Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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:
SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 05/09/2013 19:31

Calendars with sexy firemen on them existing does not excuse bare breasts in a daily newspaper.

For a start, people don't tend to carry fireman calendars around with them and read them openly on the train/tube/in public- or make children feel uncomfortable with them. Plus there is a difference in the type of pictures - macho and powerful poses vs. coy poses and bare breasts.

Men = dominant and strong vs. women = pretty and submissive.

Plus, as lala rightly says - it's a false equivalence anyway.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa · 05/09/2013 19:18

ged reminds me of an old poster called gabbylogon It's like reading haikus.

ged I don't want to see men objectified either (although often men featured in calenders etc. are men's imaginings of hyper masculinity, not what women actually want) but it's false equivalence anyway.

Please stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to feel offended by.

Ta

runningforthebusinheels · 05/09/2013 18:57

I'm not getting why that picture of David Walliams in a night club is even vaguely relevant to the page 3 debate? Can you explain please?

gedhession · 05/09/2013 17:53

Oh yes , the things these objectified , passive women will utter. I think she also said she made the choice to express her sexuality. Laura Lacole, give her a Google. Actually Running this is one of the pics I recall

www.contactmusic.com/photo/annabels_night_club_11_wenn1623323

Oldest trick in the book hey, get yourself pictured with a Page 3 model in a trendy nightclub so you MUST be straight. Running, aren't their calendars with semi clad blokes dressed as firemen and builders? Aren't their women who like them?

ModeratelyObvious · 04/09/2013 23:22

What would Ian Paisley say?!

SinisterSal · 04/09/2013 23:21

'to make Ulster more modern'

Tits out to solve sectarianism!

gedhession · 04/09/2013 22:59

I recall the Page 3 girl Keeley Hazell remarking that she'd say to anybody who wants to make any money out of modelling she'd tell them they'd have better luck doing the lottery and she's considered one of the most successful Page 3 girls. Some young girls do it for nothing they are that desperate for recognition. The "anthrpology" model is called Laura Lacole and she accepts she will never be a millionaire out of modelling, claims she isn't doing it for the money (she was actually defensive about how much money she made) and is doing it to make Ulster (where's she's from) more modern. Tabard, I know that men are usually fully dressed in the papers but they are still referred to as "hunks" or "heart throbs", referring to their desirability.

scallopsrgreat · 04/09/2013 22:47

I think that there is this myth in general that papers pay high prices for stories (although this isn't a story obviously which is part of the point of objecting to it).

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 22:33

Given that girls will send their pics in for free to some of the "lads mags" I am not surprised that a nominal fee is paid for page 3

From the POV of the aspiring model she is getting a huge amount of exposure (no pun intended) and thus may make headway with her career. I doubt that the sun are short on models wanting to do it. So with it being the paper that is giving the model a high profile job, I'm not surprised that it pays what probably amounts to costs.

scallopsrgreat · 04/09/2013 22:32

It doesn't say average earnings are £30k at all! It says average earnings for models on their books and that there are very few models on their books.

So I'll rephrase, a few very well paid models will lose their jobs, with The Sun. I don't want them to lose their livelihood but I don't want 51% of the population to be objectified by men and their value measured in what their body looks like.

But your objections to this have nothing to do with women losing their job. You have shown time and again that you don't have any interest in the welfare of women, so I'm not responding to this derail any more.

CaptChaos · 04/09/2013 22:26

And yet an actual person has spoken to a real life page 3 model and said model has stated that she has earned £30 for a shoot. A £30k paycheck from £30 payments is a lot of shoots. The model also stated that she is NOT employed by news international, so unlikely she would lose her job.

Apart from Wikipedia, which lets face it, isn't the most reliable source, do you have evidence of these earnings from page 3? Or the employment status of the models?

libertarianj · 04/09/2013 21:57

As far as I am aware Page 3 girls are not employed by The Sun, but paid per photograph, so no-one will be losing their jobs libertarianj. They maybe losing an opportunity, but as it stands there are plenty more of those.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(profession)#Glamour_modelling

It doesn't sound like there are plenty of opportunities at all for glamour modelling and the best paying jobs for this genre are in Page 3. With average earnings of £30K and potential of up to £100k. So i think your claims of no one losing their jobs are just a tad optimistic. Remember at the same time uk feminista protesters are trying to get lads mags removed too. A double whammy for the models, oh and the photographers, the make up artists, the hair stylists, the model agencies etc.

runningforthebusinheels · 04/09/2013 21:08

Mmm yes maybe the Walliams would Grin Grin

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 21:02

Actually I can quite easily imagine david walliams posing like that Grin

But your point is quite right of course.

stickemup yes I am sure the sun have professional photographers who aren't unsafe, but that should be the standard rather than so unusual it's worth mentioning.

StickEmUp · 04/09/2013 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

runningforthebusinheels · 04/09/2013 20:48

Was David Walliams posing like this?

Have you ever seen a man posed like that?

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 20:47

Sure do Smile

£30. I didn't know that. I would have guessed a couple of hundred.

runningforthebusinheels · 04/09/2013 20:45

Don't start with all the evo-psych shit ged - it's always wheeled out to excuse poor behaviour.

StickEmUp · 04/09/2013 20:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 20:24

That's got to be an "if" they become like KP, really, and it's a pretty huge "if".

StickEmUp · 04/09/2013 20:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 20:09

I looked through the evening standard today on the way home and there were pictures of scantily clad women on most of the first 10 or 15 pages. I didn't spot a scantily clad man. And I would have noticed - anthropology and all that dontchaknow.

I think a lot of people don't notice as that's how it is all the time and they're used to it.

If there was a day when it was all reversed people would be so confused and upset they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

NiceTabard · 04/09/2013 20:06

Look at how stars are dressed on the red carpet for an excellent lesson in whose job it is to be eye candy in our society.

Even going to work the difference in male and female attire and "look" is just amazingly stark. It's amazing really that people can pretend it's not there Confused

gedhession · 04/09/2013 20:02

Well running, what she said is what ANY anthropoligist will tell you , though she doesn't quote any sources. I did ask a psychologist friend of mine and he quoted Aping Mankind by Ray Tallis. Would you tell her anything to the contary, running? Scallop, daily newspapers have pictures of popular actors, sportsmen, pop stars and even politicians where they are judged on their desirability with women. I remember when they showed a pic of David Walliams with the Page 3 model Keeley Hazell and gave him a "sexuality rating". Is there a difference between sexualisation and objectification? Newpapers do make sexual references to men.

scallopsrgreat · 04/09/2013 19:12

I don't see sexual images of men in a daily newspaper, gedhessian, on a daily basis. I don't see sexualised pictures of men on the front of magazines in supermarkets.

Just because men maybe objectified on the very odd occasion doesn't make the objectification of women OK. That is a rubbish argument.