Here’s another “lad” for you: Martin Daubney, who was the other “men are oppressed!!” guy on TBQ – the one who said, hilariously, “the great things men do, when do we ever hear about that??” He was the editor of a lads’ mag for years and years and years and now he’s that guy who edited a lads’ mag for years and years and years and thus an expert in the toxicity of feminism. He did some toxicity of feminism explaining in the Telegraph last November.
Twenty years ago, loaded – the magazine I edited for seven and a half years – was debated in Parliament for its corrosive effect on young men – or “lads” as they had been christened after the magazine’s very first cover line.
Today, we’re in exactly the same boat, as the Home Secretarybans toxic pick-up artist Julien Blanc from entering the UK.
What same boat? “Pick-up artist” means “systematic premeditated sexual predator.” Are people supposed to treat that as just another vibrant aspect of human behavior?
And, of course, after much liberal rumination, it was concluded that Blanc’s very existence is propped up by today’s lads, who once again are fast becoming the most vilified sector of British society.
For if you believe Twitter, the liberal press or your more toxic feminists – never a wise idea – you’d think young, white, heterosexual males were the root of all evil in Britain.
Not a bit of it. Young, white, heterosexual males are not automatically lads. The word doesn’t pick out young white heterosexual males but a subset of them that acts a certain way.
It seems hard to imagine now, but thanks to loaded’s huge success – it sold 500,000 mags a month at its peak – by 1997 it felt like practically everybody in the UK was a card-carrying lad, even the girls (affectionately known as ladettes).
The new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was a lad, and his new, top-lad mate Noel Gallagher sniffed Charlie in the bogs at Number Ten during that infamous New Labour election party.
Were they overt unapologetic sexists? Did they publicly express contempt for women? I don’t remember that. Maybe I missed it.
Laddism’s only detractors were a small, grizzled coven of old-school feminists, mostly employed by the Guardian and Independent newspapers. Of course, they protested loudly, as is their wont, but struggled to be heard over the collective popping of corks and blaring of Now That’s What I Call Britpop CDs.
Ah yes, only the ancient witches of ancient feminism objected, and nobody gave a fuck about them, because of course we all hate ancient witches.
But fast forward a mere 17 years and the bovver boot is now firmly on the other foot – and set on revenge.
So it is that in 2014, the most widely hated sub-section of British society aren’t jihadists, child rapists or even politicians, but young, white, heterosexual men who drink too much, make ill-thought-out but usually harmless jokes and occasionally use the word “moist”.
First – why is the bovver boot now firmly on the other foot? What happened? What changed? Are people listening to the ancient witches of ancient feminism now when they weren’t 17 years ago? But if so, why? They’re even more witchy-ancient now, so why would people who hate ancient witches be listening to them more now? What happened in those 17 years to cause the change of foot?
And second, “usually harmless” to whom, according to whom? How does Martin Daubney know with such confidence that those ill-thought-out jokes are usually harmless? As someone who isn’t subject to misogynist contempt, how exactly can he tell?
Because what the lad’s critics fail to recognise is, like acne, being a lad is just another phase the overriding majority of young men grow out of.
More bullshit. The fact that most young men grow out of it is hardly a reason to foster and celebrate it, is it. If we’re supposed to be relieved that most young men grow out of it, why is it “toxic” of us to think they should be discouraged from growing into it in the first place? Many teenagers go through a phase where they have no idea how much alcohol it takes to make them throw up, and they grow out of it; is that a reason to celebrate drinking until you throw up?
…laddism is not some weird brain virus that consumes previously free-thinking men and turns us into misogynistic rape zombies. It’s not like being in the Hitler Youth.
Rather, being a lad is just something to do: a way of making friends at uni, of fitting in at the football, a perhaps unsavoury rite of passage before we grow up, something we dabble with before we realise we actually prefer carp fishing, triathlons, steady relationships, getting on at work, being a dad or watching Countryfile.
Of course it’s not a weird brain virus; it’s a bit of culture, like countless other bits of culture, and it can be encouraged or discouraged, valorized or condemned, wanted or not wanted. We get to choose, we get to say. We don’t have to treat racism or homophobia as some inevitable “phase” people go through or as “just something to do”; why should we treat sexism that way?
Loaded’s original lads were a two-fingered salute to the papoose-wearing, New-Man-cum-castrato the liberal newspapers extolled the virtues of, yet whom hardly any of us wanted to be.
Oh that’s attractive – men who pay attention to their children are castrated.
It’s funny that Daubney thinks he outgrew his laddism.
Every God needs its Satan: an antagonistic force to kick back against. And feminists need lads. What else would they rage about? Without lads, they’d be out of work. They can’t “solve” serious feminist issues like FGM, rape, or equal pay any time soon, so they fritter away energy on minutiae like getting sexist comedian Dapper Laughs sacked, banning Julien Blanc, or making Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor publicly cry after wearing a “laddish” shirt.
Thank you Dear Muslima. I love seeing an anti-feminist man explaining to feminists what the serious feminist issues are, in aid of getting them to shut up about what he considers the frivolous ones.
These hollow, token victories not only make modern, online feminism seem increasingly toxic, petty and anti-man: they further fuel the lad’s persecution complex, add to their anger and drive them to more extreme acts of anonymous Twitter hate.
Yup, and women going outside causes men to rape them.
If we just ignored laddism, it might go away. After all, it almost happened in the noughties. But with a plethora of angry women lambasting lads’ every politically incorrect act on social media, and drawing angry return fire, there’s zero chance of that happening any time soon.
As a fully reformed and rehabilitated former lad, it makes me sigh wistfully.
Nope. Nope nope nope. Not reformed at all, not even a little bit.
By demonising lads and attempting to ban their entertainment – porn, Page 3, the London School of Economics Rugby Club, Dapper Laughs or even Julien Blanc – you perversely make the lifestyle choice just that little bit more attractive. Prohibition has never – and never will – work.
It’s so easy to think of examples where prohibition has indeed worked. He’s not a great thinker, is he. Maybe all that laddism took a toll after all.
Goodness me, what an entitled, martyred whiner!
The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
Feminists made Dr. Taylor cry? LOLWHUT?!?
Oh, hell yes, that was a very widespread trope about Matt Taylor, and still is. Now me, I always thought he got choked up because he felt bad about causing a distraction from the team’s accomplishments and the actual mission itself. But I guess it’s terribly feminist-witchy of me to give him that kind of credit.
So you’re an evil Feminazi if you subscribe to the idea that men are basically decent human beings? That is an interesiting point of view…*shakes head*
… today’s lads, who once again are fast becoming the most vilified sector of British society.
Y’know, if we saw signs of the rabble getting out their pitchforks to undertake some social engineering at the expense of the 1%, I might say this plaint warranted a bit of consideration.
But we don’t, so I don’t. Suggestion for the meantime, my dear old Daubney: get one of your ladettes to assist you with some skin-darkening cosmetics, don a turban and a nice shalwar kameez, and take a stroll around the laddiest neighbo[u]rhoods you can find, then report back to us about “vilified sectors”.
I believe that, by that “bovver boot” bit, he’s trying to paint a picture of ill-tempered granny-crones in jackboots.
I would pay money to see that.
I think Daubney is trying to pull that same trick many Christians in the US do: pull in anyone who remotely identifies as a Christian to claim that a larger portion of the population agrees with them, even though we all know that they’ll “No True Christian” a large number of the people they’re using at the moment in just a minute anyway.
And I bet the likelihood that not a single individual who unabashedly calls themselves a “lad” has stopped to ponder, assuming this claim is anywhere close to true, that maybe it would be an indictment against them instead of some failing of society brought about by ancient feminist harpies.
I don’t think I’ve encountered “grizzled” in reference to women before now.
Usually it’s grizzled veterans or grizzled coal miners.
My experience of ‘Lads’ is that the only thing they grow out of is their school uniforms.
The lads who make a transition into thinking adult males do so, in my experience, as the result of an exterior challenge. That might be an event that harms them or someone they love, or a person who challenges their world view face to face, in print, TV whatever.
But just naturally evolving through deep thought and reflection while down at the pub leering at ladettes in short skirts? Yeah, nah.
I love the thought of grizzled crones. Makes me think of Granny Weatherwax.
Don’t let Mistress Weatherwax hear you call her “Granny”.
😉
You know, Ophelia, he’s got something there. After all, when is the last time you wrote anything against jihad, child rape, or FGM? Have you EVER bothered to address the fact that women don’t get equal pay for equal work?
Checks column to be sure of facts.
Never mind… 😉
“Bovver boots” refers to steel-toed military or Doctor Martins boots, typically associated with punks, skinheads, and football hooligans.
You know, the bit about backlash from lads toward anyone who negatively mentions their behaviour puts me in mind of a wasp nest outside your back door.
If you keep the door closed, only cautiously go into the garden and otherwise ignore it, you can minimise the effects while the problem slowly grows.
Alternatively you can knock the horrid thing to the floor and set it on fire. Which will make many wasps very very angry.
Prisoners , who committed crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc), are sent to prison to be punished for and rehabilitated of (debatable point but ostensibly the purpose of prison) their crimes ;
Drug users are sent to rehab to become rehabilitated from their drug use;
People with anger management issues are sent to therapy in order to understand their anger issues and subsequently learn how to control their anger issues (i.e., rehabilitated);
I am sure that there are a lot of more examples, but when you frame your viewpoint as ‘rehabilitated’ that implies that what you were doing before rehabilitation was not a good thing. Martin Daubney knows that he cannot be a ‘lad’ anymore because he has become rehabilitated. Yet, he sounds like being a lad is a good thing to go through. Thus, does he subconsciously, or consciously, know that the behaviours of ‘being a lad’ is not a good thing. Or, is he rehabilitated because someone of his age can no longer get away with the behaviour of ‘being a lad’ because “one should know better in polite society?”
Regardless, by saying he is rehabilitated, he implies that lad behaviour is not a positive attribute for oneself. Thus, why does he strongly endorse it?
Regardless, by saying he is rehabilitated, he implies that lad behaviour is not a positive attribute for oneself. Thus, why does he strongly endorse it?
I can’t help thinking that the term “rehabilitated” is actually being used ironically here.
“Boys will be boys.” Loutish laddishness is how young males *naturally* behave, just like being sweet and compliant and passive is how young females *naturally* behave. But western society has become feminized so that sort of archetypical male behaviour is no longer as acceptable in public (ah, for the good old days when men were men and could be counted upon to defend their honour (or the honour of *their* ladies) at the drop of a hat – or a gauntlet).
So, if the lads know what’s good for them, as they grow up they will learn to hide these natural tendencies except when they are in “safe spaces”. But why do we have to suppress they poor boys, and make them grow up so fast?
Not vilified enough!
Perhaps these pigs are getting more negative attention because they aren’t as well hidden as before. Keeping your misogyny down to muttered slurs on the sidewalk, or snickering locker-room exchanges, is out of fashion thanks to the internet…
And, perhaps, the general culture might be waking up to the hazards of alcohol and sex. Much the way that alcohol and driving stopped being a joke back in the 80s.
I kind of wish his ramblings were true. If there really was a cabal of grizzled man-haters around, this doofus wouldn’t get published at all.
Laddism’s only detractors were a small, grizzled coven of old-school feminists, mostly employed by the Guardian and Independent newspapers.
So are lads most vilified by all of British society (more vilified than blacks or Muslims? Really?), or are they only vilified by a small coven of feminists in two newspapers? It can’t be both.
Those two quotes neatly show how dishonest and hypocritical these white men’s “persecution” stories really are.