Page three(108 Posts)
So, I have signed the petition to lobby the Sun into finally getting rid of page 3 girls and posted a link to the petition on my Facebook page. Given that I post links to various different political and women's rights sites you'd think they wouldn't be surprised, but I have had someone accuse me of "being like the Taliban!"
For me this is a no-brainer and should be a small and obvious skirmish in the wider campaign for equality and respect yet I am amazed at how many people are keen to defend page three in the name of "freedom of speech."
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Don't you know that if you shut down Page 3, the nation would lose a vital source of opinion and ideas? Why, think of the economic, political, philosophical and religious ideas that have been communicated over the years! Truly, shutting down Page 3 would be the death knell of freedom of speech.
I am amazed at the hostility the suggestion that Page 3 might be problematic has caused...
Time to de-friend someone, methinks.
The arguments for preserving Page 3 really do demonstrate the ridiculous lengths some people will go to fight even a small challenge to male privilege and the entitlement to objectify women.
But then again, the campaign got alot of signatures and lots of support in a relatively short space of time, so that's good.
De-friend a few I think. The response from my female Tory MP when asked she would sign it: "it can do you and your daughter no harm if you don't buy the paper..."
It was linked on an FB site for local mums and I was at how many people defended page 3. Clueless.
I have a thought. Get a large, heavy object. go round to the house of the person who said that wanting to ban page 3 made you like the taliban, and hit them with it really really hard until they stop talking. You'll be doing them a favour, trust me. Being that stupid is no fun at all.
Note to the literal-minded - the above is an attempt at humour, not a serious incitement to physical violence
Although the heavy object is tempting what I need is a killer, irrefutable argument to be understood by the deliberately obtuse.
I honestly don't see this issue with page 3.
I won't be signing a petition.
Each to their own though. If that's what you believe in then go for it.
After you've battered them senseless with the heavy object you could say, "NO, THAT would be behaving like the Taliban - I would merely like women to be afforded respect in society without the fear of suffering objectification and underlying threats of violence - kind of the opposite of what the Taliban are generally after."
Maybe I'm in a wine-induced Friday night fog, but I'm having trouble understanding which side it is that batters people senseless, the Taliban or their opponents. If it's the oppponents, then obviously the Taliban stand to look a little better by comparison.
clemetteattlee - My female Tory MP also refused to support the campaign using the old chestnut "if you don't like it don't buy it". Do you happen to live in Havering?
No, Nottingham. Hr email also told me what a "proud feminist" she is...
They may have been afraid the usual insults would be trotted out as they are against any prominent woman who opposes page 3.....they're jealous, they're old, they're prudes. I am always amazed when women fail to see the problem with it. I remember even as a young child feeling very uncomfortable when I saw a man reading the Sun. My mum would never allow it in the house (along with the News of the World).
This is the large heavy instrument you hit them with - I challenge anyone to read all 600+ posts of this thread and then argue that naked boobs in a daily newspaper don't feed into this culture.
I seem to remember Clare Short having a go at banning page 3 back in the 80s and the Sun editorial of the time said something like she was too ugly to be raped. I don't think they would get away with writing that today (but, come to think of it, I wouldn't like to bet on it!!) but the fact that female MPs are still unwilling to engage with this issue properly shows the level of unease of being reproached with the "you are are a jelaous old hag" line is still pretty high.
Also, by sidestepping it with the "well don't buy it" line, these very clever and articulate women MPs who, of course, know that the issue goes much deeper than that, are actually acknowledging that this is an issue which a) is not very important as far as government or society is concerned so they don't want to waste their time on it and b) is too easily derailed by the "you are a jealous old hag, goodness me where's your sense of fun?" idiots who defend it and that the majority of the electorate will not have the critical thinking skills required to see past that argument. No MP wants to wade into a battle which is a) not important enough to win votes and b) too easy for the opposition to make them look ridiculous.
Actually femal Tory MPs are precisely the people who could take it up. Whatever the defects of the modern Labour party, I don;t see it backing the kind of campaign that was launched against poor C Short.
From what I recall, she was regarded as a rather attractive lady (alan clarke had a weakness for her) and The Sun responded by offering her a large sum to get her tits out on p3/. Ha bloody ha.
The first time I saw page three I was at junior school and it was in a shelf amongst a whole lot of other torn-up papers. I was baffled and a bit troubled by it - I didn't understand why they had a naked woman like that..... My family have never bought a copy - so wherever there are newspapers, there is page 3- in cafe's, in the street, on the bus.....and this affects people who don't buy it too... By printing it in a the most popular daily tabloid, this throwaway image of an objectified woman is everywhere.
Oh yeah - and speech - I speak with my mouth not my tits. So the come-back should be "Its not 'free-speech, its free tits"......well tits for only 20p...
As a feminist I've never really had any problems with Page 3. The less we ban the better.
"As a feminist I've never really had any problems with Page 3. The less we ban the better."
I don't get this statement - what does being a feminist have to do with not taking personal exception to Page 3?
And "the less we ban the better"... So does this mean allowing the reversal of everything that is illegal? Filmed rape: should that be banned? Snuff movies: should they be banned?... You have to 'ban' things to inhibit the worst acts of abuse and exploitation in a world where inequality persists, so to say 'the less we ban the better' is a non-argument and more a statement along the lines of:
'It is difficult defining the lines that need to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable- and to be honest since I'm personally not negatively affected - I can't be f*cked to engage with it, so I'll just make this blanket statement to make it seem I actually have an opinion'
I am not in favour of a ban; I am asking the Sun to reflect on what page three says about it's attitude to women and then voluntarily get rid.
I can't really be bothered to debate it but in essence just about anything filmed which harms no one I am in favour of allowing, cartoons of all kinds however much some people may not like the content (whether it's portraying the Prophet or sex with a dog or whatever you choose). I would obviously keep a few restrictions but nothing like what we have now. i would certainly reverse a lot of new Labour's restrictive laws and the Tories and Lib Dems were voted in in part because they were going to do so and they are doing abysmally at it.
On the first statement I just mean I am one of many feminists who would not want to ban page 3.
"in essence just about anything filmed which harms no one I am in favour of allowing"
But this is a very sweeping statement about harm... do you mean only physical harm and not psychological harm? Do you mean only direct harm and not indirect harm?
Because it seems that you are saying 'in essence just about anything filmed which doesn't directly depict physical harm' and I would imagine you would add 'unless the physically harmed person consents to it' such as someone having needles stuck into them- since the laws you think went too far were actually about directly physically harming images.
I know you said "I can't really be bothered to debate it", but at the same time, if you will post strong sweeping statements on forums, it does seem to be something of an invitation to debate.
Yes, I would certainly start with repealing Sections 63 to 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. I think it's fine to show people being shot on James Bond movies and I have no problems with films showing people having sex with corpses or whatever. I don't have a problem with violent films, cops and robbers, films of the Taleban beheading people or anything like that. I think we have gone far too far in what we ban. We need to be repealing a heap of laws.
I am old but am not considered prim or an old hag, bag or battleaxe, but I know a few who are in the last 3 catagories !!!! Personally, when I was younger and always " flatchested" - I had an inferiority complex about my tiny boobs, which made it worse seeing ample ones in the News of the World. I now buy the Sun for easy word workout and crossword puzzle, to do in the mornings to get my brain in gear without stressing it !!! I glance at the page 3 girls and am interested to see how different they all are, including small boobs. I am not offended at all. They do not stand provocatively, which would be a different matter, and I would be opposed to that.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.