Lose the lads mags

Me 2

 

Don't see how feminism = misandry. Aye there are feminists who do hate men but the majority don't.

'Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism' (bell hooks). I reckon that is quite an admirable goal.

Lads mags are for * idiots anyway. Same as the whole 'lad bible' stuff - spend 5 minutes on that facebook page and you can easily spot misogynistic bawbags. 'Wench', 'back to the kitchen', rape jokes, images which demean women generally, etc.

Feminism is actually a really interesting subject when you get in to it. The misconceptions about what it is, i.e. lesbians who look like chewbacca and want to castrate men, is pretty much false. There has been some great analysis from feminists on the cultural effects of a male-dominated society on both sexes. Feminism isn't about putting women above men.

 

If it was about equality would it no be called equalinism?

 

But you get ones who think all men are pigs that hog the spotlight shouting their pish. Takes attention away from everyone else as that's the people who get focused on.

 

Aye you do, that's just part and parcel of any movement. Doesn't mean it's fair to label all feminists as nutcases though!

 

It's about recognising that women have historically been at the * end of the equality scale. Many still are to different degrees.

Read the introduction of this book bud, it paints out the main themes of feminism.

http://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf

 

I know but they get more attention. It's like mental Christians giving the rest of us a bad name or crazy Muslims making people think they are all terrorists when in fact most are not like that at all. We tend to focus on the crazy elements of large groups, it's more interesting.

 

Very true unfortunately! It means we have to dig a little deeper to get a real understanding which can be a hassle as many people don't bother to and are quite happy to perpetuate the same *.

 

What a load of *. It's funny how it's discriminatory when it's women that are naked/half naked in the magazines but they don't mention a thing about any magazines that have men naked/half naked that get shown in female magazines

Half naked women displayed in Lads Mags (or anywhere else for that matter) = sexist, perverted and discriminatory.

Half naked men displayed in women's magazines (or anywhere else for that matter) = normal voyeuristic female fun.

I guess hypocrisy just isn't in these feminist's vocabulary.

 

Totally agree.

 

Not really the same as men aren't labelled in a derogatory fashion in the same way women often are. the issues go deeper than pictures in a magazine anyway, they are only simple indicators of how gender relations and power are weighted in favour of males.

http://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf

Give the introduction a wee read if you've the time. It might help you get the gist of what feminism actually is before jumping to conclusions about what you think it is.

 

So because men haven't been subjected in a derogatory way as much as women in the past its not the same thing? Rubbish. That's like saying a white person can't be a victim of racism. It's hypocritical for these types of feminist groups to actively pursue things like this in such a way while accepting that the opposite is ok and they obviously accept the opposite because they don't speak out about them.

The issues that these specific groups have, go way beyond just "women's rights" and if they are so big on women's rights then why don't they respect these individual women's rights to do the things that they want, which may well include them modelling for raunchy pics? Who the * are groups UK Feminista and Object to say what other women can or can't do? They preach about equality for women yet want to stop or control what a lot of women want/like to do.

I understand what feminism is SUPPOSED to be about and for the main part of it I agree i.e. equality of life and equality in the work place, but feminist groups like UK Feminista and Object take it too far and when they start spouting * about trying to ban images of naked/half naked women then they just make themselves look stupid.

 

Can't they just be moved to the top shelves like the * mags?

I wonder who in this day and age still buys these boring magazines anyway? I'll assume that their readers have internet access so you can get pics of all the hot girls you want there. Sections about English football are boring and if I want to read about my dream cars like the: 2013 Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo I'll go to Supercars.net. 1120 Bhp, 0-60 in 2.7 seconds which is pretty crazy for a big heavy American motor, not as fast as the Veyron but a lot cheaper. Here's a wee pic:




Hope this is in GT6

 

No its not. Its recognising that there is a difference. Racism against whites has no institutional underpinning unlike racism against non-whites. It's highly unlikely you'd be knocked back for a job because of your skin colour (assuming you're white), for example. Prejudice without power is still prejudice, I'm not denying that, but I don't consider to have the same impact as prejudice WITH power. The same stands for the feminist viewpoint.

Does not speaking out about something mean you consent to it? Of course it doesn't. I don't specifically speak out about the discrimination against disabled people in the workplace because it doesn't directly affect me. Does it mean I think its right? No. I focus on other issues which do affect me or which I'm more specifically interested in. Doesn't mean I don't care or condone anything I don't focus on.

UK feminista and Object don't tell women what to do. They only highlight how the commodification of women as sexual objects is a significant problem and how it can contribute to how women are viewed in society, I.e. *, skanks, etc. Many feminists disagree with their stance on how to solve this problem, where they call for the banning of scud books and all that, many other feminists believe the problem runs deeper and that state regulation isn't enough (similar to my own view). These organisations are just one facet of a wider movement. There are feminists who I think are complete nuggets as well, does it mean I disregard it entirely? No. The same way I don't take bigoted or idiotic Celtic fans as representative of Celtic fans as a whole. Just because one aspect can appear ridiculous doesn't mean it all is.

 

It may not have the same impact but an act of racism is still racism no matter the colour of the victim.

I accept that it has been (and probably still can be in a lot of places) hard for minorities and women to earn equal rights, and I'm all for equal rights as I have mentioned, but like I say this is beyond just equal rights. What this group is doing is just plain nit picking rubbish. A woman (who these feminists are trying to help) chooses to be in pictures like the ones in lad's mags, yet these feminists are against that. Why?! It's the woman's right to choose what she wants to do and is that not what these feminists are trying to do - fight for the rights of women? If a woman wants to take her clothes off for a magazine who gives a *? It's her CHOICE.

If a woman wants to fight her way to the top of a business corporation then they are all for that because the woman is "empowering herself", but if a woman wants to be involved in the * industry or be pictured in lad's mags they look down on that and they deem it as "males exploiting women".

Feminist hypocrisy at it's best

In a way they are telling them what to do because they frown on a woman's choice to do anything they don't agree with i.e. being pictured in a men's mag.

What has been happening with women for years in these lad's magazines is now happening with males in women's magazines, chick flicks and probably anything else that is aimed at women, yet that's deemed as ok. When men do it then it's classed as sexism; when women do it it's classed as equality.

Like I have said before I'm all for women's rights and women being equals and I don't have any problems with women fighting for women's rights, but when you get these various feminist groups coming out spouting * about the banning of *, or lad's mags or anything else like that because it's "demeaning to women" then they are just going off on a completely different tangent to what women's rights are really for. A part of women's rights was the right for women to do what they want which I believe includes career choice.

I wonder if they still think it's "exploitation" when the photographer is a female and if the company was run by a woman. Or is it only deemed "exploitation" when males are involved?

 

I dont really understand your race analogy as it is unlikely someone will be knocked back for a job because she is a woman. I just dont see any institutional underpinning of sexism. I think the sexualisation of our society is a real issue and as much as I dont really care too much about it, I can see why people do not like it. But people should tackle the debate from a neutral gender perspective - not from a feminist perspective. Because as others have said, it is just as easy to point to examples of male commodification as it is female. If someone choses to take offence at one side more than another then it weakens their argument in my opinion. Especially when female owned magazines commoditise females to a far greater extent than male magazines.

I have a lot of time for the role of feminism in history and the movement achieved a great deal in the 20th century. But nowadays I think too many of them have turned the ideology into a bit of a joke.

 

Tbh there is valid reasons for women's only gyms.

When a screaming hottie is busting out some squats in the gym she can feel the gang of eyes burning a hole in the back of her

 

Large proportion of males will always be interested in soft\hard *, taking it off the shelves of shops will only drive things underground, far more sinister things available on web, where do we draw the line.

Never heard a retail worker complain about lads mags yet, as a biker often buy RIDE mag (no pun int.) which features Brolly Babes, will this be banned also?


Models, female\male, make a decent living from this industry, will it drive them into the hands of non-regulated publications?

Also, I would be more concerned by airbrushing techniques used by cosmetic\diet industry to sell products to vulnerable females:icon_mrgreen:

 

I hate how women say they want equal rights and that they shouldn't be treated or looked at as sexual objects. Well sorry but that's woman in any western country. Girls are the worst for it, they constantly take pictures of them selves all dolled up, commenting on eachothers pages "aww you look so hot babez. I'm well jell" n * like that. They want treated equally but the culture that men have to provide and pay for dates , open doors, stand up and give a woman a seat if there's none left on the bus. We don't moan about things.

its just some stupit female polition trying to get a name for her self. * stupit. I live in america and they have things regulated so you can't see the * (black cover over the pic) just the name at the top. But you can still open a newspaper in Arizona and see a add for a strip club. But then again its also legal to stand in the middle of an obama speach holding an AR15 and a handgun (actually happened)

Theats what I love about going home though, that's british culture. I don't want to read the sun without seeing my page 3 fix. The youth need to step up and vote in the UK. That's what's happened over here and that's why we have a very liberal president at the moment over here. UK politicions are are all these older people with different views, mostly conservitive. Only reason obama won his 2nd term was because he has the minority in race on his side and also has this new age liberal, gay marrige n things like that. More left handed