Résumé en français : les magazines pour hommes qui ont connu un large succès ces dernières années au Royaume-Uni sont de plus en plus critiqués pour leur contenu souvent misogyne et bas de gamme.

‘I’d suggest going on the rampage with the boys, getting on the booze and smashing everything that moves. Then when some bird falls for you, you can turn the tables and break her heart. Of course, the other option is to cut your ex’s face, and then no one will want her.’

Does that sound like advice to you? Shockingly, it is the reply given by Danny Dyer, a British TV presenter and actor, to a reader who wrote in to his Zoo magazine column because he was missing his ex-girlfriend.
Zoo magazine is one of the many so-called ‘lads’ mags’ that you can find in newsagents. The magazines talk about women, football, celebrities and gadgets, for the most part. They often include interviews with actresses and singers, and photographs of them where they are just in their underwear (or less!). The magazines distinguish themselves from pornography, saying that they are just the equivalent of ‘cheeky seaside postcards’. ‘Loaded’ magazine, created 15 years ago, was the first one of this kind of magazine in Britain. But since then, many people believe that lads’ magazines have gone downhill in content, and today they do not have a good reputation.

As you can imagine, Dyer’s reply caused uproar. Anti-domestic violence and women’s groups were horrified. Dyer has said that he gave his contributions via phone interview and that he was ‘misquoted’ and ‘devastated’, whilst Zoo magazine have said that it was a ‘regrettable production error’ and have cancelled Dyer’s page. The two are now in dispute over who is at fault. In an attempt to right wrongs, the magazine has donated money to Women’s Aid, a charity which helps women who have been victims of domestic violence. It is also devoting a page of this week’s magazine to ‘driving awareness to the issue of violence against women’. But is that going to be enough? Even if Dyer did say that on the phone to a staffer at Zoo, the magazine’s editorial team allowed the comments to go in. Why did they allow it?

The situation has got people questioning lads’ magazines in general. Are they degrading to women? Are they sending an unhealthy message to their readers? Are they misogynistic? Arguably, as shown in this case, some of them are.
A Home Office study carried out in February this year argued that magazines such as Zoo should be made top-shelf titles with age restrictions on their sale. The study argued that such magazines are sexualising boys and girls at an increasingly early age, influencing their behaviour. The report was commissioned by the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, as part of a strategy tackling violence against women and girls. The Home Office believes that the magazines are being sold to children who are much too young to read them, and believe that a system of 16 and 18 certificates (similar to film classification) should be brought in.

In my opinion, it comes down to a shocking lack of respect and responsibility. Even if Dyer was misquoted or was being sarcastic, the magazine had the ultimate responsibility for its content. The fact that the editorial team deemed Dyer’s reply ok to go in is perhaps the most worrying part of the story.