The women who defend these covers are like blue-collar republicans, who defend the 1%'s right to exploit them on the off chance that they might one day join the elite. Plenty of people work against their own or against society's best interest - republicans do it all the time. The hallmark of progressives, however, is that they are willing to forgo some privileges if it means that people in general will have it better, just like feminists are asking grown-up men to forgo the pleasure of titillating pictures on covers of sports magazines because those pictures hurt the self-image of young women.
And the women who defend these grown-up men and their 'tastes' - well, misogyny isn't only something men exhibit, plenty of women internalize it too. However, just because women exhibit misogyny doesn't mean that they get a pass - we try to educate them too. We defend women's right to make choices, but that doesn't mean that all the choices women make are feminist, because while some of those choices may benefit individual women, they may hurt women in general. Women models may earn a lot of money and fame for starving themselves and posing for pictures, but their pictures hurt ordinary girls and women, and boys and young men too - warping their view of the worth of a normal woman, not to mention harming their chances of a. loving their own bodies in the case of women, and b. feeling satisfied in a normal relationship in the case of men. Just like fighting against HFCS in food - it tastes so good, but it hurts your body and makes natural food not taste right. Republicans defend the rights of agri-corps to put HFCS in everything, whilst many women defend men's right to publish objectifying pictures of young semi-nude models - even think they are liberated for doing so.
= new reply since forum marked as read