As we've discussed before – and I fear will discuss many times again – the world of social networking and blogging allows all manner of cranky, fanatical ideas to take hold. What was once seen as extremist thinking is quickly assimilated into the norm, not because everyone thinks that way, but because an extremely vocal minority – often with media influence - can make it seem that way. Step out of line, and you will be howled down by the lunatic fringe (the same lunatic fringe who are the first to complain about trolls and threats when anyone dares to question their pronouncements, it seems). Leading a mob of the instantly outraged is also now a fast track to media success, especially if you can adopt the position of the downtrodden victim. Suddenly, everyone is keen to show how thoroughly decent and socially conscious they are by agreeing with you – even if you are talking complete nonsense.

Today, a minor Twitter storm erupted over a leaflet by The Campaign for Real Ale – that's CAMRA to you and me – aimed at recruiting younger members. CAMRA is keen to shake off its beards, bellies and sandals reputation, and so is eager to show that their organisation, and Real Ale in general, are for the fun loving kids who you'll find in Yates or Lloyds on a Saturday night as well as middle aged train spotters and UKIP voters huddled in The Dog and Ferret complaining about things.

The leaflet, shown above, is a pretty ham fisted and unconvincing attempt to do that. It's a design disaster, seemingly thrown together on an old version of Quark Xpress and using what look like crudely photoshopped stock images. Perhaps these photos were especially taken, though that seems unlikely. They show (ahem) trendy young people having fun with beer. Take the beer out, and they could be from any Sunday supplement or mail order clothing catalogue. The whole thing is something of an affront to decent sensibilities, and rather unconvincing. I've seen CAMRA members in pubs. They don't look like this.

It's not the design disaster or the unlikeliness that has caused carefully stoked outrage though. No, it's the fact that this flyer is 'sexist' and misogynistic'. At least, it is according to one particular blogger (no links, no encouragement), who posted about it this morning and so has seen her previously obscure blog catapulted into the eye of the beer world (admittedly not exactly the centre of the cultural universe, but still). I'm not for a moment suggesting that her outrage was manufactured with that in mind – I genuinely think that she believes what she is saying. But then, so do Flat Earthers and 9/11 conspiracists. Belief doesn't make something true though, and neither does the agreement of a bunch of Tweeters and commenters, many of whom will have a knee-jerk need to agree with anyone crying 'sexism' without even giving the issue much thought.

What is is she says about the flyer? Well, how about “What sort of people do they want to attract? Slavering ‘lads’, drawn to the organisation because of the use of attractive women as window dressing? They can’t be hoping to attract young women or non-idiotic young men with these images.”

Ahh yes, 'non-idiotic young men' – in other words, the ones who agree with her. If a flyer featuring attractive people even vaguely attracts your attention, then you are an idiot.If you are a 'lad', the current bete noire of society, you are definitely an idiot. I assume the same sense of contempt is true for anyone who responds to ads featuring attractive men - everyone upset by this is, I hope, equally aghast at Diet Coke ads featuring muscled hunks being actually leered at by a group of women... objectification is objectification, after all.

In the same paragraph, she refers to the women in the photos as "scantily clad", and I'll admit to nearly coughing my drink across my laptop when I read that. I realise that modesty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone outside of a religious extremist could refer to the women in the photographs as 'scantily clad'. Perhaps the tiny scan doesn't do justice to the sheer level of flesh on display, but what I'm seeing here are two women with bare shoulders and another in a short skirt. The horrors! No doubt they were flashing a bit of ankle too! Perhaps this level of dress is considered unacceptable by the witer in question, but it's hardly stripper clothing, is it? Oh, there's apparently a corset (the photo is too small and blurry to tell, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt)? Big deal. Is she saying that any woman wearing a corset is a sex object? I know a few who might take great exception to that. Perhaps the writer doesn't approve of such fashions, but you know what? That's her problem, not CAMRA's. As the only sensible commenter on the blog says, “How do you demand women are dressed in marketing materials? Hairy jumper and skirt of stout hessian?”.

And they don't appear to have the man leering at them. Again, in close-up, perhaps his eyes are bulging and his mouth has curled into a Terry-Thomas like grin. I doubt it though. To me, it's a photo showing three friends chatting over a pint. Would the writer have been happy with a flyer in which everyone was pictured was male? I somehow doubt it.

The fact is, advertisers use attractive people having a great time because that's what they believe people respond to, either as an aspirational image or because we're hard-wired to respond to good lookers, male or female. Look at any social studies, where it's been shown that people think more positively to the young and attractive than they do to the old and homely, even if the latter are actually more honest and decent people. It's not fair, but it's the way things are. In the case of this leaflet, there was also the emphasis on showing people having a good time – because CAMRA is essentially selling a lifestyle rather than a product. It could, I suppose, have featured a more realistic view of CAMRA's youth wing, but who would be attracted by a bunch of social misfits sitting around in a grotty old pub worrying about whether their pint was cask conditioned or not?

What's more, these supposed 'skimpy' outfits are positively modest compared with what you'll see in any busy town centre on a Friday or Saturday night. Perhaps not in the pubs that CAMRA youth like – though even my local Wetherspoons will have their fair share of low cut tops, tight dresses and – yes – red lips at the weekend. Admittedly, they are probably not handing over CAMRA tokens for 50p off a pint of Old Peculiar, but still. Kudos to the organisation for thinking it can convert the party crowd.

Then there's the suggestion that the leaflet is to attract lads – sorry, 'slavering lads', as if there could be any other kind. Because men are such animals that the mere sight of a fully clothed woman will turn then into beasts. Given that CAMRA are keen to recruit more female members to their ranks, I suspect the photos of young women supposedly having a great time with a pint of Real Ale were intended to appeal to similar young women, to show them that this isn't just a club for bearded old farts and their female equivalents. I suspect that outside the professionally offended and the people desperate to show who utterly right-on they are, this leaflet would not only never be considered as sexual by the average viewer and would, in a clumsy and badly presented way, speak more to the young woman in the bar than any shot of authentic CAMRA members could.

If the blog post is ridiculous, then the petition (again, not linking - you can find it is you are desperate enough) it links to is positively hysterical. Started by a member of Leeds University Union Real Ale Society (student union members and in a beer society? They must be a laugh-riot), the petition to have the flyers withdrawn (successful) and have CAMRA grovel and beg for forgiveness (so far unsuccessful, though doubtless they will) is awash with nonsense. This comment is misleading, judgmental and, I have to say, rather slut-shaming:

"The flyers show incredibly sexist pictures of vintage pin up models who wear low cut corsets, have open red lips and blond hair and who present their boobs and themselves to the viewer and the male beer drinkers in the flyer."

Look again at the picture. Are the women 'presenting their boobs' to anyone? Should the male model be shorter, just to be certain he's not peering down their tops? Is having blonde hair a sign of sexual availability? Is the woman who is looking at her beer - not "the male beer drinker" who is reading the flyer - not allowed to open her (shamefully red) lips in anticipation of the glass she is raising to her mouth? Perhaps the members of the LUURAS have worked out a way of drinking that doesn't involve opening the mouth. Is the man in the photo leering or just chatting? Are those corsets particularly low cut and sexually provocative, or are the women just dressed up for a night out? And isn't the whole burlesque (i.e. 'vintage pin up', a phrase you can just feel the contempt behind) look popular with women who claim it is an empowering way of reclaiming sexuality? Are these outfits really so provocative? I suggest these people get out of their comfort zone and actually look at how many young women are dressing when they go out. You'll regularly see women who make these models look positively Islamic. I'm pretty sure those women have picked out their own outfits before leaving the house.

This is slut shaming because it says that a woman who chooses to look 'sexy' must be doing so for a man. She must be nothing more than a sex object. She has to be waving her tits to get the attention of the drooling neanderthal. She can't have possibly made a conscious (as opposed to 'false conscious') decision to dress like that. She clearly has no self respect. It goes beyond criticising the leaflet and into attacking the models (right down to their hair colour and the fact they are wearing lipstick). It honestly doesn't feel like it's many steps from there to suggesting she deserves what she gets for dressing that way.

The sad thing is, there are still many, many instances of genuine sexism, discrimination and objectification out there, and all that crap like this does is damage the admirable efforts to combat them, as it allows opponents to say “see? These people take offence to ANYTHING.” In the end, this is nothing more than old-fashioned Whitehouse prudery and arch miserablism, insultingly and misleadingly dressed up as feminism, and as such, is far more insulting to women than anything CAMRA could ever come up with.

NOTE: article ammended to remove names, lest anyone wants to suggest this is an attack on individuals rather than ideas.