How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!(190 Posts)
This is inspired by a thread about the No More Page 3 campaign on another forum I'm a member of. Some of the attitudes over there (all by female posters) are just depressing.
So many women who don't see a problem with Page 3 & describe it as harmless fun...the old chestnut that "there are worse things in the world to worry about" (maybe, maybe not, but I can think about more than one issue at once)...Page 3 being defended as tradition...and a complete inability to see Page 3 as part of a bigger picture of objectification and inequality. Posters denying that there even is inequality. Posters saying they would support their daughters if they wanted to topless model.
So my question is, how can any woman in 2013 think that way?
Is it normalisation? A lot of the posters also recount their parents buying the Sun and seeing Page 3 from a young age. Has objectification been so deeply ingrained into them that they just can't see why it's a problem?
Or is that it's too uncomfortable for some women to acknowledge that we don't yet have equality? Perhaps on some level they do realise there's a problem with Page 3, but facing up to that isn't an easy thing to do?
um because people even women people (if you can say women are people?) are allowed to think what they like?
am not really a fan of censorship although I was that p3 was still around
Of course they are allowed to think what they like, but am just trying to understand why any woman in this day and age would want to think that way in the first place.
well, what feels nicer - the facts as you see them or 'no really what's the problem?'
I can't really get cross at people for opting not to have their consciousness raised because you know it's really fucking depressing once you start
It's so depressing isnt' it OP? I have no idea how any woman or decent man could defend Page 3 either.
It drives me crackers when people say there are more important things to worry about. Well that's true for virtually every situation you care to mention! Doesn't mean you shouldn't 'worry' about it if it bugs you.
The one that really makes me boil over is when people who are anti-gay marriage say that 'the government have more important things to think about, like the economy'. I'm sorry for shouting but THEY ARE THE BLOODY GOVERNMENT! If they can't deal with more than one issue at a time, we are all totally
even more screwed
Because it seems a really petty thing to bother about..
There are far more important things
And because banning page 3 reinforces the idea that nudity and breasts are wrong.
I know the feminist argument is pg. 3 is the objectification of women, but it doesn't bother me anything like as much as women dressed in micro mini skirts and sky high heels at a trade show do.
for avoidance of doubt I would prefer a world without p 3 and have never heard a good reason for having it
I just think it is ok for other people to feel differently
How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!
Well, I suppose the women who appear on it wouldn't support the campaign. Other than them, no, I don't understand it either. Although I wouldn't want to see it banned as such, I would like to just see it die out.
Don't buy the Sun, that's the answer.
Because if you say you disapprove of it you run the risk of looking jealous or like a prudish nag. Completely unfounded, childish accusations but insulting all the same and I can understand why many women don't want to come across that way to men (and other women).
I suppose it does seem like a minor issue compared to the economy/terrorism etc. but it is part of a much, much bigger issue that is so tempting to just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, rather than stand up to.
Because, whilst I think page 3 is disgusting and objectifying, I respect any adult woman's right to, within certain parameters, do what they want and not what a man (most MPs, judges, lawyers etc, who would write and enforce this law, are men) tell them they can't do with their own bodies.
I think the answer is a combination of letting it die out and trying to ensure women don't want to do page 3. Maybe something like disallowing or capping payment for page 3....
I don't want to see that sort of thing so I don't buy the papers that have that sort of thing.... I'd prefer a world without the objectifying of women, and yes I think it is all becoming "normal" to some folks - but then art through the ages has always celebrated the nude female form.
I just can't get all riled up about folks seeing boobs in a newspaper when it IS such a small part of the bigger picture - the men's "interest" magazines - even the women's ones - the billboards, the TV ads, - the latter 2 being things we can't avoid in the same way as not buying a paper... I'm sure they love the fact there is a "no more page 3" campaign diverting the main focus away from them....
But please stop trying to make out other people's opinion is not valid just because it differs - the hectoring, badgering, bullying stance on these issues is what turns many of us women away from the feminist boards....
I don't believe that agreeing with Page 3 IS a valid opinion though.
What does the campaign aim to do? I'd never defend page 3 but I'm not in favour of censorship. If the campaign is just about spreading the message of how damaging etc it is, then fine.
And frankly, even if you DO want to defend page 3, you can't object to people spreading a different message about it.
I don't believe that agreeing with Page 3 IS a valid opinion though
Who on earth do you think you are to decide what is and what isn't a valid opinion? It's an opinion and people are allowed the think what the hell they like.
I really, really, really need to hide this section, it's a constant bloody wind up
The world is FULL of hateful, ignorant, batshit opinions DoctorRobert. But opinions is what they are.
The sun newspaper started with provacative photo's of models. And then topless, in 1970. Throughout the 70's the sun was one of the most most popular papers. Why do you think that was?
Leading on, With the internet, porn is readily available for our children to view. Some of it very harcore. Some of it extremely vulgar and disturbing. Maybe that makes some of the topless photos seem less sordid?
I doubt that we will ever be able to get rid of nudity, topless photo's or porn.
I am not THAT opposed to the campaign. I suppose I am the very kind of person that Op can not comprehend.
and the op and many others are allowed to feel that an opinion that degrades them is not a valid opinion. I wouldn't expect a black person to say racist opinions are valid. because they aren't
I fully support it !!! I even got the tshirt !!!
and to answer the ops question I think it's ignorance. I don't know any people who have educated themselves about women's rights issues who think everyday objectification if women ok just because it's not as bad as other things. When else would that be ok? A little homophobia is ok as long as you don't abuse someone outright?
I support it by not buying the sun. I don't want censorship, because that means a committee deciding what we can see, so I help nudge the market away from tacky photos.
when people say they don't support censorship, did they draw a line at all? if the Sun were to stick a racist slur across the front page would you genuinely not want the law to step in?
when people say they don't support censorship, did they draw a line at all?
^^ Yes to this.
We already have many forms of censorship (see Ofcom, British Film Classification Board, libel laws, contempt of court, hate speech, advertising standards, PCC etc.) decided by parliament and the courts, as is proper in a democracy.
OP, I think it's easier for some people to think there is nothing wrong with their world than to want changes.
I have to say I'm baffled too that so many people don't see the bigger picture, how having a page 3 in a newspaper implies that women are mainly newsworthy for their breasts (and only a certain size) while they are next to pictures of clothed men who are mainly newsworthy for what they do. How can anyone not object to that implicit message? This is apart from whether one is offended by naked breasts or not (I'm not).
And then there is a petition that objects to how Merida is revamped by Disney (all barbiefied) and it gets over 200,000 signatures in no time. While that is a cartoon character! Page 3 girls are a reality that is being fed to us! I have signed the Merida petition of course, but I fail to see why Merida should be so much more successful than NMP3. It is all part of the same horrible sexist way women are too often portrayed in the media.
I have a problem with P3.
I don't have a problem with a photo of naked breasts in a newspaper, accompanying a report, and is not something I would want censored.
How do you introduce legislation which bans one, but allows the other?
OP, just because you don't understand someone's point of view does not mean it is not valid.
I am not particularly keen on page three and would not buy the Sun for many reasons, but I don't wish to ban it.
If you do wish to campaign for a ban good for you - go for it. I support your right to do so.
Maybe you could have the courtesy to allow me to have a different opinion though.
The only thing is, when Rupert Murdoch suddenly tweeted 'page 3 may be past its sellby date' or whatever he was, I suddenly saw that he'd decided what was the point of paying working class women to take their clothes off, when 30 years of soft porn 'empowerment' has persuaded women that being objectified for free in the papers is a brilliant laugh?
so I was against it until Murdoch said he was for it. i would argue up was down if he proposed otherwise tbh.
sorry i mean i was against page 3 until murds said he was against it too
Because being a feminist is about having the right to make your own choices
and if that means getting them out for wank fodder
no one can possibly defend it that has even one insy winsy tinsy brain cell
and that means anyone defending it on this thread
please feel free to take offence
The NMP3 campaign doesn't want legislation to ban naked breasts in a newspaper. It wants the editor of the sun to stop running it. It is an editorial decision to have a page 3 and it can be an editorial decision to stop having it. Like some posters suggest they wouldn't mind if it died out, that is exactly what the NMP3 campaign hopes to encourage.
I don't get the censorship argument either tbh. If you take the censorship argument to it's logical end, why not campaign for more nudity in the Sun? What about my right to see fanjos? And willies for that matter? Or topless builders? Why oh why are they censoring the labia?
That said, I want them to stop because it's the right thing to do. It is past its sell-by date.
OP you don't like page 3. The campaign has got over 100,000 signatures (taken a long time) the rag has an estimated 7,000,000 readers. If people stopped buying it maybe breasts in the papers would die out but you have an opinion that I guess 7m people don't share. Each to there own.
I am about people exercising choice, if people want it to stop you just have to cut the readership. I wonder how many of the 100k were Sun readers and have stopped? I would take a wild guess at not many.
As to objectification I had real issues from the age of 14 until XH made it a positive for me rather than a negative. Now I miss the attention of guys as I have gotten older as I personally enjoyed feeling desired.
Because being a feminist is about having the right to make your own choices
and if that means getting them out for wank fodder
Ha, ha Hully. Now it[s probably time to hide this thread - there's only so much I can take of femisim-is-about-the-right-to-choose, if-you-don't-like-it-don't-buy-the-paper, there-are-worse-problems-in-the-world and all the other crap arguments page 3 apologists come out with.
Wanting the editor to do something is one thing....hoping it might happen when millions of people buy the paper for this very reason, is another. If the editor stopped P3, they probably wouldn't have a job anymore.
Saying that you don't mind or object to page 3 says to me that you don't mind the fact that it makes me and other woman feel incredibly uncomfortable. It disappoints me that any woman would take such a stance.
It's such a simple thing to object to but that sends out a powerful message that women are not put on this earth to be ogled by men at their leisure for the princely sum of what - 50 pence or so ?
As for that whole liberal crap of censorship - the rights of men to look at breasts does not trump the right of women to feel comfortable going about their business. In fact, I'm not so sure that there is such a right to leer at breasts.
Page 3 serves no purpose whatsoever other than to provide a cheap thrill to saddos - do you really think that the censorship argument holds any water in that context ?
hoping it might happen when millions of people buy the paper for this very reason, is another
Do you honestly think that millions of people buy it just for that reason ? If so, then there's a market to be had by just selling Page 3 on it's own so why doesn't it happen ? Perhaps because no-one would buy it because they'd be openly owning their dirty little shame and heaven forbid we make men uncomfortable about that. And if they feel embarrassed or ashamed to openly buy a Page 3 - boobs of the day sheet then that really says it all about what it really is and the effect that it has.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
and the op and many others are allowed to feel that an opinion that degrades them is not a valid opinion. I wouldn't expect a black person to say racist opinions are valid. because they aren't
Thank you HullMum. Precisely.
I think all the women who think its harmless fun and a part of British Institution should campaign to keep page 3.
After all we need to keep all those hunky mechanics happy. I can't imagine what callendar they would have instead, probably none. They wouldn't know what day it was, we can't have this
FFs have you nothing else to worry about, lol.
^^ Yes, misogyny and sexism are so bloody boring.
I agree OP. I think the women who don't support page 3 at best have accepted the sexism and objectification that we see every day. At worst, they hate women.
Sorry, that should read 'the women who don't support the no more page 3 campaign'.
when people say they don't support censorship, did they draw a line at all?
I certainly draw it in a looser place than the current British establishment does, yes. Racist slurs are a good example. I don't agree with hate speech laws in principle. I'd rather know who the racists are so that I can avoid them in consumer decision making, and quite possibly directly attack them for being ignorant twats. Last thing I want is them silenced and resentful when I might be unwittingly patronising their product, and when an alternative scenario might be that I and others band together to genuinely isolate them. That is what I think should happen. I don't want the decision being taken out of my hands.
But the point is a facile one anyway, because the fact is we're not designing a society from scratch, we've got the laws we've got. I'd settle for them not getting any more repressive.
Wow the thought police are out in force with this one!
just to add some balance to the proceedings (assuming peeps still believe in democracy?):
It would be interesting to see how many signatures it would receive if it was given the same amount of press coverage as the 'No more... ' campaign.
Yes, a Facebook group is definitely massively convincing evidence that supporting page 3 is a good thing.
Just seen your name <sigh> I am a liberal and in many respects probably a libertarian. Some people give libertarianism a bad name.
Honestly, I don't get why people choose to get so worked up about this.
It's an archaic tradition presented in a medium that is dying on its arse day by day. Print media won't even exist in 5 years time.
Does it objectify women? Sure. It's still no worse than anything you can see on any holiday beach, and it's a damn sight better than what you'll see in any town/city centre on a Saturday night. But still, it does.
But then the Diet Coke ads and Twilight objectify men. Hello and OK objectify celebrities. That's what media does. It objectifies.
I don't really give a shit whether P3 exists. I worry about channels like TLC promoting shit like Honey Boo Boo; or the news deciding 3 o'clock in the afternoon is the time I really need to know about a soldier being horrifically killed in London and showing me the CCTV footage to prove how horrific it is.
Don't buy the Sun. It really is that simple. Worry about the important things.
Honestly, I don't get why people find it so easy to accept institutionalised casual sexism and think this is not important enough to challenge.
Worrying about this doesn't stop me from worrying about other things.
The petition requests that the editor removes the page, and does not want a legal ban. It takes half a minute to sign.
If you don't like page 3 and would prefer if it didn't exist, there is really no logical argument why you shouldn't sign.
If only I wasn't so distracted by my boobs, maybe I could care about more than one thing at once...
Yes, a Facebook group is definitely massively convincing evidence that supporting page 3 is a good thing. where did i say it was? i was just making a point about freedom of choice.
The petition requests that the editor removes the page, and does not want a legal ban. It takes half a minute to sign. the petition has been around since August last year, and i imagine the same people have signed it multiple times now. Isn't it about time they actually handed it to the Editor?
^no one can possibly defend it that has even one insy winsy tinsy brain cell
and that means anyone defending it on this thread
please feel free to take offence^
I don't take offence, I just feel depressed that you think insulting other women is an appropriate way to make you point.
<hopes my failure to make the italics thing work does not confirm the tinsy winsyness of my brain cell>
Goodness how sad
still a little depression is a small price to pay to stop the wholesale abuse of half of humanity
And photos of tits is part of it. it normalises seeing women as sex objects
can't believe I'm having to point this out in 2013...
What Hully said ^ ^
"and I imagine the same people have signed it multiple times"
It takes one to know one, Libertarianj. This puts the whopping 2400 signatures on your "Keep Page 3" petition in a different light.
is there a petition to KEEP page 3? Argh that is FUNNY and it hurts to laugh
really, why would you do that?
The models do it by choice no-one is holding a gun to their head!! You get offended by it? So you buy the paper to be offended?
I do t see the problem with page 3 at all!! But that's just me!
Erm, no planned I don't buy the paper because I find it offensive
not just the page 3, mind you
'Noone is holding a gun to their head'
oh thank FUCK
I really thought they were (will stop here in case I turn myself on)
Can we stop calling the Sun a newspaper? Its an oxymoron
Urghh these threads always go round in circles. And fwiw, I totally agree with banning it. Breasts are not news. I don't want up and check my boobs out and go "yep, still there" funnily enough.
Agreed, op. I was very slightly involved in Clare Short's original book Dear Clare, This Is What Women Think About Page 3 which was published in the early 90s.
I have to say I find it even more puzzling that there are many women who don't object to pornography of all kinds being no more than 3 clicks away on the internet. And then there are those who are willing, even happy, to make their living from performing in it.
I love the campaign to get rid of Page 3 and to put the lads mags behind covers in the newsagents. Love them both. But it seems, sadly, pathetic in the face of the millions of images of rape and violence available on every device that can connect to the internet, with very flimsy controls available, which depend entirely on someone making the decision "not to look".
What's the general consensus then on the argument that pg3 gives women who want to be glamour models/ work in the industry the chance to get noticed - so who are others to deny them that right?? I think it's crap but couldn't explain why when I was arguing about pg3 with someone the other day.
Since when is there a right to have a platform to get noticed in order to further individual careers? Even if you think that page 3 offers this platform (I doubt it, where are all the hugely successful page 3 girls? I think most of them do some modelling to top up a day job) there certainly isn't a right that a mainstream newspaper has to offer it.
Even if it does benefit some glamour models' careers, in my view these benefits are outweighed by the harmful effects to other women in terms of negative self-body image, the idea that women's purpose is to sexually please men, the idea that women are newsworthy for their boobs rather than what they do, etc etc.
It is institutionalised casual sexism, and even if some women benefit, it needs challenging if we ever want to live in a world free (or free-er) of sexism.
what creeping said. no one is owed a living, especially at the expense of their own sex. Who cares if it gives then a "career", and I disagree that it does.
put it this way, as a society we regulate all kinds of potential harm. I can't sell endangered animals just because I need the money. I can't sell raw meat out of my uncle airconditioned van. What I do has to not cause others harm before I can do it. Page 3 feeds in to the idea that women can be bought in the most casual of ways and be seen as nothing but a pair of tits. This is a part of the rape culture we live in and the culture of breasts being only for men which is why women can't feel comfortable topless at the beach or feeding their baby.
Totally agree OP. I have no idea why any woman would want to defend it. And I don't think the number of women buying the Sun equates to number of women 'approving' of page 3. Some female readers might actively like it (though I really believe very few indeed), some might not care one way or the other and would hence still buy it, some might dislike but not enough to think about it too much, some might actually loathe it but buy the paper for other reasons and therefore grudgingly put up with it. And we have no way of knowing how many of its female readers fall into which category.
A YouGov poll did show that 49% of the population want page 3 gone (19% didn't know), and 24% of its readership wanted it gone (16% undecided). Data not available for Sun readers by sex.
I absolutely loathe page 3 type of stuff. But if other women don't then that's up to them. I don't really subscribe to this view that how on earth can anybody think such and such when it's quite obvious that a lot of people do.
For those saying boobs are not news, well i would argue that 95% of the Sun paper is not 'news'. So that is not really much of an argument against it, is it?
and objectification? Seriously what a ridiculous concept? back on planet earth there's this natural thing called sexual attraction. So please stop trying to re-badge it and make it out as something sinister. It's not!
Just because a person finds a photo of a page 3 model attractive does not mean that they think of them as a mere object. Everyone has their own mind, own thoughts, own interpretation of things. What makes you think that you can predetermine what other people should think?
In response to more recent posts, I think the difficulty with the Sun having this content as a "family newspaper" means that people feel it is acceptable to read / look at it when out and about in the way that they would not so much with a publication of another sort eg nuts/zoo (are they still going? it's been a while) or a porn mag or whatever.
the consequence of this is that you get men ogling tits in the paper while on the tube in the morning, on the bus, a thread on here said in teh playground etc. As it is a newspaper and therefore fine.
i have always felt really uncomfortable sitting on public transport with men who are ogling breasts. Often legs are touching etc and TBH it was when i was about 14 and a man was looking at page 3, sitting next to me leg pressed up, looking at me up and down lingering on chest and back to paper again. And it was horrible but what can you do? As apparently society says it is OK for men to ogle topless women while sitting on the tube next to children. And guess what it does make many women feel they are being reminded of their position in socity.
What would the reaction be if I sat on the tube looking at pics of men stroking big erections through their pants? Or if massive blokes sat next to schoolboys looking at pictures like that? Take it from me the reaction would not be good. So why is it OK the other way round? Well I know the answer as I post in the fem section! But it BOGGLES me that people think this is OK.
^For those saying boobs are not news, well i would argue that 95% of the Sun paper is not 'news'. So that is not really much of an argument against it, is it?
and objectification? Seriously what a ridiculous concept? back on planet earth there's this natural thing called sexual attraction. So please stop trying to re-badge it and make it out as something sinister. It's not! ^
This is branded as a family newspaper. You are choosing to ignore the fact that it gives away toys and children's dvds which means it is Ok for men just men to ogle women on a daily basis. That is what we are there for. It can be brought in to schools it can be read by dads in front of daughters.
It is only for men to ogle women.
And should you genuinely be that naive as to see it as not objectifying. let me remind you of the little blurb above the girl's head (and yes we are talking about teenagers so I will say "girl".
The blurb is "news in briefs".
Now maybe Keeley from Colchester really does believe that "^Architectures place in the metropolitan sprawl is a fascinating topic. Im a deconstructivist at heart and Frank Gehrys design of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a triumph. Theres something about curves we all love^.
But that isn't the joke is it? the joke is that here is a pretty naked girl and look wouldn't it be funny if she had an opinion on something?? hee fucking hee. Lets's look at her tits and laugh at her.
Please tell me if we did this with any other maligned group would it still be funny? Why not a black guy of the day? Let's stick a picture of a black man... let's drop him down to every shitty stereotype of a black man and then put a little blurb about the news over his head.. Because ha ha black guy with an opinion! Hilarious...
Really that would be OK in your mind? Really? How about "gay of the day" let's find a gay man and then post a blurb with DIY directions over his head, because get it...gay guys can't build stuff!
No one here is offended by breasts. We all have them. I should be able to whip them out with out whenever without worrying that I will be given dirty looks because they "are for men" I should be able to feed my kids as soon as they start crying but I can't and many many women struggle because they wont leave the house while breast feeding because stupid fucking ignorant people see them as fuck toys.
NiceTabard sorry to hear about your uncomfortable incident on public transport, but is it fair to judge all other blokes who enjoy page 3 by the odd behavior of this certain individual? Surely it's not the publication that is at fault but the individual? He could have been looking at the young models in the fashion section of the Guardian and looking you up and down in the same way.
Using that logic we would have to ban virtually everything and that would lead to a 1984 style Orwellian state. This campaign is just the thin end of the wedge.
I think it is fair to judge all men who think objectifying a girl as young as 17 is OK
To address your points
He is not the only man who has ever sat near me on public transport or when out and about ogling page 3. It is a common occurrence. And why not? It is, after all, a family newspaper. It always makes me feel uncomfortable and I am quite sure I am not alone in that.
If a man was looking at general pictures of clothed people, it would not be obvious what he was thinking about, if he was fantasising. Therefore not so upsetting / offensive.
Lots of images are banned. For instance, I know it is illegal to show an erect penis in a newspaper, or even a mainstream magazine. I suspect a newspaper would not be allowed to show an erect phallus being stroked through pants, on a daily basis. Why is that, I wonder.
Do you think it would be OK for big blokes to sit next to young boys on the tube and look at soft-core gay porn? Just out of interest. What about on the bus next to 4yo boys? OK? If not, why not? If so, why so?
Interested to hear your views
I do not support page 3 but I don't support banning it either. Life is not that cut and dry. I just don't think banning page 3 will change the way anyone thinks about women in this country. Sexism has gone too far for that. Page 3 gets banned and then...? Everyone (by which I mean MPs and so on, not campaigners) feels like they've done their bit, pats themselves on the back and goes back to their business.
It's treating a symptom and not the cause. I believe the "treatment" (education) needs to be done in schools and/or the work place. I work in a school and had to explain why I thought a topless firemen calandar in the women's staff toilets was inappropriate. The government needs to commit to this reeducation for years and years, not a knee jerk banning of one photo in one paper.
Also, banning page 3 still leaves FHM, Nuts and so on..... Let alone the world of advertising.
So Hullmum why not just campaign for the Sun to ditch the 'news in brief ' bit if the nudity isn't the problem? From buying the sun over the last couple of weeks the poses were pretty natural and there weren't any teenagers, mostly 25+. Most of them were shot in an exotic beach type location, all very tasteful.
As far as kids are concerned page 3 is nothing compared to the rest of the paper, such as the graphic photos of all the violence that goes on in the world on a daily basis. Then you have got Dear Deidre which can't be fairly explicit too.
Again you are making assumptions to peoples thoughts and reactions.
I would object if the girls were forced in to it, its really quite simple don't buy the paper if it offends!!
Are you the women who issue law suits against builders wolf whistles too!
It can be quite difficult for a woman to be taken seriously in this world- in any situation - in comparison with a man. Be it work, politics, boardroom. Girls, from a young age, at school are socialised over many years to learn that they are somehow less important than men. That how they look is of utmost importance, that how attractive they are to males is of utmost importance, that having a boyfriend is the be all and end all.
Page 3 perpetuates this - it's not the only thing that does - but it plays a part. What's dangerous is that it is not in the "magazines where you can ogle naked women" niche (FHM etc), it's in the "family newspaper" niche (ie widely available with other newspapers, can be sold to children). Because of page 3, any man, woman or child can buy a "news"paper and be confronted with a full size picture of a pair of naked boobs there for 50p.
This makes men ogling naked boobs "ordinary." It normalises it. It endorses it. It perpetuates the myth that women are just around for the titillation of men. And that's not ok. Not for women, not for our daughters. It's all part of the same thing that leads to the many stories on everydaysexism - ie your teenage daughter being groped on the tube.
Considering the opinion polls posted upthread, and RM's own (apparent) feelings on matter, I'm quite surprised it's still going.
no names its not just wolf whistles though is it? What about women who get nasty comments shouted at them when they are out and about because they dont meet the "standard" the men have been looking at on Page3 or FHM/Loaded?
oh I get it now. tasteful. right. breast in a news story ok. breast for "because men are attracted to women" not ok. although thanks for mansplaining what attraction means earlier, none of us would have understood otherwise, having obviously never been attracted to anyone. I'm not going to campaign to make an offensive throwback not look as offensive. Although can you at least admit news in briefs is offensive or have you never noticed amidst the wank fodder.
how do you think women manage without having cocks available in print for our enjoyment?
And while im on the subject does anyone remember More magazine in its heyday (before it became a celebrity rag) I do. I remember a politician accusing their editor of "peddling filth to the masses" I remember John Stapleton devoting a whole show of The Time The Place to discuss the "filth" in More.
Now back in the 90s it was an informative magazine for young women with intelligent articles about low wages and articles about the discrimination against lesbian mothers.
With quite a few articles about sex including safe sex.
But i havent seen whole chat shows dedicated to slagging off FHM the Sun etc.
Because mens sexuality is seen as ok and "a bit of a laugh" while womens sexuality is seen as "filth"
why doesnt the fact that significant portion of women feel degraded and abused matter? why do people have to stare at tits all day long and whistle at women?
I don't want to campaign against it - i couldn't care less! If men want to look at breasts and women want pictures taken of their breasts then that's up to them. I really struggle to see the problem.
YY Hullmum. There is a scene in comedy series Porridge which was made in the 1970s where Ronnie Barkers character Fletch is looking at Page 3 and he reads out her name and her AGE. 23.
So Hullmum the young women posing for Page 3 have been getting younger like you have mentioned.
have you read the whole thread attempted to see what the problem is? informing yourself isn't a bad thing
No one is forcing these women to take their clothes off and be photographed, in fact my sister is a p3 model and does it because she earns a better wage doing this than doing what she has qualifications to do - her feeling is that it is she that is exploiting men and not the other way round, and if you as a women don't personally like it no one is forcing you to buy any of the publications with topless on p3 - now easy internet access to hardcore porn is another matter but that's what parental restrictions and supervised internet access for children is for!
Read the thread.
w1tsend would you think it was OK for big men to look at softcore gay porn, with men in provocative poses stroking erections through their pants, while sitting next to schoolboys on the bus?
Yes or no? and reasons please
so you really wish that when you were 12 yo
boy a random bloke made it obvious he wanted to fuck you.
Ah yes, happy days
Being a sexual object is not fun. you twat.
this campaign is just the thin end of the wedge...
...to women being treated by the media in the same way men are, rather than just as nice things for men to look at.
I'm a person first, not a woman or a man, a person. I don't want censorship to protect me.
Equal rights and equal pay, yes. Reasonable maternity rights that accept that only women get PG yes, but banning page 3, no. It makes women look like delicate sensative creatures who can't see another womans breasts eithout feeling judged and inadequate.
It makes us out to need molycodling and protecting.
That's just the opposite of my take on life - I'm just as good as any man and cleverer than most.
I think children do need protecting though.
There seems to be an idea that if you don't want to see page 3 then don't buy the sun. That's not how it works though is it. People read it on public transport - everyone sees it. And I don't understand how some people can't see that for lots of pubescent / young teen girls, having men around looking at pictures of breasts is an uncomfortable experience. And indeed for older girls and women as well.
Also, I think that many young girls are sensitive creatures, and what's wrong with that? So are lots of young boys. It's a normal part of growing up. To tell them that they mustn't get upset over stuff like this is part and parcel of the whole "don't make a fuss" thing that girls are taught around things that other do that make them feel uncomfortable and are related to sex.
stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/why-i-never-signed-the-no-more-page-3-petition/ this is how I feel (not my blog-I read this on twitter a while back).
Moxie - the argument put forward in that post is one of the most irritatingly More-Feminist-Then-Thou-But-Achieving-Bugger-All arguments I have encountered.
Bonus points go for stating that we need more nudity in the media without mentioning how coercive nude scenes often are for actresses.
"sex-positive" feminism gets right on my tits. A ban on Page 3 would be a huge step forward.
men get protecting. they aren't exposed to daily media objectification. I don't think society sees men as delicate flowers I think society sees men as people
I've come across women who probably wouldn't support this campaign. Really.
Had an interesting incident at work when I told my boss that I thought we should get rid of the Sun in our common area as our office was run by a woman and it may be offensive to her and others. She got very angry, said I was coming across as arrogant and that she didn't condone censorship. Her PA sitting beside get said the Sun is an institution and very popular and asked what I thought the problem was. It was inferred that I was being classist as the Sun is a working class paper. Probably would have had more luck if I said I was religious or a Muslim and it offended my religion.
I wasn't brought up with tits in my daily newspaper - but it's amazing how many who have been are not only nonplussed by it but see it as an institution to be preserved.
I dunno though.
When I was young it was standard to have topless calendars in all sorts of businesses, and in the pub you got the peanuts where the more got bought the more of the woman's body was revealed.
Do people on here who support page 3 want to see these things back? They have been generally removed as people realised that, guess what, women didn't want to have these things in their faces while they were in shops / having a drink.
Would people be OK with men looking at softcore gay porn on the tube?
The whole thing is a bit baffling to me.
The point of page 3 is to illicit a sexual response in males. Why is that necessary in mixed groups of strangers, on the tube/bus, first thing in the morning?
'Are you the women who issue law suits against builders wolf whistles too!'
Has this ever actually happened?
The tragedy is not that a tiny tiny percentage of women in Great Britain want to pose topless for money, or that some girls might see a man reading The Sun on the bus.
The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.
The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.
But why should they change? why should 17 and half million people be dictated to by a very small minority of a 100,000 people who want rid of page 3?
your arguments are weak. Throughout history the majority have frequently got it wrong.The fact that the majority think it's ok to abuse women doesn't make it ok. If the majority thought it was ok to make racist or homophobic jokes in the media would you say they shouldn't have to stop? what about overtly violent? because women are frequently perceived as bits of meat by the media and violently portrayed because of the casual use of our bodies to amuse men.
you won't make any effort to learn anything or listen because you're so scared someone might say you cant stare at tits in public. God forfuckingbid do you realize how pathetic it is,how desperate you sound that you're arguing for boobs to stay in your fucking newspaper?
Rosa Parks wouldn't get up from her bus seat. Some people at the time probably thought she was making a fuss about nothing. After all, she could go to the black section and be transported home perfectly. And millions of black people did that, seemingly unfussed.
Segregation of bus seats was just a symptom of a racist society, how can this tiny symptom of a huge problem possibly make a difference?
But it did.
Page 3 is perhaps a tiny but iconic symptom of sexism in the media. I want it to go because I don't want to have to put up with that anymore. Attitudes in society don't change overnight. We need small steps in the right direction. Getting rid of Page 3 is one such small step. I really can't see how anybody could be against that.
And once again, the petition is not asking for a ban, censorship or restrictive legislation at all. It isn't even about naked breasts or the models. It is about the context Page 3 appears in and the connotations and accessibility that come with that.
what a ridiculous comparison.
If you don't like the paper, don't buy it.
What worries me more than anything is the attitude of some people, that just because they don't like it, they want censorship.
Who the hell do you think you are?
There's lots of things I don't like, but I don't go around trying to bann it and spoil other peoples fun.
I knew that someone was going to say that. Fine. Sure, segretation was much worse than how women are portrayed in the media. I just wanted to make the point that even standing up to a seemingly small thing can be worth doing. But of course you choose to miss that point.
It is not about banning or censorship, but I guess it is easier to pretend that is is, foolhardy.
I really dislike the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' argument. Millions don't have that choice, for whatever reason, poor education, family influence etc. their parents read the Sun and so do they. I imagine it's the paper of choice for many young people, easy to ready, full of celebs etc. (when I was 18, I enjoyed reading it - without being aware of the wider implications of its general attitude to women)
I have never read the sun newspaper, but I do object to a few people trying to stop others from doing something they want to.
It is not up to you or anybody else what people do with their time, I know my ds x2 both looked at page 3 with their mates as young teens. They are both healthy grown men now who have good relationships with women.
I just think many of you are scared or too lazy to talk to your dc and bring them up to respect women.
Oh and I am neither ill educated, nor was I brought up with The Sun, or topless women. My parents were methodist and very respected in the community, they didn't take a newspaper.
How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!(
I guess its called another point of view.
yes segregation is a rubbish comparison. Separate but equal. it's nothing like the parallel lives men and women in our society lead. It's ridiculous to imply that women were not allowed in male spaces or that they were actively discouraged from applying for certain jobs or are still held back by society. yeah ridiculous.
potato I'm interested in how you know your sons have healthy relationships? are you in their bedrooms? would they tell you if they hit their girlfriend or pressure them for sex? or would they tell you sexist jokes they tell share their friends,show you the pics on their phones? No they wouldn't. you've not got a fucking clue. No one does. All you can do is try and make your self feel better about the fact that your teens were allowed to look at women they didn't know as a series of body parts. Have you got daughters would you have sought out naked pics for them to enjoy?
I'm going to raise my son to be a decent human. I'm not scared of that. I'm scared that should my daughter be heterosexual that she'll only have the option of boys who have been brought up on soft porn to sell newspapers and casual misogyny. it's your sons that scare me
NMP3 is not stopping anybody from looking at soft porn if they want to. There are plenty of magazines especially for that.
It just shouldn't be in a newspaper.
yes nothing stopping dads or even teachers reading it in front if young people.
Theres only one of them sexually active and whilst I'm not in their bedroom, he has kept his girlfriend happy for 4 years.
Of course he wouldn't presurise his girlfriend for sex, nor would he hit her. What a ridiculous statement.
I think its you my love who don't have a fuckin clue, mine were man enough to admit to doing this. Are you sure you know what your dc are doing?
Why on earth would you want to source it for your dc if you don't like it? I have no objection but wouldn't encourage mine, perhaps my values are better than yours.
Y6 was the first time my ds1 came home and said he had seen it. By the time the teacher found it all the boys had had an ogle. The same with ds2.
No matter how many times you tell your dc, or try and educate them, there will always be a few parents who couldn't give a shit and allow their dc to corrupt others.
I think the most you can ask for is that its not yours.
I think pge 3 is the least of your worries if you allow your dc fb accounts, mobile phones, i phones and unsupervised internet access. The content possibilities here are far more disturbing than a pair of boobs. So much so that are dc are going to have to learn about pornography.
how many mothers of abusers sons are abusers do you think? and how many know. you're deluded enough to assume you would know. I'm sorry he may have "kept his girlfriend happy" for for years... interested to how that means he isn't abusive? do you think abused women leave as soon as abuse starts? and you know he hasn't pressured someone? you don't know anything how ridiculous to pretend you do.
*how many mothers know their sons are abusers
I'm 100% sure what my one year old son is up to all times yes BTW. when he is an adult I won't have any other idea then what he tells me though and I'm not clueless enough to assume otherwise. he will however be taught that women are more than a series of parts. Hopefully that will be enough
Page 3 is not the worst example of sexism or porn in our society. It is however in a national newspaper.
The implicit message of it appearing in a newspaper every single day (rather than being restricted to a (soft)-porn magazine) is that society approves of women being presented and judged like meat, while men, in stark contrast, are presented because of and judged by what they do, with clothes on.
This implicit message is harmful, and it is what makes the death of Page 3 worth fighting for.
I thought you had at least brought up a ds the way you spout such rubbish. You have a lot to learn, if you don't think a mother can know her sons aren't abusive.
How does abuse come into anyway? Looking at pge 3 for a gigle with your mates, makes you an abuser. Well both my ds schools must have produced a hell of a lot of abusers then.
Will you suggest your ds will become an abuser when he sees soft porn in the playground? Will you know for sure it wasn't him that took it to school, how will you handle it? what will you tell him? How do you know he won't be more curious, or get a habbit looking at porn.
I know the answers to these questions because I have been there twice.
If appearing as a topless model keeps a young woman off the streets when she has nothing to sell but her body then I think it's preferable for her to model topless. There is a chasm between hard porn and soft porn and this is an issue which in my opinion needs to focus on the worst end first.
Topless on page three is relatively harmless; the sex industry and associated drug addiction is not. Priorities.
We have a Bernard Dunstan nude hanging in our bedroom - do the same people who complain about page three think that should be banned too; that life models should be banned, that the human form and it's artistic characterisation should be banned?
More vulgar than page three to my eye are the herds of young women in dayglo mini skirts, five inch heels, fishnet stockings, sashaying drunkenly through city centers at night. They are probably putting themselves in a great deal more danger too.
I knew a page three model once, her day job was as a temp secretary in a City bank. She was one of the nicest people I have met and saving up to buy a flat. Not stupid, not common, not vulgar and not loose - just making the best of all the assets she owned because in the early 80s not many girls in their 20s had had the opportunity to go to university.
the prison system is full of men whose mothers know they aren't rapist. I said my son won't be allowed these things, (as in the future and I said my daughter was still little.. never implied they were older) yes, there will be mothers more interested in being their childrens friends than their parent as you have demonstrated very well, I can't control that,. What I can control is how much the media filters porn down to one the masses via the news. One way to do this is education about rape culture and through protesting and petitioning. I am doing what I can now. page 3 contributes to the rape culture we live in by saying women are there to be looked at and used.
It makes girls feel horrible about themselves when their schoolmates leer over Page 3 girls openly. Page 3 encourages young boys to compare not only the Page 3 girls, but also judge their classmates with the same standard. And why not? It is in a newspaper after all, it must be what it's there for. It must be okay.
But it isn't.
It is difficult to put that across at an age when peer pressure is more influential than parental guidance, and grown-ups must be doing it as well, otherwise it wouldn't be in the paper. We can try and do try to bring up our boys being respectful to other people. But I think it shouldn't be in the paper in the first place.
What an utterly miserable view of society that if a young woman can't get a job on page 3 then her alternatives are to become a prostitute or work in hardcore porn.
Firstly, we should be aiming for a society where there are other options FGS and TBF most of the time there are.
Secondly how terrible to write that and not identify it as a problem.
you are v pompous and sweeping in your indignant how can any woman blahblah
I dont like p3 but don't want to ban it.this in no way renders my pov inferior to yours
but I'm bemused at your assertions if one doesn't want to ban p3 one is complicit in supporting it
yy to creeping and tabard especially.
So you would sign a page 3 campaign if the sex industry and all its problems were sorted, based on your priorities? And what are you doing to achieve that?
Why would you prioritise like that when a signature takes all but 30 seconds.
You can fight a fight on more than one front you know, especially when it takes only 30 seconds to show your support.
standing by and doing nothing is supporting.
We should be dealing with the worst things going on beyond society rather than page three which is at the very very mild end and happens within society - albeit the blue collar working class end. I don't really see that page three is any more vulgar than Ann Summers which is on every high street and which frankly I would like to see the back of first.
So we need to make a list of all the bad things happening in society (just ours? or globally?), decide which the worst is and then work to change that and forget about everything else until that thing is fixed.
I think the situation for women in the DRC is probably top of my list of "bad things". So I should cancel all charitable donations to anything else, not sign any petitions to do with anything else, let work know i won't be joining in with the community day challenge after all, cancel my membership of various politicial organisations and lobbying groups etc etc and so on.
Really? No of course not, that would be silly. Suggesting that people can't engage with multiple actions is silly. Taking 2 secs to sign a petition for something is hardly going to prevent that same person taking action on other things, is it.
While we're at it, can anyone who has no problem with page 3 give me a reason for it that I can tell my girls (they are 3 and 5). I am struggling.
you're struggling because I'm not minded to have ban it as my default for things I don't like ?
I most certainly don't like p3 but imo don't need to ban it
how you talk to your kids is your responsibility not mine.dont shunt your discomfort onto others
I assume you will not allow your daughters to look at Reubens then. I have a different pov to you; I have a daughter of 15. Do you seriously think she might not value or respect herself because my pov is different from yours. I don't think page 3 is great but I don't think it's horrific and I don't think it devalues or bebases women; I think an awful lot of women who keep their clothes on do that themselves.
i don't like wank books like 50shades but don't want to ban the genre either
If it was a time consuming activity that would stop you from fighting all the other bad things in society, you might be right. But it isn't, is it.
The picture of Page 3 itself may be mild, but its effect isn't. It's got a far further reaching effect than Ann Summers.
what about the news blurb previously mentioned on thread. married? that doesnt debase women? news in briefs?
I don't think it needs banning as a matter of priority. And actually my pov is that I think Ann Summers has more to answer for.
teachers doubt bring the Ann summers catalog to schools parents dont tend to read it infrint of their children
The petition doesn't ask for a ban. It wants the Sun to withdraw it.
So no advice on what to tell them then. No-one even able to give a reason why it is there?
With classical art, there are plenty of naked men as well. So that makes explanations much much easier.
With the sun though the reason is that many men like looking at naked women, and it is so important that they need to be able to do it on the bus every morning. And why there are images of this type of women in the paper but not of men - which boils down to sexism and homophobia. I don't feel comfortable telling them that.
why dont you you something about Ann summers then. rather than say others should start there
why you need strangers advice on how to discuss various topics with your kids?
you will have your own preferences,your own discursive style,all informed by your pov
MN is full of people asking for advice on how to discuss stuff with their kids. What with it being a parenting site, and all.
I think the reason that no-one is suggesting an honest, straightforward way of explaining the presence of topless women in a daily newspaper to young children, is because there isn't one.
I don't like page three but whether it should be banned is a different question. I loathe Anne Summers and certainly think that should be banned from city centres. What is the point of making a big fuss about porn on line when there is this debasing vile stuff on the high streets.
are you saying you genuinely cannot construct a conversation about p3 with child
well,lets see it will be a discussion informed by your pov,and an acknowledgement p3 distasteful
as parents we filter,frame and explain all kind stuff to our kids,like the woolwich killing
I can't what?p3 exists as we live in society that commodofies and sells sex
I have absolutely no problem explaining that to my kids
it's not my lookout if someone else cannot think how to explain p3 to their kds
There is estimated to be over 3m female readers of the Sun. When they stop reading then things might change. Estimated the sun has over 7m readers. So when you look at the number of people who have signed the stop page 3 petition the number is a tiny percentage. Just people talk a lot, fact is unless the paper can see a reason to stop page 3 all the signatures don't matter. Perhaps when the campaign gets the equivalent to the number of female readers people will think it worthwhile to take note but till then it will only change if the those in charge want to change.
and you haven't explained why you accept it and don't fight it. When your daughter says, "ok society thinks women are sex objects, why is that ok with you?" what's your answer? I fight things if I thing they are wrong. I want my children to stand up for what's right. I work to change things I think are wrong and luckily decent people always have. if I say to my daughter sex sells so people use women to sell shit, and you will always be seen as tits and ass, but mummy doesn't care enough to try and change it. How the the fuck do you tell a kid that
oh spare me the faux paxman grilling.i have an adequate explanation
I am more than capable of having open conversation about range topic when necessary
and I am comfortable with that
page 3 isn't about the commodification (sp?) of "sex"
it's about commodifying the female body in a way that appeals to heterosexual men
The fact that the image is always of a woman, is what the problem is. That is the part that's hard to explain in any positive way. I cannot see a good way of telling small girls that there are topless women in the daily paper because male (hetero)sexuality needs to be pandered to while other sexualities do not.
If you are telling your children that page 3 is simply to do with the commodification of sex, then you are lying to them, and they will notice. They will notice that the image is always of a woman. Children are not stupid.
all change has happened because people made it happen sausage. Scottish ? you repeatedly say people should know what to say in response, and then prove there is no reasonable response. it doesn't take paxman to see you're talking shit as usual
As long as the sun has willing women to have their photos taken and and no significant loss to their client base because of page 3 there is zero incentive for them to withdraw page 3. From a business point of view they are more likely to lose readers (money). I doubt those 100,000 that have signed are representatives of sun readers so why would they care they don't buy their product anyway.
That's probably how they would view it.
is that your schoolgirl arguing?tell me you is talkin shite. are you 15?
you see I don agree with you but I can hold it together and more coherently than you
you're not going to win any substantive points if that your range
someone asked how would I explain p3, I've stated how I'd do that
if someone else cannot adequately explain p3 to kids that's not my look out
aspects of parenting is negotiating difficult topics,and explain in age appropriate way
OMG, this has to be a first but I actually agree with your last post and feel exactly the same. Never thought I'd see the day.
well we can't all be as eloquent as Scottishmummy
Rumblegreen, of course that is how they are going to view it. That is why the campaign needs to keep going, and why many more signatures are needed.
I hope it will become clear that a lot of potential customers object to having Page 3. Don't forget, there are a lot of people who don't like page 3 but do not sign the petition, for example because they think the petition wants a ban on naked breasts. And not everyone who would object to Page 3 may have heard about the campaign. Or agree in principle but think signing won't change anything.
I just think we've got to keep trying. It's all we've got.
I wholeheartedly support ones right to agitate politically,it's part of liberal democracy
I also accept we don't all share or feel compelled by same causes
that in no way renders my opinion of greater/lesser gravitas than anyone else
When men stop liking breasts there will be no children on the earth. Their sex is one of the few things many women who are low earners can sell. Arguably by denying them that you give in to male power - anyway that's one point of view.
I think (only opinion) that it is important to bring your dc up to respect women. They will come across pornography unless you intend to wrap them in cotton wool, its just up to us as parents whether we try to protect them, pretend it won't be our dc, educate them in an age appropriate way or a mix of the above.
Trying to ban the source whether The Sun, soft porn magazines, or internet sites, isn't going to stop a person's desire if this is what they choose.
The Sun isn't my thing, nor dh, nor my ds (the latter grew out of it a long time ago)
My views were laid out on my blog a few months ago and they haven't changed
Needless to say I have not heard a single view for keeping page 3 that has convinced me that it should stay.
I agree with the poster who said that at best they (people who want to keep page 3) have accepted casual, everyday sexism and at worst they hate women. Sums it up.
I don't see this campaign as a call for banning. I see it is a consciousness-raising exercise. I'm all for them - get the debates happening in the public sphere. On anything, particularly to do with issues to do with inequality, whether large or small.
Getting people engaged and thinking about stuff is the way change happens in society, alongside direct actions and fights for legal changes. And that works for stuff we don't like, as well as stuff we do.
I never quite understand the hierarchy of causes thing, though. Or, rather, I never understand why some posters post to argue against something that they think unworthy of time spent (not against the cause itself), rather than for something they think is important. What a baffling use of time. Ironically.
does it really make you feel more secure in your view to demonise others as women haters?
how do you deal with conflicting opinion in real life?label everyone else haters?
it must make life v black and white for you
Hate to point out to people we live in a democracy which means majority rule. Even when we know something is wrong we can't change it unless enough people agree. So get 7 million signatures against page 3 maybe people will listen. Or more likely those who are going to sign have signed by now and there may be dribbles but there is not the groundswell of support for getting rid of it.
100,000 or even 500,000 would not be a big enough to make a point.
I don't want to ban anything. I am not anti-democratic.
I am, however, aware that people have limited time to think about a lot of stuff and I think that consciousness-raising by drawing things to their attention with reasoned argument is a useful exercise. It might not work this time. After all, it took until 1992 to get un-consented penetration of a wife by a husband to be unlawful. (Anyone else still shocked by this? That I was an adult before this came into law still floors me). But more people will be aware of the debate. That's pretty democratic in my book.
Oh, and we're talking about a business here. Majority rule counts for nothing. Money counts for everything.
Agreed Sausage i raised a similar point earlier, it's almost as if peeps objecting on here are saying 'we know better than those other 7 million morons who read the sun'
On the other hand LittleDirewolfBitJoffrey i have yet to hear a convincing argument to ban page 3 and having looked at your blog i don't buy into this whole objectifcation argument. As i said earlier peeps are trying to make physical attraction/ fancing people into this more sinister concept of objectification. How does one know what other people think when they see a topless photograph in the Sun? everyone is an individual and has their own views and perceptions. Objectification therefore assumes people with the lowest, most primitive thoughts. This is pretty offensive and elitist thing to claim when you think about it?
Weak try of putting words into the mouth of the NMP3 supporters, libertarianj. Strawman argument.
And denying all the negative experiences people have had with Page 3 as well. That is not an assumption, it is real.
Heh, libertarians make me chuckle.
No-ones calling for a ban, are they? As in legally. Just appealing to better natures.
It's the taglines that enrage me, particularly. Mocking women by putting them in their tits out place is one thing that annoys intensely. Mocking the women posing is another thing altogether. How dare they? And, yes, put anyone else in that scenario and there would be outrage. That there isn't is massively depressing.
it's all very well saying it's weak but how about trying to argue the points i have raised? and it's not a strawman it's my observation and impression.
CoalDust in my defence i did mention earlier in this thread that i would be happy for the campaign to be against the 'news in brief bit', just not about the nudity.
Do you want a race to the, erm, bottom?
What about men's packages? I accept that breasts don't equal penii, but what about page 5 being obvious erections encased in boxers? Or a sturdy 9 incher next to the button down fly of a jean? The Page 7 stuff wasn't really equivalent, was it?
Bizarrely (and I never get this - maybe I'm a lesbian and I don't know it), most of the time when men pose for seemingly equivalent pictures, I don't get it's for me. It's for gay men. I (honestly) wonder why that is. I'm pretty visual, too. I have eyes.
CoalDust ok money counts for everything, 7m readers is enough to get any advertiser thinking of using the rag. What we have though is very loud voices for very small numbers expecting to be listened to. The look we made 100k signatures like it is the whole of the country makes me giggle. Be interesting to see the reaction of those who claim we don't buy sex on Thursday after the program coming up on the explosion of the male stripper industry. If men are buying sex with strippers then we must be doing the same. It highlights that in fact the numbers against page 3 and against strippers are relatively small but awfully loud.
I agree about how long it took the whole rape in marriage issue to get sorted. Had me very surprised as I was about to get married to XH at the time the law was passed.
sausage I think there is a groundswell of support for it actually. As I stated earlier, a YouGov poll suggests 49% of the population want rid and 16% are undecided, meaning a minority actually want it kept. I don't think it matters whether they are Sun readers or not, we are all entitled to an opinion on what affects wider society. One doesn't have to be a BNP member to believe that they shouldn't distribute racist literature.
libertarianj I have never said I think everyone who reads the Sun is a moron and neither has anyone who has anything to do with the NMP3 campaign. I have also pointed out before that 7m readers simply does not equate to 7m people who actively support page 3. But yes I think I do know better (on this issue) than those Sun readers who do want it. But so what? Why does that make this an elitist/class thing? UKIP supporters no doubt think they know better than Green Party supporters. You no doubt think you know better than a bunch of silly feminists on MN.
Saying you don't believe in objectification is like eating a piece of cheese between 2 slices of bread and saying you don't believe in a cheese sandwich. Objectification is what page 3 is no matter how much you want to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and say, la la laaa no objectification here. It doesn't matter what is going on in your head when you look at the model's body, the Sun has objectified her by presenting a picture of a woman showing sexual body parts that society deems we cover up. If it isn't doing it for men's arousal/pleasure then why is it doing it? That doesn't make me a prude or scared of nudity, I have no problem with women BFing in public, but funnily enough the p3 girl is never BFing.
I totally agree with coal dust's point about naked male models being targeted at gay men. Why is appealing to men's sexuality so important it has to be in a newspaper?
a petition is never meant to be taken as a comprehensive list of every person who thinks a certain way, obviously. It's a list of people who (in this case) firstly know there is a petition, are politicaly motivated enough to bother signing it, have internet in the first place. It's a quite healthy number really. if a company gets a hundred complaints about something they know that actually quite a lot more than a hundred were dissatisfied.
There is probably a better thread to bring this up but this was the first one I found. Sun Editor saying they are keeping page 3 as two thirds of readers support it. Radio 5 live interview here
Not sure if this was picked up on another thread as I am not reading mumsnet much at the moment.
It's not what we wanted, but it certainly helps
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...
' i don't buy into this whole objectifcation argument.'
It's a bit like 'Down With Biology. No more Sexual Attraction. We want None of That'
'As I stated earlier, a YouGov poll suggests 49% of the population want rid and 16% are undecided, meaning a minority actually want it kept.'
How many folks took took part in that poll? Do you know?
Well I certainly don't support the campaign. This is predominantly because Page 3 is one of the least horrible things the Sun publishes. Do people really think that if Murdoch were to make the tokenistic gesture of getting rid of Page 3 the Sun would suddenly stop peddling its usual vile cocktail of bigotry, misinformation, fake outrage, manipulation of the stupid and dangerous lies?
I too find it very depressing when other women don't see anything wrong with page 3. I agree with another poster that they probably just don't want to come across as prudish or jealous. I sometimes think this about my sister. Once upon a time we would have had conversations about the objectification of women and how it denigrates us all, now however I don't want to ask her opinion of the get rid of page 3 protest because I fear what her answer will be. A few years ago she went to Thailand and when she came home she was quite open about the go-go bars she had been to there with her friends. Recently when my mum complained about, what she considered gratuitous and unnecessary nudity (female of course) in a film she was watching my sister said to her "just because you are uncomfortable with your own body". So yes I personally think many women are kidding themselves about it because they want to come across as cool and liberal, un-jealous and good fun about these things to other women but also to men.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.