This is denying the privilege of men with the statement that they are equal, while using gender essentialism (‘just different’) to justify what inequalities do exist.
It’s just desensitising ourselves to the concept of ownership. Men are not exploited on magazine covers in anywhere near the same way, because we are entitled to women’s bodies. We are entitled to be able to see them and buy them in a way that we aren’t for men.
For international viewers:
These are the sorts of magazines we are discussing. Generally termed ‘lad’s mags’ in the UK, these are soft pornography magazines which seem to drop in casual misogyny as a side salad.
Restricting this material is not a matter of repressing sexuality. The USA has the added problem of abstinence education (which is hopefully being dismantled by Obama). Comprehensive sex education is far more important than availability of pornographic materials, in my view.
These magazines, in my experience, do not assist sexuality. They show one heteronormative, male chauvinist attitude to women’s bodies that does not allow any diversity of sexual expression.
But yes, a very interesting debate indeed.
- Me: (Talking about Austin Powers) I like the guy who gets gangrene
- Sibz: I was gonna say Heather Graham and Beyonce
- Emma: And Seth Green
- Sibz: Yeah Seth Green!
- Me: You're talking about the attractive women in it and I'm talking about the man who broke his legs. This shows the difference between us.
- Sibz: Yes it does.
- Me: Now you can never doubt why I came to the conclusion I did.
It’s absolutely worth writing a letter of complaint, though the objectification culture has already become commonplace and is unlikely to go away because the minority who object have registered their disgust. Actual publishers, of course, won’t change their habits unless change is profitable.
One method might be to write to your local MP. The problem with parliament is that the majority is male, and the publications themselves hold a lot of sway.
To quote this great extract by Clare Short, who raised the issue of Page 3 in parliament way back in 1986:
It is hard not to conclude that The Sun sets out to frighten anyone who might dare to agree that such pictures should be removed from newspapers. It was suggested to me after The Sun’s 2003 campaign by a Westminster journalist of long experience that The Sun’s attacks should be seen as an issue of privilege; an attempt to bully and intimidate an MP to prevent them from raising issues in the House. The Clerk of the House, whom I consulted, agreed there was an issue to raise; however, the Speaker did not agree and I did not take it further.
The intimidation she experienced included “busloads of Page 3 girls parked outside my house all day in the hope of setting up embarrassing photos, and mock-up pictures of me as a very fat Page 3 girl.”
The fight against these publications is a valiant one, but it’s an uphill struggle.
But, as I say, the only way to stop them is through legislation. The publishers won’t become moral unless it helps sales. I wouldn’t mind Nuts, ZOO and FHM to be out of sight behind the counter, so that they aren’t in sight of the general public.
Ideally, they wouldn’t exist. They’re chock full of reductive sexist bullshit. But that’s a long way off now, and one of the challenges feminism faces.
I can’t give many tips as I haven’t written to my MP (he’s a pompous land-owning Tory), but try to include facts about just how prevalent these publications are. Statistics always give an argument weight and relevance. Especially results from surveys (parents of small children object etc) would be ideal.
It might be everything they’ve heard before, but one day they’ll hear us out :)
I’ve got some corkers.
“I understand anorexia: i’m having a ‘fat’ day”
“I know what it’s like to have depression: everybody hurts sometimes”
“I totally get what bipolar is like: i get *really* moody on my period”
“People with eating disorders are just selfish: what about those starving children in Africa?”
”I totally get how hard it is to be disabled: i broke my toe last year”
“Anorexics are just attention-seekers: all women are uphappy with their looks”
“Gender dysmorphia is just like thinking you’re fat when you’re not. We recognise that anorexics are ill and we force feed them. Why should gender be any different?”
It’s been one of those days.
There are women who deny privilege from their own marginalized position as well:
“I don’t like feminism: They must want women to rule over men.”
“Men and women are equal: they’re just different.”
“Women aren’t discriminated against: They just choose not to get ahead in business/politics/movies/art/literature/etc”
“Feminists act like victims: women should just stay away from potential rapists/abusive partners”
“I wouldn’t get an abortion: It should be illegal for everyone else”
I think wartime is slightly different, because it’s all about the lesser of all evils.
It’s best to avoid war altogether, one method would have been not bankrupting Germany after WWI and creating the climate for a Nazi party to emerge. Another method would be not supporting the Nazi party generally, the Daily Mail not publishing letters that were basically ‘AIN’T THAT HITLER GREAT?’
I think to get to the point where assassinations are necessary, diplomacy and reconciliation after WWI must have failed.
The answer generally, of course, is the lesser of all evils. If it came down to ‘kill Hitler or let the holocaust happen’ (though things are never so simple), then killing Hitler would obviously be a good idea.
But if we didn’t punish Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, their economy might not have ground to a halt and set the stage for an extremist government with a racial scapegoat for their woes.
Just to chime in, as I understand it, killing Hitler when things were up & running probably wouldn’t have done much. It would have been worthwhile killing him early on, but probably unethical as there was no real knowledge of his intentions…
If he was killed he could have been held up as a martyr as well…
**Trigger warning for discussion of rape***
I show my exasperation at the ignorant misogyny of the Man Woman & Myth channel here in commentary on another video.
“Women seem to love the sound of the word rape” is one example quote from this video of the broad generalisations of ignorance made by this foolish man. He seriously feels victimised, like we men are constantly victimised by being assumed as rapists.
It is a Youtube channel of hot air, much like the Men’s Rights Movement itself. Rape is a massive problem, and men are largely the people that do it. While it is true that we shouldn’t assume men are rapists (we don’t assume this anyway), men still need to stop raping before we can assume absolute safety.
WHAT ABOUT THE MENS?
He needs to STFU about the mens and concentrate on the actual oppressed groups.
It’s not random haha, this is a big issue. My views lie in the simple lack of logic hereunder:
You have killed someone, so to show you that killing is wrong, you will be killed.
The death penalty is legalised murder, in a similar way to war. There is no such thing as a justified killing. If you could murder someone as a legal punishment, murder would be sometimes justified by the public.
It’s moral when the state does it? Bullshit.
There’s also the fact that it does not act as a deterrent (related crimes are no lower where it is legal) and that many people are falsely accused and killed in innocence. Unfortunately, 51% of the British public allegedly support ‘bringing back hanging’. A study known as ‘Looking Deathworthy’ also found that a jury is more likely to issue the death penalty to criminals who have more stereotypically black facial features.
In conclusion, the death penality is illogical, immoral and ineffective.
Therefore, fuck dat shit.
I’d never have no motherfuckin indo to smoke
I gets loced and looney, bitch you can’t do me
Do we like BBD, you hoochie groupie?
I have no love for hoes
That’s somethin I learned in the pound
so how the fuck am I supposed
to pay this hoe, just to lay this hoe
I know the pussy’s mines, I’ma fuck a couple more times
And then I’m through with it, there’s nothing else to do with it
Pass it to the homie, now you hit it
Cause she ain’t nuthin but a bitch to me
And y’all know, that bitches ain’t shit to me” —
Kurupt & Snoop Dogg
One for The Lighthouse!
Something i’ve been noticing lately is the ubiquitous use of ‘anorexic’ in place of small/skinny/thin. Or in place of fussy/not hungry. As in “oh, you’re not finishing that curry? you’re so anorexic”; “look at this poor anorexic christmas tree”; “i saw this girl on the street and she was soooo anorexic”.
NEWSFLASH: it’s not on.
Yes, anorexia does in general refer to loss of appetite, but that usage rarely extends beyond medical jargon; anorexia is much more commonly used—and has thus migrated into common parlance—to refer to anorexia nervosa.
You know, the most fatal mental illness? The one with a death rate of 10-20%?
* * *
Something appeared on my facebook earlier. Someone in one of my classes had written
“what’s with adverts featuring anorexic chrimbo trees? Frankly, if your tree doesn’t take over your living room then there’s no point in its existence”.
Obviously not on. So i called her out on it, very politely, saying “you could have just said skinny, though”. I suppose it was too much to expect her to say “yeah, you’re right. I fucked up. My bad”…
What i got in response to that comment was another of this woman’s friends saying
“Yes [blank] you should have said skinny as some people have an anorexic sense of humour……no offence to skinny people.”
What the fuck is wrong with people? I so don’t need this.
‘Anorexic sense of humour’, what bullshit
Let me know what you think of them :)
The picture books are great, though I’ve left them at home while I’m at uni and you’re making me miss them haha. I cut a photo out of one of them which was like a black and white version of this picture, and that’s been on my wall for some time now :D
“I haven’t seen many films/interviews/photos”
WATCH HELP HERE, all of the other parts are uploaded by ‘Wolfwork’ the same. That one’s good quality but has Spanish subtitles. They’re funny though in my opinion, “Cuando era más joven, mucho más joven que hoy!”
WATCH MMT HERE, all of the other parts are uploaded by ‘Gx5ar’ the same. MMT is amazing and that’s all there is to it.
WATCH LET IT BE HERE, all of the other parts are uploaded by ‘Rockchick2112’ the same. This is a documentary of the Abbey Road/Let it Be sessions. Some quality versions of classic tracks there, such as the legendary rooftop performance.
Watch out for when Macca sings opera in it, best thing ever.
Interviews are all over the internet of course.
And I follow about ten Tumblrs for Beatles photos hahaha :)
I have ‘All You Need is Love’ by Tony Palmer, one of the Beatles biographers. It’s on popular music as a general concept though. It’s massive, but I’d still like to get round to reading it. I have two huge books of Beatles history and unreleased archive photos.
My mate has a book with every single Beatles song explained which sounds cool. I’m not sure if it would be healthy for me to read about them, I’m already consumed by the music / films / image / message / members / history / philosophy / other projects / lives of the Beatles.
I don’t even know what would happen if I read about them as well :D
Thanks for the recommendation :)