Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Why ban page 3?

582 replies

jackburton · 12/02/2013 20:44

Hi, this is my first post, please be gentle :) . I'm looking for some thoughtful discussion on page 3 and the objectification of women, my wife suggested posting here. Any recommendations for good articles or feedback would be great.

My main issue with a lot of the traditional discussion on this issue is that there seems to be an implicit assumption of passivity and conformity in women that I can't really relate to as a man (or feel is present in many of the women in my life). I don't particularly worry about my son seeing body building or gay lifestyle magazines or other fetishised representations of men because I see them as part of a range of different types of lifestyle that he could adopt. I would think it quite alien that the occasional image of men in this way would significantly affect me (or him). In contrast, advertising and lifestyle magazines aimed at women seem to impose a very disturbing level of conformity and one that I feel would not be acceptable to most men. Frankly a lot of female targeted products seem to objectify (in the sense of judging purely by appearance) and be misogynist (in the sense of appearing to gain pleasure from and dwelling on the humiliation of women, particularly if their superficial appearance is non-conformist). In contrast most pornographic products aimed at men include a great diversity of female personality types, some are passive but many are not, Jordan being a classic example. They aren't treated as objects in the sense that their desire is critical to their appeal, sex dolls are relatively undesirable. While there is certainly some pornography and lifestyle discussions that appear to encourage pleasure in the suffering of women I feel this is in the minority with most magazines presenting their female models as stars who are the centre of attention and whose happiness and desire is an important part of their appeal.

My initial feelings about the campaign against page 3 is that these images are being judged assuming they were present in the kind of magazine targeted at women i.e. they are a conforming image and that they would lead to humiliation of those that didn't conform. I think the majority of male culture is not oppressive in that way. Personally I find mainstream female culture to be much more of a problem for women's liberation than these products. What am I missing?

OP posts:
Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 23:17

"You really don't see how every industry judges women on their appearance? How the BAFTA were full of women shivering in dresses, and men all in nice warm matching suits. How the front covers gleefully analysed how the women dressed, and whether they passed or failed."

I didn't mean to give that impression. I do see that and I am disgusted by it, but I don't feel that this culture is particularly due to male domination. I think the dresses are for the female viewers, men generally don't talk about them unless they are extremely pornographic.

OP posts:
AmandaPayne · 12/02/2013 23:14

Right, so where is the equivalent male role model to Jordan? I am sure she demands respect, but she has made her money in nude modelling. Where is the man whose fame rests solely on his body - not his sporting prowess and his appearance. Not his singing talent and happening to have a good body. Just giving the appearance of being sexually available all the time.

That is so, absolutely, totally, not a role model for my daughter.

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 23:14

"So what about Nuts, Loaded, Zoo, Page 3? Unilad"

I see them as primarily providing images of women designed to arouse men. Unlike female magazines which basically have a hot-or-not section in every issue, most of these publications are only focusing on 'hot' they aren't there to be judged, just desired. There are some more misogynist magazines, I am aware that Maxim can be on occasion, where women may be judged unfavourably but my impression from the others was just pure lust. I would have found it quite disturbing to have images that I wasn't expected to find appealing in such a magazine. If there is ranking it is more like a ranking of sportsmen (or body builders). All are expected to be desirable and even to some extent imply that all women are sexually desirable.

OP posts:
FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 23:13

Mmmm.

I think my little girl deserves better role models than just rich and assertive. That's not enough to be a role model IMO. Also I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that people like Jordan are good enough role models for working class girls, but let's be honest, no-one would dream of saying she's a good role model for a posh girl. Working class girls deserve decent role models too.

AmandaPayne · 12/02/2013 23:12

You are still talking in the language of freedom to adopt lifestyles one wishes. You are analysing this as how you would feel as a man in that situation. But you are just putting yourself in that position as a man, with all the cultural, structural advantages you have had your whole life. You aren't getting, at all, how it feels as a woman who has lived in a particular society, which tells you a million times by the age of 13 who you should be and how you should look.

"Differences which enhance the difference between male and female (no hair)." I am sorry, but that bollocks. You only think it enhances those differences because the cultural norm is for women to remove all that hair. If women weren't conditioned to groom a particular way, there would be no real difference in body hair around genitals and armpits. Legs, some difference but not enormous. Men would have beards. And isn't it funny how the burden falls on the 'other' to keep up all that grooming?

You really don't see how every industry judges women on their appearance? How the BAFTA were full of women shivering in dresses, and men all in nice warm matching suits. How the front covers gleefully analysed how the women dressed, and whether they passed or failed.

I think that the 'isn't advertising awful' argument is a bit of a red herring too. It's like saying why didn't black people stop complaining about segregation on buses until they had ridded the country of divided education. Bad, in different and similar ways.

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 23:07

It's everywhere and anywhere, it's in all media.

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 23:07

So what about Nuts, Loaded, Zoo, Page 3? Unilad, the hundreds of facebook pages devoted to 'hotties'? How can you say you don't see it in male entertainment?

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 23:04

I think Jordan is an assertive and rich woman who I could not imagine tolerating being treated without respect. To that extent I think she is a role model and one that would be a credible male role model if the sexes were reversed.

OP posts:
ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 23:03

Apparently Murdoch does not like Page 3 AT ALL on a personal level. Nor much of the other salacious stuff they print.

But he will always favour the business over any of his personal beliefs.

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 23:02

"Pornography really, really isn't diverse."

...

"It is an invidious culture that will teach my daughter that, as she reaches puberty, her natural body (pubic hair, unarm hair, leg hair) is revolting. That her breasts should be larger, rounder, more pert."

Although I'm tempted to post some links, I'm not sure that would be a good idea :). I feel that the more mainstream the entertainment the more conformist its appearance is. Within more mainstream pornographic material there is a preference for exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics (Breasts, bottom etc) and appearances which enhance the difference between male and female (no hair) and those that imply strong sexual desire (enthusiasm for taboo sexual acts). I don't think this preference is necessarily harmful, just as I don't think a cultural preference for body shapes that imply power and strength are necessarily harmful, its mostly a matter of degree and the degree to which people feel free to adopt different lifestyles if they wish.

"That, purely because she is a woman, it is ok to judge her appearance every single day. That even if she is prime minister, she will be assessed on her shoes and her suit as often as her policies."

I know that this can be common in the press but I don't feel it so strongly within male entertainment. It is, however, widespread in female targeted journalism and advertising. It is something I am surprised there is not a larger backlash against.

OP posts:
ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:59

Was reading that a lot of the staff who write for the Sun are way too embarrassed to bring the paper home in case their kids see it. What does that say?

FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 22:56

Yes I remember a big row here with Mary Beard, because she did a little talk in on Radio 4 in which she said that she didn't really mind about beauty pageants as Miss Venezuela just wasn't a problem for her anymore.

But for feminists, Miss Venezuela never was the problem. It's the context in which such a being as Miss Venezuela exists, in a way that Master Venezuela doesn't.

FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 22:53

I think the point about men having entertainment designed to arouse them, is that if it's necessary at all (really? Do men really need to be aroused at the breakfast table with their kids or on the train sitting next to a random woman?) is that a national daily newspaper is not the right venue for wank fodder. The normalisation of men's right to assess and be aroused by women in any given situation, even where it would be mind-blowingly, puzzlingly inappropriate (see breakfast table while pouring out the kids' cornflakes) is one of the problems of Page 3.

Also the idea that getting your tits out is a reasonable aspiration for working class girls, is hideous. I really don't see the benefit of a role model like that.

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:50

Glamour models themselves are not the problem here.

It's the patriarchal system which demands and reinforces the 'need' for them.

AmandaPayne · 12/02/2013 22:49

Pornography really, really isn't diverse. It's generally women with very similar body types who enjoy sex at the drop of a hat. No pubic hair, love anal. Often like it rough. This isn't a diverse range of sexual appearance.

You also aren't really getting the idea of feeling 'judged or expected to adopt a particular lifestyle'. It is not as simple as overt pressure on women to be a particular way. It is an invidious culture that will teach my daughter that, as she reaches puberty, her natural body (pubic hair, unarm hair, leg hair) is revolting. That her breasts should be larger, rounder, more pert. That, purely because she is a woman, it is ok to judge her appearance every single day. That even if she is prime minister, she will be assessed on her shoes and her suit as often as her policies.

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:48

Oh and most feminists would not demonise the page 3 models - not at all.

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 22:45

Thanks for suggesting the book (www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Dolls-Return-Natasha-Walter/dp/1844087093) I've added it to my Amazon basket.

OP posts:
ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:43

Perhaps the conformity angle means more to you as you can emphathise with it - if as you say, you don't quite conform with the alpha-male steretype.

And a lot of what concerns us largely boils down to empathy.

I see this all the time when some people don't get sexism, they simply cannot imagine the effects of it enough to care.

All the issues you raise above are legitimate concerns for feminism. Page 3 is an extension of them and feeds back into them. Sexism is made up of hundreds of subtle and not-so-subtle issues.

Ps. yes women oppress eachother in women's magazines all the time. I'm getting very interested in how women oppress eachother.

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 22:42

I think the false equivalence point is interesting. It sort of gets to the heart of the issue which I'm not sure the Page-3 ban really does. It makes it clear that the real issue is not necessarily that men should not have entertainment designed to arouse them but that women should not feel overly judged or expected to adopt a particular lifestyle. I think this is certainly true but I think it is much more strongly expressed within products aimed at women, rather than those aimed at men. Pornography for men is highly diverse and there is almost certainly a subfield of pornography that fetishises most female appearances, there is certainly no 'fashion' in the same way that it exists within female lifestyle magazines.

OP posts:
AmandaPayne · 12/02/2013 22:42

Glamour model as aspirational female archetypes. Honestly, read Living Dolls.

kim147 · 12/02/2013 22:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 22:31

Thank you for your comments.

The concept of 'othering' is not something I am particularly familiar with. In male culture there seems to be a great diversity of roles and so any particular representation of a man e.g. a body builder, or a film star like Brad Pitt, doesn't seem particularly restricting or threatening. As a fairly nerdy guy I feel there is an anti-nerd minority who are comfortable publicly expressing disgust of nerdy people and behaviour. To that extent I am familiar with 'othering' but only in the more blatant and personal sense, a predominance of muscled action stars or sporting heroes doesn't threaten me significantly.

I think there are clearly underlying issues with the presentation of role models for women, the lack of meaningful female dialogue in movies would be a big issue for me, but I don't think Page 3, and pornography in general, is a significant limiting factor. I am disturbed by a lot of female lifestyle magazines and feel they are much more explicitly enforcing conformity and restricting the potential for female self expression. There also seems to be virtually no working class female role models other than Jordan, which I think is one of the reasons she is such an idol for many teenage girls. But I think this needs to be addressed by some more active 'myth-making' either fictional or real of more diverse set of heroic female personalities. Demonising glamour models, or worse, pitying them, seems to be undermining one of an already small set of aspirational female archetypes.

OP posts:
FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 22:27

That's the one.

I just lurve it.

It's so succinct.

Because false equivalence is so normal and so prevalent that when you're presented with it, it's really hard to see how to argue against it because on the face of it, it's so reasonable.

Until you learn the term False Equivalence.

littlemrssleepy · 12/02/2013 22:26

I think the No More Page 3 campaign is quite clear in that they are not objecting to glamour / pornographic pictures per se. As they say, that is a far bigger argument. The argument is simply that it should not be in a national newspaper. Boobs aren't news, as the saying goes. Certainly in The Sun and others of its ilk, women are often only portrayed as semi naked, rated on attractiveness etc. Men are clothed, important, going about their business / career. The top 3 pictures of females are Kate and Pippa Middleton and Madeleine McCain - so we view females in relation to who they have married (or their sister has married for Christ sake!) and in a victim status. What kind of message does this give to our daughters?? On the basis of this I still wouldn't consider Murdoch's potential climb down on Page 3 - to be replaced with 'glamourous fashionatas' much of a victory - women will be still be judged on what they look like rather than what they can offer.

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:23

It's called false equivalence. You can't just reverse the situation to get a fair assessment.

Swipe left for the next trending thread