Women - portrayal in UK lad's magazines vs portrayal in UK women's magazines

[Tigger]

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.

So long as the covers aren't hard R or NC-17, I don't see the issue. The images are hardly as the headlines on some of the women's mag covers here in the US.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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.

LOL, and it's all very well for a man to decide and dictate what a woman's role in the 21st Century is to be.

I smell the morality policy of the Tory party behind this..

Not this time, it's a couple of feminist groups like "Object," "Lose Page 3," and "UK Feminista" although yes, Cameron has had a say.

 

[Tigger]

LOL, and it's all very well for a man to decide and dictate what a woman's role in the 21st Century is to be.

It's not about my opinion. It's about basic biology and psychology which have been around for centuries.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It's not about my opinion. It's about basic biology and psychology which have been around for centuries.

LOL... the biology part counts for women's role in childbearing but which part of their biology explains ironing, cooking and cleaning?

 

[Tigger]

LOL... the biology part counts for women's role in childbearing but which part of their biology explains ironing, cooking and cleaning?

The fact that women are not as physically strong, tend to be more emotionally oriented, and more family-focused than men.

 

[NoC_T]

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?

Neither are 'harmful'.

More victimhood.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The fact that women are not as physically strong, tend to be more emotionally oriented, and more family-focused than men.

And despite this cultural assignment you give - women worked in factories in WW1 and 2 building the weapons of war. In Soviet Russia, female pilots (the night witches) and t-34 tank drivers proved just as able as their male counterparts.

Like I said a few posts ago, we're in the 21st century now and not the Victorian era. There will always be some relics of the past (men who believe as you do and women happy to take up this role) but we're mostly moving forward as a society.

 

[Tigger]

And despite this cultural assignment you give - women worked in factories in WW1 and 2 building the weapons of war.

Yes, and the vast majority of them went back home (where they belong) after the men returned from the war. They were only in those factories because the men were off doing their civic duty in the military.

Like I said a few posts ago, we're in the 21st century now and not the Victorian era. There will always be some relics of the past (men who believe as you do and women happy to take up this role) but we're mostly moving forward as a society.

No, you're moving sideways, looking for a way around the morality and values that most of you know in your hearts is really the proper way to live life.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Yes, and the vast majority of them went back home (where they belong)

LOL, they however showed what utter rubbish the argument that "a woman couldn't do a man's work" was.

-- No, you're moving sideways, looking for a way around the morality and values that most of you know in your hearts is really the proper way to live life.

Not really, we've simply both moved onto my area of argument which is that women's roles are culturally defined. You specifically have abandoned your original position to now argue about morality (?) and values rather than defend a position that women are somehow biologically suited to homekeeping.

 

[Tigger]

LOL, they however showed what utter rubbish the argument that "a woman couldn't do a man's work" was.

Life has never been about what one CAN do. It's about what one SHOULD do and what one DOES do.

Not really, we've simply both moved onto my area of argument which is that women's roles are culturally defined. You specifically have abandoned your original position to now argue about morality (?) and values rather than defend a position that women are somehow biologically suited to homekeeping.

Women are, and have always been both culturally and biologically defined. In fact the cultural definition follows closely from the biological one. When one looks at the strengths and weaknesses of both Men and women, it becomes obvious that one was designed to be much more involved in the child-raising, homemaking, and support role and the other was much more suited for leading and being the bread-winner in society.

 

[Serenity]

I am woman, hear me roar.

 

[Tigger]

I am woman, hear me roar.

Sorry, only two places I want to hear a woman "roar", and you and I will never be at either together.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Life has never been about what one CAN do. It's about what one SHOULD do and what one DOES do.

There are many people - both men and women who've redefined science, medicine, art and technology because they chose not to do what they were culturally supposed to. Your views are very much an anachronism.

-- Women are, and have always been both culturally and biologically defined. In fact the cultural definition follows closely from the biological one. When one looks at the strengths and weaknesses of both Men and women, it becomes obvious that one was designed to be much more involved in the child-raising, homemaking, and support role and the other was much more suited for leading and being the bread-winner in society.

That's immediately disproven by women in all sorts of cultures whose role does not fit your narrow view of homekeeper. The Agta women of the Philippines for example, the Aka women of Central Africa (where the men take the childrearing role).

If your theory isn't universal - it's not a rule. I could search for more examples but two are enough.

 

[Gardener]

Sorry, only two places I want to hear a woman "roar", and you and I will never be at either together.

Hearing them roar in pain as you beat them up as you have said so often you like to do is surely one of them. Which is the other?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Hearing them roar in pain as you beat them up as you have said so often you like to do is surely one of them. Which is the other?

Ack.

I can't contribute any further to the specific discussion on gender roles if this is true.

 

[Tigger]

Hearing them roar in pain as you beat them up as you have said so often you like to do is surely one of them. Which is the other?

Nope. Corporal Discipline, when required, should be taken quietly and without excess emotion. The two times I was referring to are at the beginning and end of a pregnancy, if you understand my meaning.

 

[notquiteright]

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

Perhaps the line is right before the dollar slips under the thong strap?

 

[Grant]

And despite this cultural assignment you give - women worked in factories in WW1 and 2 building the weapons of war. In Soviet Russia, female pilots (the night witches) and t-34 tank drivers proved just as able as their male counterparts.

Like I said a few posts ago, we're in the 21st century now and not the Victorian era. There will always be some relics of the past (men who believe as you do and women happy to take up this role) but we're mostly moving forward as a society.

"Moving forward" in what way?

It seems that when men marry they want a more 'traditional' marriage where she will maintain the home and he will provide the income. As sex is freely available anywhere there has to be other reasons for marriage, especially when a man understands that after he signs the certificate half of everything he owns will become hers.

The internet is full of women looking for men, their 'soul mates', but the majority of them will grow old alone. Many will also never have children and realize, too late, just what they missed.

Of course this is modern but it doesn't seem to have made men or women any happier. And if there is one sex who is happier with this present situation I'd say it is men, and largely because sex has become so readily available. This is an area where women have really become objectified, making magazine covers rather trivial in comparison to all the loneliness out there.

 

[Tigger]

It seems that when men marry they want a more 'traditional' marriage where she will maintain the home and he will provide the income. As sex is freely available anywhere there has to be other reasons for marriage, especially when a man understands that after he signs the certificate half of everything he owns will become hers.

That's why we have pre-nuptial agreements these days. To ensure that those "modern" women who cannot live up to the traditional marriage ideals DON'T get half of everything. Though from what I see, more and more men are giving up the Traditional marriage ideals in favor of a "modern" outlook on it, and thereby assisting in the destruction of the marriage concept to begin with.

The internet is full of women looking for men, their 'soul mates', but the majority of them will grow old alone. Many will also never have children and realize, too late, just what they missed.

It's not the one looking for "soul mates" who will die alone but much more the ones who are looking for truly traditional, male-dominated relationehips. There are so few men out there these days who truly understand what it means to be a head of household that it's truly sickening to me.

Of course this is modern but it doesn't seem to have made men or women any happier. And if there is one sex who is happier with this present situation I'd say it is men, and largely because sex has become so readily available. This is an area where women have really become objectified, making magazine covers rather trivial in comparison to all the loneliness out there.

All women are prostitutes, Grant. It's simply a matter of what form of currency they accept for their acts..... money, attention, a wedding ring, etc...The only thing that has changed is the number of forms of payment available in our society.

 

[Grant]

All women are prostitutes, Grant. It's simply a matter of what form of currency they accept for their acts..... money, attention, a wedding ring, etc...The only thing that has changed is the number of forms of payment available in our society.

I can't agree with that. When I discovered that women enjoy sex as much as I did it was a great revelation for me and opened up a whole new universe. But I would never accept that sex is the basis of a happy relationship. To me it is all about mutual respect and the sex part is only one of the many benefits of a successful and happy relationship.

 

[Tigger]

I can't agree with that. When I discovered that women enjoy sex as much as I did it was a great revelation for me and opened up a whole new universe. But I would never accept that sex is the basis of a happy relationship. To me it is all about mutual respect and the sex part is only one of the many benefits of a successful and happy relationship.

I totally agree that sex is not an appropriate basis for a relationship. In fact it is my personal belief that the only appropriate setting for sex is in a committed, long-term relationship. That doesn't mean that pretty much every woman in the world doesn't use her body to further her pet causes.... whether it's paying her rent or getting her bf/husband to choose the vacation destination that she prefers.

 

[Grant]

I totally agree that sex is not an appropriate basis for a relationship. In fact it is my personal belief that the only appropriate setting for sex is in a committed, long-term relationship. That doesn't mean that pretty much every woman in the world doesn't use her body to further her pet causes.... whether it's paying her rent or getting her bf/husband to choose the vacation destination that she prefers.

Ive used my body and looks to attract women also, or gave it my best shot. Some try to attract with intelligence, wealth, looks, a sense of humor, or whatever it might be to achieve the end result. I also have chosen the vacation destination and have made all the major decisions, though usually with the woman's approval. She allowed me to be the boss, and it suited us well. Others may have other systems that suit them well..

 

[Grant]

Nope. Corporal Discipline, when required, should be taken quietly and without excess emotion. The two times I was referring to are at the beginning and end of a pregnancy, if you understand my meaning.

This is not a place where I would go. how to beat a woman - YouTube