How I became a lads' mag feminist

Lulu Le Vay used to physically balk at the sight of a young bloke flicking through the bosom-heavy pages of a lads’ mag. But once she started working for one, she became a lot less sure that these publications were as "degrading and harmful" as she had al

Gender equality pressure group UK Feminista are the key activists of the "lose the lads’ mags" campaign - the impact of which has resulted in a number of these publications being "modesty masked" in high street supermarkets. Some, however, have stood their ground. Nuts, Front and Zoo have been removed from the shelves of Co-op stores entirely, preferring to lose their spot than comply to media censorship. According to UK Feminista: "Lads’ mags promote sexist attitudes and behaviours. They normalise the idea that it’s acceptable to treat women like sex objects. These are degrading and harmful publications."

A year ago I would have agreed with this statement wholeheartedly. I physically balked at the sight of a young bloke flicking through the bosom-heavy pages of one particular lads’ mag on a bus or a plane. This was a magazine I detested from my core. I made a snap judgement and assumption about both the reader and the publication. I instantly placed that person and the magazine within a certain category - a category beneath the one I "believed" I was smugly sitting in. My belief in being perched high up on the snobby social mobility ladder protruded with as much pride as the cover stars' monumental assets. But what were these judgements based on, precisely? My perspective on lads’ mags has now completely changed, since I started working on one of them.

I have always been interested in girls' and women’s issues since I was a teenager. Being a 1970s child born last into a family dominated by older brothers (11 kids in total, spawned from two mothers), I had no option. I had first-hand experience of growing up within the dominant patriarchal society. At 10 years old I was demonstrating at Greenham Common with my mother - an ardent first-waver. Her passion for women’s rights was a big influence. My first degree back in the 1990s in Art History explored issues of the representation of women in arts and the media, and when I embarked on a Masters in Gender, Media and Culture last year, my interest and knowledge peaked. I became immersed in Feminist Theory and got to grips with semiotics, which has enabled me to pick apart media messages with a number of underpinning theories. I have now embarked on a PhD in Sociology focusing on the feminised social body and media effects in relation to trends in assisted conception. I can now - and do - call myself a feminist. I've earned - well, am earning - the academic stripes. 

So, with this in mind, it seems remarkable (if not unfathomable) to me that I’ve made such a U-turn on my venomous standpoint against this one specific publication, that was making my feminist blood boil. Much to my own surprise I was offered - and accepted - freelance work on this magazine as a subeditor: the person who proofreads the copy, conjures up hilarious picture captions (well, I try) and creates snappy headlines.

Over the last few months I’ve been brought down a peg or two. Why? Because through the nature of this work I have had to delve deep into the magazine content and read it, rather than simmering with sanctimony from afar. To my surprise the copy is clean - there are no swear words, and no derogatory language is directed toward the featured women. The tone is light, fun and friendly. Even working in the office I’ve found myself surrounded by a pleasant team of educated, happily married blokes who are simply doing their job, and doing it well. The sprinkling of girls working in editorial and advertising are also perfectly content. Interestingly, there are more girls doing work experience than boys, mostly coming from a media undergraduate background.

During my time on the "inside", thus far, there has been much discussion about the feminist campaign against them, and how they "treat women like sex objects". The arguments that have arisen are openly debated amongst colleagues, which has been impossible to ignore. Why should the covers of lads' mags be singled out and not the torso-glistening covers of gay magazines? Why is it acceptable to have a size zero model with her nipples out in a fashion title and not acceptable to have a size 12 or 14 curvy woman doing precisely the same thing in a lads' mag? (These women would be considered too fat for the emaciated requirements of fashion mags). So, this provokes some questions. Do different rules apply within differing class categories? Does an image of a naked woman hanging in an art gallery mean less objectification because of the more esoteric space, and because the audience is of a different socio-cultural background? These arguments are complex and there are no clear answers. But they are there, and should be openly considered.

Now, more informed, I’ve become far more broad-minded. However, I still have concerns with the representation of young women in these types of publications. My issue now is not so much about the actual magazines featuring them, but more so with the girls' desire to be featured. These magazines are inundated by young girls - models and regular girls - desperately wanting to make a nudey splash across the pages; clambering for affirmation of their value, for some kind of societal approval. Is it here the cycle needs to be broken? Or is it not their own choice - emancipation through objectification? Are we as a society simply being too uptight?

I am now wrestling emotionally and intellectually with these two worlds. One moment, in my personal study, I’m exploring ideas around women’s bodies being both subjects and objects of images, and how young women’s bodies "become" through relationships with images under dominant patriarchal codes, which could be related directly to the content I am working with at this particular lads’ mag. The next moment I am confirming my next subbing shift and discussing with the production editor what cake I should bring in so he can let me leave early to meet my supervisor.

The feminist within me is now not fully sure if these magazines are "degrading and harmful", after all. But what I am decided upon, is that one genre of publication should not be targeted, and that this objectification finger-pointing is a class issue as much as feminist issue.

If society disapproves of objectification of the subject, then cover them all up - only then would that be true equality.

Why should the covers of lads' mags be singled out and not the torso-glistening covers of gay magazines?

Lulu LeVay is a sociologist, feminist, writer, DJ and fitness fanatic.

Getty
Show Hide image

Amoris Laetitia: papal document on love and the family goes easy on divorcees; rejects abortion and contraception

Despite inclusive language, the document also maintains the church's stance on gay marriage.

At midday today, Pope Francis released Amoris Laetitia, a document containing recent Catholic Church thinking on love and the family. 

It's an "apostolic exhortation", so not to be confused with a (more authoritative and weighty) papal encyclical, but it has been hotly anticipated thanks to its controversial subject matter. 

Exhortations are generally a round-up of recent Synod thinking, though following his last exhortation Francis was accused of introducing a distinctly "Marxist" spin of his own. As a result, some commentators were hoping that this release would be even more progressive - but they're likely to be disappointed. I've summarised some key points below. 

No movement on contraception

Francis emphasises that sex should only be for procreation: "no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning, even when for various reasons it may not always in fact beget a new life.'"

This appears to draw back from Francis's recent (rather exceptional) suggestion that contraception could be used to avoid pregnancy during the Zika virus outbreak. 

...or abortion and euthanasia

Francis makes no allowances for abortion whatsoever in Amoris Laetitia. He even criticises the vocabulary of the pro-choice movement when he notes: "no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life" (emphasis mine). 

The pope also criticises state action on abortion and contraception:

The Church strongly rejects the forced State intervention in favour of contraception, sterilization and even abortion. Such measures are unacceptable even in places with high birth rates, yet also in countries with disturbingly low birth rates we see politicians encouraging them.

Elsewhere, he cites euthanasia and assisted dying as "serious threats to families worldwide". He says the church "firmly [opposes] these practices" but should " assist families who take care of their elderly and infirm members”. 

Gay people should be respected and defended from violence, but not marry

Francis seeks to "reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity...while every sign of unjust discrimination is to be carefully avoided." 

However, elsewhere he reiterates that the Synod has strongly opposed any redefinition of marraige - which includes same-sex marriage. 

On communion for remarried people 

In several places, the Pope acknowledges that "irregular situations" can make it difficult to stick to the letter of Church law: 

"It is possible that in an objective situation of sin... a person can be living in God's grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiveing the Chruch's help to this end."

In a footnote, Francis notes that this should extend to sacraments, including communion and confession, implying that those who have sinned through remarriage should be able to partake.

He quotes a particularly cutting line against those with a more purist outlook: "The Eucharist 'is not a prize for the perfect, but a poweful medicine and nourishment for the weak".  

The need for sex education

This is acknowledged as a section title in the document, which may sound impressive - but the Church has actually acknowledged that a "positive and prudent" sex education is needed since the 1960s. This, of course, would not include teachings on contraception.

Francis notes that information should be given to children at the "proper time and in a way suited to their age" . He criticises pornography as one of many negative messages that "deform" children's sexuality.

Masculinity and femininity aren't rigid

In a passage that still asserts God's role in creating two separate genders, Francis encourages families to be flexible with gender roles: 

"Masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories. It is possible, for example, that a husband’s way of being masculine can be flexibly adapted to the wife’s work schedule. Taking on domestic chores or some aspects of raising children does not make him any less masculine or imply failure, irresponsibility or cause for shame."

You can read the full exhortation here.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.