So modesty covers and potentially restricting sales to the over 18s, have been in the press this week, with Tesco seeming to be at the front of this move. But this isn't good enough as Lose the Lads Mags campaign group point out.
A 'modesty cover' to conceal the nudity and breasts/sexual poses doesn't remove or stop this content from being made or existing. By covering the women up it does not really afford them any modesty, as soon as the covers are removed the women have been stripped of their modesty and in my opinion their dignity. Once the modesty cover has been removed the women are degraded to simply being pieces of meat for the stimulation of the buyer. By suggesting modesty covers the supermarkets seem to acknowledge that the content is inappropriate or not respectful. So why not do it properly? Why not ban the sale of these magazines?
I know there is far worse material online, and I know that those in favour of the ISP level porn opt-in will support blocking this, although perhaps without fully understanding or considering the power, restrictions and flaws that such a plan includes. I would like to make it clear I object to porn in all its forms, but I don't think this 'porn filter' as it has been termed will work. I also think the potential for blocking other material is too great a fear to ignore. However, this is not the blog post for such a debate. But, supermarkets need to properly consider their female and younger shoppers. I don't want to visit a supermarket that is selling lads mags, but I have little choice at the moment. I don't want to shop somewhere where crude and degrading images of women are sold, even if they are sealed in a paper/plastic bag. I'm sure parents of young children don't want to have answer awkward or inappropriate questions about the material shown on and in these magazines. Tweets from my followers and others indicate that this is a real problem and concern for many parents when shopping.
I also think that it is unfair on the shop workers to have to stack, handle and scan these items. For some it might cause embarrassment, for others it might distress or frustrate them. A fair question, that has been raised by many, is that is it discrimination against women to stock these sort of magazine? As it depicts women as sex objects. I don't know whether this is an argument that would hold in a court of law, but it is an interesting point.
Finally, the 'over 18' argument. At 18 you are legally an adult, but why as an adult is it suddenly ok to consume images of scantily clad women? At 18 is it suddenly ok to disrespect the opposite sex? No. So being an adult doesn't make it any better at all. It just seems another half-hearted attempt to show that you are bringing in some means of controlling who sees and buys the images. Without actually thinking about the impact of the images, because if you did then the logical step is to ban the magazines altogether. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Lose the Lads Mags is a fantastic campaign. See how you can get involved and make a difference towards creating a more equal and respectful society. Good luck!
So covering them up and making them sold to only over 18s isn't enough you want them banned altogether.
ReplyDelete. At 18 you are legally an adult, but why as an adult is it suddenly ok to consume images of scantily clad women?
What's wrong in your view of looking at pictures of scantily clad women? Where's the harm? It seems this is more about your personal offence towards what other adults might be looking at.
This is prudishness not feminism.
To call it prudishness is simply denigrating the argument about equality, women will not be treated as equals until there is greater respect. There is no need to consume images of naked/scantily clad women. By seeing women as objects it facilitates holding women back and is far too simplistic to reason that women choose to do this so it must be ok.
ReplyDeleteThere are countless well researched studies and books (I have made links to a large number of these projects in earlier posts - for example: The Body Image Project and Object are good starting points) that have discussed in depth the negative impact of glamour modelling on both the women involved as well as on young people and their perception of body image.
Yes, I do want them banned altogether. If you haven't done so I would suggest checking out Lose The Lads Mags for succinctly highlighting the reasons for banning them.
It is also not abut my personal offence as that implies that I am some sort of lone ranger! The campaign for equality and decency is gaining ground, and long may it do so.
Yes it is prudishness. You think women need to be covered up to save their modesty. As if the very image of a non fully clothed woman is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteOh and if you think pictures of scantily clad women should be banned then what about those on the covers of women's glossy magazines?
There is no need to consume images of naked/scantily clad women....Thanks for telling us adults what we should and shouldn't be permitted to look at btw.
Yes women do choose to do it but you seem to want to have their choice taken away. Ah but like all good "feminists" you know what is and isn't good for these women right?
So do you want glamour modelling banned?
My earlier post about advertising makes it clear that I object to sexism when it is directed at either gender. I also don't think you can quite compare women on the covers of Cosmo etc to women in *sexual* poses and their underwear as appears on many Lads Mags.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very simplistic argument being made about telling adults what to do. Everyday we are told what to do, laws, societal expectations etc. This is not about telling adults what to do, it is about equality, about not treating women like pieces of meat. This seems to be a point that is being ignored.
Again, there are some excellent books about this notion of choice and glamour modelling. For example Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs and Banyard's Equality Illusion are good starting points when considering this notion of choice.
I would also have thought it was clear that I want porn, glamour modelling and lads mags banned. It is about respect and equality.
Sorry but the women on the covers of these magazines are scantily clad. Don't you think if men were banned from looking at these pictures in lads mags they might look at them in women's mags?
ReplyDeleteNo it's moral imposition dressed up as feminism and hidden under a cloak of talk of equality and women's rights.
And if you want glamour modelling banned are you prepared to see thousands of women lose their jobs because you don't like what they are doing?
I'm looking at this month's Marie Claire and I really wouldn't say Jessie J was scantily clad. I also think it is a little patronising to assume that men will need to consume images of scantily clad women as you seem to imply.
ReplyDeleteAgain, and I don't intend to repeat this as it doesn't seem to be being acknowledged, wanting equality and respect is not about imposing a moral code. It is, quite simply, about treating people with dignity and respect. Images such as those in and on Lads Mags do not treat women with respect.
Again I will point you at Object because I'm not sure why you continue to comment without acknowledging things like this.
I am fully aware of Object and what they claim to stand for and what they really are.
Delete"think of the people that will lose their jobs" is a flawed argument. Do the jobs in tobacco and arms justify the existence of their respective industries?
ReplyDeleteMy supposition — and I'm in the middle of wading though Google Scholar for evidence to back this up — is that the existence of these magazines (even if not bought) reinforces the idea that women are there for others' pleasure. This culture, consistently reinforced throughout the media, leads to things like the response to this school feminist society.
Do not claim censorship; the right to freedom of speech and expression is not the same as a right to a platform. Were supermarkets and newsagents to refuse to stock such magazines they would still be available, just not so easily accessible.
If objectification and its resultant abuse and degradation weren't so prevalent in our society, I'd be slightly less bothered. However, as projects like Everyday Sexism show, there's a very long way to go. These magazines perpetuate and reinforce the attitudes among men — and indeed women — that women are second-class citizens.
"is that the existence of these magazines (even if not bought) reinforces the idea that women are there for others' pleasure."
DeleteDo you not think human beings are there for each other's pleasure? Perhaps you think people have sex with the lights off and just for means of procreation.
Again, you seem to be keen on boiling an argument down to the most flawed and simplistic of points. To reason that human being 'are there for each other's pleasure' ignores all of the other aspects of humanity, companionship and relationships. Instead you seem to be reducing it simply to sex.
DeleteIsn't all those things pleasure?
DeleteThe *use* of women for sexual gratification or pleasure in the case of Lads Mags is vastly different to the pleasure experienced within a friendship, work relationship or even sexual relationship. Lads Mags do not show respect towards women and in them women are simply pieces of meat for gratification. Respectful pleasure within a relationship relies on equality and rather obviously mutual respect.
DeletePornography and Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape:
DeleteThe findings summarized in Table 4 suggest that the apparent loss of compassion for women as rape victims, occasioned by massive exposure to pornography, generalizes to a loss of compassion for women per se, thus undermining supportive dispositions for women's causes. The effect pattern concerning support for the women's liberation movement closely paralleled that reported for the punitive treatment of rapists. Support is lowest when exposure to pornography is greatest (F(3, 152) = 12.34, p < .05), the effect being of similar strength for men and women (F < 1 for the treatment-gender interaction). Women expressed more support than men overall, however (F(1, 152) = 8.77, p < .05).
It is conceivable that these findings might be considered to be due to experimental demands. Specifically, it could be contended that students who were massively exposed to pornography may have inferred that such materials are harmless, because if they were not, the researchers would not have subjected them to these stimuli. Favorable evaluations of pornography, then, may have resulted from the fact that the researchers legitimized exposure. While this possibility cannot be ruled out, it should be noted that this form of legitimization closely parallels what happens outside the laboratory: pornography is culturally legitimized by the lack of censure. If the students inferred innocuousness from the researchers’ tacit sanction, the so-called man in the street is likely to infer innocuousness from the fact that no one in any position of authority objects to people being liberally exposed to pornography in public movie theaters and elsewhere. The possible laboratory “demand” thus can be considered to simulate the actual process of cultural legitimization.
"These magazines perpetuate and reinforce the attitudes among men — and indeed women — that women are second-class citizens." Absolutely, it is no surprise that women account for only 22% in Parliament when we create a culture of objectification and inequality.
ReplyDeleteI really am struggling with this article. I like where you're going, but I disagree with the means. Basically, I believe that all humans should be able to consume naked images of the opposite sex without issue. The problem is, that we as a society have stigmatised sex work - we assume that women who partake in it are stupid/abused/lack agency. We should be changing attitudes towards porn. We need men to be able to see naked women without presuming they are stupid wh*res. If we all respected sex workers a little more, maybe their objectification wouldn't be such a widespread thing.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your point about stigmatising the women involved and agree, these women deserve respect, absolutely without a doubt. I also agree that we should change attitudes towards porn, however, possibly not in the same vein as you!
DeleteMy concern is for the attitudes and behaviour towards women as a whole, I think the culture that has been created around the consumption of women's bodies is bigger than just the sex industry. I've blogged before about women in politics/power and the impact of sexism on their ability to advance their careers as well as women feeling confident/comfortable in careers that have previously been seen as male dominated. My dislike of Lads Mags and images in that vein are that they encourage the objectification of women as a whole, and not just the ones in the magazines/online. I also think we need to be mindful of the wider impact of this on; young men and women, body image and women in the work place.
Has anyone solicited the opinion of the models portrayed in the images that Lose the Lads Mags are objecting to? If people are going to campaign against the objectification of women, shouldn't we at least check with the women concerned whether they feel objectified? I'm not saying this is the be-all-end-all of the debate, but as a potentially significant factor it seems rather conspicuous by its absence...
ReplyDeleteA perfectly fair point to raise. Ariel Levy's book Female Chauvinist Pigs begins to look at some of the attitudes of young women who are either involved or who consume this sort of material. I appreciate this is only one book but it is a great starting point.
DeleteSorry I just wanted to clarify something. You have expressed a dislike towards pictures of scantily clad and nude women. So do you think pictures of scantily clad and nude women should be banned?
ReplyDeleteAnd if so as I pointed out such images cannot just be found in lads mags. What about pictures of women in bikinis and their underwear in catologues?
And if you think nude pictures of women should be banned are you anti nudity? And what about nude/scantily clad pictures of men?
Nowhere have I argued that I am anti-nudity; the point you are making there is far too simplistic and ignoring the wider issues.
DeleteYou cannot compare the images advertising clothing in catalogues to the images in Lads Mags. The purpose, styling, structure, context and captions differ vastly for a start. The images in catalogues are designed to show customers the fit and design of clothing, and serve a practical purpose. The sexualised poses in Lads Mags serve only the purpose of sexual gratification, and in so doing they normalize the idea of women as sexual objects and the resultant negative attitudes towards women.