Is censorship feminism? Observing ‘Collective Shout’ as an activist organisation.

Your average Aussie ‘lad’s mag’ fare – ZOO Magazine

UPDATE: Since the publishing of this article ZOO MAGAZINE has officially shut-down due to “dwindling sales and accusations of sexism”

Perhaps some may read into the fact that I am writing another piece on ‘feminism’ that is highly critical and follows a ‘devil’s advocate’ perspective on the movement – so soon indeed after my last piece. I feel it somewhat absurd that I need to add a disclaimer to assure readers that I am not some aggressive anti-feminist; rather that I am someone who cares greatly about the movement. It is this love of the notion of gender equality that drives me to observe things from a more unforgiving standpoint. No movement is beyond constructive observation, nor beyond reproach – the feminist and gender equality movements are no exceptions to this rule. Take my views as you will, but needless to say if you consider my points moot due only to the colour of my skin (white) and my gender (male), then perhaps a two-sided approach to this nuanced discourse isn’t for you. I digress…

Take yourself back, if you can, to December 2014. Much to the dismay of gamers and free-speech proponents everywhere, the self-proclaimed Feminist Activist group ‘Collective Shout’ succeeded in having ‘Grand Theft Auto Five’, the fifth instalment in one of the world’s highest-selling and critically acclaimed video-game series, removed from a number of Australian retail and gaming outlets. It was preceded by a fierce and unrelenting campaign of complaints and boycotts that led to the decision(s). Collective Shout’s argument: That the game promoted violence against women and misogyny by allowing gamers, by their own accord, to commit acts of violence against digital female sprites with the press of a few buttons. It is fair to point out here that this is a reasonable complaint. Violence is unpleasant, and the trivialisation of domestic violence and misogyny is not something to be glossed over.

Having said that, the violence committed against female characters possible was, by comparison, a fairly minute aspect of GTA 5. In fact one could play the entire game without actually committing one of these ‘heinous acts’, as it was, by nature, a choice that COULD be made in the game – but one that was not a necessity. Surely there were far larger aspects of the game (essential and unchangeable aspects) that needed addressing. Indeed those that have plagued the GTA series from the beginning? What about the perpetuation of racial stereotypes across the board?  The perpetuation of queer stereotypes? The missions and goals that required the murder and robbery of characters of varied genders? The glorification of criminal gangs and mobs inherent in the game? Whilst playing a far bigger role in GTA 5, Collective Shout addressed these sparingly, if at all. Still, GTA 5 was removed from shelves across Australia and ‘feminist’ activists celebrated a ‘win’ that never once actually addressed the culture of systemic violence that fuels the ‘attraction’ of these games. The game was still available elsewhere, and boy did people buy it.

Flash forward to this year, August 20^th 2015, and Collective Shout are celebrating another ‘win’ in the name of their activism. ‘Zoo Magazine’, a weekly bikini / men’s lifestyle / trash magazine has been pulled from the shelves of Coles (of the “down, down” variety). Again, this campaign was prefaced by the same complaints, same boycotts, and same arguments. According to Collective Shout, Zoo Magazine encourages and glorifies sexism, which by virtue also encourages and glorifies something they deem as ‘rape culture’ (I’ve mentioned before I don’t like this terminology, but that’s for another day). As a result, buyers will have to go elsewhere for their poorly written ‘interviews’ and excess of (covered) breasts. Once more, I consider this complaint a reasonable one to level at the magazine industry, and I do not offer myself up as a defensive fan of Zoo Magazine: I think it’s crap. It’s pabulum. Its content holds zero appeal to me what-so-ever. It is however, appealing to a multitude of people – not just men, but women and people of other genders too. Whether that be for sexual, emotional or intellectual gratification is irrelevant. Why does the end result of Collective Shout’s campaign offer only an act of censorship, and not an appeal to reliable and objective discussion on the nature of these magazines? What makes magazines like ZOO so appealing? Are the attitudes expressed in ZOO reflective of broader social dialogue, or are they simply a less-than-serious indulgence of silly stereotypes and cheap thrill packaged for the masses? According to Collective Shout, these important questions that need to be discussed are irrelevant. They come, they restrict and they censor – and then they move on to the next issue of the day and nothing has been addressed in any comprehensive way.

For a better perspective on this issue, I had a chat to someone who has a professional and personal investment in all of these highlighted issues. Lucie Bee is an international porn-star, escort, nude model, avid gamer, feminist activist and writer – who covers many of these same issues in her blog.

JB: “Lucie, Do you consider the banning / censorship of pop-culture, games, magazines et cetera to be an effective way of combating sexism or misogyny in the public sphere?”

LB: “Short answer: No.

I think there’s a time and a place when it comes to censoring or banning something. Stuff that borders on hate speech, I can totally understand, but I don’t see Zoo magazine as encouraging hatred of women.

What irritates me is that often these sorts of things are seen as wins, but the problem doesn’t go away. Nor does the problem get explained. It’s just basically swept under the rug.

I’ll readily admit to finding some of the stuff that men’s mags publish a little troubling, their nomenclature could use a little adjustment at the best of times, but why aren’t we encouraging a climate whereby we change or improve these things, rather than just pretending they don’t exist?

Furthermore, a few of the examples that have been thrown around recently weren’t even from Australian Zoo, they were from the UK Magazine of the same name. Collective Shout I find are fairly selective when it comes to the way they present their arguments.

I also really hate how these magazines are being touted as ‘The Devil’ when it comes to their impact on women, when there’s a far more dangerous element of the print media out to get them and that’s the publications that are intended for women in the first place. People seem to think that removing ‘lads mags’ will improve the way men view women, when women’s magazines are still pushing the exact same stigma and gender stereotyping they always have. Want to damage a woman’s self-image? Leave her alone with a copy of Cosmo. I guarantee there’ll be a host of beauty concerns she didn’t know she was meant to have, products she didn’t realise she HAD to own and she’ll get a crash course in what men REALLY want, inside, outside and in the bedroom.

I don’t want my daughters growing up in a world where empowering women is left up to print media.

Nor do I want my sons growing up in a world where instead of a $4.95 magazine with swimsuit models inside, they’re going online and randomly googling far more graphic content they don’t understand, way too early because they’re at an age where they’re not necessarily ready to talk about it.

The natural response to that is of course that what’s contained in Zoo is no better, and frames the way they see women poorly, but I really don’t believe that either. We give young people far too little credit when it comes to what they’re taking in media wise. They’re not simply passive. Humour is not lost on them and the discussions they have with friends and the women in their lives will have an impact on them. They don’t necessarily blindly agree with all that they consume.

And I’m sorry, but anything, ANYTHING that encourages young men to READ – because Zoo magazine isn’t all pictures, regardless of what certain groups would have you believe – is important.”

 

Conclusively, Collective Shout’s campaigns are explicit failures. They achieve very little, if anything at all. Target didn’t ban GTA 5 out of moral condolence for the plight of women – they did it in an exasperated attempt to stop the tidal wave of aggressive and manipulative complaints levelled at them on a daily basis. Similarly, if anyone believes Coles’ actions were any different they are deluding themselves. Herein lays the problem. Nobody is smarter now for the absence of ZOO Magazine in one single Australian outlet. Nobody now sits in silent contemplation of the intricate and complex nature of gender politics, thinking “boy, my perspective has been wrong all this time, thanks Collective Shout; I’m going to stop my problematic approach to heteronormativity now!” Of course not. A few people here and there are slightly put out that they have to find somewhere else to buy a magazine that they enjoy – a magazine made and produced by men and women, and featuring depictions and photographs of scantily clad women who made themselves participants happily, willingly, and with absolute consent. I very much doubt Collective Shout, in the midst of their self-assured emotive hyperbole, even stopped to ask about whether their actions would impact upon the livelihoods of a few hundred writers, photographers and models who work collaboratively on ZOO.

In fact, this is my point. They do not care about engaging anybody who thinks outside of their insular echo-chamber of radical feminist ideologues. Not one iota. They do not care for the opinions, or feelings, or ideas or expressions of other human beings involved in this complex debate. What matters to all the ‘activists’ and ‘feminists’ at Collective Shout is their own personal indignation, that they be allowed to fulfil their monthly quota of personal vindication and outrage.

Where is the conversation? Where is the intelligent dialogue? There is none. What is being celebrated by Collective Shout this week is not a victory for women’s rights or against sexism, but a victory for censorship and the stifling of any and all perspective that does not explicitly match their own.

Is that feminism? I somehow doubt it.

JB

EDIT: It has come to my attention that the recent cancellation of TYLER, THE CREATOR’s Australian tour was due to direct involvement by Collective Shout also.

Lucie Bee will rock your world, intellectually and otherwise.

Check out her blog SASSY STRUMPET here, OR have a look at her WEBSITE here.

For information on Collective Shout click here.