Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Sex discrimination is illegal in America, isn’t it?
Sorry, missed this part. I withdraw my remark about the Maxim sanctioning being theoretical.
:rolleyes:
I feel like I’ve explained this at least three times in this thread :rolleyes: Look, like I said, I’m no prude. This has nothing to do with a personal “moral crusade” at work. I like nudity. I like sexy people. And I like pictures of both. The point is:
[ol]
[li]There’s a time and a place for this.[/li][li]Our company culture is such that this is not acceptable at work.[/li][li]Men have gotten warned for bringing in sexy magazines.[/li][li]Women haven’t, despite bringing in magazines that I would consider equivalent.[/li][li]My annoyance is two-fold - first, that women aren’t called on this. Second, that given our industry’s culture it really isn’t appropriate, and it makes us look trashy.[/li][/ol]
One point is that Cosmo is (was?) sold openly, while Playboy is sold in “Adult sections.”
A related point is that many good movies these days have an obligatory sex scene. What was wrong with cameras panning up to the sky, or whatever? Neither my ten-year old son nor his Mom want him watching these scenes. I’m not happy about blood and gore but given the violence he’s exposed to in kid’s movie, on-line games etc. realistic blood may be good for him to see to give a grounding in realism.
I’m no prude either, but when I started a BBQ thread to make these points, I got zero support and lots of confused accusations.
How does HR find out about the Maxims brought in by men? Is it because some uptight panty bunchee complains? Or is HR sending people into the break room to root out the ickiness?
'Cause I bet the answer is a lot less nefarious than you’re going for: I bet HR hasn’t taken action against the women because no one’s complained to them about the Glamour magazine in the break room. They probably don’t know, or care, that it’s there because it’s not causing any problem (for them) with the employees.
Why are your coworkers more likely to report Maxim than Glamour? Because they’re not equating the two, even though you are. Why? People have written dissertations on gender and media issues such as this, so I don’t think you’ll get a satisfyingly pat answer in this thread.
[quote=“GameHat, post:23, topic:618427”]
[li]Women haven’t, despite bringing in magazines that I would consider equivalent.[/li][/QUOTE]
So what would happen if you brought in the exact same magazine?
I had this uncle (still do, actually) who is/was quite the sick and twisted perverted pedophile. One day, I was browsing through a clothing catalog. He sighed, with the frustrated sigh of a pedophile sitting in the same room as his object of desire (I was a teen at the time) and wondered aloud, “What do women get out of looking at underwear ads in magazines?” His implication being, all women are straight and and looking at underwear is aways a turn on for all men and therefore, it makes no sense to him that women might look at pictures of other women in their underwear. He couldn’t understand why this didn’t turn us on.
I looked at him blankly for a second and said, “Ummm… nothing sexual. We’re shopping for underwear.” Sick freak.
This came to mind as I wondered to myself why both men’s and women’s magazines tend to show pretty women in very little clothing on their covers. I get why; women are shopping for clothes and makeup and hairstyles. Men are just cataloging images for their spank banks. I’m sad that Playgirl folded.
Related to the thread, I dunno. I’m at work. Who has time to flip through a magazine? I lose respect for anyone who brings magazines to work because that makes me think maybe they don’t have enough to do to keep them busy for a full eight hours. Rather than catch somebody else reading a magazine, I have some extra work those people could help me with. Magazines, in general, regardless of what’s on the cover, seem inappropriate for any workplace other than a doctor’s office, in which case they should be in the lobby for the patients.