A feminist police state is upon us in the UK, with the latest installment being an attempt by the organisation UKFeminista to ban men’s casual magazines from being handled by female staff, on the grounds it may cause “offence” or worse still, harm to female workers.

Yes, you read correctly – not because of protecting children or another cause with at least some level of rationality behind it to prevent it from being rubbished by any level headed person.  This solemnly considered notice of intent is almost laughable in its foundation, yet I quote;

‘…displaying publications in stores or requiring staff to handle such magazines could amount to sex discrimination or sexual harassment’.

SEX DISCRIMINATION and SEXUAL HARASSMENT are actually the terms being wheeled out here.  I’m surprised there is no mention of ‘sexually abused hands’ or ‘eye rape’ as well.  The worst part about this is its likely retailers will have no other choice but to succumb to this, in light of there being no organised opposition.

The Usual Double Standards

Kat Banyard, the founder of UK Feminista, recycled the oestrogen sodden terminology from the feminist shed for the following quote;

‘Lads mags aren’t just a bit of harmless fun. By portraying women as sex objects they fuel sexist attitudes and behaviours. It is a national scandal that the ‘big four’ supermarkets and high-street shops like WH Smiths stock these sexist publications. By selling lads mags, companies like Tesco and WH Smith are normalising the idea that it is acceptable to treat women like sex objects’.

Are you sure Kat?  If so, perhaps I should take offence at the Diet Coke adverts currently on mass rotation across all popular mediums, where a bunch of women leer over a barely dressed man.  This is normalising my idea of how women perceive men with perfectly sculpted bodies and how it’s perfectly okay for men to be treated as sex objects, as long as they dare not act on it without explicit (perhaps written) permission first.

If I were more of easily influenced man, I might even become so insecure from this ‘normalised’ imagery, I’d go and take some illegal supplements to enhance myself to the level of what would be expected of me.  This could result in massive health complications, even premature death but… I’m a man, right?  I am a beneficiary of the ‘patriarchy’.

A Disjointed Front

Perhaps if the female gender were to present a unified front on this matter, these claims could be taken a little more seriously.  Even applying the same argument for sexualised imagery demeaning all people might give your exposition some weight.  These ‘sexist’ publications require models to portray the imagery you find offensive, of which there is a huge selection jostling for the opportunity.

Or is this attack directed on beleaguered UK retailers, because they are aware of the magic words below, quoted directly from the press release of this campaign;

‘There is legal precedence of women working in other industries successfully suing their employers after being exposed to pornography at work’.

So really, shouldn’t Kat be attacking the women who expose themselves for money?  One of the central tenets of feminism is the self empowerment of women; free to apply themselves as they choose.  This is also one of the benefits of living in a democratic, Western country.

No, she instead chooses to adopt language feared by image conscious retailers in a massively imbalanced society.  ‘Suing’ is included in all publicity to shift potential support focus from the absurdity of your claims, much in the same way as the word ‘rape’ is included in the majority of feminist literature to make it appear more legitimate amongst your peers.

Abuse Of Terminology

The very fact the majority of feminists use the word ‘rape’ within their literature with such an alarming regularity, is a disgusting insult to those women who have genuinely undergone such an atrocity.  Likewise for overuse of the word ‘exploitation’, which I’m sure both men and women working in for example, a typical Bangladesh clothing sweatshop would be happy to comment on many issues where white, Western women claim they’ve been ‘exploited’.

Under the same principle, to leverage and encourage workers to sue their employers in a struggling economy, only ultimately serves to drive businesses away from employing women, which will no doubt result in another wave of protest.

You can’t have it both ways Kat.  Educate your own gender first, figure out your end game, then perhaps you’ll be taken more seriously.

Men and Women; know your real enemy:

Kat-Banyard-006

Read More: How Superbowl Marketing Discredited Feminism