Women - portrayal in UK lad's magazines vs portrayal in UK women's magazines (1 Viewer)

[Infinite Chaos]

There's currently a hot debate over two large supermarket chains (Tesco) (Co-Op)which have given in to pressure from women's groups over the front covers of magazines like Loaded, Nuts and Zoo. ("warning" the last 3 links are to the websites and contain pics of scantily clad women.. :2razz

The criticism is that these magazine debase women and reduce them to sex objects however the counterclaim is that certain women's magazines like heat, now are actually more harmful - fashion magazine that glorify the semi-anorexic figures of thin models, gossip magazines whose story lines are about how much cellulite a particular model or celebrity has or even just salacious gossip about the sex lives of the women profiled.

From my perspective, it's hot air but the thing that gets me is that the women featured in lad's mags tend to be more curvy, more "natural" (given the extent of Photoshop and retouching) and I certainly don't think these mags should be covered up or have "modesty" covers as proposed. I'd rather look at a natural curvy woman with curves than a stick figure.

Which do you think is the more harmful to women's body image? Which is the more harmful to women's self esteem?

 

[lizzie]

I tend to think that many women are more harmful to their own self-esteem.

 

[Binary_Digit]

At what point can men appreciate the sex appeal of a beautiful woman without being seen as "reducing her to a sex object"?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I wouldn't say that one is more harmful than the other. I would say that they're both harmful, but perhaps in different ways. I think mainstream men's magazines tends to portray women in terms of their ability to please men. I think mainstream women's magazines tend to portray women in terms the ideals that women are expected to live up to (many of which have been determined by men and reinforced by women who internalize the former's expectations). In both cases, there is little, if any, appreciation for woman as they are. There is little appreciation for authenticity. It's "be X or something is wrong with you," for the most part.

 

[Henrin]

Am I the only one sick of hearing about this stuff from feminists? We are not going to start liking unshapely women, sorry.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

At what point can men appreciate the sex appeal of a beautiful woman without being seen as "reducing her to a sex object"?

It depends on who you ask. And, at the end of the day, women get to determine for themselves what level of "appreciation" they are comfortable with. Some women are comfortable with all levels of "appreciation". Others are comfortable with none. If a man cannot deal with someone who is closer to the latter, then that is their problem, in my opinion.

In my life, I tend to live by the rule of respecting the boundaries that people set for themselves. This means that if someone were to be uncomfortable with something I say about them or my "appreciation" of them, then I respect that and don't take it personally.

 

[Gardener]

Which do you think is the more harmful to women's body image? Which is the more harmful to women's self esteem?

Vapid, superficial mags aimed at boys are read by vapid, superficial boys. Vapid, superficial mags aimed at girls are read by vapid, superficial girls. As to "harm", I would say the bigger influence would come from the latter, but I see the mags as just being indicative of an overall society too preoccupied with these sorts of things. Ours is probably worse than yours in that regard, but it's really the intellectual content as reflected in a dumbed down society that is the real issue.

 

[HonestJoe]

At what point can men appreciate the sex appeal of a beautiful woman without being seen as "reducing her to a sex object"?

It's the difference between appreciating a woman as a whole individual and drooling over an anonymous body.

 

[Spriggs05]

There's currently a hot debate over two large supermarket chains (Tesco) (Co-Op)which have given in to pressure from women's groups over the front covers of magazines like Loaded, Nuts and Zoo. ("warning" the last 3 links are to the websites and contain pics of scantily clad women.. :2razz

The criticism is that these magazine debase women and reduce them to sex objects however the counterclaim is that certain women's magazines like heat, now are actually more harmful - fashion magazine that glorify the semi-anorexic figures of thin models, gossip magazines whose story lines are about how much cellulite a particular model or celebrity has or even just salacious gossip about the sex lives of the women profiled.

From my perspective, it's hot air but the thing that gets me is that the women featured in lad's mags tend to be more curvy, more "natural" (given the extent of Photoshop and retouching) and I certainly don't think these mags should be covered up or have "modesty" covers as proposed. I'd rather look at a natural curvy woman with curves than a stick figure.

Which do you think is the more harmful to women's body image? Which is the more harmful to women's self esteem?

If they manage to cover those magazines in the supermarkets then I propose modesty covers on Cosmopolitan, OK and Playgirl.
Or we could save time and money and just not have them, hell all it does is make them more noticeable. Stupid people. :doh

 

[Tigger]

Here's my view as an American and someone who has a well-known bias against modern women.....

I don't think either typd of magazine does women any good. The "men's" magazines provide an unrealistic ideal for women and for the most part suggest that physical attrcation is the only meaningful measure of value.... what about the ability to cook, clean, do laundry, and maintain a home, in addition to physical appearance and the ability to satisfy his "personal" needs? The women's magazinesprovide an equally unrealistic physical appearance standard, and one that most men aren't interested in while suggesting that the rest of her life can be summed up in "10 easy steps to..." or "The 25 things....". Life is never that formulaic.

 

[Mr X]

Here's my view as an American and someone who has a well-known bias against modern women.....

I don't think either typd of magazine does women any good. The "men's" magazines provide an unrealistic ideal for women and for the most part suggest that physical attrcation is the only meaningful measure of value.... what about the ability to cook, clean, do laundry, and maintain a home...

I don't care how much you deny it, you've got to be trolling.

 

[Tigger]

I don't care how much you deny it, you've got to be trolling.

Nope. Not at all. Believe it or not there are still some of us Traditionalists out here fighting the good fight in society. That's why I'm still single at age 39 (though I will be married before I'm 40. 12 days before, to be precise).

 

[Fallenangel]

From my perspective, it's hot air but the thing that gets me is that the women featured in lad's mags tend to be more curvy, more "natural" (given the extent of Photoshop and retouching) and I certainly don't think these mags should be covered up or have "modesty" covers as proposed. I'd rather look at a natural curvy woman with curves than a stick figure.

Me too, these are also the types of women that i prefer to draw and paint.

Which do you think is the more harmful to women's body image? Which is the more harmful to women's self esteem?

Frankly, I don't know, though i'm sure that there are tons of studies about the harmful effects and influence of such images on women's self esteem.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Me too, these are also the types of women that i prefer to draw and paint.

There's some cool stuff on your website and I see what you mean. I tend to draw / paint a wider range of models but I like to look at curvy... (Nigella Lawson being a great example of curvy)

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- what about the ability to cook, clean, do laundry, and maintain a home, in addition to physical appearance and the ability to satisfy his "personal" needs? --

You do realise we're in the 21st Century? Women have no need to do any of those things to be valued by men (or anyone).

 

[Tigger]

You do realise we're in the 21st Century? Women have no need to do any of those things to be valued by men (or anyone).

LI realize its the 21st century. That does. Not mean that real men's view of women needs to have changed at all since their has been no reason for a woman's role in the world to change.

 

[Higgins86]

I think its a little silly. I used to by Zoo, FHM etc when I was a teenager. Just a bit of a laugh with attractive women to look at who wanted to be photographed in that wya.

 

[rathi]

Why do lad mags even exist anymore? The internet is instantly accessible, has much wider selection and is mostly free. Technology marches on folks.

 

[PeteEU]

I smell the morality policy of the Tory party behind this.. there has been a lot of this crap in the UK media lately. It is a nice way of deflecting away from serious corruption and other stuff but come on..

 

[Spriggs05]

(though I will be married before I'm 40. 12 days before, to be precise).

Congrats

I smell the morality policy of the Tory party behind this.. there has been a lot of this crap in the UK media lately. It is a nice way of deflecting away from serious corruption and other stuff but come on..

Probably, the Tories will want to gain back the support of their main Christian base whom they have alienated due to gay marriage and other such "moral concerns" as they would probably put it. Also it kinda helps deflect Prism away, so they are bound to go for it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There's currently a hot debate over two large supermarket chains (Tesco) (Co-Op)which have given in to pressure from women's groups over the front covers of magazines like Loaded, Nuts and Zoo. ("warning" the last 3 links are to the websites and contain pics of scantily clad women.. :2razz

The criticism is that these magazine debase women and reduce them to sex objects however the counterclaim is that certain women's magazines like heat, now are actually more harmful - fashion magazine that glorify the semi-anorexic figures of thin models, gossip magazines whose story lines are about how much cellulite a particular model or celebrity has or even just salacious gossip about the sex lives of the women profiled.

From my perspective, it's hot air but the thing that gets me is that the women featured in lad's mags tend to be more curvy, more "natural" (given the extent of Photoshop and retouching) and I certainly don't think these mags should be covered up or have "modesty" covers as proposed. I'd rather look at a natural curvy woman with curves than a stick figure.

Which do you think is the more harmful to women's body image? Which is the more harmful to women's self esteem?

7 or so years ago when I first heard of Lad the issue wasn't that they 'objectified women' - I remember the issue being 'that they promoted domestic violence and sexual abuse against women' - and their readership (via responses and quotes) came across as being no different than lyrics to a sub-class rap song.

There's a huge difference between supporting and encouraging the behavior of rapists VS liking some porn and thinking chicks are hot.

Did they clean up their **** since then - or are they still the 'we hate women' beat-box (and I don't mean this in some faux, fabricated anti-male slant. The initial controversy was about comments and views expressed directly by the readership.)

 

[Higgins86]

7 or so years ago when I first heard of Lad the issue wasn't that they 'objectified women' - I remember the issue being 'that they promoted domestic violence and sexual abuse against women' - and their readership (via responses and quotes) came across as being no different than lyrics to a sub-class rap song.

There's a huge difference between supporting and encouraging the behavior of rapists VS liking some porn and thinking chicks are hot.

Did they clean up their **** since then - or are they still the 'we hate women' beat-box (and I don't mean this in some faux, fabricated anti-male slant. The initial controversy was about comments and views expressed directly by the readership.)

There is still a certain bias in the magazines from what I hear and they def still can be very sexist but thats the kind of humour some men enjoy. Its similar to the barstool.com websites in the US which take a lot of flak from womens groups, for me personally I dont see how its any different from the anti men articles in cosmo etc

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's not about the content, it's about the covers, and the fact that to use a film analogy, the audience in the store is often a G, but the covers (of both types) are PG at least.

 

[PeteEU]

Probably, the Tories will want to gain back the support of their main Christian base whom they have alienated due to gay marriage and other such "moral concerns" as they would probably put it.

Maybe, but gay marriage aint a big issue and the "Christian base" is clearly on the wrong side of the debate when even their political party disagrees with them.

Also it kinda helps deflect Prism away, so they are bound to go for it.

Prism? Hardly talked about... there are other bigger scandals in the UK.. like the Home Secretary redacting an official report on migration.. redacting bits that would put her and the Tories in a very bad light.. like pointing out there are often massive lines between France and the UK because of British government incompetence.. Or the lobbying scandal that stinks of corruption at the highest level, that Cameron has so far managed to bury thanks to Kate and her baby. Prism is hardly on the radar these days... guess the UK citizen is use to being spied on.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There is still a certain bias in the magazines from what I hear and they def still can be very sexist but thats the kind of humour some men enjoy. Its similar to the barstool.com websites in the US which take a lot of flak from womens groups, for me personally I dont see how its any different from the anti men articles in cosmo etc

Well that wasn't the issue when it first came up forever ago - it was pro-rape sentiments that were under fire. I don't know how things stand now. Since I read none of the above, I'm leaning more toward 'I don't care about the non-psycho stuff' (ie: the pro-rape comments)