30.12.06

small but significant piece of action

This is a small thing that I did today but to me it is quite significant. I guess i'm quite a timid person really so the idea of drawing attention to myself by trashing icons of misogyny feels me with dread, and it's something that I aspire to but am unfortunately a little way off from. So today when I was in Tesco I saw my opportunity to do something - hide something to be more accurate.

Under this Daily Telegraph is a Daily Star - you can no longer see the semi-naked women on the front...
And behind this Bike magazine is a ZOO...

And you can see there that there are plenty of Men's Health - one of which I stuck in front of a Maxim. I was hoping to hide the Stuff magazines because I have a personal hatred for that magazine but the rack was so full that there was no room to put something in front and I was trying to work quickly.

Not really a big deal but it's a start and it made me feel better.

And it just goes to show that there are plenty of magazines aimed at men that aren't about naked women - Bike and Men's Health being two of them (although admittedly I haven't seen inside these magazines so I could be wrong about that), and they're actually magazines related to men's interests as opposed to women's magazines which are yet to be related to any of my interests.

I really hate Stuff because it tries to pose as a tech magazine when it is just porn with gadgets. I wrote an essay on it for my Media Psychology module at Uni and I mostly found that men who bought Stuff would have preferred it without the women because it detracted from the gadgets and caused upset with the readers' female partners when they had just bought it for the technology (not sure how believable that is though!). Dee's mum bought him a Stuff when he was ill because it had iPods on it. And she said that she bought it because it had iPods on it but that he didn't need to look at that laydeeez because he had me!!!

Because if he'd been single and ill she would have bought it for the iPods AND the porn content to cheer up her poorly son. My blood was boiling to a level that she hadn't managed to create in the past...she'll never know though!

8 Comments:

At 30/12/06 22:48, Blogger sparkleMatrix said...

Ah, so mum has to make sure boyz have nekkid laddezz in their life - especially when poorly. Just what the doctor ordered because boyz will be boyz yunno. Yuk!
My mother in law was a pain in the ASS! Therefore, it is not a good subject. She was so manipulative and encouraged him to be 'helpless' so she could step in to rescue him. Therefore creating a never ending cycle of fucked up dependency *scream*

 
At 30/12/06 23:56, Blogger Grace said...

Exactly. i felt like screaming, and i wish I had. Really pissed me off because he opened the package it was in (in plastic wrapper because it had an extra mp3 player supliment in it) and I got angry because I thought he was going to read it but he was just trying not to hurt his mum's feelings (not to be like 'he would know better, he knows his place, i wear the trousers blah blah blah' - but a man who knows me knows better than to mess with the wrath of Grace where porn is involved!)

Pissed me off even more because if she even KNEW her son she would know that he knows far more about tech and mp3 players etc than they would put in a magazine which is basically pornstars caressing gadgets!

I despair at the perpetuation of misogyny and patriarchy that is actually carried out by women, especially mothers. I feel a post coming on but I worry about hurting Dee with my rants about his mother! He gets enough of it in the ear anyway...

 
At 31/12/06 00:38, Blogger Charlie said...

Ace work!!!
x

 
At 31/12/06 12:12, Blogger Grace said...

Thanks Charlie! I am inspired by your work!

 
At 31/12/06 13:00, Blogger sparkleMatrix said...

Yes - forgot (mention of MIL's) good work! It gets easier x

 
At 2/1/07 19:32, Blogger Charlie said...

I know what you mean about gadget mags- they often include half-naked women to appeal to the male readership. It annoys me when advertisers use women's bodies to sell their products- the body of woman is commodifed as a sex object, to attract the consumer's attention.

Rant over!

 
At 3/1/07 08:58, Blogger Fanny Blood said...

i was seated next to a man on a plane a few weeks back who was reading the football magazine four four two. all i saw was report and article after article of ... wait for it ... FOOTBALL information! there were no signs of misogynistic language in the interviews etc. and i sat back and marvelled at this until ... he turned the page and i noticed one of the advertisements was for pepsi max. it was a horizontal scale which went from one page over to the next. on one end was a picture of a bunny. on the other end was ... wait for it ... a fucking playboy bunny head. so let's clarify ... what happens to men when they drink pepsi max? it's disgusting. anyway the point is ... even though as you point out grace there are SOME mags out there who don't use naked women to sell their mags etc. if you scratch the surface the same messages will still be being shoved in men's faces somewhere along the line, SOMEHOW!

 
At 3/1/07 18:21, Blogger Grace said...

Great! I love how they market these manly versions of 'diet' drinks because diets are for girls - and of course to advertise said manly drinks the best agent is sex isn't it!

Sex sells...to men!

I always drink diet carbonated drinks because thats what my mom always bought so the taste of full sugar drinks is too sweet for me but I don't get the point of this seperate advertising for products that are blatently AS useful to women as they are to men, like 'man burgers' etc.

I think it's a shame that men who actually do buy magazines for the actual interest of football/sport still get sex shoved in their faces, it's pretty insulting really - like 'this is the only way we can get your attention isn't it?'

 

Post a Comment

<< Home