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.

Suits me. Get rid of the lot of 'em. Does that answer your --loaded- question, Soupy ?

loaded

hey, there is a tit mag called Loaded isn't there.

Yup, I wouldn't care if some of those glossy mags presumably aimed at bourgeois women were bagged too.

ok so we're agreed all magazines except like 'cars!' 'fishing!' 'computers!' etc can go in the bin and no, none of us will be crying into our wine glasses if we don't get to look at scantily clad men on magazine covers whilst popping in the shop for a pint of milk.

all strawmen covered?

Ah yes. The misogyny wimmin's mags that are so low brow these days they border on the neandathal. They can go too.

I like fashion, I like make up, I like my news glossy on occasion... and I even like a naice recipe and a few vacuous features particularly about Araminta Auld-Bobbins types latest Pedlar's find. I do not like looking at emaciated models or long lens pictures of female s'lebs on the beach. I don't want to see wrinkles, stretch marks and cellulite highlighted with a circle. I don't want to be told how to "get the look" of a photoshopped teenager.

GoshAnneGorilla

Trying to paint this as some kind of attack on working class men is a weak and feeble tactic that:

1) Insults, demeans and patronises working class men.

2) Ignores the existence of working class women and their rights not to be demeaned by tedious, misogynistic shite.

I think that the pompous snobbery that surrounds the whole campaign demeans and patronises everyone, but there has long been a fat vein of thought that the working classes need someone clever, preferably working in the meeja in London, to tell them what's best for them.

I hope that the irony of you demeaning and patronising working class women by telling them what they're demeaned and patronised by isn't lost on you.

Does that answer your loaded question, Soupy ?

Eh? What's your point?

Fabulous news, well done the co-op. I hate knowing they are there. My teenage daughter was also only saying a couple of weeks ago how she hates going to choose a magazine in our local store because the 'lads' magazines make her feel so uncomfortable. I will go and tell her the good news!

GoshAnne, don't you realise that working class men need to see tits when they go to the supermarket?

Flatpackhamster has decided its best for them.

Ironically, anyone who was really concerned about class issues would say that the proliferation of these kinds of mags were a way of distracting the working classes from the real inequalities in our society.

But then you're not really a class warrior are you, Flat pack? You just need to see those tits.

Thisisaeuphemism

GoshAnne, don't you realise that working class men need to see tits when they go to the supermarket?

Flatpackhamster has decided its best for them.

No, I'm saying it's not your place, or anyone else's, to decide what's best for someone else.

Ironically, anyone who was really concerned about class issues would say that the proliferation of these kinds of mags were a way of distracting the working classes from the real inequalities in our society.

But then you're not really a class warrior are you, Flat pack? You just need to see those tits.

Classy.

It is my place, actually, to decide what is best for my kids

and for other children, those that may have parents that are apathetic about (or even welcome) the sexualisation of our society

it's not your place, or anyone else's, to decide what's best for someone else.

The only people who we're remotely deciding what's best for are our small children (is that 'pompous snobbery'? I thought it was 'responsible parenting' ). We think it's best they're not exposed to exploitative images of women in supermarkets. That's about it, really. You're trying to make something of this that isn't there.

I really don't get why anyone would defend people's rights to see tits above the rights of children not to be exposed to overtly sexual images.

Even if you don't get the objectification of women argument surely anyone capable of thought can see that making some inadequate person wait until they open the covers to see a bit of soft porn is hardly arduous?

it's the derailers that brought up class snobbery

I am most concerned about my kids, and other kids

and myself, of course

if that is allowed

FPH, do you think that the kids on a shopping trip to Asda, for example, should look out for themselves when bombarded with images and ideas like those being discussed here ?

or would it be better for the grown ups to make some decisions on their behalf ?

it's the derailers that brought up class snobbery
I am most concerned about my kids, and other kids

yes. Maybe what they don't get is that this isn't about men. Novel concept, but I'll credit them with the ability to take it on board (unless they want to prove otherwise). The men can buy what they want. Its about kids.

If this was about women's rights there would have been no pervert covers because the whole lot would have gone, Sport, Sun and all.

We'll start with the kids and work our way up to respect for women. One bigot at a time :)

Grimma you are so right. Some men just can't quite get over the fact that it's not all about them.

So are Closer, Heat, Now magazine etc going to stop putting pics of celebs in their bikinis on the front cover?? Is Heat magazine going to stop 'Torso of the week' . .thought not.

...and ?

You are arguing then, that you want pics of topless "babes" rubbing their nipples together on display where children can see them ?

right ?

I am puzzled. Why do people keep "popping" on this thread to make a completely pointless remark ? Is it meant to quash any argument against the normalisation of sexualised images next to the semi-skimmed or what ?

One step at a time chubby

Because I think it's hypocritical . . Cover up the girls on Loaded, FHM, ZOO etc but on the front cover of Closer magazine here's Josie from BB in her bikini with her 2 stone weight loss & new 36DD boob job. Is it because smiling on the cover of a magazine while wearing a bikini is less offensive than pouting?

And should all men be offended by the sexualisation of Heat mags Torso of the week?

Just my humble opinion. .