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:
FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 22:20

"I don't find the notion that women would find me arousing to be illegitimate or threatening, but I suppose I'm unlikely to be raped."

I think here what you're doing is referencing the "sauce for the goose" argument.

On the face of it, that looks reasonable, if you believe that men and women operate in conditions of equality on an even playing field.

In reality, because that doesn't happen, what it actually does is apply a false symmetry to a non-symmetrical situation.

(See, I managed to get that concept in! Grin)

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 22:15

No it's not about making men's attraction to women's appearance illegitimate.

It's the promotion of attraction above all else that irks women.

As in, our main purpose in life is to exist and look good for men. Our brains, opinions, feelings are all secondary to that. That's what objectification is. It's reducing us to our appearance and our usefulness as a sexual object.

And then to say, men and women both read this newspaper. But essentially the men are the most important and that's why we're devote a whole page to pleasing them. It ignores the fact that more women read the Sun than men, (I believe). It's saying mens' needs and wants are paramount.

FastidiaBlueberry · 12/02/2013 22:09

One of the major problems with page 3 as ashes says, is the "othering" of women.

Women are presented as being objects there to titillate men. Not all women, only the ones who fit a very narrow view of beauty, but they set the standard for all women to aspire to and are presented for your consideration as objects.

Imagine if we had complete sexual equality and men considered women full human beings, so it would be unthinkable to present them habitually as objects to admire and assess and mark out of 10. But we still had racism. And black people were presented every single day in mainstream, daily newspapers, read by families and children, as pretty objects to admire and assess.

How do you think that would advance the cause of equality for black people? Do you think it would be harmless or helpful?

Page 3 happens in the context of a society which constantly presents men as the default human and women as something other than the default. It's both a symbol of objectification and a cause of the normalisation of objectification. If your kids can see it at the breakfast table, it's no big deal is it? But what is it teaching our daughters about what it means to be a woman? And what is it teaching our sons about women?

Original poster
jackburton · 12/02/2013 22:07

Thank you, that article is very interesting. Here are my thoughts on it.

The article's main criticism seems to focus on the issue that whether clothed or not a page designed to make men aroused in such a 'normal' location as a newspaper is objectionable.

The article appears to use the term objectified to mean that a man is aroused by a woman's appearance (rather than say viewing them as an object, like a dishwasher). It seems that this is often assumed to be illegitimate, presumably because it is threatening, which is understandable to a point. I don't find the notion that women would find me arousing to be illegitimate or threatening, but I suppose I'm unlikely to be raped. Perhaps this sense of threat is the real issue and ban Page-3 is an indirect objection to that.

The author also objects to the asymmetric influence that male interests have within the newspaper. I am not a big Sun reader so I can't comment on that. For commercial reasons if nothing else I would imagine there would be reason to have somewhat balanced female centric content, or perhaps it is merely the paper choosing to preferentially target men with other publications targeting women to a greater extent.

The final paragraph objects to Page 3 on the grounds that the models are being manipulated into doing something objectionable for money. I'm not sure that this is clearly the case, many people feel manipulated into doing unpleasant and to some extent humiliating work it's not clear to me that the models in question experience this more than most workers. Much of the humiliation would seem to focus on the public perception of their profession which would have more to do with anti-page 3 campaigns than anything inherent in their role as objects of sexual desire.

OP posts:
AmandaPayne · 12/02/2013 21:54

Have a think about reading Living Dolls by Natasha Walter. It's very interesting on the pornification of our culture. It's not necessarily about page three, but I'm not sure you can totally get page three without understanding the issues people have with porn itself. Because a lot of my issues with page three are about it putting porn into an acceptable public sphere. Why on earth is it acceptable for a man to be sitting next to me on a bus looking at soft porn?

ashesgirl · 12/02/2013 21:22

No I don't think people who want to ban Page 3 are essentially worried about the images being very conforming.

I also don't think it is much about objecting to nudity per se.

This article sets out some very good reasons why. Page 3 is a very big statement that men are the default, that women are the 'other' - there to titillate and decorate ... for men.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/page-3-women-rupert-murdoch

Swipe left for the next trending thread