Who needs Lads Mags?

So modesty covers and potentially restricting sales to the over 18s, have been in the press this week, with Tesco seeming to be at the front of this move. But this isn't good enough as Lose the Lads Mags campaign group point out.

A 'modesty cover' to conceal the nudity and breasts/sexual poses doesn't remove or stop this content from being made or existing. By covering the women up it does not really afford them any modesty, as soon as the covers are removed the women have been stripped of their modesty and in my opinion their dignity. Once the modesty cover has been removed the women are degraded to simply being pieces of meat for the stimulation of the buyer. By suggesting modesty covers the supermarkets seem to acknowledge that the content is inappropriate or not respectful. So why not do it properly? Why not ban the sale of these magazines?

I know there is far worse material online, and I know that those in favour of the ISP level porn opt-in will support blocking this, although perhaps without fully understanding or considering the power, restrictions and flaws that such a plan includes. I would like to make it clear I object to porn in all its forms, but I don't think this 'porn filter' as it has been termed will work. I also think the potential for blocking other material is too great a fear to ignore. However, this is not the blog post for such a debate. But, supermarkets need to properly consider their female and younger shoppers. I don't want to visit a supermarket that is selling lads mags, but I have little choice at the moment. I don't want to shop somewhere where crude and degrading images of women are sold, even if they are sealed in a paper/plastic bag. I'm sure parents of young children don't want to have answer awkward or inappropriate questions about the material shown on and in these magazines. Tweets from my followers and others indicate that this is a real problem and concern for many parents when shopping.

I also think that it is unfair on the shop workers to have to stack, handle and scan these items. For some it might cause embarrassment, for others it might distress or frustrate them. A fair question, that has been raised by many, is that is it discrimination against women to stock these sort of magazine? As it depicts women as sex objects. I don't know whether this is an argument that would hold in a court of law, but it is an interesting point.

Finally, the 'over 18' argument. At 18 you are legally an adult, but why as an adult is it suddenly ok to consume images of scantily clad women? At 18 is it suddenly ok to disrespect the opposite sex? No. So being an adult doesn't make it any better at all. It just seems another half-hearted attempt to show that you are bringing in some means of controlling who sees and buys the images. Without actually thinking about the impact of the images, because if you did then the logical step is to ban the magazines altogether. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Lose the Lads Mags is a fantastic campaign. See how you can get involved and make a difference towards creating a more equal and respectful society. Good luck!

Lifestyle in the supermarket

I have tweeted about this before, as have numerous people that I follow, it really isn't anything new. When you walk into the supermarket next time check out the magazines.

Many magazine stands seem to have slipped through a timewarp and are stuck in the 1950s. My most recent trip to a large supermarket (this morning - and shall remain nameless) showed 'men's lifestyle' and 'women's lifestyle'.

Men's lifestyle contained:

• magazines with naked women, examples such as Loaded
• magazines about science, examples such as New Scientist
• magazines about political satire and current affairs, examples such as Private Eye

The women's lifestyle section contained:

• Baby magazines, no examples I'm afraid as in my outrage I didn't pay enough attention!
• House and home type maagzines
• Bridal and wedding magazines
• Cooking magazines
• Fashion and gossip magazines have a whole other section!

I'm not suggesting that women can not stray into the men's lifestyle section to buy a magazine, that is not the issue. There isn't a barrier checking to see if you are male or not before your hand is allowed to browse the shelf. It is the fact that hobbies and interests are being clearly divided along gender lines. In the 21st century is there really any need to split these magazines down gender lines? Is the human race that clear cut? Whilst I imagine that the target market for many baby and pregnancy magazines is the female market, that does not mean a husband, partner, brother, father etc might not want to know what is going on!

The other issue is that as a woman if you want to buy New Scientist or the Private Eye for example is that you have to stand amongst the magazines that have semi-naked women on the cover. You might not feel comfortable in standing in front of a large sign that says Men's Lifestyle and trying to glance between the breasts to find what you want!

So, to conclude what became a much longer rant than I expected, no-one is saying you can not buy from either section it might just be nice to remove the gendered lines. Not all women are interested in babies and good housekeeping, just as not all men want to buy magazines with semi-naked women. Magazines should be shelved simply along the lines of common interest: babies and housekeeping, cooking, sports, Science, the economy and politics and so on. Not such a huge ask is it?