Important Question Of The Week: How Much Cleavage Is Too Much? #losetheladsmags

Some of the things I say below do not actually reflect my opinions. I don't feel I need to point out which bits... 

So as Lose The Lad's Mags campaign makes advances ahead of their 24th August action day it is time to start asking some important questions. These apply regardless of whether we're talking about the "modesty bag" solution favoured by the Co-Op and Tesco or the full on ban on lad's mags proposed by the campaign.

1. How much cleavage is too much? 

As we look to the future and the possibility (though slim given the falling popularity and circulation figures of magazines) that a new magazine may come out that is found by some to be as equally onerous as a "lad's mag", we must consider what criteria we use to decide whether it is acceptable for normal sale or needs to be restricted.

What level of cleavage is acceptable? How much of a leg can be shown? Who is the judge of this criteria? What are their motives? Will we need some sort of new organisation to review magazines before they go on sale to make sure they are within the guidelines? Will the women in the photographs be asked for their opinion? Will these criteria be equally applied to all magazines like Cosmo etc or is it only certain magazines?

2. When does the Lose The Gay Mags campaign begin? 

"As a male I would prefer a more positive image of women in the media, where they are equal to men" #whyisigned #losetheladsmags
— UK Feminista (@UK_Feminista) August 6, 2013

Well they aren't really equal to men unless similarly sexualised images of men, as contained in most editions of Gay Times and Attitude (and especially in their Naked specials), are treated in the same way. Though, in my personal opinion, they also contain some brilliant articles they are heavily sexualised publications (just check out the back of Gay Times) and promote a poor body image to young gay guys (if you think along those lines).

If sexualised images of women cause men to be more likely to physically or sexually abuse women, then surely the same must apply to gay men. Thus such magazines should be controlled as well. Any suggestion otherwise would surely be a form of anti-gay prejudice on a couple of levels:

i) young gay guys aren't in need of protection of the display of sexualised images of men when girls are.
ii) suggests gay men aren't as "dangerous" as straight men which, though in our favour, is a way of saying gay guys aren't "real men"

So don't be homophobes, ban gay mags too!

3. With a focus on such images are we to extend the same requirements we decide in question 1 to all forms of media and beyond?

So if sexualised images of women aren't allowed on magazines, will we extend the requirements to cover or remove such images to newspapers, the internet (a really tough version of the Great Firewall of Cameron?), advertising (just as some Muslim men take to blacktaping over adverts), television (Baywatch!) and beyond?

Will women need to cover up in public? Now that we've established that it is the way that women dress and look that causes sexism, violence and a whole host of other evils (victim blaming of the highest order) surely we need to enforce standards of dress in public? No bikinis, no short skirts. The basic "women are asking for it" sort of stuff, right? Just to be on the safe side.

4. As we've now decided women don't get to do what they wish with their bodies or choose their career freely, what else can't a woman choose? 

Wannabe topless models pleading to save the Lads Mags from extinction cos without them they'll have no future job.A career at Greggs awaits.
— Warren Hall (@MrLasso) August 4, 2013

No modelling, no sex work. If we accept these are things that women shouldn't be able to choose (and I'd hope you feel the same about men) then I wonder what else we might need to restrict for the greater good? Many Christians have, in the last few days, joined the battle on social media to help lose the lad's mags. I'm sure they could think of one or two things that women shouldn't be able to do.

5. What will be the standard for success? 

As with any initiative, we must have a goal. When will we celebrate the defeat of the lad's mags? When we notice a related drop in rapes against women or domestic violence? When women break through the glass ceiling of a business thanks to the evil magazines being removed? We need to know so we can scientifically check the results. Because this campaign isn't about dogma but real, detectable improvements in the quality of women's lives, isn't it?*

*unless said women rely on or wish to be modelling

Men's Rights Activisits: Should I Hate Them?

I'm a man. Brought up by two strong, independent women. I've never really seen women as anything other than equal to men. In fact I find gender politics confusing. Why anyone would expect all women to be the same is beyond me (i.e. expect them to "stay in the kitchen" etc.) but conversely I don't appreciate certain people acting as if all men are sexual perverts and violent monsters. I find this "us vs. them" approach crazy. Some men are bad people. Some women are bad people. When will we just accept this?

And yet the idea that there is some vast chasm of difference between the genders is deeply ingrained into our society. Our advertising plays this up hugely, often casting women only as mothers who have to look after their men who are portrayed as helpless child-like creatures or there's the other side of the coin is that women are overly emotional, confusing people as shown in the advert below:

 

And this Mitchell and Webb piece is amusingly spot on.

 

Or how about how this piece on male stripping which suffers from a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Why do men strip? Why the hell not? Not for them the ominous low-lit venues and sexual vulnerability of female stripping; when it comes to men taking their clothes off, they're the ones in charge.

Because all women who choose to do this are all victims, forced into stripping as they have no option and are completely at the mercy of drunken men? Is that what this piece is trying to say, that no self-respecting woman would do this sort of thing but men knock yourselves out?

But do the boys ever feel exploited? "Definitely not," he insists. "Physically speaking, they're stronger than their audience, which creates a different power dynamic than with female strippers. These guys like showing off and frankly, I don't think they mind being objectified. That's precisely what they enjoy." It's hard to imagine that male stripping, though seemingly far less demeaning than its female counterpart, doesn't involve some kind of Faustian pact. Surely anything that requires you to 'drop trou' for a living must have consequences. What, for example, do the boys do when their looks go?

Less demeaning than female stripping because the male strippers can beat people up? That seems to be the argument here. Men finding women getting naked attractive = disgusting, women finding men getting naked attractive (and being "rowdy") = all in the name of fun. That's the message I'm getting from this article. 


Maybe it's because I'm gay and have little vested interest in this sort of sexual politics but I just don't get it. It's just like the cognitive dissonance in debates over porn. 


I have a major problem with some forms of feminism for just the reasons above, that they seek to paint all men as potential aggressors and all women as potential victims. So sometimes I read stuff from Men's Rights Activists pointing out the excesses of some feminists and I find myself agreeing with them. Some times pieces on blogs like A Voice For Men have a core that I can agree with.


But then the problems start. They do the thing which they accuse some radical feminists of doing, they take things to the extremes. They moan about how awful it is that women aren't back in the home or insult women using slurs. Often the answer to a serious question (such as why there is hardly a groundswell of demands for equality on the front line where men are still mostly expected to risk their lives [thankfully the Senior Service is a little more enlightened than the army]) descends into misogyny of the first order. As someone who wants true equality, it is very uncomfortable reading some of the stuff put out by some MRAs.

Where is the Voice for Sane People blog? I don't want this "us vs. them" debate any more. It serves only to keep society trapped in some backwards abyss. Men and women who believe in equality need to start speaking to each other. Women's rights still have a long way to go and a lot of minds still need to be changed to ensure the safety and well-being of women in this country. But the dismissive way men who ask pertinent, sensible questions are treated by well-meaning women's rights activists cause a great deal of resentment. We need to work together, to fight for true equality for all.

So I think I do hate most MRAs. I hate them just the way I hate most radical feminists, they are divisive and unhelpful. Can we have some sanity please?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Women Good, Men Bad

I consider myself a true fanatic for gender equality. I was listening to a podcast the other day about the Eastern Front of the Second World War and they were yabbering on about how awful it was that the Soviets used women in front line combat duties. It got my blood boiling. They said it as if women should not be made to experience such things, whilst it was perfectly suitable for men to. I believe women should not be banned from any job in which they are able to complete the physical requirements of the tasks that need to be carried out (that's any job, by the way!). Women should be free to do whatever jobs they wish, as should men, as long as the individual is the best candidate for the role. Combat duty, firefighting, nursing or teaching. Whatever. Women are not shrinking violets, not wall flowers for men to get all mushy over and protect. They are equals.

But it pains me, absolutely makes me feel sick, when I have to sit and read an article which denigrates men to sexual deviants
whilst celebrating women's joyful appreciation of the male form.

When you compare an "event" of male strippers, to a seedy female strip club what do you think the results are going to be? What she absolutely ignores are the sort of places women frequent (mainly abroad) which are just as seedy as the men (just check out the trade for male escorts in Thailand with Western women). Her attempts to desexualise women seem more Victorian than honest. Has she not ever met a woman who is actually secure with her sexuality?

She should go to any place where they have a mixed crowd with male and female strippers on (such as The Church, an antipodean club) and there they shall find both men and women truly enjoying themselves, having a laugh and getting generally excited ala a Chippendales event.

This is not to say that those working in the stripping trade are not open to exploitation and abuse. Don't get me wrong. But we must stop making accusations against entire sexes based on little research, and prejudice.

When I've been to strip shows (yes, Dear Constant Reader, I've been to some!) I don't go because I want to sleep with the stripper. I go for a laugh, a good time and a bit of excitement. And I don't go alone!! And when a stripper tries to get me involved I go all shy and refuse. Isn't that what she says makes women so virtuous??

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist