Derrick Cameron: You seem to take a radically different reading of 'lad mags' than, say, Imelda Whelehan in her book Overloaded. I've wondered whether the "Loaded as misogynists' textbook" approach really reflected a lazy expectation that men 'really were' how they were depicted in the magazine - a critical approach that no-one would make with, say, Cosmo - because it allowed critics to suggest that men couldn't/ wouldn't change?

David Gauntlett: Yes. I don't suppose people like Whelehan want to conclude that men are unable to change, but then they look at Loaded and feel a bit depressed, and I can understand that... But I've argued that even in Loaded it's quite playful about gender identity really - though sometimes that's just lost in the jokey laddishness - but particularly in FHM (which sells far more copies than its competitors - twice as many as Loaded) there are a broad range of types of acceptable masculinity on offer and a surprisingly conscious acceptance of masculinity as a performance.

DC: The impression I had of Whelehan's book was that it was necessary - as one of the first on the 'lad mag' and 'ladette' phenomena - but she basically wanted to cite both of these as evidence of 'backlash politics' and hence of men's undying hostility to women (i.e. 'nothing has changed' and there was no need for feminism to do so either). Similarly, within this context, Bridget Jones becomes the AntiChrist of 1970s feminism, rather than one of its more contradictory outcomes in fictional form.

Talking of recent books, it seems that Jackson et al. in Making Sense of Men's Magazines (Polity) are heading towards the same more open/generous conclusions that you have done. Is it only now that critics are realising that much of what Loaded et al did was to latch on to masculinity as a 'commodity' and sell it back to its readers? And that the masculinity in the magazines isn't necessarily the representation of the 'id' of its readers?

DG: Yes.

DC: I was a postgrad when Arena first came out, and the only 'style icons' who seemed to exist were Bryan Ferry and Connery's Bond. My memory was of a magazine desperately trying to distance itself from the top shelf and from 'Lads'. One way of explaining it is: ArenaMan buys a Porsche because it's a stylish piece of German automotive engineering; the 'Lad' buys it because it pulls birds. When Arena did a 'Girls Girls Girls' edition (around 1991?), it was as though they had finally established that they could openly fancy women... What Loaded did was pretty much say 'bollocks' to the style stuff and cut to the chase - it's the difference between Playboy's pretence at male lifestyle and Hustler's obsession with getting laid.

I'm not a great fan of any of the men's magazines, but I still check out the covers. Maybe I'm too old or whatever these days for the target demographic, but equally I resent their belief that I will want 'Celebrity Babe X' badly enough to buy the magazine. On the other hand, I don't see the point in being 'worthy' by pretending I'm somehow 'above' the hetero/sexist appeal of the magazines either - I flicked though one issue of the short-lived pro-feminist Men's Quest and knew it was doomed.

DG: Yes. And I appreciate your honesty in saying 'I don't see the point in being "worthy"' - indeed. I quite like to buy men's mags like FHM, but then they sit around and I don't find time to look at them because, erm, I think ultimately I've ended up a bit disenchanted with the 'hegemonic masculinity' which the magazines project - even FHM, which is the most 'nice'. I enjoy it when surprising insecurities break through the confident veneer of the text, but that may not be reason enough to buy a magazine! So the only reason I buy men's mags is because I am a victim of consumer culture and I like to get something new and glossy when I've gone to the shops (and the academic interest, because I write about them, as well). Happily I have found that [women's magazine] More! is just as satisfactory, it's funny and I like its lack of inhibition about sex, and you don't have to be embarrassed about the sad lustiness of buying and having FHM. Meanwhile, haha, the sad lustiness of buying and having More doesn't bother me.

DC: You suggest that the 'masculinity in crisis' debate is generational, and that younger men seem to be managing perfectly well (by comparison to the older men writing the 'crisis' books). I've often wondered whether there is a 'pragmatism' about changing gender roles which younger men have, in contrast to the repeated failings and failures of older men to 'be' what feminists wanted or expected of them. Is 'feminism' something that is just 'there' for such men, rather than something they 'know about' and/or that has to be consciously responded to (or indeed rejected)?

DG: Hmm, that's interesting... I talk about this with students a lot and my impression is that, simply put, today's young men see feminism as a worthwhile thing that women had to do in the past to get where they are today, and that everybody's more or less equal now, and that we're happy about that.

DC: Funnily enough, there was a recent newspaper article which confirmed just this point - but which also pointed out that men and women still end up choosing very gendered professions.

DG: Ah yes, I can imagine that that's the case. Damn. How disappointing. Maybe if the people are happy and fulfilled in their jobs, though, then that is OK...? Still, a broader range of aspirations for women and men would seem healthy.

DC: I agree - but is it easier to 'sell' 'male' professions to women ('girl power', 'breaking the glass ceiling' etc.) to women than 'female' professions to boys (teaching them to type? Nursing?)?

DG: Indeed. There's also, of course, the historical thing that "women's" jobs are lower-paid - like nursing. So that still needs to change too, as well as attitudes.

DC: To change the subject, I wonder, is 'men's studies' a dead-end discourse as long as it points out (endlessly, it seems) how fucked up men are because they aren't what (they think) feminists want them to be (whatever that is) - in contrast to younger men who 'just get on with it' as far as a 'better' masculinity is concerned?

DG: Well, yes, I'd say so, though if it's supportive of older (or younger) men changing then I'd welcome it.

DC: In theory most books are supportive - but they're stuck as to 'how'. Several seem to think fatherhood will do the trick - assuming you are/want to be/are in a position to be a father, that is. In historical terms, there seems to be a realisation that the 'men's movement' strategies of the 1970s/1980s all failed or were derided by women. (One of the reasons I'd cite for the emergence of the New Lad is precisely because of this failure - 'New Laddism' marked, as it were, the sound of men sticking to their knitting [!].)

DG: Funnily enough my interest in this whole area goes back to when I was 19 or 20 in 1990ish and I was interested in being a 'pro-feminist man', but all of the literature (such as a magazine called Achilles Heel) was just horrible stuff by middle-aged, middle-class men moaning on (I felt) about the enormous challenges of daily living which usually stemmed back to some way in which their mother had screwed them up.

DC: Arrgh - I think that's why I never bothered buying a copy. Guilt-trips aren't really the basis for a politics, are they? But it's not as though anyone else has come up with a coherent strategy for a progressive - and, one might add, sexy - pro-feminist masculinity... or did I miss something?

DG: Indeed - although nowadays of course young men don't even seem to feel there's much to worry about... as you say, if they think about it at all they 'just get on with it'.

DC: This is what I keep wondering about: how much of contemporary masculinity is 'pragmatic' (taking the view that feminism is something that's either 'there' or what you put up with) and how much is 'fatalistic' (taking the view that 'we' are precisely what feminists accuse us of being, and we're stuck with that)?

DG: Well, it's not just a choice of those two. Your 'pragmatic' position seems to be negative about feminism, but quite a lot of people these days are perfectly happy about feminism aren't they? And surely not too many people subscribe to your 'fatalistic' position - at least not in such gloomy terms - although I know it's popular for men to say that there are limits to how much men can be expected to change and that men are 'always' going to have certain preferences and interests. But (maybe) young men have to accept women as equals now, at least - they can choose not to, of course, but it's not really a route to popularity.

DC: Fair cop as regards my rather pessimistic feelings - perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places! If (some) younger men do accept feminism (at least in principle), it's something a lot of critics (yourself excepted) seem to have overlooked. I sometimes wonder if the thing that really sideswiped second wave feminists was the fact that younger men aren't the mass of unreconstructed chauvinists of the 1970s - but they aren't paradigms of 'right-on' men either (not that the latter was ever an alternative route to popularity). To be pessimistic once more, I've tended to see it as a choice of 'adapt or die' - if only because changing circumstances have obliged men to change or at least fit into circumstances different from that of their fathers. However, what the conclusion of your book suggests is that there have been slow, yet positive changes both for and within men - but that this isn't a consciously political process (which is bound to be frustrating to those who have a greater investment in political change).