One of the more enjoyable sides of studying for law exams is the heightened urge to argue about anything and everything. In the last three weeks in particular I've found myself climbing the steep ladder to my high horse over lots of stuff - and some stuff that I don't even care that much about. Thankfully this didn't suddenly stop after my last exam and this morning, as I tucked into an eclectic mix of Bran Flakes and Cheerios, something on Breakfast (no Susanna this morning sadly) really got me going. It appears that a legal challenge is in the offing regarding the display of so called 'lads' mags' in newsagents and supermarkets. According to the Lose the Lads' Mags campaign, the front covers of these magazines cause offense to shoppers, children and employees alike. What a load of rubbish.
It was no great surprise to me that it was a feminist that ruined my breakfast this morning. I've noticed a trend recently: whenever a feminist is on the Breakfast programme in the morning, I don't enjoy what I'm eating - Bran Flakes and Cheerios make a good combo usually. I've never seen a feminist on the TV that I've liked or even come close to agreeing with - they always hack me off. I'll admit that I'm almost completely ignorant about the intricacies of feminism (aside from the fact that all men are apparently pigs) but the truth is that I don't care. The brief few lectures that I received last year on feminism went right over my head, after I initially made a concerted effort to be interested.
It boils down to this: I don't treat woman any differently than I treat guys, I am polite to woman and I think that woman and men should be paid the same for the same jobs. I don't like being portrayed otherwise by somebody making crass generalisations about my gender - or their own for that matter.
This person in particular, a certain Kat Banyard, really pissed in my cereal with her insane ramblings about the offense caused by the pornographic nature of 'lads' mags' and their front covers. Her main premise is that these magazines portray women as sex objects for men to look at - no shit! In the same way as FourFourTwo portrays people as footballers, Nuts magazine displays women in a way that it pleasing to the male eye. She also argues that the magazines are demeaning to the women in them - bollocks! Those women make a living out of being in those magazines and choose to do so. They get their chests out and get paid to do it; they don't need people like Banyard telling them how they feel about it afterwards.
So I was pretty annoyed about what this woman was telling me this morning. They had an editor of one of the big lads' mags on as well and he pretty much said how I was feeling, stopping short of calling Banyard a fool. People are only offended by stuff like that because they are told by people like her that they are. People are only worried that children will be damaged or confused by stuff like that because they are told by people like her that they will be. If anything she's the type of person who is standing in the way of equality, not people who look at tits and arses in glossy magazines.
For me feminism, in the modern context at least, is based on a misunderstanding of what goes on inside a man's head. It's hard to put one's finger on exactly what that is but I know that feminists don't have a clue. I don't see women as sex objects, and nor do the majority of men. I certainly don't see woman as sex objects as a result of seeing a wee bit (okay a lot) of cleavage on the front of a magazine.
Banyard epitomises everything that angers me about the gender divide. I don't deny sexism because its a reality but I don't see how it can ever be stopped when feminist groups keep stoking the fire. The people in charge of booking guests for Breakfast would do well to stop giving such extremism a platform - even is just to let me enjoy my Bran Flakes and Cheerios in the morning.
Thanks for reading.
Martin.
