Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boods8897)
    ^this.
    There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I dunno I was thinking about trying to ban topless picture of men.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boods8897)
    ^this.
    There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's a difference. Men aren't sexualised. Men are idealised and not portrayed as objects the reader wants to own. Sexualisation and being portrayed as an ideal aren't the same. Sure there are exceptions, but often enough men are idealised and females are sexualised. That's why women argue there's little empowering about things like Page 3.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    I'm not a misandrist. I believe in gender equality, which is why I dislike the fact that women are constantly pressured to look good for other people. It so happens that men are generally the ones in charge in the press industry. It's also possible for women to have internalised misogyny, which I believe is largely the case for these magazines whose editors are female. I don't read them, but the front pages always seem to be about impressing men, and if women are being told by other women that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a man, then we have a problem.
    The content of the magazines is run by the editors. And do you think it's any different for men's magazines? Have you ever read Men's Health or GQ or looked at the covers? Everything you have said applies to men, yet your only concern is women when apparently you believe in gender equality. Moreover, you groundlessly blame everything in women's magazines on men - that is the definition of misandrist.

    (Original post by Blazar)
    This isn't meant condescendingly, but a lot of people don't realise that there actually is such a thing as looking good for yourself. My self-worth isn't tied to how other people react to my appearance. I rarely wear make-up, but if I feel like wearing it, then I will. I'm not trying to impress anyone by presenting myself in a way that I personally like.
    There is no such thing as looking good for yourself. Your self-worth in terms of physical appearance is absolutely defined by other people's opinion of your appearance. Every item of clothing you choose, every time you put on make-up, every time you go to the hair salon, you are trying to look good to impress others which in turn makes you feel good. Our confidence in how we look can only ever be attained within a community of people who acknowledge how we look. If you were the only person to have ever lived on Earth you would not ever wear make-up or care about your hair or what clothes you wear - "looking good" would have no inherent meaning, you wouldn't understand what that concept is.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    I'm curious: do you think banning porn would reduce 'objectification' (whatever that is) too?
    I'm not sure I can comment on that as I've deliberately avoided that kind of content. However, I've heard that there are problems in it with objectification of men and women, but especially women. I think there needs to be a change in the way women are viewed by the media - for example, of all the ridiculous "badly dressed celebrities" stories I've come across, not one of them has involved a man, or shaming him for how he dresses.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    The content of the magazines is run by the editors. And do you think it's any different for men's magazines? Have you ever read Men's Health or GQ or looked at the covers? Everything you have said applies to men, yet your only concern is women when apparently you believe in gender equality. Moreover, you groundlessly blame everything in women's magazines on men - that is the definition of misandrist.



    There is no such thing as looking good for yourself. Your self-worth in terms of physical appearance is absolutely defined by other people's opinion of your appearance. Every item of clothing you choose, every time you put on make-up, every time you go to the hair salon, you are trying to look good to impress others which in turn makes you feel good. Our confidence in how we look can only ever be attained within a community of people who acknowledge how we look. If you were the only person to have ever lived on Earth you would not ever wear make-up or care about your hair or what clothes you wear - "looking good" would have no inherent meaning, you wouldn't understand what that concept is.
    I'll look good for myself if I want to, thank you very much. It's not my fault that you don't understand the concept of someone being pleased with their own reflection in the mirror regardless of what anyone else thinks.

    I'll say it again - I'm not a misandrist. Men aren't systematically oppressed anyway, whereas women are. Feminism is about gender equality, not the superiority of any gender. If I hated men, I wouldn't be upset with the fact that there are very few men's toilets with baby changing facilities. As far as I understand it, "men's magazines" don't pressure their readers to do anything to earn the approval of a woman. I do think it's sad that men and women are both asked to conform to unrealistic standards, but I tend to focus more on women as we are currently in a socially disadvantaged position compared to men. Does that clear things up for you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The 'men are objectified too argument' is incredibly weak. Men just aren't objectified as much as women. Men in media are portrayed as the ideal. They aren't there to be fantasised about, but to be fantasised as. Huge difference. Watch any action movie or advertisement involving topless men. They are there most times for men to wish they were the muscular and powerful man that Is being portrayed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Feminist logic. Promote freedom by taking it away.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    A lot of thought is put into the designing of a shop floor. All around the concept of making money.

    It;s a chicken and egg scenario. Does arranging toys by gender create artificial gender roles. Or do natural gender roles create the toy arrangement. It is a question for sociologists. Not me.
    It's not a chicken and egg scenario...

    People want to make money. They notice demand for a product. They set up a business to supply that product. They merchandise their business in such a way as to maximise sales of that product. Years later sociologists and TSR will come to argue that the business owner had an evil master plan to create "artificial gender roles" instead of simply reacting to the behaviour of consumers and catering to their needs - which is how all businesses operate. A lot of thought is indeed put into merchandising - but very little thought is put into separating male and female products in certain shops because it's the most obvious and practical and convenient thing to do, no matter how much I want that silk thong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    I'll look good for myself if I want to, thank you very much. It's not my fault that you don't understand the concept of someone being pleased with their own reflection in the mirror regardless of what anyone else thinks.
    No you won't because it's logically impossible. The concept itself of "looking good" can only be defined within a society or community of people. On your own there is no such concept. Our concept of looking good is synonymous with attractiveness. What I am confused about is why you are so against this, almost arrogantly, that such thinking is beneath you and you only do it for yourself. It's self-delusion to a quite alarming degree.

    (Original post by Blazar)
    I'll say it again - I'm not a misandrist. Men aren't systematically oppressed anyway, whereas women are. Feminism is about gender equality, not the superiority of any gender. If I hated men, I wouldn't be upset with the fact that there are very few men's toilets with baby changing facilities. As far as I understand it, "men's magazines" don't pressure their readers to do anything to earn the approval of a woman. I do think it's sad that men and women are both asked to conform to unrealistic standards, but I tend to focus more on women as we are currently in a socially disadvantaged position compared to men. Does that clear things up for you?
    Regardless of whether you are a misandrist, your posts in this thread have been baseless and sexist towards men. I really had to laugh at the bit in bold - it just shows your complete lack of understanding and one-sided mentality. Men's Health and GQ has one aim: look good for women and compete with men. The shelves are filled with bodybuilding magazines and men's fashion. You are displaying your very clear bias and lack of support for gender equality by ignoring everything except women's concerns, despite the fact they are no different to men's. Women are not socially disadvantaged; you seem to have got your dates mixed up, this is 2015 not 1915.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    The 'men are objectified too argument' is incredibly weak. Men just aren't objectified as much as women. Men in media are portrayed as the ideal. They aren't there to be fantasised about, but to be fantasised as. Huge difference. Watch any action movie or advertisement involving topless men. They are there most times for men to wish they were the muscular and powerful man that Is being portrayed.
    There is no difference. Why do men wish they were that man? Could it be to attract women? :eek:

    More to the point, it's not simply about being "objectified", it's about aspiring to an ideal - that is the real problem feminists have but they try and condense it down to just being objectified, partly because half of them don't know what that word means and partly because they don't want to believe that men have the same pressure to aspire to an ideal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    As far as I understand it, "men's magazines" don't pressure their readers to do anything to earn the approval of a woman. I do think it's sad that men and women are both asked to conform to unrealistic standards, but I tend to focus more on women as we are currently in a socially disadvantaged position compared to men. Does that clear things up for you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Page three is going to stop showing topless models

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...pless-pictures

    As someone who can't for the life of them get a girlfriend this is the only way I can possibly see them.

    But I hear there is this thing called Google images. Apparently there is a huge supply of boobs on there.

    I will report my findings.


    Edit: Disclaimer, I feel the need to point out that I have never bought a copy of the Sun. I'm not actually personally upset there is no more page 3.
    You can now find your daily dose of breasts where they belong, on Page 3 of the Daily Mail from tomorrow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    I love how people call it sexist but will continue to show topless male models in all sorts of magazines anyway.
    On the third page of a newspaper? Where?

    It's not sexist because of the tits, it's sexist because of where it is.

    If you want to see bouncy tits on a <23 year old, there are places you can go... on the internet... if you get my drift.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    The 'men are objectified too argument' is incredibly weak. Men just aren't objectified as much as women. Men in media are portrayed as the ideal. They aren't there to be fantasised about, but to be fantasised as. Huge difference. Watch any action movie or advertisement involving topless men. They are there most times for men to wish they were the muscular and powerful man that Is being portrayed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Women in the media are portrayed as the ideal. They aren't there to be fantasised about, but to be fantasised as. Huge difference. Watch any rom com or make up advertisement. They are there most times for women to wish the were the pretty and slim woman that is being portrayed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    There's a difference. Men aren't sexualised. Men are idealised and not portrayed as objects the reader wants to own. Sexualisation and being portrayed as an ideal aren't the same. Sure there are exceptions, but often enough men are idealised and females are sexualised. That's why women argue there's little empowering about things like Page 3.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    perfect, thank you
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    No you won't because it's logically impossible. The concept itself of "looking good" can only be defined within a society or community of people. On your own there is no such concept. Our concept of looking good is synonymous with attractiveness. What I am confused about is why you are so against this, almost arrogantly, that such thinking is beneath you and you only do it for yourself. It's self-delusion to a quite alarming degree.



    Regardless of whether you are a misandrist, your posts in this thread have been baseless and sexist towards men. I really had to laugh at the bit in bold - it just shows your complete lack of understanding and one-sided mentality. Men's Health and GQ has one aim: look good for women and compete with men. The shelves are filled with bodybuilding magazines and men's fashion. You are displaying your very clear bias and lack of support for gender equality by ignoring everything except women's concerns, despite the fact they are no different to men's. Women are not socially disadvantaged; you seem to have got your dates mixed up, this is 2015 not 1915.
    It seems there's nothing I can do to draw your attention to the fact that gender inequality is a very real problem. I've already demonstrated that I do care about things other that "women's concerns", or did you not read the part where I said that it's a problem that men's toilets usually don't have baby changing facilities? I said "as far as I understand it" with regards to the men's magazines because I've only seen the front covers of them occasionally, and I'm aware that I don't know as much about them as a regular reader would. If they're unfairly pressuring men, then yes, that is a problem, but it's certainly not women who are advocating it.

    It speaks volumes to me that you regard my confidence in my own appearance as arrogance. Does a painting need to be observed by an entire community before it can be judged as aesthetically pleasing? No, and neither does the appearance of a human being. If I'm happy with the way I look, then that's all that matters. I don't care if someone else doesn't like my outfit; I'm not going to let them stop me from dressing the way I like.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    It's not a chicken and egg scenario...
    Yes it is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    I dunno I was thinking about trying to ban topless picture of men.
    :eek: Homophobe! Ban him! Ban him!



    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Feminist logic. Promote freedom by taking it away.
    Whose 'freedom' is being taken away exactly? Is it now illegal to sell topless pictures of yourself?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    There's a difference. Men aren't sexualised. Men are idealised and not portrayed as objects the reader wants to own.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Whenever I see an attractive model in a magazine I don't want to own her. Sure I may find her sexually attractive and want to have sex with her. That isn't the same as wanting to own her...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.