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.

I do love this assumption that anyone who is against lads mags being in a child's view are somehow not bothered by other objectification being in a child's view? Because that makes perfect sense. Is it really that odd that we could be against all objectification but still celebrating the small victories?

All of it is hypocritical, chubby, nobody has said it is not

but you present it as some sort of argument ...against what, exactly ?

I'll ask you again...do you want busty lovelies rubbing nipples with your semi-skimmed ? For your granny to have it thrust in her face ? For your kids to increasingly never get away from being bombarded with sexual images ? Answer the question honestly, or don't use straw man arguments. It's lazy, and actually not very "humble" at all.

In all honesty it genuinely doesn't bother me any more than the fact that I don't look like whichever celeb is gracing the cover of Closer this week in a bikini. Not that long ago there were pictures of Jordan & her new hubby on honeymoon on front covers wearing a tiny thong & nothing else with her legs spread eagled (classy). A lot more offensive than some lads mags covers.

Maybe I'll feel differently when my 2 boys are teenagers & buying these magazines but at the moment I'm genuinely too busy trying to hide my sons eyes from the £4 comics in the Coop to worry about this weeks boob bonanza!

Ah, you fall into the "apathetic parent" category then, happy for others to do the campaigning (and take the flak) for your children. Thanks for clarifying that.

Please don't make assumptions as to what kind of parent I am.

I already said I may feel differently when my sons are teenagers & these types of magazines are no doubt going to be in my house.

However at this moment in time, just because I don't have my knickers in a twist over this weeks Zoo magazines busty beauties doesn't make me any less of a parent than you.

I am making my judgement based on your posts here

if you were that "not bothered" about Zoo's busty beauties, you wouldn't be posting in support of their unwarranted presence in all our lives here on this thread

I don't have young girls in the house but I can object to Primark selling padded bras for 7yo's

You sound very limited

So.... if it doesn't bother you, do you actually mind this being done?

The nature of this thread is looking for people's reactions. .

My reaction is that these magazines genuinely don't bother me being on display & won't particularly bother me being covered up either.

My perfectly entitled to opinion.

That 'limited' enough for you??

No, you are not "particularly unbothered"...you put forward a counter argument for why the boobs in Granny's face at the newsagent should stay

Back tracking (and limited )

Dear God I wish I hadn't posted now. .Am just killing time on MN before I have to give my DS his next feed! Knew I should've just played Candy Crush!

Obviously you all feel much stronger about this clearly emotive topic than me so I shall bow out this thread before another bun smacks me in the face!

Night all.

'don't care either way' is perfectly valid response to the co-op, perhaps better if you'd said that in the first place so it was clearer where you were coming from? Good night.

OK, something no one seems to have mentioned so far: what about the proleporn eg Take A Break and Full House? I think it's actually rather more distressing for a child and more complicated to explain when DC spot a magazine cover (which is right at their eye level) with a huge great screaming headline like 'Raped by the uncle I trusted' or 'Daddy left me sleeping by Mummy's murdered body' and quite often interspersed with photos of human bodies and faces cut, scarred, stitched up or bleeding - though some of these pictures are linked to stories about cosmetic surgery or getting gangrene off a dodgy kebab.

Yep, get rid of them too

Do you have something to counter it with ? Don't repeat what you said previously btw, because it was crap.

SGB - yes, they are pretty nasty. I suppose in the drawing of lines as to what should be targeted for covering, the pictures are smaller (MIL used to have them - I can't remember seeing too obviously bad images on the covers) and the headlines require some level of reading and comprehension so won't affect very young children.

Thought not

see i thought i said it all in one post but the strawmen keep coming.

as far as i can tell we'd happily get rid of ALL of it. we'd happily have a responsible media that didn't exploit women, children or anyone. it's not by being happy that lads mags will have to put a cover on that we think all the world's problems are solved or are thereby condoning everything else.

but it is a small step. small steps are the way great journeys are made no? as in they have to start somewhere?

and yes SGB i'd happily see the misery porn that you quite rightly point out has a class element to it (on this point class does have a relevency as those mags and the likes of JK really do have class as the bearded lady in the cage) gone too. i'd personally far rather my son accidentally caught a bit of nonsensical charicatured violence on a film on tv than an episode of JK - one is far easier to explain and process than the other. obviously i aim for neither at 6.

MNHQ asked a very simple question:

"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."

Why is it so difficult for some people to not answer this question but to try and answer questions that weren't posed?

Couldn't possibly be because they have another agenda, surely?

I think this is a good idea and I have much respect for the Co-op for doing it. Although, I'm also a bit that they feel the need to ask Mumsnet in the first place. Surely they could see that these magazine covers might be offensive in the first place?

goes to show you how utterly normalised it is in our culture biwi.

when you think of it it is almost unbelievable that the sun still has a half naked teenager on page 3 every day when it's allegedly a 'newspaper' and is read everywhere - re: on the bus, next to you on the tube, at the breakfast table that your teenage daughter is sat at etc.

i'm reminded of milliband coming on and expecting a biscuit for worrying about no women on the banknotes.... there's a 'while rome burned' cliche in there somewhere.

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 ?

And I am "puzzled" as to why it is only so called lads mags that need to cover up.nits got fuck all to do with quashing argument and certainly doesn't deserve a snidely, sneering response.

"Although, I'm also a bit that they feel the need to ask Mumsnet in the first place. Surely they could see that these magazine covers might be offensive in the first place?"

They know. I'd put money on them only asking MN to drum up publicity.

"And I am "puzzled" as to why it is only so called lads mags that need to cover up"

Many people have said that they'd like to see other magazines with non-child friendly covers covered up, and that this is a first step.