No More Page 3 petition about to hit 80,000 signatures. What do you think about this? Have you signed it?(218 Posts)
Interesting article. Although women have been questioning Page3 since well before then. But slammed and publicly ridiculed along the Clare Short lines for doing so. From the article...
...would find you labelled a prude, a bitch, hairy, smelly, mentally unhinged.
Now women aren't letting such misogynistic clap trap silence them.
Yes you're right, people have been campaigning for 40 years. But as you say very marginalised.
Seems to me since the arrival of social media, Twitter etc that there's been an explosion of women getting together and objecting to this kind of stuff.
It is really interesting to see perceptions change over the decades or even in such a short space of time.
I remember the lads mags taking off in the 1990s and many now think that set attitudes back such a long way.
Totally agree that social media and internet forums (such as MN) can be a massive force for good in terms of raising consciousness and mobilising people to want to make changes.
Lots of people swapping ideas and realising common ground. That article from 2005 seemed to think Page 3 was here to stay, which actually seems quite incredible now, in this day and age.
A social history of Page 3 and feminism through the years?
Re forums etc - you are so right. MN has shown me I am not alone in my opinions and not crazy! - also OBJECT so thanks you lot!
Yes, signed it as soon as nmp3 started. I'm feeling positive that it will be axed soon.
I think Page Three is coming to the end of its life.
I was just wondering if the campaign is only aimed at the sun page 3 or if they will extend it to include the sport and daily star as they are just as bad. They need to get rid of the lot.
The reading age is, what? 12? The obsession with breasts seems to suggest an average mentality age not too dissimilar.
Does anyone know adult men in real life life who are as Beavis and Butthead about breasts as Sun readers seem to be...? I don't.
The worrying thing though is that it's not just the Beavis and Butthead types or the Sun readers who have some misguided idea that those in favour of binning Page 3 (read closely: binning, not banning) are against free speech, are of the PC brigade (Mr Murdoch) and moralising prudes. When it's got nothing to do with free speech, political correctness or being against nudity. It's about the normalising effect of soft porn in a NEWSPAPER.
I fear those who see it as a non issue have already succumbed to the normalisation. But it is very very harmful if viewing women as just a piece of flesh is considered normal and nothing to get hung up about. That attitude is paving the way for sexual harrassment and rape victim blaming, it perpetuates subconscious notions that women can't be or don't need to be successful in their chosen profession, because really, they don't need to DO anything, they just need to BE someone who is wanted (by men), for their sexual availability. Page 3 is dripfeeding the idea to men and women, boys and girls, that women only deserve admiration for the way they look.
It's the biggest picture of a woman in the paper! How can anyone deny that that does not give out a message of what is viewed important in a woman. Just as the big pictures of men in the paper (dressed, and doing what they DO) gives out the message that that is what is men are valued for. Otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy, and it wouldn't be in the newspaper.
To be honest 80,000 signatures isn't that much considering the petition has been around for over half a year and has had much media attention.
80,000 is a fraction of the number of female readers of The Sun.
Nick Clegg said he didn't support the petition, and I don't think Mr. Mohan is caring much for it.
But keep at it and good luck (you'll need it).
I agree Zippy, 80,000 is nothing. It's very disappointing in fact. It just shows how normal it already has become.
However, it's also something that throws up a lot of debate. It's much easier to sign a petition against polar bear culling or some such. But we need the debate to change the attitudes for real. So yeah, we'll have to keep at it, and by pointing out the insiduous sexism in our society, it will become more visible/recognisable and eventually unacceptable.
If all the page 3 women were black, I wonder if we'd still be having this debate and need a petition?
The fact is, that sexism is the only form of prejudice that is still socially acceptable. And we have papers like The Sun to thank for that, as well as the porn industry of course.
Truly shocked by the dismissive attitude of some people on this thread and their passive support of this totally incongruous, inappropriate ritual which completely mocks and trivialises women.
Rollercoaster, is absolutely spot on. Please scroll back and read her post if you are part of "what's all the fuss" about brigade.There are a whole host of reasons why bare breasts in a tabloid are wrong as a regular feature but her main point, whatever your political standpoint, is indisputable.
If I turned up at your home for a family get together, topless, I'm going to hazard a guess that you would consider my bare breasts, in that situation, to be at least a little inappropriate.
If I bumped into you, your DP and your DC on a beach in the South of France and I was topless, I suspect we might all feel a tad embarrassed but it would not necessarily be inappropriate.
This debate is about context.
I tried to sign but couldn't for some reason, will have another bash.
Former page 3 model talks about why she signed it
I have signed it & RT it, because this is a national newspaper & boobs aren't news.
"Page 3 is dripfeeding the idea to men and women, boys and girls, that women only deserve admiration for the way they look. "
This is so true and I have felt pressured by this kind of thing all my life and had it drummed into me along with other women that looks are the main thing in life etc etc. I don't want that for my DDs! It also has led to cosmetic industry and women cutting themselves up in the name of looking better, even convincing women that it is their choice and for confidence. Not that they would probably feel confident if all women were normal in the media etc.
The page 3 girls are an anachronism but it is naive to suggest that signing a petition is going to change things regarding attitudes. Even if page 3 goes, the world of titillation/sexualisation moved on a long time ago and women as a gender are far from innocent bystanders in perpetuating the status quo.
If Samantha Fox can leave school at 16 with no discernable practical skills (certainly not auto-cue reading!) and just by stripping off and pouting enables her to earn £2000 a week in 1984 then the temptation not to earn a fraction of that in a "proper"job is considerable.
DH is unimpressed with page 3 (doesn't read the Sun anyway even though he is a white van man). His line is "once you've seen one tit and bum, you've seen them all". He suspects that it has become passe even for men now and he suspects that many blokes may be inclined to go "Phwoah!" at the pictures in public to deflect any suspicions of the reader's sexuality. DD (who is 12) is not called "Princess" by either of us and is not put on a pedestal or treated like a Barbie doll. DH in particular has tried to encourage the development of interests and skills that do not relate to her outward physical appearance. He takes her to dancing and flute lessons (even going to concerts with her - both like classical music) and he has started learning French with her.
Whether this is a losing battle for DH and I, I don't know. But at least we tried.
So, all the more reason for Page 3 to go.
At best, it serves no purpose. At worst, it seriously undermines women and their chances in life, as compared with men and their chances.
So why keep it?
I can't quite believe they still have page 3! Was talking about this petition (and the pros and cons of censorship generally) with my antifeminist 13yo (who copes with me being topless on holiday) who kept saying 'in a newspaper? Really? Why?' and there was something very gratifying about that incredulity
For all the people saying it's the same as breast feeding, ok, if that's the case, shall we just find some attractive breast feeding mothers and stick them with their leaking boobs out? Pretty sure it wouldn't have the same reaction. The women are there to arouse men. It has no place in a "family newspaper" that sticks toys/toy offers on the front and promotes itself as a family paper with all its BS 9.50 family holidays and all the malarky. If my kids ask what a woman is doing with her breast out bfing, I'll say, she is feeding her baby, end of. If my children ask, why has that woman got her breasts out in a newspaper? Uhmm... well you see, men like to oogle woman and that's just the way it goes. I like to look at Tom Hardy but at the same time I wouldn't think it was appropriate to see him with his cock out on page 5 of the daily mail for christ sake. All about context.
The Sun has 7 million readers, so 80,000 not very many. However some of teh Sun readers will be anti page 3 and buy it for other reasons.
Join the discussion
Please login first.