Lads' mags have 6 weeks to "cover up": your reaction, please!

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

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.

Good. Nuts & the like aren't just showing naked people, which wouldn't be offensive per se, they're particularly aggressive and obnoxious. It's not the nakedness, or the sex, it's the misogyny that makes them offensive.

They are misogynistic rags. They objectify women and therefore insult ALL women and the women who appear in them are too stupid, vulnerable or fame-hungry to see it.

Why won't the supermarkets just stop selling them? It's hardly going to dent their profits. Let the neanderthals take out a subscription if they're that desperate to see women in their pants sucking on lollipops...or whatever they do.

weasle, you don't need to explain it to your DS. Just never buy The Sun or spend time with people who buy it and would have it lying around.

I totally agree it is gobsmacking that page 3 still exists.

I agree with this move as well and agree with the comprise to keep selling them but in an indistinguishable cover.

I also find a lot of so-called girls mags offensive. The covers are fine but the content is preoccupied with celeb weight issues, and appearances.

Good point zippey, I am expecting a DD shortly and I despair of the celeb weight crap she will doubtless be bombarded with.

Both types of magazine are just so damaging to women and young girls.

Why don't the Co-op stop stocking these mags?

Brilliant decision by co-op.

I have a six month old DS & for a while thought how lucky I was to have had a boy because the idea of having to guide a little girl through the pitfalls of growing up, when surrounded by so many degrading sexualised images of women everywhere was seriously daunting.

However I feel that its also a big responsibility trying to bring up a boy to have a normal, respectful healthy view of women (including the idea that sex is something two people enjoy together, rather than something a woman does to make a man happy). This step by co-op really helps to fight the insidious idea that women are here to be used (to sell stuff, for men's sexual pleasure etc etc) rather than actual humans!

For those talking about the ''minority" having too much sway, anyone who has a vague knowledge of demographics would be aware that women are actually the majority of the population. If you add children to that suddenly the status quo (of all the sexualised pics of wonen on display in public spaces) seems very undemocratic.

Such an important 'step in the right direction' for so many reasons all of which have been discussed by others. Brilliant!

The sexual covers on both mens and women's mags with the totally degrading newspapers disgust me. We buy none of these and I fully support what co op are trying to do. What infuriates me is the sun newspaper as people will read it in public and hold the paper open at page 3 without any consideration for those walking around them.

Excellent news. I don't want my dd growing up thinking its normal to expose most of her body and seek her self worth from men's admiration and gratification.

Unfortunately there are not many young stars aside from Emma Watson that realise classy can be sexy.

Spotty, I don't actually think that the men who regularly ogle pics of women young enough to be their dd actually admire them

It's a lot more sinister than that

My 12 month old will be most disappointed in our co-op trips now. He was shrieking and frantically signing 'milk' in their just the other day.

My breasts do not look like those of the models, but he obviously recognised something there!

Well done Coop. Good compromise and step in the right direction.

Totally agree re the Sport and Page 3 etc as well - surely it is time for Page 3 to go?

Don't even get me started on the Mail Online and its obsession with the ever increasing/shrinking waistlines of so-called celebs...

very quick response from tesco.

I am very sorry to learn you are unhappy that we stock certain magazines and I would like to assure you that we certainly do not intend to cause any offence. At Tesco we are open and listen to feedback and we have recently met representatives from the ‘Lose the Lads’ Mags’ campaign to learn more about their concerns. We are also listening closely to the views of our customers and colleagues. By way of context, when selecting our magazine range, we always keep at the front of our mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any magazines classified by the industry as pornographic, and our range is in line with other major retailers. We ask our colleagues to ensure that the titles Zoo, Nuts and Front are always placed on the back tier of the top shelf, so that the cover is obscured, with only the title visible. We are considering carefully what further steps we could take to address your concerns. We are talking to the publishers of the magazines and have agreed to meet representatives from the ‘Lose the Lads’ Mags’ campaign again in the near future. We will of course keep the campaign updated on progress. We very much appreciate your feedback and thank you once again for taking the time to write to us. Kind regards'

if anyone else fancies writing to them.... http://www.tesco.com/help/contact/ tesco

i'm obviously all for the lads mag cover up - or happily just burning the lot.

what i've found interesting is that wherever i've seen interviews about it and there has been a woman defending the campaign and a man defending lads mags it has been so BLATANTLY.... well, anyone watching could see what kind of man loves these mags and wants to defend their being there uncovered and what that kind of man's attitude to women with brains and opinions is.

the interviews/debates have been painful to watch! i have a great deal of respect for the women who have sat there on tv and gone through them flagrantly being called bigots, nazis, extremists, 'vocal' extreme minorities etc. i've also had to watch how interviewers allowed this and failed to challenge anything and actually fed into it with allowing a serious discussion to being watered down to false comparatives like, 'well should we not have bare male chests then?' or 'would you not wear a bikini on the beach then' etc. sadly even female presenters doing it.

ho hum. long way to go and as ever any minute victory comes with so much abuse and complaint it's untrue but a victory none the less.

it has also been interesting to see women on screen who don't smile coquetishly, self denigrate or demure to the opinion of a man. the fact that they come across as so serious and 'different' highlights for me just how used we are to women performing femininity in a particular style in the public eye.

I wonder if the correct interpretation of the Tesco response is 'we want to stay neutral in public for now, but will have no problem whatsoever if these publications become bagged in "pervert pouches".'

And if one supermarket demands it, and other say they don't mind it, then I suspect all copies will be pouched, as the logistics of two parallel supply lines would be too expensive to sustain. So the publishers know this is the battle which, if last, changes the game everywhere. It'll be a case of who blinks first in the period to the ultimatum.

Tesco's response is as expected - not us gov, we aren't putting any money towards this until we are compelled or have our hand forced.

it's like everything though isn't it - legal, commercial etc. there is the flagship case that everyone awaits the outcome of and all then rests on what happens with that.

fair play to the coop for being the 'one' to do it.

Is there any way to help persuade the other supermarkets to align themselves with the Co-op?

Reading the article in the newspaper, there is reticence on part of some of the supermarkets because the drive is by feminist groups and not the customers - and guidelines are being followed by ensuring that they are suitably displayed (out of reach/eye line of youngsters).

The other side of the debate is that the editors/publishers have toned down and altered the covers.

The drive for changes is always going to come from pressure groups - that doesn't mean that a lot of ordinary customers and staff wouldn't wholeheartedly agree.

The resistance to this change appears to be coming from what could be termed anti-feminist groups, and 'interested' parties (the mags themselves). So that's rather a weak argument.

I'd like to see all these images banned from decent shops whether on the front cover or not. I saw somebody on TV the other day (a woman!) saying people want them so they should be legal. A poor excuse. People want plenty of things that aren't legal. But it's a start I suppose.

Im not sure what tot hink of it,in theory its good,but wont the fact they are in plain covers make them more interesting in a way?If i was a kid and i asked my mum what was in those magazines in the grey bag and she told me rude magazines,it would almost make them seem more appealing!