So, after I wrote a letter to FHM which was somewhat critical of their editorial choices to appeal to the perpetrator demographic, and it was crossposted in Independent Voices (albeit less sweary), I’m anticipating that FHM might respond.
Being the sort of tired, humourless misogynists, I can almost see their response through the mists of time, so I’ve prepared a bingo card. If there’s five in a row on these common insults from misogynists to women with opinions, humanity dies a little inside.
ETA: it has just been brought to my attention that I have missed off “man-hating” and “bra-burning”. Consider these bonuses, so if we only get four in a row, but they use one of those two, we’ve still won. Or lost. Whatever.
Another angry woman 
Let’s see what they say, eh? Could be fun.
Not defending FHM here at all, but is it possible they may have intended victim to refer to the theft of socks? Just a thought…
Yeah, read the sentence again, and tell me if that makes any sense in the context, because it literally doesn’t and it sounds a bit like you might be defending FHM.
Well, I haven’t read their article in full (I don’t read FHM, hat the bloody rag), but did they mention rape at all? From what you’ve written they mention stealing women’s socks explicitly, so the conclusion I’d draw is that by victim they meant the person from whom the socks were stolen. If you steal from someone, they’re the victim of your theft, no?
However you read it, the word ‘victim’ is not acceptable.
LOL!
You could also add:
Small tits
Boiler Suit
Prisoner Cell Block H
Po-faced, whinging, dungarees-wearing, Millie Tant are also possible contenders.
And the Sun/Mail/Express/ …….. Right, eyes down for a full house….
Umm, not to stop someone on a rant about how FHM is sexist (it is) but when I saw the advert, I didn’t think of them meaning “victim” as “woman who you attack and steal socks off”, just “Person you stole girly socks off”, you know…. out of a drawer….a victim of theft. The thing is that there was probably 50 other instances of FHM being sexist in that ONE issue, this wasn’t one. It’s putting your own twisted meaning onto something, and then claiming it’s the only way to see it. The result is that people who ARE sexist end up saying stuff like “That (insert word from your little bingo chart) just likes to (Other word from bingo chart) about people being sexist, but this clearly isn’t sexism.” and you can’t argue with the fact that it isn’t, because it isn’t unless you want it to be. So then they can carry on with their little sexist rant and put back the cause that you intended to stand up for.
You’re a good writer, and with a good target I’m sure you’d have done well, but this was really a weird target to headline with and I think you’ve alienated a lot of people.
Nope. The Indy picked it up, because they understand the sexism, which you apparently don’t. Never mind.
This a really compelling argument.