I believe we need to ask tough questions about the instant-hit hedonism celebrated by the modern women's magazines targeted at younger females. Titles such asDo we really need to start telling people which magazines they should be reading? I have never bought a copy of ZOO or NUTS in my life, but I do subscribe to STUFF (a magazine about new gadgetry, rather than what you may have been thinking). Perish the thought, but it has a semi naked woman on its cover every month. But I buy it despite that. I think we have quite enough interference from politicians in our personal choices as it is, thank you very much. The debate on ConHome is an interesting one, and essentially boils down to one of libertarianism v authoritarianism. If you had any doubt about it, let me put myself firmly in the libertarian camp.
NutsCosmo and ZooElle paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available. We should ask those who make profits out of revelling in, or encouraging, selfish irresponsibility among young women what they think they're doing.... The relationship between these titles and their readers is a relationship in which the rest of us have an interest. The images they use and project reinforce a very narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women. They celebrate thrill-seeking and instant gratification without ever allowing any thought of responsibility towards others, or commitment, to intrude. The contrast with the work done by women's magazines, and their publishers, to address their readers in a mature and responsible fashion, is striking."
It's a shame this passage has destracted from an otherwise excellent speech from one of the Shadow Cabinet's brightest minds. I'd encourage you to read the whole speech HERE. I agree with virtually every word Michael writes/says but I really do disagree that escapist magazines such as these are having any effect whatsoever on family breakdown.
More on this from Shane, Donal, Tom Harris, Andrew Lilico and Guido.