AJ: Having read your chapter on men's magazines, I've begun to think about men's magazines in a slightly more sympathetic way!

DG: That wasn't necessarily my intention! The chapter is saying that rather than dismissing the magazines as offensive rubbish, it is more interesting to look at them in more detail to see the ways in which masculinities are constructed there, and to see what actual readers think about them (and themselves in relation to the magazines).

AJ: Yes. I still think there are some points to pick at, especially in the summing-up of FHM-man. In your discussion of FHM, you end up saying that FHM tries to cultivate a man who is "Good in bed, happy in relationships, witty, considerate, skilled in all things". This seems true, except I don't think you have properly acknowledged the basic sexism in FHM. I'm often puzzled by the way men's magazines use feminist values at one moment, and then totally insult them in another. The advice articles, especially those on understanding women, are quite commendably non-sexist and pretty feminist.

DG: Okay... I wouldn't even say they were feminist myself, I'd just say that they do (sometimes) encourage men to understand themselves and to understand women. This is cloaked in lots of jokiness and irony, of course.

AJ: However, I found myself really offended by the article 'Help! My woman is broken! Your girlfriend's sexual malfunctions and how to fix them' which I read as part of my own research. This article assumed that if a woman does not want to perform a particular sexual act, there is something wrong with her.

DG: Yes, I know what you mean. I was interested, though, in the way that articles like that were making men more aware of anxieties that some women might have about sex - and therefore, in a broad sense, encouraging men to be a bit more sensitive and not expect women to just do whatever they want or expect. This represents a change in how popular culture addresses men.

AJ: But the acts varied from pretty universal ones to some that involve an awful lot of trust and less direct pleasure for the woman. This article really disturbed me because there was little suggestion that the man just accept the woman's preferences; the view that a woman should be persuaded to do certain sexual acts was worrying.

DG: Ah, that's no good then. I always hope that the jokey sexism and the very practical approach to 'problems' is just a kind of veneer, and the important thing is that the magazines are addressing men in a new way, and talking about new things - such as an article about having a sex life which isn't running smoothly. Men aren't supposed to admit to such things.

AJ: This article, though, implied that women don't have independent sexual desires, but must be persuaded to 'let the man' do it.

DG: Well that's horrible. It's quite unusual though - most of the sex advice in FHM and its ilk is usually very much about not being a selfish lover (the implication is that, left to their own devices, men would be too self-centred - it's a feminist critique!), and about how you can do things which will give pleasure to 'your lady'.

AJ: Less seriously and more humorously, it succeeded in objectifying women too by comparing them to cars!

DG: But the idea that men won't understand female sexuality unless it's explained in reference to a motor engine is a self-conscious joke at the expense of men too! (Both our readings are true, I suppose, because it works on more than one level).

AJ: Couldn't these magazines be just as funny/sexy/useful without extreme sexism? The jokes and the flippancy can be quite funny and it's a rare joke that doesn't victimise someone. So I'm not suggesting a change in general style, which is obviously an important factor in the popularity of the magazine, but a purging of some of the worst bits.

DG: I know what you mean, and it's worse in magazines like Loaded and Front. The magazines contain lots that could offend people. When writing my analysis of men's magazines though, I felt it was pretty obvious what the potentially offensive aspects are (after all, the journalists themselves are generally well aware of this) and that the more interesting thing to focus on was the ways in which the magazines reflect (and perhaps encourage) changes in masculinity.

AJ: Isn't that kind of masculinity rather too similar to the traditional kind?

DG: Well, the magazines don't represent a radical break - they couldn't do, really, and be popular and mainstream - but they contain underlying elements of male anxiety and insecurity which are quite interesting. They don't address a super-macho man who feels he can do everything. Instead, they are always giving advice on how men can live their lives, have fun, not upset women, be reasonably healthy, and be able to look after themselves.

AJ: I appreciate the fact that men are experiencing this 'crisis in masculinity' and that the magazines are possibly either a symptom or a cure. However I also feel that these magazines not only comfort, but flatter the FHM type that you described. The magazine does, commendably, assume that its readers are ordinary, averagely attractive men, and includes a lot of humour based on its readers' own failings to be attractive to women.

But the 'so-and-so gets naked - for you' cover lines imply another story, flattering the men, so that in this world of FHM, beautiful women want to take their clothes off even for the most unattractive amongst them. So this magazine addresses the man that every reader hopes he is - dynamically, inexplicably attractive to impossibly beautiful women.

Jumping to another topic - I think it was the editor of GQ who said that a magazine which aims to address men's interests must include necessarily include beautiful women. Other men's interests include success, talent, humour, etc, and many articles are written about these - but only about men. Moreover, we know that real-life men are attracted to women for their intelligence, talent, wit and success, as well as beauty. But the magazines don't feature this type of woman. In a magazine such as GQ, with its pretensions to intellectualism or at least some form of grown-upness, this could amount to a pretence that successful women who aren't glamour models, actresses or singers, don't exist, or aren't at all important to the GQ man - a pretty shallow and unrealistic view.

DG: Good point. There's obviously many changes that could be made to make the magazines more thoughtful and intelligent and responsible. We can assume that the editors of GQ and Esquire don't really want to be quite that intelligent and responsible.

AJ: How about feminist erotic photographers? Or more serious mentions of women who don't fit into the brackets of popular babe/ordinary girlfriend? Less separating of the ordinary girlfriend from the popular babe in terms of sexual desire?

DG: These are all good suggestions!

AJ: I've been thinking about this whole 'crisis in masculinity' thing and I believe the FHM-ish reaction is a severely limiting one for men. Feminism has succeeded in some way in expanding female archetypes - so women have more roles to play out, some of which are similar to those that have been traditionally male. It seems that the FHM man is feeling as though his territory is being trespassed - backlash theory! - and to defend masculinity, he must retreat to his strongest base - the most old-fashioned, patriarchal way of being - and this limits the possibilities for masculinity. This leads to the return of sexism and the attempt to stop this expansion of 'femininity' in its tracks…

DG: True. My point is that the FHM-type response to feminism and the changing world is not entirely backward - in some ways they seem to be coming to terms with it (and in other ways, not). It's definitely true that their response is not entirely open and forward-thinking, and it's certainly not radical.

AJ: I think these attributes of 'femininity' and 'masculinity' must be seen as less polar, distinct terms. Is this a contradiction in terms? I don't know. But if masculinity responded by also trying expand its own possibilities instead of retreating to much smaller, traditional boundaries, we might not have the sexism that men's (and women's) magazines produce.

DG: Indeed. Thank you Amy.