New Sexism?: Readers’ Responses to the use of Irony in Men’s Magazines

A common motif of ‘new’ forms of masculinity in recent years has been the adoption of what have been termed ‘new sexism’ discourses. This involves the legitimation of male power in new and creative ways, often by the strategic accommodation or negotiation of liberal, progressive or feminist discourses. In this paper, I examine one particular ‘new sexism’ device – irony. Irony is a versatile device in men’s magazines which allows a speaker to articulate both anti-feminist sentiments as well as engage in discourses of femininity, whilst disclaiming responsibility or ownership for both. This strategic use of irony in relation to the expression of sexist or homophobic views is a common device in the ‘new lad’ magazines I will be examining in this paper. Compounding the slipperiness of the ironic utterance is the acknowledgement that it may be read variously by different audiences. For this reason, my analysis attempts to move beyond the rather narrow textual focus normally favoured in language analysis, to consider the multiple, often contradictory responses produced by audiences. The paper will consider firstly, the reading habits and dispositions of a range of dedicated readers of men’s magazines. Then the paper will consider detailed responses to the texts under discussion and specifically the meaning of the ironic utterance. The lack of consensus elicited by such an exercise arguably problematises our initial reading of irony as a device of ‘new sexism’. Introduction: Discourses of masculinity in men’s lifestyle magazines The focus of my paper is the ‘new lad’ lifestyle magazine such as Loaded, FHM, Maxim and Front. The evolution of consumer masculinity in Britain from ‘new man’ to ‘new lad’ has been well documented (see Nixon 1996, Edwards 1997, Jackson et al 2001 and Benwell 2003). Put briefly, ‘new man’ emerged at about the time of the launch of the first contemporary UK men's lifestyle magazine, Arena. ‘New man’ was an avid consumer and unashamed narcissist, but had also internalised and endorsed the principles of feminism including a reassessment of the traditional division of labour and a new commitment to fatherhood (Beynon (2002: 100-105) makes the distinction between these two main strands as ‘new man as narcissist’ and ‘new man as nurturer’). ‘New lad’ was a clear reaction to ‘new man’, and arguably an attempt to reassert the power of masculinity deemed to have been lost by the concessions made to feminism by ‘new man’. ‘New lad’, most clearly embodied in loaded magazine, but also by its competing successors (e.g. FHM, Maxim, Front) marked a return to traditional masculine values of sexism, exclusive male friendship and homophobia. Its key distinction from traditional masculinity was an unrelenting gloss of knowingness and irony, a reflexivity about its own condition which arguably rendered it more immune from criticism – more of which later. It was also a construct which drew upon working-class culture for its values and forms, was younger than ‘new man’, was little invested in the world of work, preferring to drink, party, holiday and watch football, made barely any reference at all to fatherhood, addressed women only as sexual objects and was ethnically white. There have been various accounts offered for this particular shift from ‘new man’ to ‘new lad’ and for the condition of modern incarnations of masculinity in magazines and popular culture more generally, including ‘crisis of masculinity’ accounts (Faludi 1999), ‘backlash to feminism accounts’ (Faludi 1992), the need for ‘constructed certitude’ within a ‘Risk Society’ (Beck 1992) and, last but not least, the all-important consumer imperative, thriving on a perpetual creation of needs and new identities. New Sexism and Irony: A Discursive Strategy of the New Lad? A common motif of ‘new’ forms of masculinity in recent years, and frequently gracing the pages of new lad publications, has been the adoption of what have been termed ‘new sexism’ discourses. This involves the legitimation of male power in new and creative ways, often by the strategic accommodation or negotiation of liberal, progressive or feminist discourses. This sexism-by-subterfuge is explainable in terms of the hegemonic workings of masculinity which relies on consent and complicity rather than domination for its power and is also composed of diverse and sometimes competing practices of masculinity. In this research, I’m interested in examining one particular ‘new sexism’ device – irony. Irony is a versatile device in men’s magazines which allows a speaker to articulate politically incorrect views whilst disclaiming responsibility or ownership for them. This strategic use of irony is arguably a common device in men’s lifestyle magazines particularly in relation to, firstly the expression of sexist or homophobic views, and secondly participation in the ‘feminised’ realm of consumption. Jackson et al comment that ‘one of the defining features of the ‘new’ men’s lifestyle magazines is the pervasive use of irony’ (2001: 103). However, whilst we can surmise that an underlying or oppositional meaning is intended by the text, we cannot actually prove this. In this way, irony can operate to simultaneously affirm and deny a particular value. Indeed, Edwards describes Loaded as ‘at once ironic and blindingly reactionary’ (1997: 80), and Jackson et al describe the excessive type of irony found in new lad magazines as being more akin to a complicit cynicism: .. ‘both the readers and producers of the magazines are joined together in a cynical game whereby no one any longer takes the content of the magazines seriously, whilst simultaneously recognising that they promote a masculinist culture’ (2001: 104-5) Examples of such cynicism/irony strategically employed in the context of firstly sexism and secondly the feminised connotations of certain kinds of consumption can be seen below: