…and the attitude of this government towards the population is barely distinguishable from indentured slaves… as shown in their consultation documents (like CiC) we are nothing but passive tax-paying consumers who have a vote every so often whenever they think we will make the ‘correct’ choice.

Dave, with all due respect, absolute rubbish. If there were equivalent magazines showing men as pieces of meat, you’d feel opressed.

‘The reality is that sexist images of women – from advertising to pornography – do not cause women’s oppression. ‘ – of course they don’t CAUSE women’s opression, but they do contribute to it – as does all pervasive media which portrays women as tits, pussies and arses spread out for male consumption.

No one thing causes women’s opression. Many things contribute to women’s opression. If you’re linking women’s opression in part to the rise of industrial capitalism, isn’t media commodification an intrinsic part of that?

Actually Laurie if there were (I’m sure there are) magazines showing men as pieces of meat I wouldn’t feel oppressed. I am a man and therefore not ‘othered’ by society. The commodification of the male form can not oppress me in the same manner as it does women. Society may be oppressing me to preen, dress etc a certain way, but it does this in all aspects of life. So I’m aware of it, but not enraged by it. I feel pretty good about myself in all number of ways so I don’t care if I’m not toned like (insert generic bland looking supposedly attractive tonk semi-celeb). I can face it off with ease. Women on the other hand are ‘othered’ by male dominated society (even if it is women themselves that perpetuate it to each other in the class room, office and so on). As such their commodification is of a far more oppressive level. This is not to say that women can’t face it off with ease either, but it is more difficult due to in built social and cultural factors.

P.S. If you want to check out the most disgusting portrayal of both the male and the female form in one spin tinglingly vile photo, click on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1092910/I-gained-stone-pregnancies-I-diet-insists-Davina-McCall.html

“Dave, with all due respect, absolute rubbish. If there were equivalent magazines showing men as pieces of meat, you’d feel opressed.”

Nonsense, I’d ignore them. Anyway, aren’t there gay magazines that specialise in that sort of thing? You do realise that many girls eye up men on the telly? Or fantasise over film stars like Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves etc? I doubt the objects of their desires feel oppressed.

I don’t know any of my female friends who get wound up by lads’ mags. In fact I remember back at college one girl was reading an amusing article in FHM along with the blokes. It was accepted by the girls that men read these magazines and it did no harm to anybody.

It’s always amusing when the po-faced Left join forces with the traditionalist authoritarian right. A very interesting alliance.

Richard,
Whilst I do not support a ban of any sort, in the same manner Laurie doesn’t (at least I read something of her’s on pornography which said it should not be banned), I feel you are missing the point.

The feminist argument is that throughout society there are manifestations of its nature. Our society is one in which women are ‘othered’ and where they are comodified. The manifestations of these facts are women’s generally more subservient manner, lower levels of confidence, worse degree results, fewer women capable (please don’t misinterpret this word anybody) of getting to the top of professions etc and women’s presentation. This presentation means both the idea and form of women and how women themselves act, dress etc. The two presentations interact. Women are presented as subservient, dizzy, big breasted etc so women aspire to these goals as the Good set by society. In turn this becomes internalised and pumped straight back out in the form of altered desires and so on. In this manner the theory is reliant on the concept of false consciousness. The revilement of the female presentation on the pages of the Mail is just as strong as in Nuts. This is not based on traditionalism, or anything to do with the Right. It is firmly anti-establishment. The presentation is establishment (i.e. exists in a protected and enforced status quo and perceived as the state of normalcy).
In my view a ban is stupid as it tackles a manifestation, not the route and is profoundly illiberal. But please do not confuse feminist, at least considered feminist, revulsion at nuts, zoo etc as being in any way associated with the Mrs. Whitehouses and Nadine Dorries of this world.

There’s a difference between there being high street shops like Harmony and Ann Summers and the proliferation of pornographic images of women. Harmony and Ann Summers sell things FOR WOMEN as well as men. They cater for everyone: gay, straight, attracted to men, women, grannies, and trannies.

Given the recent news article about the readers of Nuts magazine’s “secret crushes”, those magazines don’t even cater to their own readers. I was extremely amused by the comment of Nuts editor Pete Cashmore, who said: “This poll shows how men have an appreciation of women that is as broad and varied as woman herself, challenging the stereotype of us guys only lusting after young pneumatic twentysomething models.” which begs the question why that is all they print…

Nuts and Zoo are clearly soft porn, and thus should be classified as such. But I also think that pron should be more freely and widely available, and there should be a damn sight more porn for women.

Jennie, how do you define “soft porn”? As for porn for women, if there’s a market there its just waiting for a budding entrepreneur….

Porn is anything which is presented for sexual gratification, IMHO.

I’ve actually had suggestions before that I should write/direct porn. The problem is, of course, that at the moment I am struggling to find the money to eat, let alone put into film production. However, if you feel like ponying up the dough…?

If there were equivalent magazines showing men as pieces of meat, you’d feel opressed.

I wouldn’t, necessarily. Wouldn’t buy ‘em either (just as I don’t buy “lads mags” now).

Anyhow, are there not sexualised images of men in the media, not to mention ads portraying all men as idiots etc?

Of course I don’t therefore mean that the major social power imbalance isn’t against women etc. However I think where imagery is concerned there are other issues. I’ve never understood why sexualised imagery of consenting adults (of either gender) seems to be considered oppressive. In fact I fail to see why it shouldn’t be possible for the exact opposite to be the case, whereby freedom of sexual expression is seen as being on a par with freedom of speech. It’s demeaning imagery that is the problem, not sexualised imagery in and of itself.

“I’ve never understood why sexualised imagery of consenting adults (of either gender) seems to be considered oppressive. In fact I fail to see why it shouldn’t be possible for the exact opposite to be the case, whereby freedom of sexual expression is seen as being on a par with freedom of speech. It’s demeaning imagery that is the problem, not sexualised imagery in and of itself.”

This comment for the win.

The problem of course being that vast swathes of sexualised images of women ARE demeaning, but, yes, I agree with this whole-heartedly.

Jennie,

If only I had some cash. Students tend to not make the best contributions targets.

Define presented for sexual gratification. Would the war time and 50s pin ups count? They are presented for, amongst other things sexual gratification. see here http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/pat-pin/2006-May-31-BowSpirit-1960sflag.jpg
For anybody sensitive, don’t worry. I’ve picked an image with NO nudity and certainly wouldn’t be classed as porn (soft or hard) today.

Alan,
You strike the nail on the head with the word “demean”. Many view the presentation of the female as needy, open, easy, dizzy, with bodies sculpted to men’s imagined desires not how women want to look as demeaning. The sexualised nature isn’t a problem for the feminist. Freedom of sexual expression is of the utmost importance. Feminist isn’t a creed against sexualisation per se but objectivisation and ‘othering’ (dehumanising).

In strict classification terms, yes, I think that’s porn.

I’ll repeat again, for the hard of thinking, though, that I have no problem with porn’s existence.

Ok. I like your definition (if it includes that there is nothing inherently wrong with it). So what is the point of classifying things as porn (hard, soft etc) if there’s nothing wrong with it? Why should zoo and nuts be classified as soft porn if there shouldn’t even be that classification?

Because classifying things is useful?

Porn is a classification in the same way that science fiction is a classification or history or whatever.

It helps people to find what they are looking for.

This is completely irrelevant, but when I worked in a newsagents, I managed to hide the Daily Sport inside copies of the FT, and Nuts/Zoo behind Autotrader. Maybe we could reproduce that on a national scale??

Anyway, unless I’m getting her confused with someone else, Claire Curtis-Thomas wanted the legal limit for abortion slashed by about 10 weeks, which immediately makes me a little wary of whatever she’s putting her name to. As does some of the report’s findings. This is from the first story Dave links to:

While men’s magazines often claim to be just “harmless fun”, many people question their effects on young people. The Top Shelf Report surveyed a sample of sixth-form students and found that 100 per cent of girls who looked at the Daily Sport, Zoo and Nuts reported being angry, offended or upset by the images they contained.

Now, I would’ve been amazed if a majority of girls weren’t angry/offended/upset by the content of these ‘publications’, but to get a 100% success rate suggests either a very small sample or some well dodgy methodology.

Turns out I hadn’t mistaken her for someone else; Claire Curtis-Thomas really is all about the 14 weeks.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/05/20/mp-claire-curtis-thomas-leads-legal-limit-campaign-on-embryo-bill-100252-20937158/

Sorry Jennie, I thought you meant it should be classified as porn for regulatory purposes, not just classification for eases sake.

Neil, I can’t believe they published that figure. How stupid can you be?
So she’s not a feminist, she’s just a classic conservative. Nice to know.

Nuts should probably be top shelf, in my view, but top shelf should be less regulated than it currently is, and a lot of stuff that is “only available in licensed sex shops” should be less restricted also – or there should be more sex shops.

Also, Top Gear magazine should be placed in “Women’s Interests” in all newsagents, (and not just in my local Sainsbury’s). After all, I am interested in seeing pictures of James May in leathers Top Gear, so it follows that all other women will be too…

The student union shop at the University of Leicester place a little flap below the lad mags, as an act of partial censorship. Alas, they don’t do the same thing for the Daily Mail.

Other things… In the last twenty years, there has been a lot of popular and academic writing about the differences between men and women. Most acknowledged, the sexes are equal but different.

Men are on heat most of the time. Thus, young men read lad mags and older ones gawp at Carol Vorderman. Adjustment of this condition will take many generations and regression means that success will not be 100%. So live with it and work with it.

Within my adulthood, racism, homophobia, transphobia have been addressed. Not 100% success but better than nothing. Educate people about porn and relationships as well.

“If there were equivalent magazines showing men as pieces of meat, you’d feel opressed.”

Utter nonsense. Some of us don’t go around looking for reasons to cry “I’m a victim!”. I dare speculate that most men wouldn’t think this way for a picosecond.

Does the term ‘top shelf’ simply imply the highest shelf on a display unit, which may be a mere 3 or 4 feet from ground level, or does the term only have meaning when the upper tier satisfies a minimum height requirement ?

Perhaps we need to establish specific criteria for shelving in the news agents with appropriate guidance to protect sensitive customers, or children with atypical growth patterns, such as acromegaly ?

As someone who is 4’11, I object to top-shelf magazines in principle. But I’m in no way suggesting that lads’ mags should be banned, merely that we should call them what they are : porn.

Some of us don’t go around looking for reasons to cry “I’m a victim!”.

Yeah you guys do. You’re a libertarian. By definition you whine. And you’re on the right – that’s all they ever do (visited the ConHome site lately?).

You’re a libertarian. By definition you whine

Oy! Chris Dillow is a noted and welcome contributor to this site, and is very clear that he considers himself a Left Libertarian (which is a definition I’ve used in some contexts as well). Not all libertarians are whining gits.

Just the property obsessed Ayne Rand worshipping loons that inhabit certain sections of blogdom.

Ok, right-wing libertarians then. But then Chris Dillow has always been a special case of libertarian, which is why he writes for LC

The rise of pornography was at least co-extensive with the increased status of women so the writer has it arse about face ( appropriately enough ) Pornography began to be produced in volume in the Victorian period but it was marginal and very small scale . Women were also regarded as objects of veneration and ornament without power in some spheres .
What has happened is that women have sacrificed protection from men by competing with men and they are now in same position as other men .Men , they discover , can be aggressive even violent , they have a somewhat more visual and appetite driven attitude to sex ..maybe (?) . Men no longer feel they need to concern themselves with the feelings of women . Why should they ? They do not agonize about the hurt feelings of other men .
I think the answer is the end of denigrating the male and redefining in some as yet undiscovered wway what a man is . Not , as Liberals would prefer , a sort of woman with a cock . Women , lets say , may be good at cooperation and empathising and but , perhaps , they are comparatively risk averse ( ie wet ) untrustworthy and on average less good at most things requiring decisiveness or a certain mono mania men are prone to ( also autism which is no coincidence ).

Sunny you have nothing to whine about .You have held power for the entire adult life of most of your readers and the paradise we see about us is your creation . You should float blissfully from one example of perfection to another instead of which you bleat non stop. We the disenfranchised , the crushed and oppressed raise a tattered banner raised in a field that is lost . This is called heroic resistance

Men no longer feel they need to concern themselves with the feelings of women . Why should they ? They do not agonize about the hurt feelings of other men .

Hmmm….

“In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions to others.”

“Yeah you guys do. You’re a libertarian. By definition you whine. And you’re on the right – that’s all they ever do (visited the ConHome site lately?).”

And the Left never whine? Come off it.

It’s usually right-wing libertarians on Gudio etc who accuse the Left of being po-faced and taking things too seriously. Lefties always seem to be whining about inequality, faith schools etc. Fact is that both wings of the political spectrum specialise in whining. The Right whine that their taxes are too high, the Left whine because taxes aren’t high enough.

Err, no we don’t. We just have a thing about schools and hospitals, people being able to go to them and that…

Once I showed my students in Spain some British papers. It was alesson about the British press. I brought them broadsheets and tabloids. including the Daily Star and The Sun.
They were laughing. They couldn’t believe it. They were actually bemused. “Do people read this in Britain, really?”. And they told us that by th elook of it, our nation is obsessed with tits.
And that’s, exactly, without counting Nuts and Zoo, which -come on guys now- really are proper soft porn material.

Think of it this way. If you travel to Italy and analyse their newstands you find an enormous amount of football-related material. Within 5 minutes you realise the country is obsessed with it. YOu travel to Spain, the same. They have like 6 or 7 sports daily papers.

You travel to England and we’re obsessed with tits and celebrities, tits and celebrities. Celebritits.

Stan – are you seriously claiming Spanish & Italian men are less tit-obsessed than the Brits ?

Then why are there endless Italian and Spanish paintings (down the years) depicting this bit of anatomy ?
As an aside Picasso’s cubist representations rather defeat the object, “Woman playing the mandolin” (1909) still gives me nightmares, but I digress.

Visual stimulation is a key mechanism in male arousal, and as such is biologically hard wired – look at all of the research on erectile dysfunction, for example.

Here’s a little poser for all the lads.
Suppose 100 “average” men each take their turn to wait for a train (individually, not as a group).
Each man enters an empty waiting room (ooh, we are getting very Freudian, aren’t we) there are no other passengers on the platform.
The train is due to arrive in 5 minutes – two magazines are available on the waiting room table, Nuts and Amnesty International.

Out of the 100 subjects what is the likely split amongst those who avail themselves of the reading material ?
Nuts = x%
AI = x%

Oh, and returning to the international theme, Stan, perhaps we could conduct this experiment in Barcelona, Milan and then……………I was just about to say ‘Bristol’ until the ghostly hand of Sigmund Freud brushed across my shoulder, again.

Interesting comparison between Picasso and Nuts magazine. I hope you read back what you wrote before posting it!

Of course Italian and Spanish tits are well obsessed with mammary glands.
By for some reason their daily and weekly press doesn’t feel the need to shove it down the nation’s throat the way British papers and magazines do.

Note that I’m not talking about pornography. I’m talking about dailies and magazines like Loaded, Nuts and Zoo. But I mean, I was looking at the Daily Mail online earlier. Sure, they don’t do nudity like The Sun does. But the references to cleavages are CONSTANT. Like, CONSTANT. Any excuse to ‘titllate’.

As for the Amnesty international magazine or Nuts. I’ll tell you the truth., I’d probabnly flick thrugh a bit of both. But seriously, I’m telling you. Magazines like Nuts make me feel really cheap and a bit of a greasy pervert too. Call me sanctimonious, and I’m not saying Im right, but that;s the way I feel.

Magazines like Nuts make me feel really cheap and a bit of a greasy pervert too.

I wish I could get that kick so easily . Sigh I am eaten with corruption

Oops, I’ve just realised I wrote “Of course Italian and Spanish tits are well obsessed with mammary glands”. I meant “Italian and Spanish men…”

It’s so refreshing to read about what causes (or doesn’t cause) women’s oppression from a dude!
Because really, how could women possibly know?
/sarcasm

“It’s so refreshing to read about what causes (or doesn’t cause) women’s oppression from a dude!
Because really, how could women possibly know?”

Quite right.

How dare this arrogant bastard broadcast his personal opinion for the purposes of discussion and debate.

Ben

I like to read continental papers from time to time and I find them excellent at providing background information (or blatantly political messages if you prefer to call it that – especially in the sports pages), but they are notoriously bad at providing news coverage.

British papers were never designed to be informative, but since they’ve been overtaken by online sources they’ve now almost stopped carrying news.

Still I’d hesitate before being duped by continental middle-class snobbery that their wider cultures are any less tabloidy than ours (or if indeed this is actually a bad thing – surely the models in these magazines are role models for the anti-obesity drive… ).

From my knowledge of beaches by the med (such as those in Italy or Spain) the main difference is that the women are generally more at ease about displaying their own bodies. I say it’s to do with the weather.

So is it women’s oppression that causes their neuroticism about their bodies, or is it their neuroticism about their bodies which causes the oppression of their gender?

If I was to give an answer I’d estimate the proportion at about 50/50 for those women who are neurotic/oppressed and that such a campaign is therefore likely to do as much damage by raising the level of concern on the subject as any action it achieves.

Frankly, it is just flag waving.

Isn’t invalidating another persons s point of view on the basis of a single characteristic, such as age, religion, race…………….or GENDER, a form of, well, oppression ?

“Isn’t invalidating another persons s point of view on the basis of a single characteristic, such as age, religion, race…………….or GENDER, a form of, well, oppression ?”

No. You can only oppress the oppressed. You cannot oppress the oppressor. And men are the oppressors of women. That is why it’s women who should decide what the causes of their oppression are, NOT MEN. Because if it were up to men, there would be no “oppression” to begin with.

“That is why it’s women who should decide what the causes of their oppression are, NOT MEN.”

This presumably invalidates John Stuart Mill’s writings on sexism, Edward Said’s work on Islamophobia etc.?

Ben

Let me put it another way. If women were anatomically identical to men I’d call this campaign willy-waving.

Mary Tracy,

That is an absurd an simplistic view of the world. Dividing into black and white. Does that mean that only black people in America can write about slavery? How are you going to get a decent discourse going if you say only women can be feminist commentators, minorities can be anti-racism campaigners and so on?

No. White people can write about slavery and be allies of black people, but the ones who get to decide WHAT their oppression is caused by and how it affects them are black people. The same is true for feminism. Men can and often are great allies. What they can’t do is replace women’s voices.
Which is what the author is doing. He has decided that Curtis-Thomas’s efforts are worthless, thereby dismissing her ideas and those of the women she represents. Not to mention the women from the OBJECT campaign who also think that the reclassification of lads mags as porn is a cause worthy of their energy.

I think his heart is in the right place. His ideas of what are the roots of women’s oppression are actually very close to what women are saying themselves. He just needs to be a bit more humble and accept that if women say it matters, then it matters.

Correction – the image is from Bin the Bunny, not object. Hence the Bunny being chucked into the Bin. (Geddit?).

Anyways, I give in chaps, you obviously know best, must be the penises. Just one question though James Schneider – where exactly do you think this “othering” of women comes from? Does it just spring naturally from the earth? Or do you think it could be created, fostered and encouraged by us all being exposed to sexism & misogyny in our daily lives? Kind of a vicious circle type thingy?

Like walking into WH Smith and seeing images of naked women (quite often doing da fake lesbian stuff) at the average height of a two year old child. Virgin Trains are even better. They put them on the bottom shelf in the buffet car, so all the tots can see them. They assured me they were “addressing this urgently” 2 years ago, but they’re still there.

One person’s pornography is another’s educational textbook.

Classify as you want, but what right do you have to judge others according to your terms?

Thomas, you’re not seriously suggesting that porn is educational, are you? I’m all in favour of people getting their rocks off, but vast amounts of porn are hazy on even basic female anatomy, and also carry the explicit message that this doesn’t matter…

“Men can and often are great allies. What they can’t do is replace women’s voices.”

Well, that’s convenient because David isn’t “replac[ing] women’s voices“, he’s giving his personal opinion so that others can discuss it and the issues that it raises.

Whether you think that it’s a steaming pile of horseshit or not is entirely a matter for you.

Ben

[46] Presumably, Mary, you would wish all male MPs to abstain from voting on CC-T’s Bill and any similar proposal, rather as SNP MPs don’t vote on “English” legislation?

Jennie,
I’m no expert, but I strongly doubt that most porn is of high quality, but that’s not to deny any educational content., Just like the fact that a large volume of sexual encounters aren’t completely satisfying doesn’t deny them their worth or validity.

However I’m also suggesting that to some adolescents (and a lot of religious fundies) many educational textbooks are pornographic.

From within their cultual context the target audience can recognise and interpret the coded signals, but once removed (such as the karma sutra was) translation becomes a lot more difficult.

Attitudes to sex and sexual imagery are entirely subjective, so I completely object to criticisms that anything sexual objectifies. Such criticism says more about the critic than anything they refer to.

Mrs Curtis-Thomas is, I think, resigned to the loss of her seat, and has seemingly abandoned both local campaigning, at which she used to be good, and Labour politics for the agenda of the Vatican plc, to which she is a convert.

Her concern has little to do with feminism per se – more her conservative catholic approach.

Po-faced and authoritarian: really the sort of person along with Ruth Kelly and other Vaticanists who should start their own party where they can assuage their consciences rather than try and turn the Labour party into a reactionary body.

Incidentally, many of her speeches are written by someone who has always voted Tory – make of that what you will…..

And that comment says more about your male privilege than about objectification.

Sorry, I should answer the question directly.

Yes potentially, but because it is of low quality and is largely derivative education is a subsidiary effect of pornography. I’m certainly aware that there are types of porn which represent behaviour far beyond the limits of my personal experience and imagination – this knowledge doesn’t stimulate any further curiosity and I think there is a lesson here which teaches that there are limits to acceptability.

Obviously Claire Curtis-Thomas’ wishes to impose her personal judgement of acceptability on others and remove any chance that this sphere has any educational capacity whatsoever.

Jennie,
what privilege is it to be male?

David isn’t “replac[ing] women’s voices“, he’s giving his personal opinion so that others can discuss it and the issues that it raises.

- Sorry, Ben, but he is: ‘The reality is that sexist images of women – from advertising to pornography – do not cause women’s oppression.’

And simplistic though Mary’s views may be, and much as I take issue with her seeming suggestion that all men oppress all women, she’s right on this one: men don’t get to tell women what is and isn’t oppressive. Period.

“And simplistic though Mary’s views may be, and much as I take issue with her seeming suggestion that all men oppress all women, she’s right on this one: men don’t get to tell women what is and isn’t oppressive. Period.”

Well, I agree that opinions should be “held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment” – without ever managing to think to those standards – but that doesn’t detract from the point that David is merely expressing an opinion, however dogmatically.

Sure, that can be vomitously irritating, but if one disagrees then it seems more constructive to challenge the opinion rather than the right to give it.

Ben

…and nobody gets to escape oppression by acquiring the right to define for themself how they are oppressed.

If this is what feminism has been reduced to it is meaningless and empty.

“…and nobody gets to escape oppression by acquiring the right to define for themself how they are oppressed.”

Well, I can see the argument that men have spent centuries attempting to determine the identity of women, and should thus have a rather more humble attitude. I just think it’s tiresome to use it as an excuse for dismissing an argument (not that many ‘roond here would).

Ben

and I reject that argument, Ben, because if men did it was only some men and there were many women who were happy to collude with them.

I also reject it because there is no way of measuring oppression on an absolute basis, so there can be no accounting for changing attitudes over time and how this reflects the economic and social conditions in any particular period.

Aren’t women less ‘oppressed’ than formerly? and if so doesn’t application of the term denigrate the experiences of earlier generations and oppress their memory a second time?

46 – Mary Tracy – I refuse to accept that if somebody says something offends them, then it legitimately offends them. How absurd. An insider can not know the full scope of anything (oppression included) in the same manner as an outsider can’t. It really very pathetic and simplistic to force one’s opinion above others.

You attack those who denigrate Claire Curtis-Thomas’ campaign. She says she’s offended by them because they denigrate women. But what does she mean when she says denigrate? Is she in fact merely stating a traditionalist dislike to modern culture and framing it in feminist terms? I’m just asking. How is it illegitimate to pose these questions?

47 – Polly

“Anyways, I give in chaps, you obviously know best, must be the penises. Just one question though James Schneider – where exactly do you think this “othering” of women comes from? Does it just spring naturally from the earth? Or do you think it could be created, fostered and encouraged by us all being exposed to sexism & misogyny in our daily lives? Kind of a vicious circle type thingy?”

Firstly, no need for the insult. Just because I don’t think certain things should be banned doesn’t make me a misogynist.
Onto your question. You are right the “othering” of women is created and fostered by society and our culture. Yes. 100%. Does it self enforce? Yes. The question is whether the benefit from removing nuts, porn etc will make any change to this society whatsoever, and does this improvement outweigh the loss of liberty? I don’t think banning pornography, for example, is possible, but even if it were it would not alter society in a sufficiently positive way to make the gross illiberalism legitimate. Indeed, who gets to choose what should and should not be removed from circulation? There is a dangerous and very thin line here.
Are women in society ‘othered’ and the “othering” is caused by society? Yes. Will Claire Curtis-Thomas’ campaign do anything about it? Probably not. Should we do something? Certainly yes. Where does it start? In our own lives, actions and words.

49 – Jennie,

Why can’t porn be educational?

And simplistic though Mary’s views may be, and much as I take issue with her seeming suggestion that all men oppress all women, she’s right on this one: men don’t get to tell women what is and isn’t oppressive. Period.

I’ll agree with that one if you agree that middle class women don’t get to tell working class women what is and isn’t oppressive. And that white women don’t get to tell black women what is and isn’t oppressive. And that women on one of the street don’t get to tell women on the other side of the street what is and what isn’t oppressive.

Ultimately, no-one can tell anyone what they find oppressive or not. David may not be able to say what oppress women, but neither can women make such a claim for anyone other than themselves. To pretend otherwise is crass “as a” identity politics.

As for classification, I can’t see it being anything other than counter-productive. Comics went through it with the Comics Code Authority and “mature readers” tag – the result in both cases was to stunt creativity. In the latter case, lots of mindless toss was branded “adult” and gained a lot of undue respectability as a result. Viz (which I’m not including in the “mindless toss” category here), at its apex, was only available on the top shelf – that didn’t stop people buying it in its hundreds of thousands.

Yes, Nuts and Zoo are pornographic in the strict sense of the world, but fundamentally they are sad sack twaddle. The solution is not legislation but cultural. In that respect, the real problem is people like Lembit Opik declaring his new column in the Daily Sport as an attempt to reach out to “real people” – for as long as you have MPs validating casual misogyny as “real” you will have a problem no matter what shelf it can be found on.

I’m not saying that it can’t, I’m saying that mostly, it isn’t. In fact, mostly, it’s misrepresentative to a horrendous degree.

Thomas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

Yet Renegade Evolution who is a porn performer believes that porn is not good for sex education.

She says.
>>So once again, I plead, I heartily plead to the people: Do Not Let Adult Entertainment, Adult Entertainers, and their Products serve as Sex Education- Because it sucks as sex ed, and why yes, can even be dangerous- both physically and emotionally.

http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/lace-up-those-skates.html

She goes into a lot more detail in the link (which may not be SFW)

“Dave, with all due respect, absolute rubbish. If there were equivalent magazines showing men as pieces of meat, you’d feel opressed.”

Not me. People (men and women) often quite enjoy being objectified sexually. It can be part of how we operate in a sexual context. It doesn’t have any wider correspondence to how we should treat people socially or politically. To see how it doesn’t, take all the societies with the most permissive sex/porn laws and notice how they at least tend to be the ones with the more progressive attitude towards women in employmeny, politics or anything. Respecting everyone’s rights to write, watch, read and do whatever the hell they want (whether in front of a camera or not) is the best way to ensure less oppression, and women benefit especially.

68 in relation to “sex laws” Yet the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway and Finland* which lead gender equality in the entire world employ the “Swedish Model” for the purchasing of sex. Where the purchaser of the sexual encounter is prosecuted. So that doesn’t really allow people to “do what the hell they want” in relation to sex. While as I have said still showing the greatest gender equality in the world.

*Finland uses the prostituted “for others gain”

Yes, and if they didn’t employ the model and just left people alone, they could be doing even better! The Swedish model might be harsh and unjust, but I doubt it compares in practice to the vociferousness with which people can be prosecuted in the US for example. In respecting people’s right to completely free sexual expression, I don’t think there are any saintly countries yet.

Thanks for the link Jennie.

The list is pitiful, not one point conforms to any standard definition of privilege. The word derives from it’s root meaning of ‘private law’, which implies a conferred right to choose for the individual, but the list consistently confuses choice with chance – it is based on an inverted comprehension of the language.

Additionally the factual accuracy of the list should be called into question. Take point 9 for example “If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.” This is widely untrue and highly culturally determinant.

I’m tempted to give the benefit of the doubt to the author of the list and say it is a spoof imitation, but the lengthy exposition mitigates against this.

Thomas, since when did the etymology of a word affect its modern usage directly? Language changes, and the feminist usage of the word priviliege in this manner is generally accepted as a common modern usage. Ask most people what they think of as a privileged person, they’ll say wealthy upbringing or background, not outdated legal definition.

Men in our society are raised with many advantages over women. Some of those advantages are being reduced, some are marginal, some may even be negated, but that is supposed to be a list of all possible advantages we might have. But of course the list is culturally determinant–that’s the whole point. Privilege is culturally determinant.

In order for us to move forward and do away with discrimination, we all need to be aware of the ways in which some discrimination is subtle, hidden and culturally based.

FWIW, in one of my previous jobs, I was the only male manager of a department of its type in any equivalent business operating in the entire country (at least within the quality accredited sector). There were many times where it was assumed I wouldn’t be able to deal with something due to my gender, and training courses assumed I was attending to cover. Incredibly annoying to me, and it did give me a completely different perspective over what that is like for those who are used to it.

Privilege exists, male privilege exists. If you acknowledge it, then we can move forward and try to deal with it (and discuss how important it is in modern society), but trying to deny it exists at all is like saying the sun doesn’t rise in the west.

MatGB,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Sun rises in the East does it not?

Douglas, I just said that LOL

Bless him, he’s just woken up. Of course, Thomas being that man he is, will use that one slip to try to invalidate the entire comment…

Yes Mat, that is exactly my point. Privilege is not the problem, only unequal access to it.

Since we’re talking about an issue where the relationship between subjective identification and dissociative objectification is being confused it is highly relevant to look at the causes of that confusion.

If we understand that morphology (ie subjective usage of language) trumps etymology (ie objective root definitions) in our current communicative environment then we will be able to develop successful policy responses, but since that list and Claire Curtis-Thomas fail to do so they take inappropriate decisions which fail to address the unfairness in our culture and will only replace one form of injustice with another.

In this I think I should thank you for helping debate what the word ‘privilege’ means to break down the false assumptions which we labour under. It remains that ‘privilege’ is an inaccurate and unhelpful substitute for ‘advantage’ in this context, even though in others they are synonymous.

Jennie,

Fair does. I’ve made bigger and better errors than that. Just thought it was amusing.

I have no oar in this debate….

Might be worth pointing out that of my three children the only one with a degree is my daughter. And she certainly wasn’t held back. Her graduation class was also almost entirely female, I seem to recall.

I can never resist a little chuckle when it is suggested that our predilections and preferences are merely cultural artifacts – they are not.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of Darwinism tells us that ALL organic matter seeks to attain optimum conditions for gene propegation – sadly these drives/instincts cannot be turned on and off like a tap, or because one group, or another, tells us that it is unfair in the current climate.

Dawkins even went so far as to coin the phrase ‘gene machine’ alluding to humans as transport devices for ever more complex genetic structures.

Men talk about breasts, write about them, draw them, film them, photograph them, dream about them, or try, miserably, to avoid ogling them on the London underground.
If we have to blame somebody for this can’t we blame the primeaval swamp ?

the a&e charge nurse,

Sex is good?

Works for me.

A&E,
Wasn’t it Desmond Morris who first promulgated the idea of that secondary sex organs on human females have evolved to mimic those of their primary sex organs? IIRC this set off an academic storm over whether culture was an evolved trait too.

This view has gained currency more recently as we have started to recognise that culture is continuously evolving around us, so I don’t think ‘artifacts’ is a good term in this instance.

MaryTracy;

And since when does a Blairite MP get the exclusive truth-claim to represent “women’s voices”? There is no one “women’s view” on this issue, and you yourself are using exclusionist language by claiming that there is. It’s the sort of ridiculous essentialism that left white, middle class feminist claiming to speak for half the world’s population in these debates when they were held 20-30 years ago.

It’s actually perfectly reasonable for Osler to diss Curtis-Thomas’ campaign if he believes it’s the wrong thing to do. You cerrtainly have no right effectively to tell him to shut up because he’s a man, although of course you do not have to agree with him either.

Sorry for the drive-by (it’s no fun wading through a re-run of the 1980s porn wars that passes for most of the comments), but here’s Curtis-Thomas from 2006:

I find myself being quite a fan of Playboy and Penthouse, probably more Penthouse. Obviously it does contain nude women but incredibly well-presented. The world has always presented images of nudity.

I’ve got 100 nude men on the beach outside my front door – Anthony Gormley’s Another Place – there isn’t a hoo-ha about that.

We must accept the fact naked bodies have been a fact of all of our lives, both male and female have been celebrated, but it is the way that they are portrayed that makes them either sexual titillation or art.

Either she’s showing a high level of nostalgia for the golden age of ‘cheesecake’ photography – or she’s a raging, opportunist hypocrite. At the very least, I fear she may be a touch inconsistent.

That said, Curtis-Thomas ignores the context of the magazines, let alone their history. The whole point of Nuts, Zoo, etc. is that they occupy the place below the ‘top shelf’ – i.e. they are ‘glamorous’ but not about sex as an end in itself. The re-emergence of ‘men’s magazines’ was based on the fact that they weren’t Playboy – which is why the early versions of Arena, GQ featured men on the cover, and played down any use of ‘babes’ to get a readership. Loaded pretty much said ‘Bollocks!’ to that, not least because they weren’t targeting readers who had the hots for an unattainable lifestyle and/or supermodels like Claudia Schiffer. FHM and Front upped the ante, and Nuts and Zoo are the inevitable result of lazily using partially-clad women to deliver heterosexual male readers to the advertisers in your magazine. (The female equivalent is the obsession with celebs’ bodies and fashion that dominates the likes of Grazia – you don’t attract female readers into buying more shoes with features on Brad Pitt) Curtis-Thomas may have a point re. sexism, but she is going to have a hard time getting the entire men’s magazine market re-classified as ‘adults only’ on the back of the number of bikini shots, or some quota of exposed nipples. David Osler is right in one sense: it looks like some feminists are going to make the same mistakes over sexuality and popular culture that parts of the movement made in the 1980s – maybe a recession encourages a greater sexual conservatism.

I don’t think MaryTracy was disagreeing with Curtis-Thomas being an idiot (and if she expressed an opinion on whether lads mags should be banned, I missed it); just with the assertion that sexist images of women don’t play any role in causing oppression of women.

She’s certainly right that oppressors shouldn’t get to decide what constitutes oppression. And I think that even the most feminist men are still oppressors on some level. I don’t think that forbids Dave from having an opinion, but I do think it’s dangerous territory for any man to boldly claim that something doesn’t cause oppression of women. Certainly men should be willing to moderate their opinions when corrected by women on that score.

and in reference to #51, personally I think it would be an excellent thing if only female MPs got to vote on laws about women’s bodies. Yes, you get the odd plonker like Nadine Dorries, but on average the results would be much more progressive. We’d probably get better legislation if male MPs were excluded from all votes, but I’ll stop short of advocating that.

The only thing that surprises me here is that anyone’s taking Curtis-Thomas seriously.

Did no one notice the absurd comment in the article that…

A nationwide investigation has revealed that newsagents across the UK are flouting current guidelines and displaying what are, in effect, adult magazines at the eye-level of children aged six to 15

My son turned 16 over the summer and he’s currently 6’1″, so his eye level and mine have been near as damn it the same since he was 14.

Lets also not forget that Ms Proto-Dorries is also one of the three MPs who tried writing to cancer specialists in 2004 asking for medical data so they could do their own ‘research’ to try and prove a link between abortion and breast cancer.

oh, and my opinion on Nuts and Zoo:

I don’t think they should be banned, but I do think purchasers should have to sign a note admitting to being a sad little wanker. And subscriptions should come with a free forehead-tattoo of cock and balls.

tim f: and in reference to #51, personally I think it would be an excellent thing if only female MPs got to vote on laws about women’s bodies. Yes, you get the odd plonker like Nadine Dorries, but on average the results would be much more progressive. We’d probably get better legislation if male MPs were excluded from all votes, but I’ll stop short of advocating that.

I don’t see how Dorries would be just the ‘odd plonker’: first, there’s no guarantee that the larger number of female Labour MPs don’t have their own ‘plonkers’ on a range of issues (see Kelly re. gays and abortion; Clwyd re. Iraq; Blears re. toeing the party line; female ministers re. Cabinet responsibility); secondly, a gender-balanced parliament would mean more female Tory MPs as well as Labour ones. In other words, whilst the Commons would finally reflect the gender balance of the UK, it would also produce the same range of opinion – and the same capacity for dumb legislation and crap arguments spouted by women as well as men. It’s a good job you’re not advocating that, tim: it wouldn’t work out in practice.

“I don’t think they should be banned, but I do think purchasers should have to sign a note admitting to being a sad little wanker. And subscriptions should come with a free forehead-tattoo of cock and balls.”

Indeed, god damn those people having the free choice to read what they like! They should only read what we find morally acceptable, I didn’t realise when we became Tories!

I can’t find the link, so up to you whether you choose to believe me or not – but if you check voting records in parliament you’ll find that limiting votes to women, the pro-choice majority is greater than if you include all MPs votes.

Of course, that’s partly down to the fact that the Labour majority is then greater, but it’s just a fact that Labour has proportionately more female MPs than the Tories and Lib Dems. So restricting votes to women-only would still have the effect I described. (Of course, it might mean that the Tories and the Lib Dems selected more female MPs as a consequence, which wouldn’t be a bad thing either.)

“Of course, that’s partly down to the fact that the Labour majority is then greater, but it’s just a fact that Labour has proportionately more female MPs than the Tories and Lib Dems. So restricting votes to women-only would still have the effect I described. (Of course, it might mean that the Tories and the Lib Dems selected more female MPs as a consequence, which wouldn’t be a bad thing either.)”

I think redpesto’s argument still holds, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, but it wouldn’t be a good thing…it’d be the same thing, with a different gender make up.

Sorry Tim but I can’t agree. This isn’t a specific dig at Mary, but personally I’ve never been able to abide the “NUS navel gazing” aspects of liberationist politics. By this I mean endless, turgid debates about whether men should access this, say that, whether they’re to considered “feminists”, “allies of feminism” or whatever other equivalent group you care to name. It’s a form of sophistry in my view, which in and of itself (via its closed discourse) alienates and excludes the vulnerable for whom these overwhelmingly white, middle class “oppressed” claim to speak.

What is more, much of it is (not always consciously) predicated on the belief that “men” as a homogenous group are the source of women’s oppression, as opposed to the class system, outdated religious practices, ideological systems etc. The idea that Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Khameini, Nelson Mandela, Timmy Mallett and myself are all equally oppressive of Karen Matthews, Margaret Thatcher, Fiona Bruce and Malalai Joya, is clearly a fallacy.

Of course direct sexism is all around us. However the root of sexism is not “men”, it is a world system predicated on exclusion, oppression and division. It is the responsibility of all of us to fight against that. The particular experiences of people who have suffered oppression must be valued and set at the centre of any analysis of sexism (or racism, homophobia etc) must obviously be centre-stage in that fight, but to reduce the whole thing to an almost Manichaean battle between male and female is really reductio ad absurdum.

As to women MPs, interesting idea. Perhaps we should only allow ethnic minority MPs to vote on bills pertaining to anti-racism, disabled MPs to vote on equal opps policy as well? It’d save the tellers a job…

Here’s a link to a blog article which comments on the data I was remembering looking at – showing that female MPs are more likely to vote in a pro-choice fashion than male MPs of their own party.

http://vinospoliticalblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/women-mps-are-more-pro-choice-than-male.html

I found a blog post reproducing data showing that female MPs are more likely to vote in a pro-choice fashion than male MPs of their own party, but my link to it seems to have got caught by the spam-filter, so you’ll have to wait for it.

Alan – “The idea that Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Khameini, Nelson Mandela, Timmy Mallett and myself are all equally oppressive of Karen Matthews, Margaret Thatcher, Fiona Bruce and Malalai Joya, is clearly a fallacy.”

Agreed. But the idea that all the people above play no role in perpetuating sexism and that any man has completely de-learned centuries of sexist behaviour is also clearly a fallacy. And the role of the class system does not exonerate men.

I think middle-class guilt is a real problem here – lots of men won’t admit to being at all sexist because they feel they’ve made some effort not to be sexist and they don’t want to be trapped by their own guilt in admitting that they will always be sexist to some degree. If we just stopped feeling guilt (it is possible – it is a completely pointless emotion after all), it would be easier for us to challenge our own behaviours.

#86: I wasn’t being entirely serious, but I’ll admit to not being as liberal as you, Lee. Difference between Labour and the Tories on redistribution and class interests have always been more important to me than just not telling people what to do. Generally speaking I’m quite happy to tell privileged people what to do (and where to go).

Well, I raised the hare (about “women-only” votes) because a few years ago now the egregious Tersa Gorman suggested that we halve the number of constituencies and elect a man and a woman from each. Her idea was met with all-round scorn at the time, but if you want to ensure equality of representation of women, I don’t think it’s that ridiculous – the Norwegians do it for company directors, for instance.

Nonetheless, I tend to agree with Redpesto – the problem may well be that if you’re the sort of person who wants to be an MP more than anything else in life, you’re probably not the sort of person who should become one!

“Quite. I am not a reader of any of these titles. But from what I understand, the content is largely limited to tit ‘n’ bum pictures and endless features about the joys of a night on the piss that are surely as dreary as they are leery.

If you don’t read them then how the hell can you comment on their content ?”

They are not “indistinguisable from pornography” (unless you use a 1950s definition of pornography) and the sex content is far less than that found in womens magazines. Loaded is the only one I used to read regularly and I saw it very much as the male version of (and a much needed counter to) the misandrist drivel which is published, unchallenged, by Cosmopolitan, every month.
I wouldn’t expect women to be interested in cars, lager and football and women in their underwear, any more than I would expect men to be interested in hair, shoes, makeup, the perfect orgasm and how to nail a rich husband. Which is why lads mags are aimed at er lads and womens mags are aimed at women.

I think we can all agree on the last sentence.

whoops – last comment aimed at Mike Killingworth.

Tim: what are your sexist behaviours then? I can’t say I’ve ever noticed you being particularly misogynistic although obviously I’m a man so I suppose it’s possible we could both be closet Jim Davidsons without even knowing it…

I just don’t buy this. Actually I think what’s at fault is a by-rote repetition of (old) political lines about this by left-wing men, largely because they think they should. In fact I think that, and not what you referred to, is the “middle class guilt” at stake here. I was interested by your use of the word “exonerate” – I don’t feel the need for exoneration, because I am not responsible for sexist cultural codes, any more than I am responsible for social racism simply because I am white. It’s just bizarre to claim a shared set of histories for all people of the same gender.

“Tim, what are your mysogenistic behaviours then”

Well I do my best to challenge them and stop doing them when I notice them. But I notice sometimes that I might be ever so slightly more likely to interrupt a woman than a man in a group conversation, (sometimes that’s because some men keep talking and some women allow themselves to be interrupted, but even so I should probably compensate for that). I am sometimes liable to be over-protective of a woman being attacked verbally who is perfectly capable of defending herself, where I would let the man defend himself. I often notice that my subconscious attitudes are in conflict with my beliefs – so whilst I have no ideological issues with women in authority I think I am probably slightly more likely to challenge a women in authority’s judgement than that of a man in authority. When we’re talking about degrees of probability and not just blanket discriminatory behaviour, it is harder to notice those things but it doesn’ t mean they’re not there.

Not just in specific instances though but in my place in the social system I am arguably perpetuating oppression – for example part of my natural confidence comes from male privilege and in using that to my advantage in life I therefore perpetuate a patriarchal social system.

Those are weak examples but I can’t think of other things off the top of my head. I don’t feel bad about those things – probably lots of people wouldn’t even notice themselves doing it – but am aware that I need to change, still.

Middle class men don’t need to exercise power through their relationships with women, they get it from their relatively high work/social status. For working class men it’s the opposite. That’s the real centre of middle class guilt, it’s class privelidge, misogyny has nothing to do with it.

Tim F – your belief in the power of concious thought/beleif (all prejudices are by defintion subconcious- I thought everyone knew that) is as naive as it is absurd. You intterupt women (rightly) because they talk too much and don’t get to the point, you are more verbally agressive towards men because they are towards you.

And what exactly is this fabled “male privelidge”, what does it enable you to do that a woman (of comparable age and socio-economic standing) cannot do ?

“And what exactly is this fabled “male privelidge”, what does it enable you to do that a woman (of comparable age and socio-economic standing) cannot do ?”

Be taken more seriously than them, for a start.

Gee – I know I said this thread was retro, but I didn’t expect it to turn into ‘Can men be feminists (part 54)’.

tim f: I can’t find the link, so up to you whether you choose to believe me or not – but if you check voting records in parliament you’ll find that limiting votes to women, the pro-choice majority is greater than if you include all MPs votes.

Of course, that’s partly down to the fact that the Labour majority is then greater, but it’s just a fact that Labour has proportionately more female MPs than the Tories and Lib Dems. So restricting votes to women-only would still have the effect I described. (Of course, it might mean that the Tories and the Lib Dems selected more female MPs as a consequence, which wouldn’t be a bad thing either.)

Tim – to misquote Bill Clinton’s campaign: it’s the ideology, stupid – the whole idea that women are somehow more (for want of a better term) ‘progressive’ than men, because…well, just because…was crash-tested in the UK by Thatcher, and re-affirmed this year by the Cult of Sarah Palin. A perverse part of me does look forward to a gender-balanced majority Tory government, just to prove that point once and for all. The idea that women are united on the question of female sexuality (let alone male sexuality) is belied by Curtis-Thomas’ own conflicted views of Playboy and ‘lad mags’ as I quoted earlier. (New Labour likewise seem conflicted between ‘sexual identity’ and the kinds of sex people actually have or imagine having – hence the legislation against ‘extreme porn’) The notion that things would be better if women ran them is, perhaps, a sign of middle class guilt – or a sentimental approach to gender politics.

So why bother about achieving gender-representation in parliament at all, then?

It isn’t rocket science to say that having experienced sexism directly or even simply having a reproductive system makes you more likely to vote in a feminist/pro-choice way. Giving two examples of crap women doesn’t make your argument work unless I’m claiming the effect is universal.

It’s the same principle behind wanting working-class representation as opposed to simply people who have socialist values in parliament. Especially in a pressurised bubble-type environment like Westminster, I think people who have the background are more likely to vote the way I want rather than just people who have particular values. Values can change; your experiences stick with you. (Of course there’ll always be some people who sell out whatever.)

tim f: So why bother about achieving gender-representation in parliament at all, then?

…because there’s a difference between a politics of equality (in this case, of representation within Parliament) and and a politics based on ideology (across a whole range of issues, and not just gender). Both matter, but they are not interchangeable – there’s no biological link between genitals and political positions; sexism within, say, the Tory party might make a woman more determined to succeed within that organisation, not to shift her to a more ‘liberal’ position. Or maybe it’s just that I’m more sceptical re. women automatically having some kind of moral high ground simply by virtue of not being male.

@the a&e charge nurse

Here’s a little poser for all the lads.
Suppose 100 “average” men each take their turn to wait for a train (individually, not as a group).
Each man enters an empty waiting room (ooh, we are getting very Freudian, aren’t we) there are no other passengers on the platform.
The train is due to arrive in 5 minutes – two magazines are available on the waiting room table, Nuts and Amnesty International.

Out of the 100 subjects what is the likely split amongst those who avail themselves of the reading material ?
Nuts = x%
AI = x%

Personally, I’d pick up the AI thing, as Nuts is for cunts…

“Nuts is for cunts” – I’m surprised that full frontal is permitted, maybe it’s a last ditch effort to boost declining sales (affecting all of the lads mags share of the market when comparing sales in the 1990s, to today’s figures).

But the study design did not seek to elicit a qualitative assessment of content from individuals, rather a quantitive evaluation of male predelictions when offered a simple choice between sexually provocative material and worthy current affairs (moreover, a choice unhampered by the morality of the wider community).

My guess is that Nuts would attract a bigger audience (say a 90%-10% split) although according to some commentators there might be a significant differential if we compare Barcelona or Milan to our UK counterparts.

Nah, they’d all take out their mobile phones and either text someone or play one of its games…

What do you make of the fact that women voted Conservative overwhelmingly in the 20th century and are still anti Labour relatively speaking now .

Newmania,
Absolutely nothing – where there is evidence it is by no means overwhelming, it is marginal and contradictory at best and utterly meaningless in general – and that’s even giving you credit for what is a blatently fraudulent assertion.

Keep stirring.

Old people vote Conservative, women live longer.

Young people have also “rejected” Labour. They vote Lib Dem instead. Look at a Tory fundraising meet, it’s mostly nice retired grannies who can remember that nice Mr Heath. Labour’s across the board, Lib Dems are a lot younger.

The future’s looking good to me.