Cosmopolitan and conservatives: Why banning gloss in the name of feminism is a bad idea
THIS WEEK NETWORK OF AMERICAN WALMART HYPERMARKETS decided to remove Cosmopolitan magazine from the cash desks of the stores - however, the publication can still be found in the press section. A PR representative from the National Center for Sexual Exploitation, who tried to ban the sale of the publication, claims that the decision was made in support of the #MeToo movement. We understand why the Walmart move is hypocritical, that the organization insisted on this restriction and how the conservatives appropriate the fight for women's rights for the sake of their goals.
What's wrong with walmart
Walmart is a hypermarket chain that is openly oriented towards conservative Americans. For example, the company actively sells weapons and only this February decided to raise the legal age for buying firearms from eighteen to twenty-one. In 2015, one of the major marketing companies conducted a study and found out that Walmart is one of the most popular places for purchases from Republicans and the least popular among Democrats.
Moreover, the Cosmopolitan story is not the first case of a conservative restriction on the part of the company. For example, a pregnant Barbie doll was removed from the shelves because some customers thought it was promoting teenage pregnancy. In 2003, the company refused to sell men's magazines like Maxim. The Times reported that the decision was made under pressure from conservative Christian activists.
In 1999, Walmart removed emergency contraception from the range, explaining it with a “commercial solution.” Journalists again wrote that the giant was allegedly pressured by the Pharmacists for Life International. However, already in 2006, emergency contraception returned to the shops, because three women from Massachusetts complained to the company to court. But in 2004, the Zionist Protocols of the Wise Men appeared in the hypermarket's online catalog without an indication that the document was a fake from beginning to end - after complaints from the Jewish community, Walmart removed the book from sale.
Who lobbied for the ban
The organization with which Walmart negotiated is called the National Center for Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). True, not so long ago the NGO was known under the name "Moral in Media". It may not officially belong to any party, but in 2012, NCOSE supported the republican platform, and also praised the "Council for Family Research" for opposing pornography. The Council is against the LGBT community, but for the ban on abortion.
NCOSE was created back in 1962, since then the group has stood guard over pornography and morality in seemingly unexpected things. In 2016, they published a list of companies that support "sexual exploitation" - even the American Library Association joined it for not restricting access to any sites on public computers. Because of this, the children allegedly could see obscene material.
In addition, claims were made, for example, HBO and Game of Thrones - those "deliberately mixed interesting scenes with scenes of nudity, rape and incest, to make pop culture and porn culture synonymous." NCOSE also opposed Fifty Shades of Gray, because the film "glamorizes and legitimizes violence against women." Amazon was also blacklisted for distributing porn and "sadomasochistic paraphernalia", Amnesty International for supporting the decriminalization of sex work, Snapchat for people using it for sexting, YouTube for advertising pornography.
You can discuss for a long time whether Amnesty International is right in its position about sex work or what is wrong with the representation of women in Game of Thrones, but when the organization wants to prohibit selling BDSM paraphernalia or prevent sexteing, there are no questions left. NCOSE has been trying to promote a conservative agenda for several years now, exploiting rhetoric from another camp, and this looks at least hypocritical, as the maximum is dangerous. We have to approach pornography critically (as well as most things in the world), but clearly not to ban Cosmopolitan for the bare navel of Selena Gomez on the cover.
Why gloss need to be criticized differently
The claims of the aforementioned players to Cosmopolitan are that the magazine "encourages teenagers to engage in sexting" and "watch porn", and also "promotes group and other forms of dangerous sex." So Walmart allegedly struggling with hypersexualization and the objectification of women.
The reasons for the feminist criticism of glossy magazines are clear to everyone: promoting a single unrealistic standard of beauty, retouching photos, shaming stars that have gained weight or those who have not lost weight by summer or do not look fifteen years younger than their age. However, even in its original format, a gloss like the Cosmopolitan did, for the sexual education of those same teenagers, more than many states. In the United States during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Glamor or Cosmopolitan passion markedly reduced the chance of getting pregnant when telling about abstinence instead of sex distribution in schools, and the statistics of teenage pregnancies increased markedly.
In recent years, gloss in every way seeks to move to the side of good. For example, Allure refused the word "anti-image", and Cosmopolitan launched a petition in 2013, demanding to expand the range of sizes of clothing manufacturers, to say nothing of the numerous attempts to make a correct cover with plus-size models. Gloss is criticized for the commercialization of the women's agenda and awkward attempts to follow trends, but industry standards are really changing - especially in the West. The same American Cosmopolitan actively covered the #MeToo campaign.
Anyway, modern Western gloss conveys the basic ideas of gender equality to a wide audience, and thanks to criticism from activists it only gets better. But equating the cover of Cosmopolitan to pornography and demonizing sexting is a direct way back to shame and slumbering.
Photo:Walmart
