Why can't we just ban page three?

(326 Posts)
Dragontamer Tue 07-Feb-12 20:04:17

Brilliant points raised by Clare Short in The Independent. To summarise:
You would think that the relentless sexism in the media would come up against 'media ethics'. However, Lord Leveson says that this topic goes beyond his remit. It is not ok to have lewd pictures of women on the office wall or before the watershed, why then are these images allowed in a widely circulated, national newspaper?

Having just had a daughter, I am anxious about what messages she will receive from this type of constant negative bombardment about women's bodies.

When Short has attempted to challenge this she has been bombarded by the snide remarks about her own body and criticised as being 'jealous'.

So, could this be a new campaign for mumsnet? Let me know your thoughts...

ragged Tue 07-Feb-12 20:10:28

I normally shun this topic but couldn't agree more!

zippy539 Tue 07-Feb-12 20:13:43

I absolutely LOATHE p3 for all the above reasons. I find it more offensive than porn because it is so 'normalised'. It is horribly demeaning to women.

zippy539 Tue 07-Feb-12 21:44:45

Just us then. grin

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:04:43

Don't be silly, how can you possibly think that men's right to assess bits of women's bodies in public, should be curtailed?

One might almost think that you're labouring under the delusion that women are human.

Silly you. grin

NotYetEverything Wed 08-Feb-12 12:07:07

The fact that the evidence for the Levenson enquiry was censored, says all we need to know about how wrong it is.

noir Wed 08-Feb-12 12:10:45

When I asked my friends from overseas (Mexico, America, Spain and Norway) what the worst and most weird things are about the UK they said the dirty streets and p3. They find it truly vile and ABSURD that we would have naked young women slap bang in the middle of a 'family' news paper.

witchwithallthetrimmings Wed 08-Feb-12 12:13:17

Its interesting, back in the day when Short first raised the issue, page 3 was a really big deal. Now women and girls are bombarded with so many similar and worse images through their email, face book, and in programmes like geordie shore that it seems (to me) a quaint reminder of the good old days when all we had to do was not sit next to a man reading the sun on the bus

It is still appaling of course but there is much much worse out there that is more in our faces.

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:14:51

Here are the Levenson terms of reference.

I think it's pretty clear that publishing pictures of those who have consented to pose nude knowing that publication may follow is outside the remit.

It doesn't mean it is not an issue of concern; just that Levenson is not the place to deal with it.

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:22:42

Oh I don't know Edith. It could sneak in under the main remit, which is

To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press

Then it lists a whole load of stuff which will be included, but it doesn't state that the inquiry will be limited to that stuff.

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:24:49

I don't think you can, because it the says "including" and lists specific points. It would need to have said "including but not limited to" for that to be used as a catch-all.

Notthefullshilling Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:10

So to take the Op's question at face value and go to the heart I think of one of the modern day contradictions about many social campaigns not just feminism I would suggest the following:
We cannot just ban page 3 or any other image or text that is offensive to some but not the majority of the public.
We cannot just ban page 3 as it is part of the corner stone of a media empire that would object by running a counter campaign and using women to attack women.
We cannot just ban page 3 as it would have the effect of denying a living to the models, photographers, and the other staff a number of which will be women and who will probably go to the court of human rights to insist they have a right to earn a living in a legal occupation.
We cannot just ban page three as it would open the door to other people calling for ban's on images or text that they say they would find offensive. Breast feeding for example, or people in wheelchairs, or any religious image.

Now look before anyone starts frothing, I am not saying it should NOT be banned or that I approve, I am drawing the attention of those who talk in generalities that just because you do not like something is not a enough, you need to think through how you are to achieve the objective, what the impact would be including any negative impact, and lastly but by far the most important is the need to build up enough support to overcome the structural and vested interests that will block what you want. I think feminism like other areas of equality often fails to develop a argument that opens up the cause, in that way people who may support the objective at best stay on the fence or at worst argue against because it is not clear to them how they can engage with the issue.

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:36

Who's going to ban it? What else would they ban?
Sticker campaigns/demonstrations outside shops/boycotts/workers refusing to handle porn might be better
But more time consuming, maybe not as reliably effective
So I dunno confused

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:38

But Object etc., have submitted evidence haven't they?

Will the inquiry not consider it then?

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 12:39:45

Now, if I didn't type with 1 finger (tragically crippled), I'd have written quite a lot of what Notthe posted smile

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:50:29

Thanks for posting about Object. Their submission (from December?) had completely passed me by. I'm still not convinced that Leveson is the right place for these issues to be pursued (as it is at best incidental to the ToRs), but it's an excellent submission.

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 13:01:28

There was a police chief woman talking about rape cases being lost due to perpetuation of myths/stereotypes in the press <vague memory>

Notthefullshilling Wed 08-Feb-12 16:01:34

Bump this needs more thought

garlicfrother Wed 08-Feb-12 16:19:14

I mention this cautiously. At times when totty pics of men have been widely read & published, quite a few men have been offended. Socialised women being what they are, this has led to the publishers ending the series or, as in teenage women's mags, making sure there are plenty of objectified women on show as well.

I'm just wondering how a lovely big campaign of objectified male totty, with a strapline along the lines of "What's wrong with Page Three?" would go down?

Didn't one of the tabloids run a male Page Five for ages?

garlicfrother Wed 08-Feb-12 16:22:30

On a slightly more serious note, isn't it awful to travel into work, squashed up against a bloke who's engrossed in Page Three?! Or, possibly worse, facing one of those guys who deliberately examine the picture and then you.

Beaglefox4 Thu 09-Feb-12 11:13:27

I agree with the notion that page three should be banned. Such an outdated and insulting 'tradition'. Not much luck of that though seeing The Sun's editor Dominic Mohan defense of it during the Leveson inquiry www.theweek.co.uk/media/leveson-inquiry/45170/healthy-girls-page-three-sun-editors-claim-ridiculed
His point being that a page 3 girl is a much healthier role model for women than the skinny models found on fashion magazine.Pathetic...

Viv Groskop's article in today's Independent also makes some very good points on the issue, calling page 3 a fossil from a bygone era and also mentioning the terrifying Rebekah Brooks
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/viv-groskop-page-3-is-a-fossil-from-a-bygone-era-6668606.html

I definitely think it should be banned

slug Thu 09-Feb-12 11:32:24

"We cannot just ban page 3 or any other image or text that is offensive to some but not the majority of the public."

Last time I looked women were 52% of the population. That makes us the majority.

BasilRathbone Thu 09-Feb-12 11:51:18

I don't think children like it much either.

And children should not be subjected to the sight of porn in what is supposed to be a family newspaper.

Exposing children to porn is recognised as a form of child abuse.

slug Thu 09-Feb-12 16:23:15

I know lots of blokes that find it offensive too. The argument that the majority want it is just bull puckey in my very humble opinion.

I would join up to that campaign.

Could we ban strip clubs too?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now