WHSmith - Newspapers with 'Page 3' images of women

[gingerPuddingBFLT]

Should MN approach WHSmith, and see if it is prepared to sign up to the 'Let Girls be Girls' campaign, by agreeing to stop selling newspapers with 'Page 3' images of women?

That's the other thing I was wondering as well, Dragonfly. Don't all the shops sell those Page 3 papers?

see, I think the BMI issue, while a good point, is far less damaging to society than the harm that is done through the objectification of women.

'You should pick your battles' in this context seems to mean 'You should fight the same ones as meeeeee'.

Do you think it is ok that Hooters targets families, then?

Why target WH smith and not the newspapers that are printing the topless girls>

to answer your question OP NO I do not think MH snould approach WHSMith to get them to stop selling newspapers with topless women in them.

Doesnt mean I dont belive Girls should be allowed to be Girls.

wh smith is one of many newsagents...come on op,why just them???

i would think they are too big an organisation to listen to a few women off a parenting site anyway

I don't think the OP is seriously wanting to boycott WHS, I think she is using this suggestion to explain why she doesn't support the anti-Hooters campaign.
Which is fair enough, though some of us think there are crucial differences and hence don't agree with her.

Yes, I do think its okay. Have you ever actually been to a Hooters? I have.

All the kids see is a neato Owl Logo with big eyes. They don't understand the other meaning of the place. Its fun. The food is half way decent. Its reasonably priced.

And, no, I do not mean 'you should fight the same ones as meeeeee'. I mean you should fight the ones you believe in and I'll fight the ones I believe in. But I reserve the right to think your fights are pointless and to say so and you reserve the right to think my fights are pointless and to say so.

That's all part of free speech.

Personally I think the 'let girls be girls' campaign should be solely targeting the clothes companies over the inappropriate clothes they sell as well as the parents who buy them rather than page 3 women and Hooters.

Oh, I don't think the BMI battle is pointless, I think it's quite right, but I disagree strongly with your judgement re its relative importance.

But then I am always going to disagree with the judgement of someone who thinks it is ok to eat in (and take their children to!!!) a restaurant where the waitresses have to sign a disclaimer allowing the customers to sexually harass them.

And I'm always going to disagree with someone who, apparently, has never been to Hooters and has no idea what it is really like, harrassment disclaimer or no harrassment disclaimer.

This whole discussion reminds me of people banning books/TV shows/etc that they've never read/seen just because someone else told them it was bad.

Go to Hooters. I double dog dare you.

And I think the BMI issue is more important since it leads to exactly what you claim you are trying to prevent, the objectification and body image issues in and of our children.

And I'd love to continue this pointless debate but I have to go pick up my son from daycare. Bye!

But just real quick, before I go. Google Hooters and Sexual Harassment and see who has won most of the suits. So they have been sued. And they've lost.

So I am not sure where you get your info about the clause in the waitress' contracts.

So the harassment disclaimer doesn't bother you then? No way would I ever go to Hooters and give them my money, for goodness sake .

I have also never slept with a prostitute, visited a battery chicken farm or a factory employing children, taken heroin or viewed child porn. Presumably if you have not done any of the above things either you have no opinion on them. Or do you accept that it is, you know, possible to find out about things through other means, like books, videos or listening to people who do have experience of them?

BMI does not lead to objectification - you're mixing your issues up. It is a problem because it is a measure that does not work mathematically for children and hence is inaccurate.

it's on The Smoking Gun, 2006 employee handbook - link on other thread.

The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the Uk - and presumably WH Smith sell hundreds of thousands of copies. No way are they going to agree to stop stocking it and nor should they.

yabu

Someone somewhere has done something of which I disapprove - will you lot please join me in getting that thing banned?

Thanks,

When we've done that, I'd like to turn to getting each and everyone of you to ask yourselves - what have I done today that will show MN that I myself should not be banned?

I think we all know the answer - not enough.

Am reminded of the painting couple in The Fast Show - "Black! Black!! It needs more Black!!!!".

BAN IT, ALL OF IT, BAN EVERYTHING!!!!

WHS were targetted yeeeeears ago over this, it didn't stop them then. (I worked in their Manchester shop from 1988-1991 and Magenta de Vine used to come in with a camera crew and rip them off the shelves, t'was very exciting)

They are also wholesalers for most of the smaller/independent newsagents so it would just be a non-starter, no matter any valid ethical/moral reasons behind it.

As it happens, I have been to a Hooters, in Singapore. If I am completely honest I didn't even notice anything appropriate about it at the time - in fact, I had to look on the web to check it was the same organisation. It is the same.

If you don't like page 3 or indeed The Sun don't buy that paper. Same goes for The Daily Star, The Daily Sport etc.

Way I see it we live in a democratic society so we can choose what we buy, what we look at what we ogle read. We are very lucky. After all, aren't the Taliban blowing people up in Afghanistan simply so they can not vote?

I don't want my three year old looking at glamour models so I don't tend to allow her to look at their pages.

Don't give a toss what trashy mags shops like W H Smiths sell (bare in mind the supermarkets sell The Sun etc too) it's just boobs at the end of the day. Anything more graphic is usually (quite rightly) displayed where very young eyes can not view it.

So yes short answer YABU.

Eh LeninGrad When did I say that? How did you get that from what I said?

It was an example lol. The Daily Sport and Daily Star have women with their boobs out too, my point was why pick on just The Sun.

I really do not understand why people get their knickers in a twist over page 3 It's just a very pretty girl with her boobs out, blatantly lying about her age.

There are worse things to look at when u go abroad.just be glad they dont sell naked women with legs spread open postcards there was no getting away from them on holiday.I was little aswell

WH Smith refused to sign up to 'let girls be girls', when approache due to teh fact they stock stationary aimed at young girls which shows the Playboy bunny. If that was a no, then they're very unlikely to consider reducing their newspaper/magazine range.