Guest blog: Lose the lads' mags - or risk legal action

[JessMumsnet]

Brand new legal advice shows that displaying and selling magazines and papers with Page 3-style front cover images can constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination in the workplace. This means that employees who are exposed to such publications, as well as customers, could take legal action against retailers.

In this guest blog Elizabeth Prochaska, barrister at Matrix Chambers, explains the laws which underpin the latest campaign to rid our shop shelves of lads' mags.

What do you think? Let us have your thoughts on the thread - and if you blog on this issue, don't forget to post your URL. Also, please do share on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

"As you might have seen in the papers this Bank Holiday, campaign groups UK Feminista and Object have launched a new campaign to Lose the Lads' Mags. The campaigners joined forces with a group of lawyers to warn high-street retailers that they risk legal action if they continue to display lads' mags, such as Zoo and Nuts, on their shelves.

As regular Mumsnetters will know, lads' mags have been the target of several high profile campaigns, including Object's Feminist Fridays, Mumsnet's Let Girls be Girls and Shelve It! The Government-commissioned 'Sexualisation of Young People Review' in 2010 found: "a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm. ... Exposure to the sexualised female ideal is linked with lower self-esteem, negative moods and depression in young women and girls."

The evidence shows that lads' mags normalise the objectification of women. As the government review found, they promote attitudes and behaviours that underpin discrimination and violence against women and have a negative impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of women and girls. Extensive research has revealed that viewing media which reduces women to sex objects leads people to become significantly more accepting of gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, interpersonal violence and rape myths.

Following the Mumsnet campaign, some retailers agreed to put lads' mags on the top shelf so that children are less likely to be exposed to the images. But many retailers continue to display lads' mags prominently and employees of the shops are required to handle the material, regardless of where it is stacked. So what can the law do about it? The law respects the right to publish pornographic magazines and the campaigners are not calling for the magazines to be banned. The campaign is focused on the protection against sexual harassment and discrimination found in the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act consolidated all the UK equality laws, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in one piece of legislation. It makes sexual harassment by employers unlawful. It also prohibits providers of services, such as newsagents and supermarkets, from harassing their customers. Sexual harassment is defined in section 26(2) of the Equality Act to mean 'unwanted conduct of a sexual nature'. The person's conduct needs to have the effect of violating another person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. There is no need for the employer or shopkeeper to intend to degrade or humiliate a person and the subjective perception of the person who feels degraded is taken into account when deciding whether or not the conduct constitutes harassment.

There have been successful legal cases brought by female employees who have felt degraded by their male colleagues viewing pornographic images in the workplace regardless of whether or not the men intended to create an offensive environment. UKFeminista and Object have evidence that customers and shop employees are unhappy being involuntarily exposed to the pornographic images on the front covers of lads' mags. The lawyers supporting the campaign argue that shops that require their employees to handle these magazines and display them on their shelves risk creating a degrading environment that may lead to claims under the Equality Act. If a woman does bring a claim, it will be up to the courts to decide whether she was sexually harassed in the circumstances of her case. In the meantime, retailers will be thinking hard about heeding the call to lose the lads' mags.

You can join the campaign here: //www.losetheladsmags.org.uk

[quoteunquote]

Stop, you will ruin one of my favourite secret hobbies, Just buy yourself a big mixed size bag of these, you get about 500, for a few quid.

I always have some in my pocket, they come in handy a for all sorts of things.

I just stick them anywhere suitable, on porn mags/ vile newspapers out in view left where I or my children can see them.

Get told off occasionally(well that the opening they go for, clearly that is an invitation for me to let them know what I think) , funnily enough no one wants the publicity, of taking it any further, especially when I suggest they should.

[libertarianj]

He he - its funny that you assume only men can be misogynist in the same breath of accusing me of being sexist against men

yeah i know but in this context you were referring to men weren't you?

The logic is that they are portrayed as objects, and people who are comfortable enjoying those images, are comfortable looking at objectified portrayals of women. However, if on the other hand they saw the full humanity of the women, they would feel uncomfortable and conflicted about the vouyerism of it, and strange about the intimate knowledge of someone they don't even know, and awkward about seeing a genuine woman acting in an exaggerated clownish sexual caricature for approval and money.
but whether they are portrayed as objects is highly subjective and down to individual interpretations. In this instance YOU are portraying them as objects, I however am portraying them as people who are posing for a photograph and looking attractive.

[SarabiDog]

My OH objects to seeing Taylor Lautner's half-naked pictures slapped all over the front of anything to do with Twilight.

I assume the MN community would be equally as supportive in getting them covered/placed high up/banned?

[lavender8x]

I would suspect many of the mainly female employees don't like these porn mags being there but wouldn't risk losing their minimum wage jobs by complaining to Head Office about it or consulting a lawyer.

[Italiangreyhound]

libertarianj you have said that the women look attractive in these magazines and it seems to suggest you think this is about beauty and looking nice? I am a straight woman but I too can appreciate that women's bodies can be very beautiful. These 'lads' mags are not at all about making women look beautiful, they are about making them look available sexually.

Can I ask if you are a man or a woman? Feel free not to answer.

Just for the sake of argument can I paint a picture of a different world where instead of lads mags, we have women in charge and assume we have lasses' mags! I am not saying that women being 'in charge' would result in this but just imagine it....

A man goes into a newsagent, perhaps with his kids. The magazine racks and promotional material (the TV shows he has been watching and the bill boards he has passed) all show strong, confident women working in 'processional' or 'productive' jobs, with hobbies or interests etc.

In contrast the men in the promotions and in the magazines often look a bit vacuous, and then you spot a whole row of mags with men looking sexually available and actually a bit stupid. They are standing in their boxer shorts or posing pouches. Sometimes clutching their chest or fondling one of their own testicles. Perhaps they are standing next to another man who is holding on to their chest or one of their testicles. You can't actually see the testicle or penis but you know what it is all about. They look a bit dumb and perhaps a bit over worked with bulging muscles.

The man's teenage son sees the pictures and compares his rather puny chest to the photos, his daughter is already thinking 'If this is what men are all about I am not sure I will take them so seriously.' Now imagine that every day, all the time. Does it feel good?

[radioeggs]

"yeah i know but in this context you were referring to men weren't you?" - No I'm not stupid. Misogyny pervades everything, women internalise it (just as men do), and participate in maintaining an unequal status quo, because that's how they get approval from the class with more power and influence (men), like trained pets.

"but whether they are portrayed as objects is highly subjective and down to individual interpretations."

No it isn't. It is quite objective, but some people are too stupid/invested in not seeing it to realise.

"In this instance YOU are portraying them as objects"

No, I haven't portrayed anyone as an object, merely described the objectification in other's portrayals.

"I however am portraying them as people who are posing for a photograph and looking attractive."
You aren't 'portraying' anything either. You are speaking about someone else's portrayal (unless of course you are a 'glamour' photographer yourself bleugh). The fact that you don't see the objectification of the women and think this diminished and vacuous portrayal is showing their personhood in a complete and attractive way, shows that you objectify them, and you hold women as inferior, since you see nothing demeaning in the objectified portrayal.

Italiangreyhound yy to your descriptions.

[libertarianj]

Italiangreyhound whether one finds the women on the covers attractive or sexually available is down to the individual. I believe beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

the reverse reality situation you describe is actually a reality at my local newsagent, who sells a selection of gay hardcore, in clear view on the top shelf. I don't have a problem with it at all. What other men do is up to them. We are all individuals at the end of the day, gender is irrelevant to me in these situations. I would also argue that lads are just as self conscious as girls are when it comes to looks.

[libertarianj]

radioeggs, i think you are still trying to apply this one size fits all mentality to make the objectification argument work, ignoring individuality and still making assumptions on how people should think.

We could probably go around in circles forever on this, and we are never going to agree, so i will call it quits here.

Cheers for the debate, it's been very interesting.

[radioeggs]

libertarianj "whether one finds the women on the covers attractive or sexually available is down to the individual. I believe beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."

Erm... so you think that the 'eye' (or staging & direction) of the photographer has nothing to do with the creation of an image?.. That these images are reportage of women just doing what they normally when they hang out, captured impassively by someone without a particular look on narrative in mind?.... Yes women always hang out, posing with silly facial expressions and just barely covering each-others nipples - doing faux lesbianism... Nothing to do with visually interpreting a male fantasy

"who sells a selection of gay hardcore, in clear view on the top shelf. I don't have a problem with it at all."
Why should you have a problem with this? No one is saying that gay hardcore should offend you. Yes, it is a man's world and gay men still have some freedom to dictate and dominate public spaces in the way straight men do.
"What other men do is up to them."
Clearly, to you, this includes when it encroaches on women's freedom to do what they want without being harassed. It would be nice if you were as interested in women being able to do what is up to them, not just men.
Oh but of course you say " gender is irrelevant to me in these situations." Oh the joys of seeing gender as an irrelevance - it would be nice if gender could be irrelevant for women, but unfortunately male dominance keeps making in an issue.

" I would also argue that lads are just as self conscious as girls are when it comes to looks" If you did, a quick look at the evidence would demolish that wrong line of thinking. Anorexia and plastic surgery stats perhaps?

"think you are still trying to apply this one size fits all mentality to make the objectification argument work"
No I'm not, I'm including the photographer/industry/culture in the event where an individual looks at a photograph of a model that has being envisioned and directed by a photographer to meet the demands of an editor.
"ignoring individuality and still making assumptions on how people should think." I'm not ignoring individuality - just not letting you use it as blanket response to hide the pattern.

"We could probably go around in circles forever on this, and we are never going to agree," Yes you are heavily invested in inequality and have made the decision to be impervious to logic and evidence.

[lose24lb]

In the rest of Europe it's common for such magazines to have bare boobs complete with uncensored nipples on the front cover.

The difference is they aren't as prudish and don't complain as much as UK feminists do.

That's what UK feminism is about- being prudish.

[quoteunquote]

That's what UK feminism is about- being prudish

Please don't speak for other people, if that what you get from the message, you need to listen harder.

[Italiangreyhound]

libertarianj I firmly disagree that with your thought 'gender is irrelevant'. It would be nice but it is not true to say at the moment that 'gender is irrelevant'. I don't believe the gay hardcore magazines reflect a commonly held belief that men are sexual objects. I do not believe that lads are as self concious about there looks as girls. But if you have some studies to prove it, please do link to them. I would agree that men are becoming more concerned about their looks and maybe, just maybe for some of us women as we age we do become less concerned as we confident in ourselves. But just look at who needs to wear make up, colour their hair, hold back or push up part of their bodies. It's not usually men!

lose24lb Are you arguing for the magazines with nipples on? Or just saying we haven't got it because we are prudish? I do not think feminism is anything to do with being prudish.

[Italiangreyhound]

But just look at who needs - sorry I meant But just look at who feels the need

[Italiangreyhound]

Is this the old Madona/whore thing? You've gotta be one or the other if you are a woman??

[Louise1956]

very mean spirited. As long as women are willing to pose for these sort of pictures, men should not be prevented from looking at them. People eho don't like those kind of magazines are not obliged to buy them.

[Darkesteyes]

Glad you feel like that Louise. Google Scarlet and Filament magazines when you have a min

[GoldieMumbles]

I do rather feel that while there are women and children being slaughtered in Syria and children dying of neglect and malnutrition in the UK, there are bigger fish to fry. From the results of that Guardian poll mentioned earlier (67% not wanting lads mags banned), those readers also perhaps have this different sense of perspective.

[Darkesteyes]

Goldie i object to what is happening in this country and i will often be found arguing against those things on these very boards and elsewhere.
However what i DONT do is use those things as an emotionally blackmailing silencing tactic to shut down debate on other subjects.
e.g. its a bit like saying that a woman who is being emotionally abused by her husband should put up with it and think herself lucky because the woman further down the street is being physically abused.So

[GoldieMumbles]

Darkest that's quite an assumption you make about my intention and the statement I made, isn't it?

I believe, and I think you will find that quite a proportion of the general public will believe, that there are more important things to worry about than this right now.

It is also potentially quite an interesting legal precedent to set. As a Jewish woman, could I, for example, object to the selling of pork in supermarkets due to my religious objections? What about an Islamic objection to the sale of alcohol? Or a Hindu objection to the sale of beef products?

I quite agree that I do not want lads mags in the eyeline of my DC when I am shopping and I did object to having them sited next to comics. But on the visits I have made to the UK recently, I have noticed that they are now sited high up and ususally behind some sort of cover.

I find it hard to get wound up about that, frankly. But then I've lived the last 15 years of my life in a country where boobs are no big thing, so maybe I've adapted to not giving a flying fig. I wonder how much of it is to do with the Anglo-Saxon attitude towards nudity?

[GoldieMumbles]

"e.g. its a bit like saying that a woman who is being emotionally abused by her husband should put up with it and think herself lucky because the woman further down the street is being physically abused"

Actually, it's not.

It's a bit like saying that the woman who is offended by the front cover of a magazine should count herself lucky that she's not the woman down the street who has been murdered alongside her children.

It's the sense of proportion I'm getting at.

[Darkesteyes]

BLOODY HELL So women should count themselves lucky that they and their children are not being murdered by their spouse.
Because as women thats really the least we can expect????!!!!


WOW just WOW.

Point proven.

[garlicgrump]

Goldie, you seem to be saying that atrocities committed elsewhere are so momentous that concern about them should override concern about women's bodies being commodified for retail consumption.

You know the human mind doesn't work like that. You pretend that our concerns can - and should - be distributed according to the scale of immediate harm involved, meaning we mustn't be concerned about respect for women while people are dying in wars. It's a pretence designed to diminish or silence the concern you find uncomfortable.

Luckily, it doesn't work.

[GoldieMumbles]

"BLOODY HELL So women should count themselves lucky that they and their children are not being murdered by their spouse.
Because as women thats really the least we can expect????!!!!

WOW just WOW.

Point proven."

Are you being deliberately obtuse?Please tell me exactly where I say it's ok for children to be murdered? I'm saying quite the bloody opposite, for Christ's sake! OK, let me write it down in words of one syllable.

What is more important to more people:

a) women and children being killed on purpose or dying through neglect?

b) taking offense at the cover of a magazine?

There, does that explain in very clear terms what I'm asking? Or would you like me to break it down into something even more simple for you? I don't really see how I can but I'm sure you'll find a way to deliberately misinterpret what I'm asking.

Oh, and by the way, the little four year old who died of neglect - MOTHER and FATHER complicit. Rare, admittedly, but it's not all about what "we women can expect" (to paraphrase you).

This is what the public seem to ask themselves - including me - and when I do this I get what's called "a sense of proportion". Whether you like it or not, people do think like that. On the day that all of this was rolled out, the BBC Breakfast peeps ran a series of on the spot interviews with people in the street. One of them said they objected. Theother 4 or 5 said they weren't that bothered, including one woman who said thatthere are far more important things in the world to worry about. It was that comment that got me thinking and I found I agreed with her. It goes a long way to explaining the 67% in the Guardian who didn't give a fig.

[FasterStronger]

"a sense of proportion" yes women are treated as second class citizens in many different ways.

that's 50% of the world assigned a second class status at birth - whether it is in a country like the UK, were women earn less, or Afghanistan where they are obviously second class.

I think the only response to all the different types of discrimination is outrage. it is false to divide issues up as 'important' issues facing women and 'unimportant' issues.

I don't want only the important ones to change. I want equality.