Tuesday, December 09, 2008

My Wonderful Industry

Two things:

1) I was on BBC Breakfast TV this morning talking about Lad Mags again. They had me on with a guy (Derek) who used to edit Loaded and Maxim (or something like that). We were discussing whether the current voluntary code (which no-one adheres to) of not selling them to children should become a compulsory code. His argument was no because "some people enjoy them".

If there's one thing I hate more than those who argue in favour of porn, it's those who argue in favour of porn with logically meaningless arguments. So I said "some people enjoy child pornography - should we legalise that too?". And then it sort-of kicked off and there was a lot of raised voices and a lot of me interrupting him and making sure I got my point across since his wasn't even a point.

By the time I got home my inbox and text-box were full of messages from people saying "good job" and "well said", etc. Here's a sample one: "I saw you on telly this morning as I was getting ready for work. Your peremptory manner left the slimeball umming and erring. It was great to see.." (thanks Crispin!).

Then I got a facebook message from a guy I don't know. He must have looked me up by my unusual name. Fine. I get lots of people doing that to say they agree or the disagree with me. Cool. But instead he had messaged me to say that he hoped I didn't mind some unsolicited advice and that while he agreed with me he thought I should have been less forthright, and listened more.

As an incident this really shows how deeply entrenched male priveledge is doesn't it? Has he been invited to make repeated appearances on TV? Does he write an award-winning blog? Does he work as a professional public performer? Not that we know of, and yet he felt like he would just send me some advice, as a "favour". And that advice, as it happens, was to sit back and take it while a pornographer defended his sordid industry.

So I declined to respond (if you message people on Facebook they can then access your friends, etc for a month...) and instead reported it as harrassment. Still seething a bit though. Jeremy Clarkson can count himself lucky I didn't run into him today!

2) One thing I didn't get the chance to rant about today is the impact Lad Mags have on my industry (stand-up comedy). All of them publish sexist jokes which have become increasingly acceptible in recent years and as far as I can tell they more or less invented the "women aren't funny" myth.

At one point FHM (I think) ran some comedy awards and in the "Funniest woman" category were Catherine Tate, Jo Brand, Lily Savage*, Dame Edna Everage* and the option to vote for "none of them". As I recall despite the tone of the the piece Catherine Tate managed to win it.

I've actually been introduced to the stage and before I get to the mic heard audience members (guys) go "Uh, oh lads it's a bird, lets go to the bar...". And if some of them are saying that out loud you can bet some more are thinking it and before I've even started it means I have a harder job than the guys on before and after me.

The BBC of course takes a much more fair and gender-neutral view of comedy, as witnessed by these photos taken at the British Comedy Awards.

Photo tally...
Comics: Male 2, Female 0
Comedy actors: Male 4, Female 2
Random totty: Male 0, Female 3

*Footnote for overseas readers. Lily Savage and Dame Edna Everage are male comedians who perform in drag.

(Photo by Matt Farrington Smith)

37 comments:

MrAngryman said...

my god your conceited. Whilst i agree your point may have some validity, your arrogance and general air of superiority does more damage to you then anything anyone else could add. As the unsolicited advice said maybe listening more and arguing less might make you seem less like the typical 'lesbo feminist' stereotype.

btscl said...

In fairness FHM and Maxim aren't exactly pornography; taken from the OED:

"printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement."

Now I don't know about anybody else but I don't immediately get an erection when I see a pair of breasts as I'm sure seeing a topless rugby player in print wouldn't moisten your loins.

The argument about selling the magazine to children is ludicrous. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, one is classed as a child from birth until the day of your 18th birthday; by your logic that would mean that one could legally have sex and marry at the age of 16 but would be banned from seeing breasts in print, how bizarre.

It is also worth noting that boys develop certain urges during puberty due to an enlarged (full of seminal fluid) prostate; is it not better for society and the boys in question that they relieve themselves of these urges by looking at pictures of breasts than to run around trying to stick their penises in everything that moves?

I actually find your comments about the joke pages quite laughable; sexists jokes are just that "jokes", they are not meant to be taken seriously. The fact that you think it is unacceptable to tell sexist jokes makes you closed minded, I wouldn't dream of being offended by a sexist joke told by a woman (nor would any bloke that I know). I find it hilarious how you feel oppressed by men because we may occasionally tell a joke based on the stereotypical traits of women.

If your brand of humour fails to push the boundaries then it is no wonder that people hit the bar when you come on stage; I have yet to find a comedienne (or female comedian if you prefer) with the comic genius of Bill Bailey, feel free to prove me wrong.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Ah, well, you probably don't want to read this then.

PS Your blog is shit as well. I can't imagine who'd be stupid enough to give you an award for it, but how sad do you have to be to regard an award for your blog as some kind of validation.

Rachel said...

Cruella, you really are attracting some dipshits at the moment - what's going on? Could you have said something that the Male Hive Mind can't process?!

(I'll understand if you moderate this next bit, by the way!)

MrAngryman - seriously, learn to spell. And use punctuation. Or, failing that, please say you were joking.
btscl - feminism 101 beckons. Or you could just STFU. It's not like we haven't heard it a million times already.

I think I just won anti-feminist bingo, by the way!

Dungeekin said...

For what it's worth, I'm not sure the act of appearing on a news discussion automatically confers the right to respect for your views. If it did, I'd have to be respectful to our Government.

However, what I take issue with somewhat more is the idea that something should be banned, simply because some people find it disagreeable.

I, for example, find Eastenders disagreeable in tone and content - in fact it frequently disgusts me. However, while I don't like the program it should not be banned simply because it provokes distaste.

While I also disagree with you that magazines such as 'Nuts' and Zoo are pornography (they do aim for a particularly moronic demographic, but that's not the same as being porn), it's the principle of banning something because it offends a minority that is most offensive.

'Womens Interest' magazines are frequently castigated for instilling in young women a skewed sense of body image - perhaps they should be banned as well?

As a feminist, I'm sure you are incensed by religions that place women subordinate to men. Should we ban the Qu'uran?

Perhaps we should just ban EVERYTHING. That way none of us would ever be offended again.

However, the BBC debate was an interesting discussion (if pointless compared to real news events happening around the Globe), and I thank you for having the courage to stand up and make your point, even if I disagree with it.

Regards

D

PS. (Rachel - I hope that this response was sufficiently well-drafted to meet your standards).

Hedgewytch said...

You know sometimes I'm embarrassed to be a woman, and be associated with the likes of you. Get a life, live a little and get down of your superior high horse.

Alice said...

Wow, sounds like Derek sent his friends over.

Dungeekin said...

Alice:

I'm not sure who you mean by Derek. However, perhaps we could dispense with mere 'ad-hominem' comments and instead have a reasonable debate?

Failing to respond to valid questions in relation to the topic merely damages your cause rather than promotes the same.

I've posted my comment above to my Blog, you are very welcome to post your opinions on there should you wish.

Best wishes

D

LizSara said...

Hi there, I've found your blog for the first time today after following links from elsewhere. While I appreciate your 'confuse an idiot' approach to the man you were appearing with on TV I find the subsequent attitude you have on this post both offensive and condescending at the same time.

Before I address the points you raise (1 and 2) I just want to expand on the above slightly. I understand you have an opinion about the subject you were invited to appear on TV to discuss. That's good, everyone should have their own standpoint. The problems arise when you are so close-minded that you refuse to listen to someone else's views because you are convinced that you are right. If we all thought that way, no-one would learn anything about the world, about other people and ultimately about themselves. Likening Lad's Mag's to child pornography shows that you have neither the maturity or the prescence on mind to deal with an adult conversation as it arises.

Now on to the other points you raised:

For a start, if you don't want unsolicited Facebook comments, then don't have a profile that allows them. That's what privacy settings are for surely? I'm not sure what reporting it as harassment will do on facebook, not a lot for your reputation is pretty much a given out here in real life. You should be thankful you've never actually been harassed, I can tell you haven't because you would know that wasn't anything approaching it if you had been.

Lad's Mags are, rightly or wrongly, the last bastion of the 'bloke' mentality. They're written by men, for men and what's wrong with that? There's just as much sexism in womens magazines, but clearly you don't care about that because it doesn't fit with your seemingly narrow minded view that all male-centric publications are wrong and should be banned. I'd be much happier seeing aa sexist joke printed than a woman with her ribcage visible telling me that I had to be her to be respected by my friends.

Finally, you're a female comedian, you must understand that ther will always be people who don't appreciate your humour while others do. Take that and apply it to sexist jokes and you might just begin to see what the rest of the world does.

Rachel said...

Dungeekin -
your response, although carefully spelt, was suffering from issues caused by misinterpretation! However, I thank you for remaining respectful, and will do my best to do the same.

If you re-read Cruella's original article, you will find no reference to banning "Lads' mags" entirely. That comes from the second delightful commenter.

This renders the first part of your comment meaningless, since it does not address the issues raised by Cruella.

That is to say, "whether the current voluntary code (which no-one adheres to) of not selling [lads' mags] to children should become a compulsory code".

Which begs the questions, should we allow children to choose for themselves whether to buy those magazines, or should we keep them out of reach? Is the content of those magazines acceptable for children to see?

I personally believe that - regardless of whether you call those magazines "porn" or not - the content is not acceptable for even those in their mid-teens (say, fourteen and fifteen year-olds). And given that viewpoint, I do believe that those magazines should be kept away from children.

I would also point to the TV watershed - designed because our society recognises that there is a level of content not appropriate for children to see. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the standards imposed on one area of the media could also be adapted for use in other areas.

As to your other points - leaving aside the "banning" issue, which I believe I have dealt with already:

"Womens' interest" magazines do indeed instill a skewed sense of body image into many of the women (and not only the young ones) that read them. It is for this reason that I no longer read them, but I respect the choice of another woman to do so. I do hope to live in a society that fosters more positive female self-image, however. Incidentally, these self-image issues begin for girls long before they begin to read "womens' interest" magazines; pick up any magazine aimed at the "tweens" - roughly 10-13 year-olds - and you will be able to identify similar patterns.

With regards to your comment about banning the Q'oran, I suggest that you pick a different example. Islam in and of itself is actually a religion based more around the equality of the sexes than either Judaism or Christianity, and this equality is explicitly stated in the Q'oran.

Whilst Islam has suffered in much the same way that other religions have suffered - by being used over the years in order for men to attain and keep power - it did at least have a better starting position than the Bible ever could.

R.

Cruella said...

Wow, seems like my point about male privilege has hit a nerve, huh? Seems like some people don't like it when a woman does want to be told to shut up and sit down.

Lets take it slowly...

MrAngryman: where did I say I wanted to avoid seeming like a "typical lesbo feminist". I live in a world where neither lesbian nor feminist is an insult so I don't mind at all if that's what I sound like.

btscl: you misunderstand, it is not the prescence of breasts which offends me in these magazines - it is the belittling and objectifying way they are shown and the attitude towards women and relationships which goes along with them.

i find it hilarious that you seem to think teenage boys need these magazines to help them masturbate. i don't really believe teenage boys need help masturbating. i think they can cope on their own.

jokes are not "just jokes". no-one tells racist jokes any more. with good reason. sexist jokes promote prejudice against women. and i hardly think you're going to find female comics you enjoy while you carry round attitudes like that.

obnoxio: i don't regard awards this blog has won as "validation", my point was that the guy sending me unsolicited advice didn't seem to have any reason for supposing i wanted that advice.

you don't seem to have offered any reasons for disagreeing with me though aside from that you find me unattractive. which is good because you don't sound like my type either.

rachel: yes exactly, amazing how mad it makes them when their male privilege is confronted huh?

dungeekin: i didn't say that because i was on tv my opinions should be respected. i said that i didn't want unsolicited advice on how to present myself on tv from someone with no experience of doing so.

you also obviously didn't listen to the tv piece. i didn't say that lad mags should be banned because a minority finds the disagreeable. that's absolutely nothing to do with the arguments i used so you are just burning a straw man here.

hedgewytch: your point seems to be "shut up, sit down"...? to which: no.

alice: yes. exactly.

dungeekin (again): like i said you're defending something i didn't say so you're just arguing with yourself here. i find it hilarious after, for instance, obnoxio has described me as a "boot-faced harridan" you then suggest that alice is making ad-hominen attacks when she says you might be friends with a bloke called derek..!

and how hilarious that after not seeing the tv thing or reading my post you then don't know who derek is - despite the fact that i explain exactly who he is in my post and he was sat next to me on tv...

lizsara: i don't think you watched me on tv. i didn't refuse to listen to the guys points - i refused to continue listening when it became clear that he was talking rubbish and trying to prevent me having my say. seems like you are just the next person who wants to give me debating advice without first watching the debate.

i also did not liken lad mags to child porn. i made a point about how his argument was invalid and i used child pornography as an example to show how how obvious the holes in his argument were. if you had seen it, you would know.

now as i've explained i don't mind getting unsolicited facebook comments, i found this one offensive. what next? if you don't want to be mugged, don't go out of the house? i'm not going to mis-trust everyone because there are a few idiots out there.

and then you go on to ask why i want all male-centred publications banned. and i haven't said that so you are arguing with yourself here.

your point about you'd rather see sexist jokes in print than pictures of super-skinny models. when did we have to choose? can't we fight sexism everywhere? if super-skinny models offend you i think you'll achieve more by writing to the magazines that publish them than by criticising me for even being involved in a different but related battle.

and i think there's a very clear line between comedy that doesn't do much for me and comedy that offends me. it's not that i find sexist, racist, dis-ablist and homophobic jokes insufficiently funny, it's that i think they shouldn't be told because they promote those attitudes in society.

Dungeekin said...

Thankyou both Rachel and Cruella for your comments.

FWIW, I actually DID watch the discussion (my first considered act of the day is to put on BBC News, it gives me something to rage about for the remaining hours) - and I felt, personally, that your position was about banning 'Lads Mags', though I accept that wasn't explicitly stated.

And no, I hadn't recalled that the burbling buffoon you shredded was called 'Derek'. Hence my confusion.

My concern is this. While I don't disagree with you that young men should not be able to buy magazines such as 'Nuts' and 'Zoo' (though my distate for them stems more from their lack of intelligence than their rather crude attempts at titillation) - to LEGISLATE for this opens a whole new can of worms.

Once you legislate, you draw a line in the sand that says 'thus far and no further'. And your position, personally, may be "put 'em on the top shelf", but what about the next campaigner who comes along? They may want them put in sealed bags, so the legislation is changed again, and the line redrawn.

And again, and again.

Surely, rather than legislation, it's better to promote responsibility? Responsibility from publishers, shop owners and so on - but, most of all, from PARENTS.

To introduce legislation to satisfy the feelings of your personal pressure group opens the floodgates to legislating for every pressure group. The result would not be a pretty sight, and as an advocate of personal choice and freedom I don't feel that can go unchallenged.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

D

Cruella said...

Ok well if you read my post I also mentioned Derek by name, but anyway...

So your position is that young people shouldn't be exposed to these magazines but that we shouldn't make a law about it, we should "promote responsibility".

Now the thing is that there is already a voluntary code of practice which says these magazines shouldn't be sold to young people. But it doesn't seem to be working. If it was no-one would proposing a law.

Now I understand that you oppose a law because that would be drawing a "line in the sand". But there already is a "line in the sand". Already full-nudity pornography is put on the top shelf. And child pornography is not legally sold at all. So there is a line in the sand. The argument I am making is that the line is in the wrong place.

There is already a line in the sand when it comes to film classification. There is a board who rule each film U, PG, 12, 15 or 18, and it hasn't led to the closing down of the industry or made it impossible to show graphic sexual and violent scenes to those who wish to see them. Nor has it opened floodgates to a raft of other legislation gradually banning everything from swearing to wearing short-sleeved shirts. I don't see why to introduce only the 18-limit, not any of the other classifications, for magazines should be so controversial.

And you suggest instead "promoting responsibility" but how? What measures do you suggest bringing in? Whatever voluntary measures you bring in to "promote responsibility" there will be those who chose to ignore them. That's why we don't have voluntary speed limits or voluntary guidelines to encourage people not to burgle.

As long as we have only voluntary guidelines we can do nothing about those who break them.

Furthermore even if the vast majority of shop-keepers adhered to the voluntary code (and they don't in my experience) all we are doing is rewarding the minority who do sell these magazines to kids - because they'll get a massive boost in business when other places refuse and kids come to them instead. So effectively the more we promote voluntary codes of practice, the more we reward those not interested in being responsible.

You also suggest that the weight of responsibility should fall to parents. And that's all well and good except for two things. Firstly some kids don't have parents. And actually they are typically some of the most vulnerable children out there. Secondly why exactly should parents feel the need to wrap their children in cotton wool? I have a friend who is a parent whose 11-year-old has come home from school with pornographic pictures on his mobile 'phone. Should she not send her child to school? Or not allow him to use a 'phone?

If you really believe the responsibility lies with parents you are actually suggesting that truly responsible parents wouldn't allow their 15-year-old to go to a newsagent unsupervised.

Finally you suggest that if legislation responds to the feelings of one pressure group this will open some sort of floodgate. But legislation and government is about passing laws and there are always pressure groups on both sides.

There are groups that want 42-days detention and groups who don't want 42-days detention. There are groups who want to airline fuel to be taxed, and groups who don't. Claire Curtis-Thomas, the MP who is introducing this proposed legislation is putting the motion forward, so far as I can see, because she strongly believes it's the right thing to do. She has young children. She is also (unlike me) devoutly religious.

I think the government's job is to look at the arguments and cases put forward by pressure groups and decide on the best course of action in the nation's interests. I think our nation benefits none from children having access to these magazines. And interestingly I think you actually agree with me on that.

Dungeekin said...

Another well-marshalled response, thank you.

To take your last point first: "I think our nation benefits none from children having access to these magazines. And interestingly I think you actually agree with me on that."

I agree that it benefits our children none. However, I would add a corollary that in the vast majority of cases, it HARMS our children none either.

Let's be candid. Teenage boys will, as an earlier responder posted out, masturbate. They will do so frequently, and will seek out avenues to find material with which to stimulate this. That may be (and I'm sorry to be blunt here, but that's the subject matter) a Page Three model, 'Nuts' magazine, or the lingerie models in the pages of the Littlewoods catalogue. Or anything else they can get their grubby little mitts on. The vast majority of these teenage boys do not grow up to be rapists (to use an extreme example) nor, for that matter, to see women as purely sexual objects. It's a part of their development, and they subsequently develop the social skills to interact with the opposite sex and develop mutually supportive relationships.

And yes, I do take myself as an example - like most boys of that age, I gained illicit access to the stash that was going around my school year, yet I'm in a settled and loving relationship and don't feel the need to treat women as objects.

Second point: "If you really believe the responsibility lies with parents you are actually suggesting that truly responsible parents wouldn't allow their 15-year-old to go to a newsagent unsupervised". No, that isn't what I'm saying, nor how I'm defining responsibility. That is control, which a child will rebel against. A responsible parent doesn't necessarily ban their child from seeing such material (given that they WILL gain access to it). A responsible parent shows, by example and by explanation, how good relationships with the opposite sex work.

There's no need to wrap children in cotton wool - it's something that I deeply oppose for my two boys. My aim is to teach them responsibility. As they get older (the oldest is ten) then I've no doubt that their hormonal urges will lead them to source mucky material. However, by using the lessons I've described above, I can be reasonably confident that as with most lads, the urge will pass when they learn how to interact with real women.

You're absolutely right that there are some kids without parents, and some whose parents lack a sense of moral responsibility. However, personally I think it's worse to legislate on the assumption that nobody takes that care, than ask people to be responsible and avoid legislation.

Another point is to do with the age group. By 15, I was perfectly capable of going into a shop and buying cigarettes. The same applies with these magazines. I wasn't asked for ID, because I looked over-age. Given that ID is now asked for if someone looks under 21, that would mean that a 20-year-old man who wanted to buy a copy of 'Zoo' could be denied. Seems extreme to me.

I understand that there are always pressure groups. The point I was making was that if one pressure group gets what they want, then it sets a precedent. Now initially that precedent is there to protect kids, but once the precedent is set it can easily be used for something else - as an example, see the egregious use of anti-terror legislation!

But, when push comes to shove, the fact is that the vast majority of young lads are going to see images such as those in lads' mags. There are innumerable channels for them to do so. And the vast majority will not be psychologically harmed, nor have their future interpersonal relationships damaged, by the sight of a pair of unfettered breasts. Hence my overall disagreement with your position.

Thanks for the debate!

D

btscl said...

"you misunderstand, it is not the prescence of breasts which offends me in these magazines - it is the belittling and objectifying way they are shown and the attitude towards women and relationships which goes along with them."

Would you care to cite references or is this all just inane conjecture? How would you define objectification and how does it apply in this context? If your reasons for believing these women are being objectified is the way they are portrayed in the photographs then it does seem that you really do have an objection to the presence of breasts in the magazines; if you do not like the way the women are sometimes interviewed (i.e., the way women talk about their sexual preferences or experiences) that completely spits in the face of the feminist cause; these women obviously feel comfortable speaking about their sex lives and have every right to do so. There have been plenty of articles in so called "lad's mags" about keeping healthy relationships so you are barking up the wrong tree on that one.

"i find it hilarious that you seem to think teenage boys need these magazines to help them masturbate."

You have excelled yourself in that misquotation I must say. I said it is better for teenage boys to "relieve themselves of these urges by looking at pictures of breasts than to run around trying to stick their penises in everything that moves".
In other words it is better for them to dampen their curiosity by looking at these pictures rather than fooling around with Shirley down the street.

"jokes are not 'just jokes'. no-one tells racist jokes any more. with good reason. sexist jokes promote prejudice against women. and i hardly think you're going to find female comics you enjoy while you carry round attitudes like
that."

Actually quite a lot of people tell racist jokes, among them are Stephen K. Amos (a black man), Omid Djalili (an Iranian), Roy Chubby Brown (a white man), Al Murray (a white man) a very funny Asian comidienne whose name escapes me at present; my point being racist jokes in context are funny but just because one finds certain racist jokes funny does not mean that one is actually racist nor does it perpetuate the notion that racism is O.K; the same argument applies to sexism.

LizSara said...

"lizsara: i don't think you watched me on tv. i didn't refuse to listen to the guys points - i refused to continue listening when it became clear that he was talking rubbish and trying to prevent me having my say. seems like you are just the next person who wants to give me debating advice without first watching the debate."

No that's correct which is why, in my initial post I referred only to your attitude in your post here. The fact that you only made a single reference to something he said and then your subsequent refusal to listen is what I addressed.

"i also did not liken lad mags to child porn. i made a point about how his argument was invalid and i used child pornography as an example to show how how obvious the holes in his argument were. if you had seen it, you would know."

By using the phrase 'some people enjoy child pornography' you are implying that his magazine is as illegal/wrong/sick as child porn and that is likening it to same. Again, I was responding to your words used on this blog, not the television programme you appeared on.

"now as i've explained i don't mind getting unsolicited facebook comments, i found this one offensive. what next? if you don't want to be mugged, don't go out of the house? i'm not going to mis-trust everyone because there are a few idiots out there."

Finding something offensive is completely different to feeling harassed by it. You stated that you reported the person for harassment to Facebook and I objected to that stance. Also, I find the analogy you used above to be offensive, taking a real fear that stops thousands of people leaving their house and cripples them on a daily basis and likening it to a Facebook message is irresponsible at best.

and then you go on to ask why i want all male-centred publications banned. and i haven't said that so you are arguing with yourself here.

Umm, no I don't I stated that was how your opinion clearly stated by you, on this blog appears to me.

your point about you'd rather see sexist jokes in print than pictures of super-skinny models. when did we have to choose? can't we fight sexism everywhere? if super-skinny models offend you i think you'll achieve more by writing to the magazines that publish them than by criticising me for even being involved in a different but related battle.

Yes we can fight sexism everywhere, but you don't make any reference to being offended by anything other than sexist jokes here so that is what I referred to. I was stating my opinion that I would rather tackle what I see as an important issue than getting upset at someone else's style of comedy

and i think there's a very clear line between comedy that doesn't do much for me and comedy that offends me. it's not that i find sexist, racist, dis-ablist and homophobic jokes insufficiently funny, it's that i think they shouldn't be told because they promote those attitudes in society.

I disagree with your opinion, I don't think those kinds of jokes promote those kinds of attitudes in society; however that is a more balanced opinion than your original 'I don't like because it means I don't get much of a break in comedy them so they should be banned' which is how the original post makes it seem.

Thanks for replying x

Cruella said...

Few more points to cover...

Dungeekin - well I guess I disagree with you - I think that these publications do harm our children because of the way they represent women. Rather than explain my views at length I'll refer you to a post I wrote several years ago, and which also appeared on the BBC website:

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/whats-wrong-with-lad-mags.html

I agree that teenage boys will masturbate but I don't see how it is "better" for them to be masturbating over this sort of porn than over Littlewood's catalogue. Are you suggesting that there is some benefit to teaching boys that they should find these images arousing?

And the fact that some men who look at porn are, in your opinion, not sexist, is irrelevant. Sexism is rife in our society. Women are paid less than men, have less access to power, a rape conviction rate of 5.3%, a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of domestic violence. If these magazines promote objectification of women (and they do) then much better to be a little careful about who gets to read them.

And if "good" parents show kids about relationships by example that precludes single people from being good parents. And it doesn't explain how the children of single people and (in your world) other bad parents are supposed to get a fair shot at society. And I think it's better to legislate than leave our children to fend for themselves.

And yes age limits are always open to confusion, but that's true for alcohol and ciggies now. Everyone knows if you want to buy these things and you're young-looking you take a piece of ID with you. What's so hard about that?

Lots of pressure groups have gotten what they want. I can't understand how you can have a problem with the general concept of pressure groups.

And, yes, no doubt teenagers will get access to porn one way or another but (a) some people get murdered every year - doesn't mean we should accept we can't win and legalise murder and (b) even if young people do access these materials, the advantage of putting age limits on them is that kids are not shown these magazines as normal, mainstream things for them to read.

btscl: if you've ever read a lad mag and you don't see the way that women are objectified by them you are really not very bright. the way a model's name is generally directly followed by their bra size, for instance, rather than their university qualifications.

and no, i don't like the way women are interviewed. and no that doesn't "spit in the face" of the feminist cause. i have no problem with women talking about their sex lives - what bothers me is that these are not women's opinions about their sex lives. they are pre-fabricated bits of titillating fluff. what they say has nothing to do with their own pleasure, and everything to do with pandering to men.

now you say it's better for teenage boys to masturbate to lad mags than to play around with the girl down the road. but you're forgetting that those aren't the only two options. porn does not work as a deterrent or preventative measure to rape. and anyway shirley from down the road might want to experiment sexually too. no-one needs a magazine to masturbate, we are all quite capable of using our own imaginations.

and you don't seem to have understood the difference between racist jokes and jokes about race. stephen k amos and omid djalili talk about race in their acts, mostly to talk about cultural differences between different groups. they also talk about racism and make jokes about racist people. that's very different from people who make racist jokes - by which i mean jokes which are derogatory about people from a specific racial group.

roy chubby brown is a racist who makes racist jokes. like jim davidson, jethro or the late bernard manning. these are exactly the people i refer to when i say no-one tells racist jokes any more. you would not see these guys in major comedy clubs. they mights still sell a few cds to daily mail readers, but they are basically no longer welcome on the comedy circuit because of their offensive material.

al murray is a character act. he tells racist jokes (and gets them wrong mostly) because he is taking the mickey out of the kind of people who tell jokes like that. as such he is laughing at racists. i must admit i do worry that some people don't realise what he's doing and laugh without irony at the racist jokes. those people are racists.

lizsara: my post was not intended to describe the entire debate on breakfast tv. derek said quite a lot early on but didn't seem to have any real points.

when i said "some people like child porn" i was making the point that "some people like it" is not a reason for having something. i could equally have said "some people like masturbating at bus stops" or "some people like mugging old ladies". the point is to illustrate why the argument is tosh.

i agree there is a big difference between finding something offensive and being harassed by something. i did not find the facebook message offensive but i felt harassed by it. you seem to be suggesting that a message on facebook cannot be harassment but clearly it can.

well i just haven't said that all male-centred publications should be banned. if it appears to you that i have said that, please read more carefully because i haven't.

i really don't think you can criticise me for not mentioning other forms of sexism. go read the rest of my blog. and for the record even if you find something i have never mentioned - it doesn't mean i approve of it, just that i have yet to voice my opinion. this is a blog, where i talk about issues as they come up - not an encyclopedic reference library of my opinions on every subject.

i notice in your post you mention my reference to child porn but you don't state that you don't like paedophiles. should i assume you do like them? of course not.

and your belief that prejudice-based jokes don't promote those prejudices in society is scientifically disproven. in fact jokes have more impact on peoples beliefs than straightforward statements. I refer you to Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 2, 159-170 (2008), the article by Ford, Boxer, Armstrong and Edel.

And I also didn't say that I disliked sexist jokes because they affected my career. I dislike sexist attitudes, like "women aren't funny" because they affect my career - and no, not by me not getting a break, by me not getting the same respect as those i work with.

GreyAreaUK said...

Are you suggesting that there is some benefit to teaching boys that they should find these images arousing?

But the images are arousing - that's partly their point. When all you have is a picture then the main attraction is going to be purely physical. To take a quote from Buffy:

"I'm seventeen, looking at linoleum makes me want to have sex."

What perhaps needs emphasizing is that they are fantasy images, and that trying what you're doing in your head with a real woman is (a) wrong (outside of a mutual fantasy relationship), and (b) asking for a knee in the groin.

And the fact that some men who look at porn are, in your opinion, not sexist, is irrelevant.

Really? I'd have said it was very relevant. If there was a clear correlation between looking at porn and being sexist then you might have a point. Since there isn't, you don't.

And we're not talking about porn, anyway - we're talking about stuff like FHM, which isn't porn. Heck, Playboy probably barely counts as porn.

And, yes, no doubt teenagers will get access to porn one way or another but (a) some people get murdered every year - doesn't mean we should accept we can't win and legalise murder ...

For the love of the Gods, will you please stop putting ultra-extreme examples in the same context as lads mags? You've already mentioned child pornography in context (and I'm sorry, but mentioning it in the same or next sentence is putting it in the same context), now you're bringing murder into it. Please stop it. It weakens your argument.

i have no problem with women talking about their sex lives - what bothers me is that these are not women's opinions about their sex lives. they are pre-fabricated bits of titillating fluff. what they say has nothing to do with their own pleasure, and everything to do with pandering to men.

Yes - that's called 'Fantasy'.

And do you think the models in question don't know this? And yet they still choose to do what they do. And yes, it is a choice. They could stop doing it, stop modeling, get some more qualifications (assuming they don't already have any, which is absolutely not safe to assume) and become an architect/financial advisor/chemical engineer.

now you say it's better for teenage boys to masturbate to lad mags than to play around with the girl down the road. but you're forgetting that those aren't the only two options. porn does not work as a deterrent or preventative measure to rape...

...and I'm not sure it's been proven to incite it, either...

and anyway shirley from down the road might want to experiment sexually too.

Ah, yes, good, because the World doesn't have enough unwanted pregnancies.

no-one needs a magazine to masturbate, we are all quite capable of using our own imaginations

Imaginations need external input from time to time.

Hedgewytch said...

"hedgewytch: your point seems to be "shut up, sit down"...? to which: no."

Excellent - there's that fighting spirit was looking for.

Sits back and enjoys the debate.

btscl said...

"if you've ever read a lad mag and you don't see the way that women are objectified by them you are really not very bright. the way a model's name is generally directly followed by their bra size, for instance, rather than their university qualifications."

Context my dear, context. In an article about an M.P in Spectator magazine you would fully expect it to list his qualifications and not his waist size or golfing handicap; likewise in an article about a model you would very much expect it to list things that apply to her profession; you do not need a degree in sociology to be a model but it would help if you were a Member of Parliament.

One further point, I seem to remember articles about actresses that have taken time out of their acting career to pursue qualifications at university, which effectively makes your argument about qualifications redundant.

"and no, i don't like the way women are interviewed. and no that doesn't 'spit in the face' of the feminist cause. i have no problem with women talking about their sex lives - what bothers me is that these are not women's opinions about their sex lives. they are pre-fabricated bits of titillating fluff. what they say has nothing to do with their own pleasure, and everything to do with pandering to men."

Can you really speak for all of the women? Really? Can you? Just because you only like missionary with the lights off doesn't mean to say that everybody else shares your sexual preference.

"now you say it's better for teenage boys to masturbate to lad mags than to play around with the girl down the road. but you're forgetting that those aren't the only two options. porn does not work as a deterrent or preventative measure to rape."

What has rape got to do with the price of fish? Why do some of you feminists think that all men are rapists? Why does rape even come into the equation in the context of this discussion? If you want to know why there is such a low conviction rate in rape cases it's because a high percentage of rape claims are absolutely false: http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/jan07/False%20rape%20claims%20common.pdf. That's right, women can be evil and vindictive and use rape as a way to soil the names of innocent men.

"and anyway shirley from down the road might want to experiment sexually too. no-one needs a magazine to masturbate, we are all quite capable of using our own imaginations."

I said it is better for them to dampen their curiosity in other forms than experimentation at such a young age.

"and you don't seem to have understood the difference between racist jokes and jokes about race. stephen k amos and omid djalili talk about race in their acts, mostly to talk about cultural differences between different groups. they also talk about racism and make jokes about racist people. that's very different from people who make racist jokes - by which i mean jokes which are derogatory about people from a specific racial group."

Right I get it now... it's O.K for black people to take the mick out of black people and Iranian people to take the mick out of Iranian people but if a black man should make a comment about an Iranian in the same vein then it is deemed to be racist. I can call myself a cracker but if a black man makes a joke about honkies or crackers I should be offended? O.K so let's apply this logic to sexism; it is O.K for women to talk about being grumpy during their period but it is an absolute disgrace if a comedian (the masculine form of comedienne) says the same. We have a phrase for this behaviour... "double standards".

"roy chubby brown is a racist who makes racist jokes. like jim davidson, jethro or the late bernard manning. these are exactly the people i refer to when i say no-one tells racist jokes any more. you would not see these guys in major comedy clubs. they mights still sell a few cds to daily mail readers, but they are basically no longer welcome on the comedy circuit because of their offensive material."

Erm according to his tour dates Chubby seems to be doing O.K: http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/52458/Roy_Chubby_Brown.html

"al murray is a character act. he tells racist jokes (and gets them wrong mostly) because he is taking the mickey out of the kind of people who tell jokes like that. as such he is laughing at racists. i must admit i do worry that some people don't realise what he's doing and laugh without irony at the racist jokes. those people are racists."

Al Murray is a caricature of the stereotypical English man, he's not taking the mick out of racists he is taking the mick out of our rivalry with the Germans, the French, the Australians etc; in other words "self deprecation". Although we may make jokes about these other "races" it doesn't actually make us racist!

From the OED: Racism "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races."

Saying the Aussies are all convicts isn't really tantamount to racism now is it? Although this may be classed as a racist joke (derogatory towards Australians) it would be more accurately described as healthy banter or camaraderie as there is not any real animosity between English and Australian people.

You seem to have a real problem dealing with context, this is a classic sign of autism and may explain your irrational juxtapositions i.e., lads' mags and rape, racist jokes and racial discrimination.

Rachel said...

I've been skim-reading the thread, so I'm not going to go crazy trying to argue with everybody, but I would like to say one thing.

An issue that a few commenters have raised is that fundamental "truth" -- "all teenage boys masturbate"

I could get very technical and say that I'm sure that there are *some* boys that do not. However, that's not what has bothered me.

Nobody, as far as I can see, has allowed for the fact that SOME GIRLS MASTURBATE TOO.

Why should teenage boys be given what is, essentially, preferential treatment, by being allowed to buy magazines intended to be arousing to heterosexual men, whilst girls do not have an equivalent option?

And if you don't care whether girls get to wank off over a hot, bare-arsed man in a magazine, why on earth would you care whether boys can?

btscl said...

What a rubbish argument that is! Just because a magazine does not exist (it may but it's not something I've actively looked for) does not mean that men get "preferential treatment" it just means that there isn't enough demand for such a product which is why it hasn't been produced. If there is a demand for it why do you not create such a publication and get rich?

James Campbell said...

Nobody, as far as I can see, has allowed for the fact that SOME GIRLS MASTURBATE TOO.

Because that's not what the discussion was about. Besides, in my experience women tend to be turned on less by direct visual stimulus and more by situation. Women tend to fantasize much better than men. A picture of a hunky guy isn't always enough by itself and, even if it was, you generally just have to buy any mainstream magazine and find an aftershave advert.

For a good overview of female fantasy/masturbation try some of the books by Nancy Friday. If nothing else they show how women's fantasies have changed markedly over the last few decades. She has also done one called 'Men In Love' which deals with male fantasy.

GreyAreaUK said...

Woops - 'James Campbell' above is 'GreyAreaUK'. Must have picked up an old Google profile. Odd.

Cruella said...

So many points to answer, but I'll focus on just a couple.

1) No. Women do not lie about being raped in any greater numbers than victims of any other crime do so. And the reverse is also true - many women blame themselves and never report rapes. Links to the relevant reports and more info here:

http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/pages/rape_sexual_violence.html

2) I use extreme examples to point out how your arguments don't make sense logically. So how about you stop making gibberish arguments?

3) and 4) Rachel (and other feminist readers) this is getting too funny for words!! These idiots are denying the existence of male privilege and then logging on to my blog to (3) offer their un-asked-for "diagnosis" of my mental capacity (apparently i'm autistic...) and (4) as men to offer us women advice on female fantasy and masturbation. gee, thanks guys cos i so wouldn't know how to frig myself off without your help!!

btscl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
btscl said...

Edited due to typo.

"No. Women do not lie about being raped in any greater numbers than victims of any other crime do so. And the reverse is also true - many women blame themselves and never report rapes. Links to the relevant reports and more info here:"

O.K so Amnesty found those statistics from a survey in 2005. That's a cross section of society not a true reflection of the general public's beliefs. There are approximately 70 million people resident in the U.K so how can a survey of 10,000 possibly reflect society? They could have surveyed the nonce wing at Armley for all you know.

"I use extreme examples to point out how your arguments don't make sense logically. So how about you stop making gibberish arguments?"

No you make bullshit juxtapositions, you haven't come back with a single coherent argument to any of my points.

"and 4) Rachel (and other feminist readers) this is getting too funny for words!! These idiots are denying the existence of male privilege and then logging on to my blog to (3) offer their un-asked-for "diagnosis" of my mental capacity (apparently i'm autistic...) "

What is this male privilege you speak of? We have magazines? Make your bloody own then. Men do not get payed more than women (as you said earlier), it is an absolute fallacy (there are laws against it don't you know). Please, please enlighten me about this privilege because I would bloody love to partake. It's O.K for women to have women only gyms or swimming lessons but men get labelled as sexists if we should even think of doing the same; Working Men's Club? What Working Men's Club? We aren't allowed those anymore but Sheila's Wheels only insures women drivers, where's the equality there sweetheart?

You aren't looking for equality, you are striving for the upper hand.

I never said you had autism I said the inability to determine context is a sign of autism (your response almost proves my point).

GreyAreaUK said...

Actually Kate let me ask you one thing: have you actually read any of Nancy Friday's books? And if so, what was your opinion of them? I'm genuinely curious.

Jim

GreyAreaUK said...

(Note: this post was originally posted before my "have you ever read" post. However, due to something beyond my ken it never actually got posted, despite every appearance of having done so. If it appears twice (or more) as a result, I'm sorry).


2) I use extreme examples to point out how your arguments don't make sense logically. So how about you stop making gibberish arguments?

Well, all I can really say to that is "you first". If you want your points to be drowned out in the noise generated by people reacting to how you're saying something, rather than what you're saying, then please continue as you are. If, however, you're actually trying to get a point over then please consider changing your tactics, because the current ones are only working for the already converted.

These idiots are denying the existence of male privilege...

I, for one, am not. It exists still, and really, really shouldn't.

... and then logging on to my blog...

Sorry, is this is 'women-only-allowed-to-post-comments' blog? You could do with making that a bit clearer because I couldn't see the sign that said "if your genitals are external you are not welcome here".

[...] (4) as men to offer us women advice on female fantasy and masturbation. gee, thanks guys cos i so wouldn't know how to frig myself off without your help!!

Oh, for the love of...look, far be it for me to help you "frig yourself off". Despite the fact that it wasn't even a reply to YOU, that absolutely was not my intention. I'm sure you're very capable. However, are you implying that that most women are fully aware of the range of fantasies of all other women? And likewise, men for men? Please.

I was trying to point out (and sorry if I appear to be dragging this thread kicking and screaming back on topic) that women don't tend to feel the need for some female version of Zoo or whatever-the-Hell it's called, because for masturbatory purposes they tend not to need that kind of stuff. Or at least that's my experience. And please note the word 'experience' as opposed to, say, 'guess'.

I'm trying to be open and friendly here. If I'm wrong about stuff, how's about you post a polite reply instead of putting a completely false slant on what I post? Because if you have to start making stuff up to win a discussion, you've lost the discussion.

Jim

LizSara said...

if you have to start making stuff up to win a discussion, you've lost the discussion.

just about says it all. I was intending on coming back to pick up on your points to me, but you have proved that you are more than happy to manipulate other people's views/words and ideas to fit your agenda and that rules any further discussion out for me.

Dungeekin said...

Hi Cruella

I'm sorry, but I have to confess that I'm confused at your latest response.

I'll ignore the rape issue, as in all honesty it's not germane to the discussion that we were having.

Instead, I'll deal with your other assertions.

These idiots

I'm not sure that we have acted as idiots, nor have we treated you as such. You have an opinion, I an others have challenged those opinions. I would be concerned if the act of challenging a mindset were considered idiotic.

are denying the existence of male privilege

Are we? Specifically, am I? Somehow I doubt it. I'm aware that it exists, and I tend to the opinion that people, regardless of gender, should be 'judged by the content of their character'. Personally, it's of no concern to me what someone's gender is. I refute it, so perhaps we can have a discussion based upon mutual respect.

and then logging on to my blog

I'm sorry, but this particular comment is risible. When one takes the decision to appear in a televised news discussion, and then make their opinions public on the Internet, that puts those opinions in the public domain, and thus open to challenge.

If you don't wish your opinions to be public, I would suggest not having a Blog.

And if you feel that your Blog isn't the location for such discussions, you and whoever else wishes to comment are very welcome to do so on mine if you wish. I'm sure you can find the relevant discussion.

offer their un-asked-for "diagnosis" of my mental capacity (apparently i'm autistic...)

I can see only one person commenting on that, and that's not me, so I don't think the generalisation was necessary.

(4) as men to offer us women advice on female fantasy and masturbation

I've re-read this thread several times, and I'm sorry but I don't see anyone offering ADVICE. What I see is the recognition that both genders masturbate, but that in general the stimuli are different - and examples were given. Nobody was giving you advice on how to do that, that I can see - and as you've stated, as a mature adult I would imagine you've pretty much got it sussed.

To Rachel: Yes, I said that young boys masturbate. No, I didn't say that young girls masturbate. The reason I didn't say it was that it is not relevant to this discussion, which is, to repeat for the record, the removal of 'Lads Mags' or the imposition of legislation on their sale.

I can see that there have been some patronising comments made by other commenters - but looking through the thread it would seem that the vast majority of respondents have merely offered an opinion which differs from yours.

I would like us to continue this discussion, which I REPEAT was about whether there should be legislation put in place to restrict the placement and sale of 'lads mags' - this is the topic and one about which we fundamentally disagree. Can we get back on that without sinking into the mire of extreme examples and strawmen?

D

GreyAreaUK said...

Women are paid less than men...

I'd forgotten to reply to this bit. So here's a data-point to add to your facts:

My wife and I are in jobs that are roughly the same (sysadmin/programming), working for different but roughly equal-sized companies.

She earns almost double what I do.

btscl said...

Well, I've just had the misfortune of watching some of your "comedy" and as it turns out you crack jokes about Islam, Americans, French and tell jokes that could be offensice to indigenous Australians so you are indeed a hypocrite and I may suspect quite racist. Don't like Islam then Kate?

Yeny said...

I only recently found your blog and I just wanted to say I think that you are great! I really admire you for speaking out. I couldn't deal with the crap in some of these comments in the measured way you have done, I just have no patience whatsoever with men who will not recognise their privilege.

I only want to respond to two points because they made my blood boil-

btscl- do you actually believe that 94.7% of women who say they have been raped are lying, vindictive bitches?? Because that is what you are effectively saying when you respond to the dismal rape conviction rate by saying that it's due to the fact that women lie.
Your misogyny is showing, just thought I'd let you know.

Dungeekin- Just because you believe men aren't sexist, doesn't make it so. I happen to encounter sexist beliefs in men all the time. Added to that is the fact that as a woman I have routinely been sexually harrassed in the street, on the bus, in the park, and everywhere I go. I'll tell you something, that's a lot of men (and it includes men of all ages), so things aren't as rosy as you paint them.


As an on-topic sidenote: when I was in sixth form there was a guy who would, on a daily basis, put up images from lads mags on the commonroom notice board, despite my ripping them down every day. This same guy went on to sexually assault a girl in our year.

Dungeekin said...

Hi Yeny, and thanks for your comment.

I'll ignore the first part, as it wasn't for me, and answer the paragraph that was.

Dungeekin- Just because you believe men aren't sexist, doesn't make it so. I happen to encounter sexist beliefs in men all the time.

Sorry, I'm confused. Please would you point me to the part where I said men aren't sexist?

I believe that I said I was aware sexism exists, and that I, personally, reject it.

Added to that is the fact that as a woman I have routinely been sexually harrassed in the street, on the bus, in the park, and everywhere I go. I'll tell you something, that's a lot of men (and it includes men of all ages), so things aren't as rosy as you paint them.

That is extrapolating from the actions of those men and placing them on ALL men, which I don't believe is a good thing.

Please permit me to use an extreme example. If I were to meet a woman with a somewhat reduced moral outlook, who proceeded to fellate me, you would justifiably be outraged if I were to assume that every other woman in the UK wished to do the same. As I said, it's an extreme example, but the basic principle is the same.

I agree that some, perhaps many, men can be or are sexist. That doesn't mean that ALL are, and (bringing this back on topic) I personally disagree with legislation that punishes all men for the actions of a percentage.

I would similarly reject legislation that enacted any law against all women because of the actions of a percentage, as I am sure you would too.


As an on-topic sidenote: when I was in sixth form there was a guy who would, on a daily basis, put up images from lads mags on the commonroom notice board, despite my ripping them down every day. This same guy went on to sexually assault a girl in our year.


And I'm sorry to hear that.

However, out of the number of young, hormonal and no doubt libidinous men in your sixth form, only ONE did something abhorrent.

Again returning to topic, this is a prime example where legislation would affect ALL the men in your Sixth Form common room, in order to stop ONE man seeing things which may have contributed to his actions but, I'm sure you'll agree, cannot reasonably be given as the sole cause.

Thanks for your thoughts, I hope I've answered your points.

Regards

D

Yeny said...

Dungeekin,

I was responding to the idea you have that men who read this stuff turn out fine. I happen to think there is something very wrong with men's attitudes towards women, including wanting these kinds of products, but that is beside the point. The point I was trying to make was that it is the majority of men I meet who display sexist attitudes or actions, not the minority. So I am not extrapolating from one case, I'm extrapolating from my entire life experience. A vast majority of men hold sexist beliefs so clearly something needs to change. (of course I don't just believe that as soon as lads mags cease to exist then *poof* sexism ceases to exist as well).

I also don't believe in punishing all men for the crimes of sexist men. I guess we differ in opinion because I just don't see how restrictions on lads mags is any sort of punishment, let alone a punishment to all men.

Last point, as I said about the guy in my sixth form, that was just a sidenote, it wasn't the whole story about what all the guys in my college were like. In fact I could tell you lots of anecdotes about the sexist behaviour of most of the guys on my course, or if they weren't actively involved they would excuse the sexist behaviour of their peers. I guess I should thank them because their behaviour was what turned me into the feminist I am today.

btscl said...

"do you actually believe that 94.7% of women who say they have been raped are lying, vindictive bitches?? Because that is what you are effectively saying when you respond to the dismal rape conviction rate by saying that it's due to the fact that women lie.
"

First of all if you actually read the literature I posted you would see that over a nine year study between 40% and 50% of rape allegations were recanted; that's a large percentage. If some women did not so readily lie about such things then perhaps the conviction rate might be a little higher.

"Your misogyny is showing, just thought I'd let you know."

I am far from misogynistic; I believe the word "bitches" from my quote is a figment of your imagination as I would never use such a derogatory turn of phrase.

I am all for the feminist cause which is why it infuriates me when so called feminists stir up hatred in this way as it completely detracts from the sensible subjects like how to stop domestic violence and forced marriages etc.
A recent study suggested that women are under represented in parliament; I'm all for getting more women into parliament but I do not believe that they should be there unless on their own merit (I don't mean this in a misogynistic way, we have seen it all too much in recent years how certain professions advertise for candidates from either ethnic minorities or the female gender); if women are under represented in parliament then the government need to bring in measures to get more women interested in politics, that means talking to the young women and finding out why they aren't interested and addressing the issues.

These are the things feminists need to be talking about, not stopping men from having a male oriented magazine.

If you don't want such a male dominated world do something about it, get into politics and try and change things for the better, just don't try to change the inconsequential things, aim higher.