Gender Equality

The Bill Bennett of megastores wants, at least, to be consistent. Since barring FHM, Maxim and Stuff from its shelves, Walmart has decided to cover up the covers of Redbook, Cosmo, and Glamour, among others, with mysterious "u-shaped blinders."

Comments

[Anonymous]

thank god, i hate those over-made-up cunts looking at me while i'm looking for a tube of Prep H or something.

[Anonymous]

If only my sisters' magazines - Vogue, etc. - had come with U-shaped blinders when I hit puberty....the possibilities are endless...

[Muhammad]

Yeah, thank Allah! We don't allow this sort of thing here in the state of Iran (just north of Mexico) nor on the Arabian peninsula (just north of Cuba) nor for that matter in Pakistan (just south of Canada.)

Neither the Koran, nor our most predominant religion here (Islam) allow such things.

What, you didn't really think you lived in the United States of America, did you?

[Joe l.]

Every time I come here and read articles and comments like this I realize what this particular site is about and why Libertarians are so small a party... For Libertarians, not LIBERTINES, this is nothing. You don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and the OWNERS of that property are making rules for it. What's the diff to you guys? Instead it's snarky comments... It simply is more evidence that this isn't about Freedom, but about license. Apparently in the "Reason" Universe anything ought to go. I'll agree that the Gov'mint ought not be involved in too many moral/social issues, but if Wal-Mart or Disney want to be, that's fine. They are individuals making decisions and if the stock holders and customers don't care, we shouldn't either.

[Anonymous]

And if Wal-Mart wanted to ban, say, Christian music or it wanted to not sell guns and ammo, should we not care either?

[Jesse Walker]

Hey, Joe -- when did any Reasoner say that Wal-Mart doesn't have the right to sell what it pleases on its property?

[Buck Hicks]

Don't we all agree that a private business has the right to sell or not sell any legal product? (and probably some, now illegal products)

I have never understood why people make such a big deal out of Wal-Mart?s (conservative?) policies. If you don't like the way they run their business don't shop there.

The market will and should correct most bad business decisions made in a capitalist society. Assuming that it is allowed to do so before some bureaucrat does.

[Jim Walsh]

I think we should revive Buck Henry's campaign to cover up naked animals. Field And Stream? Where's that U-shaped binder thingie?

[Buck Hicks]

Well we all posted at around the same time so the point I was trying to make was already mentioned before I hit the submit button.

Sorry about repeating the theme in Joe l post.

[Anonymous]

Buck,

Isn't public criticism part of the market process?

[Brian]

Joe--I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to do as they damn well please. But many of us thoroughly enjoy excersizing our rights to ridicule them for a policy that is...well, dumb. Just as you are free to ridicule us for wasting our time on Wal-Mart, etc...

But what confuses me about your post is this: since when does making snarky comments about absurdly prudish social standards make one a libertine?

[Kerry Howley]

Obviously, I wasn't suggesting that the government should interfere in any way. WalMart is just branding itself, orienting itself towards wholesome, middle-of-the-road standards of morality. It's probably good marketing. But, in creating actual policy around such ridiculously puritanical sensibilities, WalMart highlights just how frivolous those precious sensibilities are. And so I post.

[Snark]

Next on the list at Wal-Mart: Table LEGS and the LEGS of all chairs will be covered, all the way to the floor.

Stop snickering. It's been tried before, you know. Ask Queen Victoria.

[Warren]

SOooo.... can't they use those same U-binders for issues of Juggs and High Society too?

[Ian]

Joe-

You came here to pick a fight, so you found something to be mad about. How silly. If you'd like to free your life of unnecessary outrage, you could take a look at the context and see that the Hit and Run posts are just whatever's on the mind of the contributors at the moment.

[Plutarck]

U-shaped binders...hee, hee, hee.

Kind of a 'bummer', really. Now when I go to Wal-Mart there is even less aesthetically pleasing things to look at.

[Tom]

Living in a small town whose independent business district was pretty much destroyed with the arrival of Wal-Mart, I can say that what Wal-Mart decides to carry or not carry can mean that either I buy what they offer, or drive about 40 miles to the nearest Hastings/Barnes&Noble/Bookstop.

No big deal for you city folk if Wal-Mart drops the sale of minor league one-handers like Maxim or Stuff, you can always go down the street. But what's a country boy to do? The only convenience store in town that stocks major league strokers also employs a battery of grandmas behind the register.

[Cyrano]

Move.

[Buck Hicks]

"Isn't public criticism part of the market process?"

Ok you got me there and you do make a good point. I am one of those conservative libertarians who keep an arms length between a total acceptance of the Libertarian philosophy and the right leaning conservative values I was raised with.

I want to embrace the philosophy 100% but it seems to me that the negativism from the people who consider themselves libertarians is only slightly less then that which comes out of the left. Many times the ridiculing mentioned elsewhere in this thread seem to be aimed at people with more traditional values (maybe it is just my perception but...).

I personally don?t like to expose my children to much of the garbage on magazine covers and television. I try and make the effort to avoid such things when in their presence. Does that make me a ridiculously puritanical overly sensitive father? Maybe but I am just trying to do my best to counter the non-stop barrage of trash that gets marketed to kids.

I, for one welcome any business that makes my efforts a little easier. I should point out that I DO NOT consider it my responsibility to protect anyone else?s children from pop culture. Just mine. Futile? Maybe but all I can do is try.

[Warren]

Tom,
just open some of the spam clogging your in box

[Anonymous]

Buck, What the fuck is this forum supposed to be? Larry King or something? No one cares about your struggles as a parent. We are extremely selfish mother fuckers here in Hit and Run. We're not gonna change the way we live our lives on account of some stranger's children. I'm sorry but the reason the libertarians are harsh is because you conservatives are only half way to the truth. You believe in small government, but fuck the republicans expand government to its fullest. Republicans always sell out when they succeed (just like the democrats). At least be consistent. We libertarians might not win any elections, but fuck, rather be part of the solution than part of the problem, which i might add, is the republican party. You're a fool if you're conservative and you vote republican. Because any true Republican would know that once their party has the party, all the values go out the door. Anyways, I've said enough. Discuss.

[Joe L]

Ian, don't really come to pick a fight... just point out the snarkyness of the comments. I'm standing with Buck... I don't care for much of the tripe in the media today, that's not censorship. Wal-Mart is providing OPTIONS, that's teh market at work.

[Todd Fletcher]

Buck, I'm a 'libertine' libertarian, at least to some degree, and I think you are absolutely right in your perception. I've been guilty of casting a few stones that way myself.

However, I don't think there is any deep hostility. I think it has it's roots in the many, many efforts of people with your sensibilies (though not your tolerance) towards us pot-smokin' degenerates. Which doesn't make it right.

Cheers.

[Buck Hicks]

I realize you don't care about my struggles. I only mentioned it to give some perspective on my position.

If you reread my post again you will notice that I made it clear that I was not nor would I ever ask you to change your life because of my children. I tried to make it clear that it is me who is responsible for changing my life to minimize my children?s exposure to mainstream pop culture.

By the way, I am not a mainstream Republican anymore nor have I been one for a while now. I pitched my tent in the Liberty Caucus Republican camp a while back and for the most part have found it a pretty good fit for my values.

At the risk of boring you some more I hope that did clarify my position a little.

[B. Rogers]

Well, sailor ... (see? we've got a name for you now. You don't have to remain anonymous.)

But I'm not sure you'll want to stick with this moniker when you're sober. Apologizing the way you did, goes to show that it doesn't really become you.

Still, if you're Dr.Jekyll when you're sober, and Mr. Hyde when you're stoned, doesn't that tell you something? I'm no psychologist, but I have a feeling you've got some unresolved issues brewing underneath there somewhere.

Did your dad beat you a lot? (Just kidding.)

[Franklin Harris]

Joe L,

This is a blog by libertarians, not a libertarian blog, which would be boring after a while, anyway. This cuts both ways. Lew Rockwell blogs things about the Catholic Church that have nothing to do with libertarianism per se. So what? As for Wal-Mart, I think we're all in agreement that Wal-Mart has the right to be Prude-Mart. Of course, why a store with its kind of market power feels the need to cave so easily is beyond me.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Merriam-Webster:

"libertine:
1 usually disparaging : a freethinker especially in religious matters
2 : a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality; specifically : one leading a dissolute life"

Maybe I'm too tired from a day's work but I can't figure out exactly what Joe's point is.

I would think of Keith Richard as being a good example of what is generally understood to be a "libertine." That some of the "libertarians" who drop in here find the latest manifestations of puritanism at Wal-Mart a bit ridiculous doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to accuse them of lacking moral principles. Of course, every sane person has to draw the line somewhere -- apparently Joe draws the line with us.

Okay, I'm done.

[Phil]

Wal-Mart is providing OPTIONS, that's teh market at work.

Actually, I think it's pretty clear that Wal-Mart is removing options, no?

[Mona]

Buck, some libertarians are libertines, but not all libertines are libertarians (much to the chagrin of Bill O'Reilly.) I'm sure you were aware of that. Heck, some "conservatives" and "progressives" are libertines.

In any event, some people are crude; most are not. You'll notice that the sailor who hectored you, remained stealthily anonymous.

Most of us can properly express ourselves without resorting to profanities. Personally, I had to back away from the screen a bit when I read the sailor's post.

Still, I admire your decorum and the civilized manner with which you replied in your comeback.

Welcome to our little forum.

A libertarian.

[Steven Crane]

I hardly think it's un-libertarian to poke fun at something which is, well, silly. If it was, then most of this blog is un-libertarian, by making snarky comments about Maureen Dowd/whatever AFI list is circulating/anything nongovernmental. After all, Maureen Dowd is just plying her trade in the marketplace of ideas. Why don't you get off her ass? If you don't like her columns, you can read something else.

Really, quashing EVERY argument with "if you don't like it, buy/read/eat/move something else" is boring as hell.

[Anonymous]

I'm the sailor, sorry, I was stoned when I wrote it.

[Anonymous]

And sheepishly blocking the isle with their baskets.

[Adonis]

Jon B is right ? After 30 minutes or so, observing all that blubber sloshing and shuffling through Wal-Mart isles, it was a nice reprieve, when I finally reached the register, to be able to feast my eyes on images that were so much more pleasant to behold.

[Adonis]

Jon B is right ? After 30 minutes or so, observing all that blubber sloshing and shuffling through Wal-Mart isles, it was a nice reprieve, when I finally reached the register, to be able to feast my eyes on images that were so much more pleasant to behold.

[Adonis]

(Excuse the duplication. Mouse got stuck.)

[Jon B.]

Now if WalMart would only cover up all those shoppers whose circumference is greater than their length, walking the asiles wearing stretch pants.

[Former Philadelphia Lawyer]

Yes, but can someone explain why both men's and women's magazines feature glamorous photos of scantily clad women? (The models in the women's magazines are skinnier.) I'm genuinely curious. I don't give a shit about Wal-Mart.

[Jim]

Of course, you can see all kinds of pretty women in their skivvies at Wal-Mart - in the displays and on the packaging in the women's underwear aisle. (Before anyone thinks I'm a perv, I was there with my wife who was shopping for underwear. Can't help but notice).

Really, I haven't anything useful to add; most good points already covered above.

As for the country dweller disparaged by the lack of available soft core porn, he's obviously got an internet connection. No grandmas to go through. What's the problem? 😉

[Madog]

Walmart can do what every they want with their merchandise. It's theirs, after all, until someone buys it. Most of their stuff is crap anyway.

And as for the arguement that it does matter because in some cases they're the only game in town... ever hear of the internet? If you have a phone line and a computer, then where you are in the US doesn't matter.

[joe]

True enough Madog, but I'm not sure that completely eliminates the issue. Lot's of Wal-Mart shoppers don't get on the internet; a lot of people don't put in the effort to expand their choices beyond what is convenient and familiar. One way of looking at this is, "Well, screw 'em," which makes a lot of sense. As long as people who do want to open up their options have the ability to do so, everything's fine.

However, there is another reason for supporting a rich and varied commercial sphere, beyond individual opportunity; the positive impact on society of having people exposed to a broader, rather than narrower, set of choices. If you believe that we are better off having a people who are more broadminded and aware of a greater variety, than Wal-Mart's perfectly legal, well-within-their-rights censorship is a bad thing.

[Russ]

Jim points out the obvious stupidity of the Wal-Mart decision.

The funny part is the claim that the blinders are to cover up some of the "language" on the covers. I wonder if the word "sex" on the Wal-Mart job applications has been replaced with "gender".

[Reyes Oscar]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://free-penis-enlargement-technique.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 09:46:11
Make sure you still have something worth wishing for.

[Cleary Jackie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://online-privacy.privacy-online.biz
DATE: 01/09/2004 02:57:13
Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy.

[Kwon So Heui]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 02:57:08
I dont know what to say, but i likeed it.