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

Down With This Sort Of Thing! From Slut Walks To The Magazine Burqa

Remember the SlutWalks?

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," said Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this - however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

Those words unleashed a wave of angry protests by women and men eager to show that what a person wears does not excuse (or encourage) rape. The responsibility for sexual violence is on the perpetrator and not the victim. These empowering and, from a marketing standpoint, very successful marches certainly got the message across.

The idea that women’s clothing has some bearing on whether they will be raped is a dangerous myth feminists have tried to debunk for decades. Despite all the activism and research, however, the cultural misconception prevails.

So said Jessica Valenti. I very much agree with her. There seemed to be a shift in feminism towards the empowerment of women to be who they wished to be and to dress how they wished to dress. Critical voices (about how dressing in this way was only playing into the hands of men) were in the minority. Freedom was just around the corner (with a lot of work still to go on reducing sexual violence of course but it seemed like a new dawn of actual equality was coming).

Alas. What a difference a couple of years make. Gone is the belief that women should look and dress how they wish without fear.

"the 'lads mags' targeted at young male readers typically feature highly sexualised images of women that blur the lines between pornography and mainstream media. At the same time, they promote an idea of male sexuality as based on power and aggression, depicting women as sex objects and including articles that feature strategies for manipulating women."

Cover up girls. Ok so it doesn't actually imply that. But... Here is what Object has to say about a woman's right to choose to appear in "revealing" clothing (or lack thereof) on camera (rather than in public).

Mainstream media outlets glamorise the ‘porn star’ life. For example even though much research shows that prostitution is overwhelming abusive and exploitative, the media friendly story is still one of the ‘Belle du Jour’ fantasy of a successful and glamorous call girl. Instead of showing the realities of lap dancing, page 3 or prostitution, the media focuses on discussions on women’s choice to participate in the sex industry.  

Actually, the issue of choice is complex. We have to look at all the factors which influence our choices, including the way that the media and popular culture glamorises the sex industry. Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice.

So women, you don't get a choice. You have been brainwashed. You must comply. Surely this applies to the SlutWalkers too? They have been socialised into believing it is okay to dress the way they did but really they need to cover up as they are just doing what men really want?

If a woman is depicted in a sexualised manner in photos and text and this leads to sexism and higher rates of sexual violence (as some have been arguing over Lose the Lad's Mags) then logically women who dress in, and I'm not suggesting I accept this description in anyway, what could also be perceived to be a sexualised manner then this surely only plays into the hands of the patriarchy and leads to an increase in sexism in society at large. Ergo women should not just be covered up and treated in a non-sexualised way in photos and text BUT in meatspace too. 

Of course the argument against this will be that women in magazines are NOT making a positive decision to be depicted the way they are (which obviously denies the self-awareness and individual freedom of the women in those pictures) whereas women on the street are (even though Object have clearly shown above that this may not be the case). 

Meanwhile... Tesco have restricted purchasing Zoo and the like for the over 18s only. Don't worry gays... they've confirmed there are no age limits on Gay Times. See men have the right to dress and behave as they wish. Phew!

Not sexualised in any way. 

Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?

Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow's, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.

Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.

To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.

Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.

Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.

Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.

Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.

Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?

It Is Not Just Gay People Who Need To Be Worried In Russia

Let us be frank. Russia has not just overnight turned into a monstrously evil state. It has been that way for a long time. Though they are understandable, calls to boycott Russian goods and next year's Winter Olympics over LGBT rights abuses can seem somewhat selfish and hollow when you consider what else Russia has been up to.

Press freedom has been severely curtailed for years, perhaps it never stopped after the end of the Soviet Union. Though Reporters Without Borders expressed concern over Russia's own Great Firewall of Cameron, we aren't just talking about some censorship here and there. The list of journalists killed throughout the Russian Federation is absolutely terrifying. The abject failure of Russian authorities to take the problem seriously speaks volumes about their dedication to free speech. (That is without speculating over who may be behind the murders of reporters....). The effect on the rest of the press has been chilling.

In the run up to the Olympics forced evictions and migrant worker abuses have given more than enough food for thought for those contemplating a boycott. And if you think those are "serious" enough, then take a look at how Russia has been conducting it's wars in and around Chechnya (although don't think I'm siding with the other side there, a pox on both their houses).

And these abuses aren't just left in Russia. Just look at what happened to Alexander Litvinenko in London.

Russia has been squeezing her people ever since it emerged from the Soviet Union 20 odd years ago. And that grip is getting tighter and tighter. The abuses of LGBT people by both the Government and civilians are horrendous. But they are just one facet of the evils being committed there by the Government, on behalf of the Government and backed by powerful special interests in both business and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Don't just stand up for the LGBT people of Russia. Spread the word of the crimes against all the Russian people. But I don't think a boycott of vodka and/or the Olympics is quite enough to get the message over to the Russian Government.

August Is Full Of Marriage Equality Fun!

Today, in Minnesota and Rhode Island, marriages began to be performed for same-sex couples. The relief and happiness of the couples involved must be something to behold!

Though recent puritanical campaigns have cooled me somewhat towards the conservative institution of marriage, I am still very happy to see progress towards ever greater liberty. And I'm pretty thrilled on a personal level for all those having their big day today!

And the good times just keep on coming. On August 5th same-sex marriages will begin in Uruguay (fast becoming a bastion of liberty as it moves towards cannabis legalisation). And on August 19th New Zealand will become the next country to allow same-sex marriages.

Hundreds of thousands of gay people will now have the ability to protect their relationship, to ensure hospital visitation rights and the right to make decisions for each other in emergency situations. And they have the ability to confirm their relationships in front of their family, friends and communities in the way they were brought up to believe in.

Now we must look towards some tougher battles in Ireland, Italy, Finland and Luxembourg. And to battles over civil unions in many other countries.

The fight for freedom continues.

Trolls and Suppressive Persons: We're All Scientologists Now

As Dear Constant Readers know, I've an unhealthy obsession with less mainstream religions. Scientology is one which, though not mainstream, a great many people have at least heard of. So some of you may well know what a Suppressive Person (SP) is. For those that don't, here's the Church of Scientology's view:

"the Suppressive Person seeks to upset, continuously undermine, spread bad news about and denigrate betterment activities and groups. Thus the Anti-Social Personality is also against what Scientology is about—helping people become more able and improving conditions in society. As anyone can think of many examples of a Suppressive Person, this concept is not limited to Scientology. However, when such a person is connected to Scientology, for the good of the Church and the individuals in it, such a person is officially labeled a Suppressive Person so that others will know not to associate with them." Source: Scientology page "What does Suppressive Person mean?" 

Tory Christman, an SP but still a wonderful person, has a video of her experiences of getting an "SP Declare".

Basically Scientology use SP Declares to silence opposition, to keep people from interacting with SPs so that they won't hear what they are saying. They do it both to harm the SP and "protect" those still within the Church from hearing any views opposing the Church's own.

Pretty much everyone agrees that this policy is harmful, destructive and authoritarian. What does this have to do with internet trolls?

Wikipedia describes trolls as follows: 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. 

While this sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling also used to describe intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."

Sound familiar? The current campaign against abuse on Twitter brings up some reasonable concerns about those who threaten other users. But it is also beginning to take on the appearance of a witch hunt where those who disagree with some of the aims of the campaign (like a report abuse button when using the block button or a phone call to the police might be more appropriate depending on the issue) are themselves receiving abuse from supporters! And what are those who disagree called? Trolls.

Quiet Riot Girl has had to deal with this sort of a thing for a long time. The use of the word troll has gone from the descriptive to a way of shaming someone into silence. Instead of perhaps listening to what the other person has to say, or feeling the need to be the better person and rise above non-threatening abuse by ignoring it, people attack. Over the last few days I've been left to wonder if anyone on Twitter has ever heard the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right".

If you feel you are "the better person", then I implore you to start acting like one. Rather than abusing positions of relative cultural power to insult the less intelligent, the nasty or the rebel, why not ignore or, heaven forbid, engage them and try to show them the error of their ways?! Because otherwise we'll end up building the same sort of horrendously offensive social apparatus as operated by Scientology which is detrimental to free speech, open debate and basic human decency.

As Tory says in her video: "the top two worst cults in the world are the Moonies and Scientology. Why? Because they cut you off from thinking, they stop you from looking. Right away, early on, you can't be talking to these Suppressive People because they're evil, they're horrible, they're bad".

We can do better than that. 

Pope Francis Reminding His Flock That They Actually Have To Follow The Tenets Of Christianity

The media and Twitter exploded in gushing over some quotes from an in-flight press conference by Pope Francis. Among some gay tweeple you'd think we'd had the Second Coming. But the most interesting thing to me was that we should be surprised at all by what the Pope said.

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge? The catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society." 

Isn't that basically how anybody who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth should act? It is pretty damning that the Catholic Church has moved so far away from those teachings that when the Pope simply reiterates Christian concepts as found in such passages as Matthew 7:1 there is surprise! Surely that is meant to be the Pope's job.

For us atheists there isn't much joy to be had, the Pope is simply restating the same position the Church has held for a while. And he's hardly kind about activism to protect our freedoms (throwing us in with greedy people, politicians and Masons!!).

"The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem."

Move along people, nothing to see here.