Registered user login:

The dark world of lads' mags

Kira Cochrane

Published 23 August 2007

The worst crime of lad culture was it took old-fashioned chauvinism and served it up in the same format

Schadenfreude is never a good look, but sometimes you can't help it - word arrives of someone else's failure and a smile creeps, unbidden, to your face.

So it was at the end of last week, when I read about the problems facing the "lads' mags" sector. ABC circulation figures for the first half of this year painted a bleak picture for those weekly and monthly paeans to beer, birds, cars and football, with a year-on-year sales drop of 25.9 per cent for the market bestseller, FHM, 18.1 per cent for Zoo and 9 per cent for Nuts. But the magazine that recorded the biggest sales plummet, with readers deserting it in droves, was Loaded, which suffered a 35 per cent drop in circulation from the same period last year.

This is particularly significant when you consider the effect Loaded had on magazine culture (and, many would argue, British culture at large) when it launched back in 1994. At that specific moment in history, the male stereotype everyone was talking about was the "new man" - a sensitive, linen-shirted bloke who took pride in his ability to change nappies. The upmarket men's magazines such as Esquire all seemed to have this audience in their sights, peddling articles about fatherhood and feelings. (In tune with those times, on its launch in 1989, the British version of GQ magazine vowed never to feature naked women on its covers.)

Loaded, the magazine "for men who should know better", threw a grenade into all that and created a new and much more popular stereotype. Being a "lad" meant sticking two fingers up to sensitivity. Soon after Loaded launched, James Brown, the magazine's twentysomething creator, was declaring that there was a change in the men's mags sector and that "we're entirely responsible for it . . . Men's magazines were all trying to project a sophisticated image, but it wasn't speaking to the millions of real blokes who love football and want to pull women, but who also like good writing . . . I'm very proud to say we've lowered the tone. We've given all the others a kick up the arse."

There's no doubt that Loaded did have some good writers at first - Nick Hornby, Irvine Welsh - and it wasn't as predictable as it soon became: it initially featured men on its covers, for instance (Gary Oldman was the cover star for the launch issue). But as the lad culture that it drew on and celebrated took hold, and its main rival FHM featured ever more scantily clad women on its covers, Loaded followed suit.

Within months of Loaded's launch, GQ had scrapped its "no naked covers" policy, and within a few years it was featuring a female columnist who recounted her first experience of anal sex - something she had done, she wrote, simply because her editor had told her to.

The worst crime of lad culture as a whole was that it took old-fashioned sexism (chauvinism), served it up in exactly the same format - endless pictures of scantily clad women, for instance, beside captions about how "up for it" they were - and slapped the label "irony" on it. Once it had been established that this culture was ironic, if a woman dared to use the word "sexist" it simply proved that she had no sense of humour, that she was out of touch.

Any young woman who felt that there might be something a bit offensive about blokes talking loudly about ogling women's "tits", who might have wondered why the men around her - often middle-class men - were acting out some sort of tired cartoon of male dominance, was simply derided as po-faced. Lad culture was, as one journalist put it, a "blokelash", a reaction to the gains of feminism which, although it was based on the idea of having big cojones, didn't even have the balls to be open and honest about what it was doing. This was the old-style sexism dressed up as the new-style irony.

And by using the excuse that this "humour" was "ironic" to shut down all criticism, the path was left open for the creation of magazines such as Nuts and Zoo, weeklies that have taken trends that were revolutionary - sometimes, yes, even funny - when Loaded introduced them, to their most bland and boring extreme. Over the years, the lads' mags sector has inevitably become ever more sexist.

Once you've seen one naked Big Brother star, you've sort of seen them all, so the onus has been placed on making the imagery more explicit, within the bounds possible for a mainstream magazine. A stereotypical cover image now (as featured on the most recent issue of Nuts) is of two "buxom" women pressing their topless torsos together.

Of course, my Schadenfreude is misplaced: there's no reason to smile, because while I might be quite happy to see the decline of the likes of FHM, Nuts, Zoo and Loaded, it would be naive to think that their problems are based on a cultural backtrack.

There can be little doubt that many of their readers are migrating to more troubling forms of media - specifically, internet porn, which can obviously go much, much further than these magazines could ever dare. It's a dark world that Loaded and the lad culture has bequeathed us. Thanks a lot, guys.

Kira Cochrane is women's editor of the Guardian

Post this article to

2 comments from readers

report this comment dolores fitchie
03 September 2007

Dear Kira,

Perhaps you shouldn't waste your time on Schadenfreude and invest your energies instead in seeing what you should be seeing. Namely that in the past 10 or 15 years the anti-feminist backlash has not only reached dizzy heights, but has totally co-opted the most useful of cannon fodder: women themselves.

I saw it all coming back in the midd. 70s: the feminist agenda being hijacked by male paranoia and greed; women taking their eyes off the ball and squandering the momentum in petty ideological bickerings. Next thing you know is that pole dancing is "empowering", girls dress like two-dollar underage hookers (or Barbies; same difference!) and firmly believe that anal sex is really cool and, worse, have turned their frustration and humilliation on each other. They seem more desperate than ever to "get a man", they look down on (and try to bully into compliance) those of us who refuse to suck dick, and submissive wives are back in fashion with a vengeance. I daresay, giving back the right to vote could be the next step...And nobody says boo. Thanks a lot, girls!...

report this comment false consciousness
04 October 2007

What we need to more consciousness-raising. I think a lot of young women feel embarrassed and ashamed, and are made to feel prudish, when they object to lad's mags.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by using the 'report this comment' facility or by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Kira Cochrane is the women's editor for the Guardian and writes a regular column in the New Statesman.

Read More

Vote!

Is the BBC in terminal decline?

October Revolution

Commemorative Plates

Enter the prize draw

Designed by Wilson Fletcher
Redesign consultant: Sheila Sang, PowWow Interactive