Before getting on with my post, I would like to point out that this is the earliest that I've ever written on my blogs since the dawning of time - I'm usually up at this time but I'm not usually hacked off by something at quite such an early stage. It's also a rare occasion for me to follow up on an old post but this morning I was once again faced with the lads' mags debate that I so hoped had gone away. Kat Banyard once again managed to annoy me this morning with her infuriating views on lads' magazines, likening them to pornography and arguing that there is "extensive evidence" to suggest that these publications are fueling sexism and violence against women. To repeat what I said last time she ruined my morning: what a load of rubbish.
The reason for her being back on the TV was that the Lose the Lads' Mags group are taking their fight to Westminster. This evening people representing the campaign, representatives of feminist movements and others will take to a committee room in the House of Commons to argue that Tesco should be made to take down their lads' mags section. It is argued that they are in breach of their anti-pornography policy and that some of the content that is shown could result in a breach of the equalities legislation. Let me rant about this for a few paragraphs and then I'll get on with my day.
Firstly, my views. I don't buy lads' mags and I never have done. Unfortunately they just don't quite reach the standard of content that I'm after - and I'm not talking about the women either. The editor of Nuts Magazine, Dominic Smith, told us this morning that more than 70% of the content in his magazine is not women, meaning that there is page after page of poor football analysis, pictures of car crashes (I'll get onto the women in a moment as I said) and jokes about farting. I can do without that, and my wallet could do with the extra few quid.
As for the women in these magazines, I don't get the attraction. I can access any of the same content online and so, although I don't (too often), this undermines, once again, any reason for me to buy the magazine. These are the same reasons why I've stopped buying football magazines or gadget magazines. Granted, I'll often catch myself glancing at the top shelf in a shop but heck, I'm only human.
Now, let's look at this 'extensive evidence' that Banyard laid bare on the Breakfast table this morning. Unfortunately we can't because Ms Banyard dropped that bold statement into the conversation, without providing any evidence whatsoever. I've noticed in a few journal articles recently people using the term 'anecdotal evidence' - that hacks me off. Either there is solid evidence for your point or there is not so please don't just make up stories. Banyard argues that these magazines are offensive to parents (who have to explain to their children about 'bare bottoms') other customers and staff. I find the front cover of Horse and Hound and magazines about knitting offensive - you don't see me going on about it.
Banyard and the campaign are also missing the point. If you get rid of lads' mags from supermarkets you will be doing a lot more than saving parents an awkward conversation. First of all you will deprive people of a living. Models in magazines like Nuts and Zoo do modelling because it pays for their gas and electricity. I would imagine they wear more clothes around the house but, nevertheless, it's going to be a cold (and expensive) winter. Then you get into the murky waters of freedom of expression, both for publishers and the people who are buying these magazines. If I was a bit younger and found out that I wouldn't be able to take a sneaky look at a 'rude' magazine then I would be being deprived of a part of growing up - I said I have never bought one; I didn't say I have never looked.
The other big problem I see with this campaign is the narrow-mindedness of the whole thing: take away lads' mags and you move the problem somewhere else. Or, looking at it another way, if you take away these magazines from the shelves in shops, you will still be able to go and get an eye-full elsewhere. I walk past the lingerie shop La Senza on the way to university everyday - it's the quickest route, I promise! Instead of windows, the shop exterior is lined with four or five beautiful woman in less than concealing underwear. How is that any different? The shop is located on one of the busiest streets in Scotland so millions of people will see those girls every year. When the trams eventually find their way to the centre of town, those images will be caught by TV cameras and shown to millions on the news - explain to me how that isn't worse than a girl in a bikini on the front cover of a magazine.
So they will head to parliament tonight with a conviction that they are right and that everyone else cares as much as they do. I, for one, do not and those who I've ever talked to about this feel similarly. As a side note, I hope Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne are able to make it along to the debate tonight as well - it would be good to have an example of other publications on the news-stand where you can see an arse and a pair of tits on the front page.
Thanks for reading. I look forward to writing the third post in this series because it looks like Banyard & Co won't go down without a fight.
Martin.
