There’s an interesting motion coming up at tomorrow’s JCR (Junior Common Room) meeting, regarding the purchase of “lads’ mags” Zoo and Nuts (the motion wants the JCR to stop purchasing them). The motion reads:
6. Zoo & Nuts
This JCR notes:
- That alongside newspapers, fashion magazines, music magazines and other publications, the JCR buys copies of the “lads’ mags” Zoo and Nuts every week.
- That this is paid for with JCR money, originating in the JCR levy taken off battels.
- That both of these publications feature pornographic images of women and advertisements alongside jokes and features (eg. “Assess my Breasts”) which many women and men find offensive.
- That these magazines can be purchased easily in any newsagent for a small sum or ordered from the Bodleian stacks for free.
- That <my college> is unusual among Oxford JCRs in subscribing to these magazines – most do not even buy tabloid papers.This JCR believes:
- That sexual exploitation and the objectification of women are bad things.
- That the presence of these magazines is not conducive to a welcoming, tolerant and respectful atmosphere in the JCR.
- That their visible presence in the JCR does not create a particularly good impression of <my college> for prospective students or interviewees visiting the college.
- That the sex industry is not something which the JCR’s money should be supporting, especially when it could be otherwise used for drama, sport, music, charity etc.
- That people should have a choice as to whether their money will be used to buy these publications.This JCR resolves:
- To immediately stop purchasing Zoo and Nuts for the JCR; and
- To mandate the Welfare Officers (Male & Female) to look into the possibility of buying other magazines, which may be of particular interest to the male population of the JCR, on a regular basis, which are not “lads’ mags”
I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting to stop purchasing Zoo and Nuts. But, I’m not sure if any of the arguments offered in the motion are good arguments as to why we should cease to buy them (I need to think about it). Regardless, I’m pretty sure the debate come this Sunday will get pretty heated!
EDIT: For other issues concerning the use of JCR collective funds, see this post.
I think that the simple argument – buying these magazines is a really unpleasant message to send to members of your JCR, and that is a good enough reason to stop using collective funds for the purchase of such magazines – works just fine.
You’ll get plenty of people who want to tell you that it’s not really offensive, or not really hurtful to spend collective money on this stuff. Just face them down, and get them to admit that actually they just don’t care about the feelings of other people in their college, because they’d rather get some shit magazine for free. As soon as they admit that at the GM, they are dead in the water.
P.S. nice how you removed the name of your college in JCR Notes, but not in JCR Believes…
Aye, I like the “they just don’t care about the feelings of other people in their college, because they’d rather get some shit magazine for free” thought. I guess the response would be that “well, we buy The Sun and The Independent, and particular members of the JCR find those publications offensive/hurtful. Yet we don’t not purchase them” which intuitively seems a pretty weak response. Newspapers (even rubbish ones like The Sun) and lads mags are obviously different, to me at least.
And cheers for pointing out that mistake of mine. Duly edited.
Having thought about this a bit more, I think a formalised version of the argument would look something like this.
1. JCR policy should not offend or hurt the feelings of members of the JCR, unless there is a good reason to do so
2. Buying lads mags offends/hurts the feelings of members of the JCR
3. Because you want to read a lads mag, when they are available in shops etc is not a good reason to offend/hurt the feelings of someone
4. Therefore, the JCR should not purchase lads mags
That gets rounds the “some newspapers offend/hurt the feelings of JCR members” because having access to reporting from a wide range of political views, even divisive ones, is important in a JCR. There is no similar defeater in the case of lads mags (or at least, I can’t think of one)
What is the justification for purchasing the fashion and music magazines? Those do not fall under the category of publications that provide “a wide range of political views”, so one has to consider the difference between those magazines and the lads mags. Unless you also support the halt of purchasing the fashion and music magazines, it appears the only difference is that some members consider the lads mags offensives, but they do not consider fashion and music magazines offensive. However, what one person considers offensive is another person’s entertainment. While the offensive nature is different, is it conceivable some people may find the lyrical content of some music offensive or hurtful to their opinions about violence, women, or race. In addition, groups of students could find the lifestyle and culture promoted in fashion magazines (that of super-thin airbrushed models) offensive if they have uncomfortable experiences with their weight.
Some people find the content of lads mags as entertaining as others find the content of music or fashion magazines. I presume that you would not as readily support a removal of funding on fashion/music magazines as you would on lads mags. I think a strong argument for the would need to explain *why* one form of offensive is permissible when the other is being challenged.
Thanks for your comment Kolya,
Providing a wide range of political views was not taken to be a necessary condition for the JCR purchasing a publication. Rather, it was functioning as a defeater for the rule of thumb that the JCR should not offend/hurt people’s feelings. Given that, it does not follow from the fact that fashion and music mags don’t provide a range of political views that they should not be bought.
You’re right that what one person finds offensive others might not. I deliberately avoided the issue of whether offence in particular cases was rational/justified etc, as that’s very difficult. I leave open the question of whether people should be offended by lads mags.
Instead, I take the causing of offence (whether that offence be warranted or not) to be a prima facie reason for the JCR not purchasing the publication in question. Now, that reason’s only prima facie, so it can be defeated. So, you then ask “what counts as a reason that can trump the prima facie consideration in the cae of newspapers, that doesn’t count as a reason in the case of lads mags?” or something like that.
To that I’d say – I don’t have a systematic account of what counts as an offence-trumping reason. We have to wait ’til the putative reason is offered, and then assess whether it counts as a good reason or not. I guess we do this intuitively – everyone can see that providing a wide range of (sometimes controversial) political views is important in a JCR, whilst everyone can presumably see that it’s not terribly important for people to be able to read crass (but often pretty entertaining) articles and look at tits. If there’s not unanimous intuition, we go to a vote. That’s the only fair way of deciding, if we are not to privilege the intuitions of some over those of others.
So yeah … I don’t think a systematic account of offensiveness is required. Sometimes, you can just see that a particular offensive action is pointless or not very important (eg. the ‘right’ to give oral sex to a dog whilst on a public bus [thanks to my philosophy tutor for that example] is just plain pointless offence). At other times, you can just see that a particular offence is very important (eg. some people get sincerely offended when they see 2 men holding hands. Yet we can all see that it’s important that gays be able to hold hands).
Does that make sense?
Hmm, let me try to clarify what you are trying to say:
- People are being offended. (fact)
- An argument is given for why the magnitude of the offense is greater than the positive contribution of the magazine (be they intellectual or entertainment-based).
- A vote is taken on the strength of the argument.
If I am correctly representing the argument then I still think the other magazines cause a problem. Let us assume that people are offended by fashion magazines because they are examples of vacuous materialism and damage the self-image and confidence of women. Similar to lads mags, it’s not terribly important that people are able to read fashion magazines.
So if you are claiming that the mere fact of offense (for some reason which will be debated) is enough for the cessation of lads mags purchasing, if some people spoke up about feeling offended by the fashion magazines then would they (potentially) be placeable in the same position as the lads mags are in now?
Despite this, I doubt the fashion magazines *would* ever be in a similar position. What’s the difference?
I’m not sure this needs a principled argument (though one may be available), couldn’t it simply be the case that you should spend JCR money as the majority want and the majority may not want lads’ mags?
FWIW, my MCR used to buy both Maxim and Cosmo, but cancelled both at the same time, largely because they were a waste of money and often went missing.
“couldn’t it simply be the case that you should spend JCR money as the majority want and the majority may not want lads’ mags?”
No, because the majority might want to buy this shit.
And Peter, i personally don’t see much of a difference between the Sun and FHM. In fact i rate the former as more offensive than the latter in many ways.
For those interested, the motion failed to pass (ie. we shall still be purchasing Zoo and Nuts). I shall explain what happened (and answer some of the queries in comments) after I’ve written my final essay of term tomorrow.
so if people wanna read nuts and zoo in the jcr, and part of the jcr money is put forward for buying magazines students want to read (thus saving them time and money) why is “offence” caused good grounds for expelling certain magazines? Seems rather illiberal.
Not that i dont understand why we ought to oppose certain trends within lad mags as sexist, just that being offended by them is irrelevant, and banning them is stupid and doesnt get you anywhere. Get a backbone.
[...] and Nuts As my friend Peter has already blogged, our college JCR has considered a motion regarding the ‘lads mags’ Zoo and Nuts, [...]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7540113.stm