No More Page 3 petition(110 Posts)
Anyone else out there supporting the No More Page 3 petition set up by Lucy Holmes?
I wrote a blog about it a while ago, as a mother - please look and share if you want to:
The are already several "no more page 3" threads on here. Post on one of those instead of making yet another.
Wow, how rude!
OP I think a few of us have been supporting that petition and I agree with the sentiments of your blog post.
There are a few other threads about this dotted around (I see you found one in Activism) if you wanted to read how hard people work to uphold male privilege.
Yes, That was rude but in a world women in Saudi are have their basic freedom of movement denied.
Female genital mutilation is still practiced.
Baby girls are aborted and forced marriage is allowed.
Fussing a bout a few tits in a news paper is a disgusting waste of time.
I know all the arguments about trying to tackle the general demeaning attitude to women, but I think we need to tackle the real nasties first.
The ones we are afraid of because they mean standing up against some religions and some cultures.
I don't want my DDs growing up in a world where women are mutilated and killed just for being women.
I don't want feminist to be something men giggle about "oh you want to ban us seeing breasts".
No I want it to mean I'm outraged that teenaged girls get shot for wanting to go to school!
Oh yes the old "Why worry about this when you can worry about all these real atrocities"
Yeah yeah, whatever. Some of us can worry about more than one thing.
Abigail I totally agree with you re. Page 3 and sorry you've had such rude responses. From my experience, that doesn't happen often on these boards and there are lots and lots of posters who are very supportive of the petitions and campaigns.
Have you seen this in the Guardian recently? Good to know that there are liked-minded people out there being proactive.
Abigail, I am with MsGoldblum on this. Im sorry that a 'person' has been rude to you like that. Take no notice - WE KNOW WHICH SIDE IS THE RIGHT SIDE TO BE ON!
by the way startail - I presume you consider yourself a feminist - stop worrying about what men think FGS - I stopped donkeys years ago - its so empowering!
Thanks for the support MrsC and MsGoldblum. I saw that link in passing this morning on FB MsGoldblum. I'll have a proper read now.
Hey, good Guardian article there (by Kira Cochrane). It even mentions Mumsnet.
That is a really good article MsGoldblum. It really exposes how the media sexually depicts and silences women in equal measure.
Despite what Startail thinks, this is really important stuff. It is this underlying misogyny which ensures we aren't considered equal. It is all about male privilege and sense of entitlement. Just like killing baby girls, FGM, rape etc. It all comes from the same place.
It's rude to care about women all over the world who are in real danger.
It's rude to point out that moaning about Page 3 makes feminists a laughing stock both with men and with a lot of women too.
Well if that's the case I shall continue to be rude!
I will continue to care what men think because if you believe in equality you do care what the other 50% of the population thinks. That is what equal means.
Beside the simple point that, like it or not, it is still men who have the power in the World.
for that reason, if for no other, we need to start with the issues that no right thinking person, of either gender, can disagree are wrong.
Just because you don't get nor understand that this is an important issue, doesn't mean you need to be so rude and dismissive to people who do care.
Most people aren't so unilateral that they can only care about one thing. In fact, many people understand how one thing weaves into another and contributes to the huge overall situation we are currently in.
Ugh, sorry. Being, um, 'strident' only makes people more entrenched in their views.
It's just frustrating because it seems so obvious that you will never change fundamentally entrenched mindsets when it comes to the really big issues like women's status in SA, FGM, etc, etc, until the more 'everyday' issues are seen as anachronistic, outdated and inappropriate.
Why would people change their views on such huge - often culturally entrenched - things and accord women full equal status, when women are still seen as play things, objects, sex-class citizens, the doers of home-drudgery, etc?
Whenever you tackle, change or try to improve anything, you start in a manageable way, in bite-sized pieces, starting small and building up, honing, tweaking, with the bigger overall picture always in mind. Why would this be any different?
That's, of course, not to say that people shouldn't also be out there trying to tackle the big stuff now too. But you're never really going to get anywhere while the 'small' (seemingly insignificant, but intrically woven into the fabric of society) stuff is left unaddressed.
This is why, for example, Page 3 matters to a lot of people.
yes i have supported this petition
feminists have always been laughed at it has always been a way to put women down what else are we called hysterical, unreasonable, man haters the list is endless
i support this along with changes making women lives better in this country and other countries and issues that yes are more pressing but if a man or woman wants to laugh at me so be it what is there to be scared of if we fear what others think so much changes will not happen. i know far more men and women who see the bigger picture that small changes make way for bigger changes and both need to be made
Sorry, but if you succeed in banning page 3, which fortunately you won't.
It won't be seen as a great step forwards for women's rights it will be seen as the nanny state and political correctness gone bananas.
Starting at the bottom means supporting the campaign about toys, it means bringing up our daughters to believe they can be anything the want, it means proper research into why so few girls do serious computing. It means supporting your local refuge, the minimum wage, it means a thousand worthwhile causes.
Page 3 and the objectification of women is a distraction.
Sex sells, partly clad boys sell Holister's over priced hoodies, Rafa Nadal's torso sells Nike. Scantily clad women sell everything.
It is both human nature and a billion dollar business. It's one we can never win.
I'm a realist I don't fight battles that can't be won. I certainly don't fight those where victory would be counter productive.
What do you mean by political correctness?
"I certainly don't fight those where victory would be counter productive."
We're talking about Page 3 here, right? Tits in a daily?
How would a victory be counter-productive? Nobody's trying to ban sex. Nobody's even trying to ban breasts in The Sun. They're politely requesting they no longer exhibit them. Other newspapers cope without breasts. 'Political correctness gone bananas'. I love it. So all newspapers except The Sun are crazily PC, then?!
I give it 5 years; 10 at the absolute outset - before Page 3 is seen as anachronistic as the Black and White Minstrels and smoking in pubs.
So what you are saying Startail is you want women's breasts exposed in a daily newspaper for the titillation of men? You want men to keep that privilege?
Startail, where does arguing against those who are against page 3 rank in the Global Waste Of Time Index? Taking time out to do that must impact on your campaigns to stop harm against women.
I'm at a bit of a crossroads with my feminism at the moment, so a handy list of causes in importance order would be great. If you have time.
By the way Startail - men are not 50% of the population.
Fussing a bout a few tits in a news paper is a disgusting waste of time.
A waste of whose time? Clearly the OP does have time to post a simple blog about something she believes in. You are being absolutely ridiculous.. you have wasted just as much time posting to disagree with her.. shouldn't you be out not wasting time doing something important?
Oh and yes op I have signed petition and and joined the fb page too. I don't think expecting our daughters to not be faced with a fake news blurb that mocks a barely legal teenager with her tits out in a the largest selling newspaper in the uk is a waste of time [shrugs]
Startail <are you sure you're not Richard Dawkins>
I get to post a favourite link just for you why are you concentrating on x when y is so much more important?
The campaign to stop page 3 is about removing this from a national newspaper. Not from banning porn mags etc.
I was really pleased to see that Leveson agrees that the Sun objectifies and demeans women.
And lol at concentrating on issues which everyone agrees on etc. Why do you think it took so long to get the vote in this country! Men as a group overwhelmingly for years and years did not agree with this.
I don't know what your job is but I put up with the shit which radiates out from the Sun when I sit on committees and white middle class men make sexist jokes and objectifying comments.
I am off to look at your posting history now to see what your interest in feminism is.
Well FMB bothers me and so does Page 3. I think we can be concerned about misogynistic practices on a number of levels, thank you very much.
I see the 'Haven't you got anything else to worry about?' brigade are out in force.
Startail it is all part of the same thing. Men laughing at feminists is part of the same thing too.
I have signed, thanks for reminding me OP.
I hate page 3. It is so insidious and I HATE that so many intelligent women seem to see nothing wrong with it...many of them I am sure because they have been told over and over again how 'harmless' it is. It is all about keeping women in our place and these men WANT us to feel uncomfortable when we see it as they think that weakens us and makes us vulnerable.
I am STUNNED that people can even argue the point for keeping it because there is no point.
I think the distorted daily representation of women in the media is a real issue that subtly conditions everyone to view women as decoration only, which undermines our power to effect change in any 'bigger issues'.
After the Leveson report clearly stated that there is a need to tackle 'endemic sexism' in the media, and cites specifically the tabloids' tendency to 'sexualise and demean women', I have seen no mention of this aspect of the report in any newspaper or BBC news coverage, although it affects over 50% of the population. I have never felt so invisible.
Reporting by men for men..? Endemic sexism indeed!
The Guardian has a <short> piece on the endemic sexism.
Thanks for that. There was no mention of this in the Sunday Times' extensive coverage of the Leveson report yesterday, except in 'Comment' where Rod Liddle took the piss out of the Guardian and suggested a 'Glamorous Guardianista' every day on page 3.
Why aren't more women angry about this? I have written to the Letters page of the Times, I think we need to make our voices heard to get this taken seriously. Anyone with me?
Stop reading The Times! Seriously I read it for years (pre my feminist wake up call). Now I read either the Guardian or the i/The Independent.
Page 3 is wrong wrong wrong! When kids see the objectification of women in NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS it influences the way they see the world. Getting rid of this in our national newspapers is a big step in the right direction. In a generation it stops being normal. What's not to like about that???
I really don't get people's objection to this campaign. No one's talking about banning sex or porn. We're talking about our newspapers ffs.
Every day sexism via No More Page 3 facebook page have drawn attention to this in FHM......
It's all part of the same crappy attitude to women / violence against women within UK press.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Are Page 3 models children or young teenagers? No, they are all 18+ years of age.
Are Page 3 models forced or trafficked? If just one model was proven to be non-consenting I think it would be the end of The Sun as well as Page 3, I don't think The Sun would take that chance. There is no shortage of willing women anyway (as evidence by the large number who enter the Page 3 idol contest each year).
Is The Sun the only newspaper available to buy? No there are plenty papers to choose from.
If it is so offensive why is it the UK's biggest selling newspaper? If it was so bad then noone would buy it and they would go out of business and disappear, no banning would be necessary.
So what's the problem? Is it just prudishness?
Male privilege in action here.
Laps joining Object? Seriously? They were ripped apart on "that blog" again in the last week or so and called liars. And I can see the point of the article writer. Sorry Object should just be put out of its misery.
If page 3 was banned, would you still be happy about the Sun/Star/Sport, and the kind of 'journalism' you get in them? Wouldn't it be better to shut this kind of gutter press down completely? (and for the record I am happy to ban Page 3). Page 3 is a problem. Gutter press is a bigger problem (in my opinion).
Frans1980 - I agree I dont have to buy the rags if I dont want to. However, I do have to live in the world it creates. I do have to be faced with pictures of womens tits everytime I go to the supermarket. I am not a prude. My problem with this is that men do not have the same thing. I actually asked a young man in a newsagents if he would be ok about having pictures of fit young guys with nice packages in nearly every shop and he, bless him, was totally honest and said he wouldnt be. This is a gender issue as far as I am concerned. I went in a newsagents the other week and the manager had put the Sun/Sport and Daily Star with the mens magazines. I asked him why he had done it and he said he was sick of children being infected with all this negative rubbish about women and he also felt for his female staff. I was proud to meet him! I also realise the models are all over 18 but they are often made to look much younger. I realise people should have a choice about what they 'read' but I should also have a choice and I dont. The other week I was on a train. A man aged about 80 opened a copy of the Daily Star on his table straight to the picture of the naked women. Sitting opposite was a little girl who looked over at it and asked her father why that picture was in there. He was embarrassed. I asked the elderly man to put his soft porn away until he got home or at least look at it without having to show it to the rest of the train. I was actually shocked because the father of the child thanked me and said he wished he had my courage!
Namechangeguy - I would love to shut them down but its just too much to hope for.
Sausage - I am a member of OBJECT - dont worry we dont need putting out of our misery - we arent in misery!
Frans, whether the models want to do it or not is beside the point. I question a society which gives our young women the 'choice' to bare their breasts publicly at an age when you don't really know what you're doing. Thinking back to when I was 18 I cringe at some of the things I did thinking it was 'cool'. Luckily for me I can forget them and it doesn't impact on my life. For the Page 3 models, it will always follow them, and make many other careers impossible (including fashion and lingerie modelling). Our young women just starting out in life are exploited for their naivety, even if they are 'willing' at the time. Too late to regret it later. Incidentally, a number of ex-Page 3 models support the No More Page 3 campaign.
Nobody is suggesting a ban, and why does complaining about it make you a prude? I don't understand that.
There will always be a large number of young women clamouring to be Page 3 models and get their tits out for the lads as long as our culture elevates these women as the ones who get the most approval and sexual appreciation from men. The Sun does a great job of promoting this as the only thing women are good for, and many young women believe them.
I think our culture should do more to protect our young women from the kind of sleazy older men who would exploit them for their need for sexual approval. All young people seek attention from the opposite sex, and tabloid editors exploit this need.
I'm not a prude. I'm anti page 3. And I'm anti burkas and to a lesser extent hijab - and the Catholic Church and those in the CofE who don't want female bishops. So it's definitely not about being prudish. It's about women not being reduced to their sexuality / gender or being defined and controlled by their gender.
To me saying this is just us being prudish is similar to saying those who spoke up against Black and White Minstrels / casual racist sitcoms / women being slapped in face were being too sensitive or didn't have a sense of humour. It's a much wider and greater issue than you seem to realise.
"Frans, whether the models want to do it or not is beside the point."
So you don't want the models to choose. You want to choose on behalf of the models?
"And I'm anti burkas and to a lesser extent hijab"
Anything else you want to ban? Why don't we just ban everything we don't like and we can have a country just like China and have the Government tell us how to live our lives and what we can and can't do?
In Europe a lot of women choose to go topless at beaches. Should we ban that too incase a tiny percentage of people get offended by the human body (despite the fact we are all born naked)?
pathetic liberal dilemma I suppose Frans you're right - I'm anti these things. But obviously it's all about freedom and choice and I wouldn't want to be like France insisting on a ban on burkas - but I do have issues with the way women are controlled by various religions.
But if I'm going to take a side of the fence - I can say I'm anti something - and I'm anti page 3 and don't think a newspaper should show bare boobs. I think it's demeaning and dated.
There is a difficult line to tread when you think something is wrong but don't want to hinder an individual's freedom of expression and I absolutely accept I'm on that line.
Franz, feminism is about helping women as a group. The cause of most women will be helped by ending pg3. Those models who lose their jobs will find clothed work else where I'm sure. Nothing wrong with women being topless at the beach. I that's the point breast aren't news
"breasts aren't news" neither is anything the sun prints! Stop complaining about crappy tabloids because tabloids always will be crappy. If you want news then buy a decent newspaper.
"The cause of most women will be helped by ending pg3"
To be perfectly honest I would guess most non-feminist women don't care if page 3 exists or not.
They care when they get they get felt up on the bus, they care when they have to defend their clothes when they get raped, they care when they are sexually harassed at work. This all feeds it. In to the culture that women are there for consumption. The sun is a newspaper, do I read it? No but the majority of the UK do, so it matters. If you are unable to understand that no amount of arguing will make you,
Frans1980, what do you say to the point about children seeing these images at the doctors/dentist/on the bus/hairdressers/beside the comics in the supermarket? Who could argue they aren't influencing our young people's views?
"They care when they get they get felt up on the bus, they care when they have to defend their clothes when they get raped, they care when they are sexually harassed at work."
And this is all page 3's fault? If page 3 were to end so would the above?
Sorry the point is why should a minority decide for a majority. Bottom line even if the petition gets to 300,000 that would be 10% the size of the female readership of the Sun. A vocal minority is still a MINORITY.
As to Object they have been called liars for their use of reports that have been proven false and they know the figures are not correct. How can anyone support an organisation that knowingly misleads people?
Your point is moot....unless there is a petition to KEEP these ridiculous pictures in that rag and the numbers overtake those of the petition to remove them, then you have NO idea how the majority thinks. And as for supporting an organization that lies...it sounds very much like YOU support the Sun, the king of liars!
it's not a moot point. it's an important and relevant point.
The petition has been around for a long time and has had a lot of publicity on MN and Twitter and FB, yet it's stalled at around 60,000 signatures.
Therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's not a subject people care too greatly about.
No one's answered so I'm repeating this:
Frans1980, what do you say to the point about children seeing these images at the doctors/dentist/on the bus/hairdressers/beside the comics in the supermarket? Who could argue they aren't influencing our young people's views?
Also, re the point about the petition stalling. I agree it does seem to have stalled and that's disappointing. Once upon a time the majority of people didn't care that women couldn't vote. You have to keep pushing your point if you care for it enough. In a few generations people will be looking back on us wondering wtf we were thinking that we thought it was ok to objectify women in the same place we got our news.
Petitions don't work on the basis that every single person who want something will sign them. They work on the idea that it is representative of a larger group.
And there is no petition to keep page 3.
Not everyone who reads the paper reads it for page 3, unless you believe all the female sun reader are lesbians (and non feminist lesbians)? NO the majority put up with page 3 because they find it an easy --mindless- read on their lunch break.
Really need to leave it as often FWR trolls are at work here.
"there is no petition to keep page 3."
Oh but there is. Any time someone puts their money down and picks up a copy of the paper, they sign it.
If it's true that the Sun is the UK's best-selling newspaper, then there are that many people approving of Page 3. We can hate what it represents, but we have to acknowledge that lots of people like it, and lots more at least accept it.
Just because people don't sign a petition doesn't mean anything, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to like page 3.
The Sun is written for people with the reading ability of seven year olds...that isn't something I am making up - it is true. The readership therefore is hardly representative of the people in society who think more deeply about the impact of things like this. So are we supposed to just forget about these people, who DO mind that women are objectified and who want MORE for our daughters, just because some people find that rag suits their reading or intellectual ability along with looking at naked pictures??
It's not true that The Sun has a 7 year old reading age.
It's also very sneery to suggest its readers are stupid. Its readers are mostly working class. Do you think that working class people are thick, is that what you're saying?
You can say Sun readers are stupid and most Sun readers happen to be working class does not mean that most working class people are stupid.
I'm not sure if it is true but I always assumed Daily Mail readers were mostly middle class. I think Daily Mail readers are mostly stupid. I don't assume that the middle class are mostly stupid.
Most working class people don't read the Sun, so saying Sun readers are mostly stupid - which is the only possible conclusion one can draw having looked at the rag - is not at all the same thing as saying working class people are stupid. The working class people I know wouldn't soil their hands with it.
I was being facetious as SamuraiCindy had made such a pompous (and factually incorrect) posting.
Dismissing those that hold different views to you/favour different newspapers/watch different TV shows as stupid is such an easy and pointless argument. Bit like me saying all feminists are ugly.
I know plenty of highly intelligent people who read The Sun.
Of course there are many working-class people who don't buy The Sun but the readership IS largely working-class.
The working class people who read The Sun are undoubtedly not the sharpest tools in the box. Just like the middle class people who read it, and even the aristocratic people who read it.
Come on. you cannot pick up a copy of The Sun, peruse its pages, and come to any other conclusion.
I read it.
I think it's a good paper.
Well, 'thinking' is good. Keep doing it.
Do you read any other newspapers? If so, how do you think they compare?
I read every newspaper.
I think The Express is terrible - run on a shoe-string, badly edited and dull
I think The Star is grubby and also badly edited and written
I think The Mirror is a shadow of its former self and mostly boring with some occasional sparkle when in campaigning mode
I think The Sun is slick, professional, well-edited and punchy
I think The Daily Mail is polished, professional, well-written and well-edited
I think The Telegraph is good on news, weak on features
I think The Times is hit and miss but i think the T2 section can be excellent
I think the Independent is a waste of space
I think The Guardian is mostly good, occasionally too worthy
"Sausageeggbacon Sat 08-Dec-12 09:00:11
Sorry the point is why should a minority decide for a majority. Bottom line even if the petition gets to 300,000 that would be 10% the size of the female readership of the Sun. A vocal minority is still a MINORITY."
Good point. If the majority of people were against Page 3 then no ban would be necessary- sales of The Sun would dwindle and they would go out of business and disappear by themselves.
"Nancy66 Sat 08-Dec-12 11:26:04
The petition has been around for a long time and has had a lot of publicity on MN and Twitter and FB, yet it's stalled at around 60,000 signatures. "
A number of news articles have also linked to the petition so most likely millions upon millions know the petition is there. But the best they can do after all this time and publicity is 60k signatures which when you look at the bigger picture it's like a small splash in a big swimming pool.
Nick Clegg has even declined to back the campaign to ban page 3.
Face it your campaign will fizzle out.
"I read every newspaper. "
I assume you work in the media. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate.
Estimated number who read The Sun in 2012.
It was read by 7,244,000 adults.
It was read by 14.4% of the adult population."
~60,000 want to ban it but there are ~7.2 million who read it and probably tens of millions who don't care either way.
When the people who want to ban it reach a majority come back and try again.
The campaign may indeed fizzle out, at this stage. But that doesn't make the campaign wrong IMO. It was only after WWI that women got the vote - getting equal suffrage with men in 1928. Almost 70 years after the first groups were formed in the 19th Century.
The same can be said of the civil rights movement, disability rights etc. These things take time. Attitudes can take generations to change.
I don't care what the readership is of The Sun - or the average IQ / class. I just care about what I believe is right and I believe a newspaper is no place for demeaning sexual images. Just like someone, somewhere turned round and questioned whether people being blacked up for light entertainment was appropriate.
Page 3 belongs in to a different era - and we need to move away from it. It's all part of denigration of women in our modern society and I'm happy to be a minority (at this stage) voice against it. I just can't see it any other way and pointing out I'm in a minority doesn't stop me thinking or believing the things I do.
I also don't like page 3 - but it's hardly on a par with the right to vote and race equality.
Some people just can't help themselves, they feel that they are intelligent enough to decide for others what they should read. Sorry you may not agree with page 3 but the only way you could convince the paper is if you could get signatures in the order of at least a third. People buy it knowing what it contains. They have chosen and unlike China we in the UK have freedom of choice. It is amusing to see people insult people they have never met and make judgements on them. The issue with a democracy is that sometimes you have to put up with what over people want, especially if they are a majority. When minorities start deciding for the majority we run the risk of losing democracy.
In what way is it a "good" newspaper?
The dodgy reporting?
The blatant xenophobia and racism?
The only redeeming quality it has is that you can finish it on your lunch break. And the SUNDOKU
sigh I am not insulting them, sausage, so can you stop with the strawman arguments? I am saying it like it is. The Sun IS written for people with reading abilities of seven year olds. Like it or not, that is a fact. Why do YOU think that is an insult? You might read that rag and feel I am insulting you but facts are facts. Sorry and all that. And I am also sorry that women have to suffer sexism because some people want their kicks or do not/can not understand the full impact of this disgusting objectification. It really is that simple.
it's NOT a fact. it's an urban myth. You saying it's a fact doesn't make it one.
Extract from the Ironbridge Institute 2011/2012 Reading and Readabilty Module 5, Interpretation:
"It is important to recognise that reading age is not related to physical age or mental age. The method above is simply a measure of how complex the word and sentence structure is, and, therefore, of how easy it is to read. A recent test on a copy of The Sun and on a feature in the Independents colour supplement magazine gave reading ages of 11/12 and 15/16 respectively. The Sun is not written for people who are stupid, just for those who prefer something easy to read. See: www.harrymclaughlin.com/SMOG_Readability_Formula_G._Harry_McLaughlin_(1969).pdf"
Unfortunately the source link at the end of the par does not work.
Clearly though you don't have to be the sharpest knife in the box to read the Sun
Whatever my opinions are on exploitation of women is one matter. To bring another issue in I do not want to purchase or knowingly support an organisation who knowingly employed people who hacked into a murdered young girl's phone so that her poor frantic parents thought that she must be alive. How disgusting does the press have to get before people stop trading with them buy buying the disgusting rag. Thats just one example. When it is a celebrity some people would argue that they have to put up with it but what justifies trading with these 'people'.
By the way, I think page 3 is outdated and objectifies women. It does not just include page 3, it includes the Star and Sport. I cant believe they get away with it. I went to my local shop the other day to be confronted with a woman's arse and almost vulva in my face on front of the Spa. Anyone who thinks that is ok needs their heads examined IMO.
MrsCLown, I think I love you.
I agree that hacking Milly Dowler's phone was wrong.
However the family knew nothing about it at the time. The messages were not deleted as has been widely reported and, therefore, the family were not given any false hope that their murdered daughter was alive.
Nancy66 - thats ok then. I suppose anything can be justified. I still cant believe people do though.
rosa and muddle - thank you!
I wasn't justifying it. I was correcting your error.
Thankfully the real world continues without involvement from these boards.
It's amazing how many people will support men's privilege to ogle women's bodies.
Yes, sausage the real world continues on. And bit by little bit it gets better for all people through activism and knowledge.
By the way, I think page 3 is outdated and objectifies women. It does not just include page 3, it includes the Star and Sport. I cant believe they get away with it. I went to my local shop the other day to be confronted with a woman's arse and almost vulva in my face on front of the Spa. Anyone who thinks that is ok needs their heads examined IMO
Exactly - and explaining to a four year old DS why a woman was bending over with her backside in the air whilst waiting in the queue at Tesco Metro made me realise how innured I'd become to newspapers showing those images.
They should not be in newspapers. Simple as that. Don't think taking the boobs out of the Mirror changed it that much.
I find it so utterly brain-hurtingly baffling when I read comments from women defending page 3. I don't get it. Then I read the guff that follows about how we live in a free democracy and therefore this kind of shitty sexism is apparently really important because it's free speech and if we ban page 3 then OHMYGOD we'll have women in burqas next and it'll be like Victorian Britain and Afghanistan and China all rolled into one only with no sky because that will have fallen in.
So here's a thought. Since we have this 'free speech' on page 3, I'm really concerned that it's not having a pop at any other group that I might want to see having the piss ripped out of them daily, as is my right if I want to spend 40p on that in this democracy. Why can't I have a page 3 devoted to Afro-Carribbeans? I'd love to see the text where they say something 'political' - perhaps it could read 'I don't have no opinion on dat stuff mon because I has been smoking da good stuff all day instead of getting a job'. Then I can laugh at black people when I'm out and about because they are so hilarious and not as clever as me because they are black and lazy. And actually, what about the gays? Why leave them alone? Let's have limp-wristed man in a sailor hat on page 3 and then I can shout at the 'queers' in public and laugh at them because they are so funny and not as normal as me. And I can say to my kids - look kids! You don't want to be like that do you? Now go objectify some women quick and be 'normal'! Those gays aren't like us and we should just laugh at them. And what about the Jews? They could find some for page 3 with big noses and score their noses out of 10 for size? Bigger the better! Brilliant!
No? But free speech, innit.
If you are getting the piss ripped out of you daily because you have tits then you really should consider moving areas and changing jobs.
I'm not talking about me - I'm talking about the page 3 models. What exactly is News in Briefs doing if not that?
oh ok. Misunderstood. fair enough.
Nancy - it was not an error. Milly's messages were deleted which made her parents think she was still alive. No error involved. But if you think it is not absolutely disgusting you are perfectly entitled to your opinion even though it is a world away from mine.
Dye - I totally understand what you mean. I always go in my Spa and cover the womans arse and vulva with some obscure non offensive publication. I dont say a word to the staff but just look at them. I have never been stopped. A friend of mine was doing the same in a shop and the shopkeeper called the police when she refused to stop doing it. The police came out and said to the shop keeper 'well actually she is right!'. Its not illegal, though the shopkeeper can bar you from the shop.
They weren't deleted by a phone hacker though - they just expired.
Yes, the real world. That real world where only a few decades ago, easily in living memory of some, ads like these were perfectly acceptable and reasonable...
Show her it's a man's world.
Where she belongs.
Your wife will drive home one of the best reasons...
So the harder a wife works the cuter she looks...
...that's what wives are for.
Most men ask 'is she pretty? Not 'is she clever?'
And a 'delightful' non-gendered one...
I'm sure the first people to complain about these were seen as 'over-reacting' and 'making a big deal about nothing'. I'm sure they were also accused of curtailing 'free speech'...
Breasts in a newspaper are as outdated and antiquated as these images. If not more.
In another generation, people will snigger at Page 3 in the same way that we laugh at these, slightly incredulous that people thought they were in any way OK. Some people seemingly take a lot longer than others to to get to the point of understanding that, and so feel the need to vehemently argue for the status quo.
I lump Page 3 supporters in with the sort of people who didn't see the slightest thing wrong with these messages...
Dominic Mohan had 3 children according to WIKI, any of them daughters do you think? I wonder if he would happy for them to be page 3 girls?
HUgh Heffner made his daughter vice president..not a centerfold. I can not comprehend the mind set that of someone who would so happily use women that way whilst having daughter. It just doesn't make sense.
I know, DoingIt.
A couple of my links didn't work, but you get the jist...
Here's the blatantly racist one, if anyone's interested...
The 'free speech' thing is such a red herring. Would anyone seriously argue to be allowed to continue to advertise along these lines, in the name of free speech?
Times move on - people need to keep up.
Absolute at some of those Somerset And I agree with you.
Free speech is a red herring. The Sun used the same "moral" press freedom argument to print the Vegas pictures of Prince Harry - saying they were making a point about what was available online but not available in the press. Nonsense, they wanted to sell papers and improve their circulation / advertising.
Those who make the Free Speech argument should think about the importance of living free from prejudice and sexism - rather than supporting a newspapers right to endorse it.
Still banging on about page 3 are we? Haven't we exhausted this topic? There's nothing else I can say without repeating myself.
and yet you felt the need to come back to the thread 9 days after the last post... just to not add anything of value.. or did you think we were all holding our breath for frans words of wisdom?
The only person 'banging on' is you, Frans. This thread had died.
Man, you're a little trouper, aren't you, coming on and resurrecting dead threads... One would almost think you didn't have
a life anything better to do. But here you are! Wonderful!
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Frans - last time I looked we could discuss anything we liked. If you dont want to then dont, no one is forcing you to discuss something you dont want to discuss. I dont want to discuss certain topics on Mumsnet but I dont go on the threads and tell them not to.
Join the discussion
Please login first.