Lads Mags - harmless fun?

JuliusCaesar

Maybe not -

the university account

the newpaper account

Does regular exposure to AH bring about the same consequences?

krd

Yeah.

I'd seen that before.

I think it raises questions about society and culture in general.

And ye know.......When I think about it.......I have heard people justifying the actions of rapists (rapist that they liked --- aw, she led him on and drove him to it....she's only dirt and did this to get money etc)

But these magazines were very apparently misogynistic, before the UoS did their study. And you'd want to have screw lose to think otherwise.

Valmont

Without reading the research itself, I'm finding it hard to see the actual point of a study of this nature, interesting as it is.

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to see the actual point of a study of this nature

:eek:

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

:eek:

Care to elaborate?

krd wrote:

But these magazines were very apparently misogynistic, before the UoS did their study. And you'd want to have screw lose to think otherwise.

Misogyny, as I understand the definition, means a dislike of women. FHM, from what I understand, is entirely dependent on celebrating women. Sexist? Yes. Crass? Most definitely. Misogynistic? I'm not so sure.

hotspur

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

:eek:

I agree with Valmont. We know lads mags may be misogynistic, we know some rapists may be misogynistic. That one could find statements issued by both that look similar is not remotely interesting or illuminative of anything in my view.

I haven't seen a description of the methodology but I am assuming they cherry picked the most egregiously misogynistic quotes from lads mags. If so I could probably replicate the study with the Beano and serial killers.

Is there anything remotely interesting or surprising that participants identified more with quotes they thought were from a lads mag than a rapist? Who is going to identify with any bloody quote they think is from a rapist?

It strikes me as being very low quality science which is purposely, by mere association, trying to create a view that there is a link between the laughable misogynistic rubbish that they write in lads mags and pathological criminal behaviour.

I see no value in the study as I understand it to be.

krd

Valmont wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Misogyny, as I understand the definition, means a dislike of women. FHM, from what I understand, is entirely dependent on celebrating women. Sexist? Yes. Crass? Most definitely. Misogynistic? I'm not so sure.

Let's call a spade a spade. Misogyny is the hatred of women.

However, it's not that simple and straight forward. The vast majority of misogynists are heterosexual men. Can you see the wonderful contradiction. These misogynists desire and hate women, simultaneously - which I think intensifies the hatred. And drives the craziness.

FHM, and the "lads" magazines are not "celebrating" women. They reduce women to subservient play objects for men. The whole presentation oozes misogynistic hatred. These women are presented as available, and crucially as dis-empowered - castrated. FHM, or any of those other magazines are going to "celebrate" women for their intelligence, or any other achievement apart from looking dumb and pretty. It's not that the magazines are absolutely anti-intellectual. Occasionally, they'll give over a two page spread for some ladish male writer, but you won't see them do the same for woman writer.

I used to like these magazines. They were initially kind of loose style and culture magazines. Little bits of everything. Then a few years back they literally went NUTS. Now the pages are covered in young women out at night clubs kissing each other or "getting their tits out fer the lads".

These magazines are not a "celebration of women". They're a celebration of misogyny and a really successful attempt to normalise misogyny. They're far worse than out and out hardcore porn - which has different context.

WesternNight

Valmont wrote: »

Misogyny, as I understand the definition, means a dislike of women. FHM, from what I understand, is entirely dependent on celebrating women. Sexist? Yes. Crass? Most definitely. Misogynistic? I'm not so sure.

Misogyny is the hatred of/prejudice against women purely because they're women. As in, believing that women are inferior to men. Misogyny is inherent in sexism, they're not mutually exclusive.

Valmont

WesternNight wrote: »

Misogyny is inherent in sexism, they're not mutually exclusive.

Men can also be the victims of sexism so I'm afraid your point is moot.

@krd
I've never actually read an FHM in my life so I won't disagree with your appraisal.

Adhamh

I read the first source with an open mind and found it interesting. Then as soon as the second window opened and I saw that you provided us with a link to Jezebel- the feminist Daily Mail- I closed it. I have better things to do with my time than get accused for all the evil in the world just cause I have a penis.

Adhamh

WesternNight wrote: »

Misogyny is inherent in sexism, they're not mutually exclusive.

No, misogyny is hating women, sexism is thinking that they're different from men, not inferior or incapable, just different.

WesternNight

Valmont wrote: »

Men can also be the victims of sexism so I'm afraid your point is moot.

I never said they couldn't.

Misogyny is inherent in sexism against women, to be specific about it then.

@Adhamh: Sexism is the discrimination or prejudice against a person based on their sex. Startlingly similar to misogyny, only it's not limited to women. It's not merely difference. It's a presumption of inferiority.

krd

Adhamh wrote: »

I read the first source with an open mind and found it interesting. Then as soon as the second window opened and I saw that you provided us with a link to Jezebel- the feminist Daily Mail- I closed it. I have better things to do with my time than get accused for all the evil in the world just cause I have a penis.

That's a failure of your imagination. You're automatically identifying yourself with a "universal" male subject. And that any attack on any element of "maleness", even if the specific element of "maleness" is something you find repugnant, you have a knee jerk reaction and feel it's a personal attack on you.

Are you going to jump to the defence of some arsehole who's just beaten his partner within inches of her death, because he is a man. And you feel you need to stick up for the boys.

And many women are the same. They feel that an attack on any woman, or even the kind of woman that they may personally hate, is an attack on them.

I believe contemporary feminism has reached a dead end. Because it won't accept, the "universal" male subject and "universal" female subject, as being dead ends.