. They make us but magazines that objectify other women and they train us the love it.

It's not like there are any other things most women found be reading or doing instead. It's not like none of them have free choice.

I for one recognise the dogma and the rhetoric being fed I into an argument by the feminist cause for what it is. I'll make my own choices in life and not blame men for my actions.

The simple reality is, if women did not by Celebrity Whoring Weekly, that magazine would not exist. But those magazines do exist because we, women, want them to exists. Our husbands, brothers, and fathers do not force us to read this shit.

Oh, bollocks.

It's society.

It's crap for men too. Come on, be realistic.

mens mags say how great the women featured look

gossip mags generally say how bad women look-cellulite, too fat, too thin etc

womens mags tell women that they need to look like some photoshopped, plastic surgeried model and how they can do it

i think the mens mags are the lesser evil

Jeanne I do not disagree. Men are objectified in magazines and the press also. Yes. Maybe in a slightly different way, but it happens. And men buy magazines that objectify their fellow men as well as women. Because they WANT TO. They enjoy it. Human beings do not go and work to earn money and then spend it on things they do not desire.

Buffy There is nothing misogynistic about pointing out the flaws in society. If a man gratuitously displays his wealth, his physique, his dominance, bravado, etc. in the press in exchange for money, is that any different to a woman displaying her shape of her body, the glamorous lifestyle it facilitates, and her philosophy for achieving said success?

Both are whoring their attributes to the press in exchange for money, and both know exactly what type of article they are having created. They do this because we (society as a whole) WANT them to do this for us. We pay them to do this for us. If we did not want this to happen, if we did not pay for it to happen, IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

The motivations may be different, but if as others contend, objectification is the root of a problem in our lives in the UK, it is US, the paying public who want it to be here, and us the paying public who could stop it at a moments notice the minute we choose for it to no longer to exist.

WE, society, will not act, because the masses wish it to be this way. And we back up that desire with money.

Gossip and lads stem from the same place and all contribute to this.
Yes. That same place is our desire to objectify.
Men do this out of desire. Women do this out of spite.
Men pay money to buy magazines that feed their desire for women's bodies.
Women pay money to buy magazines that feed their spite and dislike towards other women.
Our magazines outsell theirs by many multiples. they are cheaper, produced more regularly, and we lap it up.

Why?

Incidentally, I haven't bought a magazine or a newspaper in the last 10 years. Short of flicking through the detritus on a waiting room table, or sitting in the Chinese, I will not pay my money to our media. I wonder how many people on MN tacitly support this? I wonder how many want it to happen? And I wonder how many don't want it to happen, but wouldn't be willing to not have their weekly fix of 'slap-the-celebrity-down' to make themselves feel good.