British Supermarkets Could Face Sexual Harassment Complaints Over Lads' Mags

Here's the latest in the ayatollah feminists' campaign to ban men's magazines in Britain, at the Guardian UK, "Lose the lads' mags or risk legal action, say lawyers" (via Memeorandum).

As I always say, the more progressives harass and intimidate over babe blogging (and Page 3 girls) the harder I'll be hitting the Rule 5.

From Toby Young, "First they came for the lads' mags… then they came for me" (via Memeorandum):

Today's Guardian contains more proof, if proof were needed, that Harriet Harman's Equality Act poses a direct threat to free speech. It has published a letter from 11 lawyers, including a QC, threatening supermarkets with legal action unless lads' mags are immediately withdrawn from sale. "Displaying these publications in workplaces, and/or requiring staff to handle them in the course of their jobs, may amount to sex discrimination and sexual harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010," it says. "Similarly, exposing customers to these publications in the process of displaying them is capable of giving rise to breaches of the Equality Act."

The letter is written in support of Lose the Lads' Mags, a campaign that's been launched by UK Feminista and Object, two Left-wing lobby groups with a history of opposing free speech. Indeed, Object was one of four "women's groups" to submit evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and was instrumental in persuading Lord Leveson to recommend that the new press regulator be empowered to investigate third party complaints "from representative women's groups", i.e. groups like UK Feminista and Object. (The basis on which a handful of Left-wing feminists claim to be "representing" half the human race remains unclear, though Leveson appears to have taken that claim at face value.) I blogged about the danger this posed to free speech here.

UK Feminista and Object assert that lads' mags "harm" women – a claim also made by those who want to ban Page 3 like Harriet Harman. In an article in today's Guardian pegged to the lawyers' letter, the founder of UK Femnista describes lads' mags as "deeply harmful" to women. Sophie Bennett, the Campaigns' Officer of Object, spells out in detail what form this "harm" takes:

Lads' mags dehumanise and objectify women, promoting harmful attitudes that underpin discrimination and violence against women and girls. Reducing women to sex objects sends out an incredibly dangerous message that women are constantly sexually available and displaying these publications in everyday spaces normalises this sexism.

Continue reading.

Violence against women in Britain has actually declined at the same time that access to lads' mags has increased. Protecting women isn't why the radical feminists are pushing this. The left wants to suppress speech it disagrees with, and giving people agency over what shops they frequent and what they read goes against the left's program to criminalize thought that deviates from the so-called progressive agenda.

More at Guardian UK, "Supermarkets could face harassment complaints over lads' mags, say lawyers."

IMAGE CREDIT: Laura'Jane Hollyman on Twitter.

Death of the Lads Mags?

Well, not quite yet, but Britain's radical feminists are definitely on a roll.

At the Independent UK, "Loaded magazine bids farewell":

Campaigns to obscure the covers of lads’ mags in the name of feminism hit the industry hard in the past couple of years, especially when big retailers like the Co-op got on board, but that’s not what killed off Loaded and Nuts. Both represent an ideology which has become markedly unpopular. “Laddishness” is dying out; the whole concept has become desperately uncool. Even mainstream online porn has been shifting to focus on shared pleasure rather than straightforward female objectification.

Don't believe it for a second.

Lads mags have been shutting down for political reasons, after enduring the assault from the left. When you remove magazines from the marketplace, by covering them and placing them out of sight, market share takes a hit. Nuts reported at the time that they had a good run and didn't need the hassle. It's not quite as bad in the U.S., but it's bad. Protect your freedoms assiduously.

More at the Guardian UK, "Loaded magazine to close after 21 years."

PREVIOUSLY: "Radical Feminists Take Down Nuts Magazine, Leading British 'Lads Mag'." (More at the "Lads Mags" search.

And at the Other McCain, "British Left’s War on ‘Page Three Girls’."

FHM and Zoo Magazines to 'Suspend' Publication

Following-up from April, "Death of the Lads Mags?"

The feminist campaign to destroy men's magazines in Britain is virtually complete.

At the Telegraph UK, "The end of the lads' mag? FHM and Zoo magazines suspended":

FHM and Zoo magazines are to suspend publication, their publisher has announced.

Bauer Media today set in motion the process to call time on the two titles, effectively ending the presence of so-called 'lads' mags' on newsagent shelves.

"Unfortunately it’s true and it has been announced today the intention to suspend publication of FHM,"  read a statement posted on the FHM website.

"It’s been an absolute joy producing the magazine over the years. Thank you for all your support, we will keep you updated with developments over the coming weeks.

A similar statement published on Zoo's site said: "It is with regret we have to inform you of the intention to suspend publication of ZOO.

"We've loved every minute of the near 12 years and 600-plus issues we've shared with you and would like to thank each and every one of you who've been there with us along the way."

Still more.

Look, even Playboy's ditching the centerfold. It's hard out there for hot red-blooded males.

Britain's Co-operative Group Attacks 'Harmful' Lads' Mags

They're under a lot of pressure, no doubt.

At London's Daily Mail, "The Co-op declares war on 'harmful' lads' mags: Supermarket insist on 'modesty covers' for its shelves."

The magazines are popular. But all the more reason to reject the left's disgusting program of intolerance.

FRONT 184 is in stores today! Here's why you need it in your life http://t.co/CH4W8ZEqtj pic.twitter.com/vPLMPYxNVF

— FRONT Magazine (@frontmag) July 18, 2013

More, "FRONT MAGAZINE ISSUE 184 - DANIELLE."

RELATED: At the Other McCain, "British Left’s War on ‘Page Three Girls’."

Radical Feminists Take Down Nuts Magazine, Leading British 'Lads Mag'

Perhaps other business issues were at play, but clearly the boycott campaign by bitter, ugly feminists played a huge role in the demise of this 10-year-old institution of men's interest publications.

At Independent UK, "Nuts final issue: Lucy Pinder cries on the front cover as the lads' mag."

Last year, the Lose the Lad Mags campaign was launched which called for the ban of such publications in high-street shops. The Co-Operative chain said that it would only sell such magazines if they were sealed in plastic bags. While Loaded complied, Nuts, Zoo and Front refused to acquiesce and consequently had their publications pulled from the store’s shelves.

Actually, I thought Nuts would weather the storm, but the magazine's circulation is down dramatically from ten years ago, when over 300,000 British men enjoyed each issue. Britain has its share of Lads Mags (so, competition), and interestingly, Nutz gave a shout out to Zoo, it's main rival, in the final edition. Last year Nuts announced that the magazine would not bow to demands to wrap its product in "modesty covers," and perhaps at that time it knew the end was near:

"As has been widely reported in the media in recent weeks, this is no longer a question of whether or not you like men's magazines, it is a question of how far you can restrict the public's ability to consume free and legal media before it becomes censorship."

The Nutz website has been taken down as well.

Check my "Lads Mag" search for more on the British feminist left's campaign of totalitarian censorship.

And at the Other McCain, "British Left’s War on ‘Page Three Girls’."

Feminists at Camden School For Girls 'Blast' Tesco Market for Sale of Nuts Magazine at 'Eye-Level'

Well, we wouldn't want any young fellas seeing anything improper, now would we?

At the Camden New Journal, "Camden School For Girls’ Feminist Group blasts Tesco for displaying ‘degrading’ lads’ mags at child’s eye level":

SIXTH-FORM pupils have formed their own campaigning feminist group and are taking on a shop selling “degrading lads’ mags” near their school.

They argue magazines such as Nuts and Zoo – with pictures of women posing in their underwear and showing off their cleavages – should be positioned away from the eyeline of children and teenagers.

The Camden School For Girls’ Feminist Group say they have asked staff at the Tesco, opposite their school in Camden Road, Camden Town, to move the magazines – but have so far been ignored.

The rack of magazines is next to where many children buy their sandwiches and drinks  at lunchtime.

Isabella Woolford Diaz, 17, one of the founders of the group, said: “If you walk in here, you can see where people go to get food, and the magazines are clearly on the eyesight level of us all.

“The magazine covers are not the image we should see – it is very submissive for women. In other shops, they have already moved magazines or put covers over the picture bit of the front cover. Marks & Spencer has been good at this.”

The feminist group is concerned that the racy front covers have two negative impacts: leading boys to see women only as sexual objects; and pushing girls into worrying about weight and appearance, possibly triggering eating disorders.

Asked what the group would say to models like Lucy Pinder – this week’s Nuts cover girl – if they met her, Ms Woolford Diaz added: “We are not about being aggressive or judgmental. I’d want to know the background, how she got into doing this.”

Hmm, Lucy Pinder at eye-level?

That would be horrible, just horrible!

Professor Caroline Heldman on the New Culture of Sexual Objectification

She's a talented lecturer, although she's way out there ideologically.

At Upworthy, "Being A Sex Object Is Empowering. Oh, Wait, No It’s Not. Here’s Why."

I agree with a lot of what she says, especially about the violently sexualized imagery, but when you get down to her solutions to an "objectification culture" it's mostly about boycotting and especially censorship. Note further that because this kind of zeitgeist sociology is at the forefront of "rape culture" feminism, her program forms a particularly pernicious form of misandry (e.g., the vicious "lads mags" boycott in Britain).



And note at the clip, Professor Heldman says, at about 5:10 minutes, "Most women are heterosexuals, and we are sexual beings, so why wouldn't we see half-naked men in advertising everywhere?" Now, besides getting some hoots out of the young women in the audience, Professor Heldman is speaking as though she's heterosexual. However, she recently posted a photo to Twitter of herself with her lesbian "wifey" Professor Danielle Dirks. Perhaps her meaning of "heterosexual" could go either way --- speaking of herself as a proxy for women everywhere --- but technically she's not likely to be attracted to "half-naked" men all the time, no more than I'm attracted to seeing hot men in women's magazines, or fitness magazines, or whatever. In fact, by misrepresenting her sexual orientation she sells her message to young heterosexual women in bad faith. It's not a clear objective fact that photos of sexually desirable women are essentially degrading ("objectifying") and hence violative of women's rights. It's simply a hypothesis of the radical Marxist misandrous paradigm. I mean really, you don't have to go far into the feminist fever swamps to find vile, vindictive and vicious hatred of men, from people like Amanda Marcotte to the even more (surprisingly) extreme Andrea Dworkin knockoff "Witchwind" discussed by Robert Stacy McCain a couple of weeks ago: "Mental Illness and Radical Feminism."

Notice how Professor Heldman's stealth radicalism, and her casually dishonest identification as heterosexual, poses something more dangerous to basic family stability and social decency than the crazed feminists like Marcotte and her ilk. Professor Heldman packages a really radical, totalitarian program in a sort of attractive, pretty-girl-next-door wholesomeness. Notice how she removes her false eyelashes at the end of the talk to great effect, wiping off her eye shade, mascara and lip gloss to reveal her pasty, puffy facial features. She's not so pretty when you take off all the cosmetic preparation, but then again, why put it on in the first place? Professor Heldman wants people to think they can have it both ways: you can reject the culture that puts a high premium on good looks and walk around like a unwashed bag lady, or you can preen around as a hottie, media savvy feminist professor, ramming man-hating cultural Marxism down the throats of generations of young women who fall for Professor Heldman's platinum blond mane and confident, smooth talking delivery.

As shirtless tennis stud Andre Agassi once said, "Image is everything." (Ironic, isn't it?)

Sports Illustrated's #MeToo Swimsuit Issue (VIDEO)

Sports Illustrated taking the heat for some alleged hypocrisy.

Is it feminist to openly celebrate women's bodies, or is it regressive, "objectifying" women solely to satisfy the patriarchal gaze (and to make massive amounts of money)?

I don't care, frankly. As long as women remain free to do as the wish, then it's all good. Once you start policing this stuff, banning soft-porn from the marketplace, it's all overreaction. (Think of the "lads' mags" in Britain, which were banned from the magazine racks, bringing an end to an era.

In any case, Paulina Porizkova's doing great!