No More Page 3 petition about to hit 80,000 signatures. What do you think about this? Have you signed it?

(218 Posts)
ashesgirl Thu 14-Feb-13 22:02:59
gedhession Sun 18-Aug-13 15:00:10

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

teatrolley Thu 07-Mar-13 15:45:58

Link

This is the text of the petition:

*We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.

We are asking very nicely.

Please, Dominic.

No More Page 3.

George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?

Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, Dominic?

No, they don’t.

There would be an outcry.

And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.

Consider this a long overdue outcry.

Dominic, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.

Enough is enough.

Thank you.*

ashesgirl Thu 21-Feb-13 19:09:02

Thanks Olivia smile

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 21-Feb-13 19:05:09

Hi there
We have moved this thread out of chat as request
thanks
MNHQ

ashesgirl Thu 21-Feb-13 17:52:09

Interesting link. It's all about how you frame it isn't it? The Sun is passed off as harmless fun but really what's the difference between that and soft porn images?

Heather12 Thu 21-Feb-13 08:08:16

Has everyone seen this link?
http://nomorepage3.org/news/a-barrister-who-practices-in-family-law-discussing-page-3/

ashesgirl Tue 19-Feb-13 00:18:23

Oh brilliant, didn't know they had an FB page too. See them a lot on Twitter.

They have linked to this thread...

NMP3 Facebook Page

ashesgirl Mon 18-Feb-13 22:56:57

Great smile Glad they know some are championing their cause over here

I did - I sent her the link smile

ashesgirl Mon 18-Feb-13 22:49:45

At some point, would like to get this thread moved so it doesn't eventually disappear in chat.

Although I purposely put it in chat to bring the debate out of just F/WR.

I think there's been some great comments on it, so shame to lose it.

Inwiththe, did you tell your friend we've been discussing?

I think it was supposed to be ironic, if you're referring to the rhyme? smile

MidnightMasquerader Mon 18-Feb-13 22:09:24

Great sketch. grin Yes, more massive cocks with our news, please.

themaltesecat - not that i can really add much to emcwill74's fantastic post, but just a reminder ... this isn't about stopping the Page 3 models from doing anything.

With all due respect to them, they can do what they like. Strip down and streak through the supermarket if they feel so compelled. Good luck to them.

Oh, and another one on the pro Page 3 side of the debate using the word 'tits'. Interesting....

emcwill74 Mon 18-Feb-13 17:10:30

themaltesecat do you really not see, despite it having been repeated over and over, that the issue here, the thing that most people who sign object to, is not one of prudery - it is about gender equality? It is about the fact that the country's biggest-selling daily paper thinks it OK to depict men, actively, clothed, playing sport, running the country etc, whilst the women stand on the side lines passively, smiling silently in bikinis or topless. Suggesting our worth is tied up entirely in our appearance and figure, or rather what men think of our appearance? The argument that makes a comparison with Islam is a canard. Having us all in burqas is not the logical extreme of removing page 3; it is, in fact, a manifestation of the very same problem. At one end of the spectrum we have women being told by the Sun that are bodies are public property, available for rating by male strangers at any time they fancy (as has been said before, see @EverydaySexism on Twitter) - in existence purely for the arousal of men; at the other end our bodies are sinful and men can't be held responsible for their actions if they see them - because they are in existence for the arousal of men. How about our bodies are just our bodies, like men's are theirs? As for your argument about middle-class women, this is just a meaningless put down in attempt to personally attack and undermine. People of all backgrounds (and men, would you believe?!) have signed the petition. When it was discussed on Loose Women (which has a firmly C2DE profile), 80%+ of viewers voted for it to go. If middle class women have been shouting louder about this then maybe they feel they have more agency to do so.

themaltesecat Mon 18-Feb-13 14:35:48

All this reminds me of John Ashcroft having a curtain put up to protect us from the corrupting sight of the statue of Lady Justice's right tit. I don't know whether the puritanism or the slacktivism is sillier.

One thing interests me about this. If this campaign were being spearheaded by Muslim men who objected to young, mostly white women voluntarily stripping off for a bit of cash and attention, would people still be signing? If not, why is it OK for middle class women to tell other women what to do? I'll rephrase that: why do middle class women think they deserve to be obeyed, when they tell other women what to do?

Nancy66 Mon 18-Feb-13 14:23:44

I think that petition is even more pointless. There's nothing wrong with the premise of trying to curtail sexism in the media but to single out the Reeva Steenkamp case is, I think, naive and unrealistic.

She was a lingerie model. If you look at Google images there are more pictures of her in bikinis/underwear than not.

Creeping Mon 18-Feb-13 13:34:48
Creeping Mon 18-Feb-13 13:33:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

higgle Mon 18-Feb-13 13:02:12

The Sun has 7 million readers, so 80,000 not very many. However some of teh Sun readers will be anti page 3 and buy it for other reasons.

MooMooSkit Sun 17-Feb-13 22:22:13

For all the people saying it's the same as breast feeding, ok, if that's the case, shall we just find some attractive breast feeding mothers and stick them with their leaking boobs out? Pretty sure it wouldn't have the same reaction. The women are there to arouse men. It has no place in a "family newspaper" that sticks toys/toy offers on the front and promotes itself as a family paper with all its BS 9.50 family holidays and all the malarky. If my kids ask what a woman is doing with her breast out bfing, I'll say, she is feeding her baby, end of. If my children ask, why has that woman got her breasts out in a newspaper? Uhmm... well you see, men like to oogle woman and that's just the way it goes. I like to look at Tom Hardy but at the same time I wouldn't think it was appropriate to see him with his cock out on page 5 of the daily mail for christ sake. All about context.

Mitchy1nge Sun 17-Feb-13 21:50:47

I can't quite believe they still have page 3! Was talking about this petition (and the pros and cons of censorship generally) with my antifeminist 13yo (who copes with me being topless on holiday) who kept saying 'in a newspaper? Really? Why?' and there was something very gratifying about that incredulity

MidnightMasquerader Sun 17-Feb-13 21:13:51

So, all the more reason for Page 3 to go.

At best, it serves no purpose. At worst, it seriously undermines women and their chances in life, as compared with men and their chances.

So why keep it?

milbracat Sun 17-Feb-13 21:05:48

The page 3 girls are an anachronism but it is naive to suggest that signing a petition is going to change things regarding attitudes. Even if page 3 goes, the world of titillation/sexualisation moved on a long time ago and women as a gender are far from innocent bystanders in perpetuating the status quo.

If Samantha Fox can leave school at 16 with no discernable practical skills (certainly not auto-cue reading!) and just by stripping off and pouting enables her to earn £2000 a week in 1984 then the temptation not to earn a fraction of that in a "proper"job is considerable.

DH is unimpressed with page 3 (doesn't read the Sun anyway even though he is a white van man). His line is "once you've seen one tit and bum, you've seen them all". He suspects that it has become passe even for men now and he suspects that many blokes may be inclined to go "Phwoah!" at the pictures in public to deflect any suspicions of the reader's sexuality. DD (who is 12) is not called "Princess" by either of us and is not put on a pedestal or treated like a Barbie doll. DH in particular has tried to encourage the development of interests and skills that do not relate to her outward physical appearance. He takes her to dancing and flute lessons (even going to concerts with her - both like classical music) and he has started learning French with her.

Whether this is a losing battle for DH and I, I don't know. But at least we tried.

jellybeans Sun 17-Feb-13 20:10:57

"Page 3 is dripfeeding the idea to men and women, boys and girls, that women only deserve admiration for the way they look. "

This is so true and I have felt pressured by this kind of thing all my life and had it drummed into me along with other women that looks are the main thing in life etc etc. I don't want that for my DDs! It also has led to cosmetic industry and women cutting themselves up in the name of looking better, even convincing women that it is their choice and for confidence. Not that they would probably feel confident if all women were normal in the media etc.

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