To ask you all to sign the "No More Page 3" petition?

[UnrequitedSkink]

It's a bit of a no-brainer really. How are we ever supposed to show our kids that women are more than just sex objects when Page 3 exists? It's archaic and totally unnecessary. It's also an anachronism and offensive. Please sign if you believe that pictures of topless girls don't belong in a so-called family newspaper.

More info here and a facebook page here

Fantastically, the petition has gone from 2,000 signatures yesterday morning to over 16,000 today!

Unfortunately, the real world calls - but I will return later on and hopefully pick this up again.

I am neither pro-page 3, pro-Sun, anti-feminist, anti-prude or the devil incarnate - I just take exception to people imposing their likes and dislikes upon the rest of us, whatever likes or dislikes they happen to be. Whilst there remains no compulsion to read a paper with or without a page 3, I see no reason to get too worked up about this.

So what if some men see women as sex objects, there are many who treat people from different races appallingly too. It's human nature and, fortunately, we have a word that describes them - they are 'arseholes'.

Unfortunately, I must dash - will be back later on.

Dana do you have your own bank account? Do you value the vote? Do you want to choose to have a career? Or do you live your life as the possession of a man, doing what he tells you and being his property? If not, then you are a feminist! Feminism comes in all different forms. I'm sure you like to be treated equally to men and with respect. I don't hate men, I just want to be treated the same as men.

Oh and I'm all about choice. Women can take their clothes off for money if they want. That's not the point. But then it's been said so many times on this thread already.

:)

threeOranges - but where is my choice in all this? My choice to live in a world where I am respected as a man's equal, not judged on my appearance? To live in a world in which the national press doesn't serve up my gender as solely for the entertainment of the other in this one-sided way? No one is trying to take any choice away from the models to do this. We are requesting (not banning!) that it is not in a newspaper. That is all. There are plenty more topless modelling contracts.

MrJudgeyPants - we have a word for people who treat people of other races appallingly too: racists. We don't devote most of a page in a national newspaper to promoting racism. I do see a reason to get worked up about this so I guess we differ.

I won't be signing.

I would sign a petition to the Big Four supermarkets asking them to put The Sun, Star, etc. out of reach of kids, on the same shelf as Nuts and the like.

It would be far more effective, methinks. The supermarkets have far more reason to listen to women than the editor of The Sun, whose audience is surely mostly male.

If it worked, I suspect it would so affect the bottom line that Rupert Murdoch would have a word with Mohan and page 3 would be no more.

Except on the internet, of course. But then again, the OP isn't worried about that.

The only petitions I sign are for animals. They can't speak for themselves

gilbertta - I'd very gladly sign that petition in addition to this one! As would my husband. Drives him mad when he goes to buy petrol and has some woman's crotch staring out of the Sport/Star at him on his way to pay! It's terrible they're sold at toddler height!

Have you signed for the badgers GoldShip - I have!

delightfullyfragrant i take your point about 'passive' reading of the sun but surely that's more a question of etiquette for the blokes concerned rather than the literature they were reading?
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with a paper that featured naked blokes as you suggest. Like i said before there shouldn't be a rule book on what a newspaper should contain.

emcwill74 by putting the Sun on the top shelf wouldn't you be turning it into the forbidden fruit and hence would give it more attention and mystic?

DadDancer - what like Loaded and FHM? Are they 'mystic'?

Actually can you replace the above with Nuts and Zoo. I am behind the times. But yeah - Nuts and Zoo: super mystic.

And just worked out what you meant about 'passive' 'reading' [ahem] (good phrase!) so wanted to say, but that is part of the whole point of this campaign - why those in favour are objecting to page 3 because it is in a newspaper! Any other mag featuring porn (and I know you will say this is not porn, we've had this argument on another thread and my belief is that it is, just very tame by today's standards) isn't normally read in public. There is no similar 'etiquette' about page 3, however because it's in a newspaper. A best-selling one. People read papers on trains. In front of people who don;t want to see it for whatever reason, be it body issues, having kids in tow etc. There was a thread on page 3 on here yonks ago where a group of dads were poring over page 3 in a school playground FFS!

And as to your second point: you personally might not have a problem with that scenario, but a lot of blokes would. And therefore it's not one you would EVER come across in a newspaper. Because page 3 is grossly sexist and unbalanced.

I am due my third baby in the next few weeks & take pride in the fact that my 5 & 3 year old know my boobs will provide milk for their new sibling. that is after all the primary function of a woman's beasts. although page 3 & nuts/loaded would have you think otherwise

Done and liked on fb. Thanks OP.

Signed.

Done, and respect to you for doing this - you can't buy class :)

YANBU - done

Right - back again. I'd just like to pick up a few points.

princesschick "Do you think it would be ok to put porn on mainstream day time telly?"

Nope - I agree this would be inappropriate but our society has laws in place to prevent this from happening and plenty of scope to circumvent this via the internet. We also have plenty of porn channels available on a subscription basis - to my knowledge, none of these runs throughout the day. I don't know if it is legislation or their business case which guides these channels but I don't see a huge public clamour for 24 hour pornography in any case.

"I just don't like ... sexy pictures to be deemed appropriate for a family newspaper."

And I disagree that the Sun is a family newspaper. It may give away toys (someone mentioned Lego) for kids but if Razzle gave away a toy (for children - keep it clean!) that wouldn't make it a family magazine.

"Come on we all know it's sleazy and undermines women! ... That's not be judgy, that's exercising common sense!"

No it isn't - that is expressing an opinion.

emcwill74 you argue that your opposition to page 3 is not about taking offence to it but is about the wider effect on society. If you aren't taking offence at it, what is the point of opposing it?

"'elite'? What on earth do you mean?"

You are placing yourself in opposition to page 3 without incorporating the views of its supporters. You seek to nullify their argument without engaging with them (For the record, I am neither for nor against page 3 and am vehemently anti-Sun - I'm a Liverpool FC fan - but I am very much against a self appointed group seeking to ban something widely accepted and totally legal that it finds distasteful when there is no compulsion to purchase). What about the models? Does their view count? You seek to make them unemployed but what if they take the view that they are able to earn good money by preying on man?s base desire to see boobs. Who's exploiting who?

?but where is my choice in all this?? This harks back to my earlier point that your right to take offence should never be allowed to trump someone else?s right to cause offence. The freedom of speech and expression is the freedom from which all of our other freedoms must flow from. Once that gets taken away (and there?s a whole essay in me about how this is happening in Britain right now) the game?s up and we are ruled by a tyranny.

bemybebe & Dana1981 Spot on. That is the way it should be. We can disagree with whatever each of us says but we must defend the right to say it.

gilbertta is right when they say that the supermarkets hold the key to how newspapers are distributed and would be more likely to be reactive to your cause than the newspapers proprietors.

Finally, I?d like to add that in my opinion, page 3 is a minor contributor to young women having low self worth. Having chanced a look through the magazines that Mrs. Pants has been known to buy on occasion ? Closer and Heat ? these supposedly women?s magazines did more to reinforce the concept of the perfect female form far more than page 3 ever does. In one magazine, I forget which, I was appalled to see that there was a page devoted to close up images, captured by paparazzi with their powerful lenses, of various celebrities where every blemish, wrinkle and imperfection had been highlighted, discussed and condemned. It seemed like an unhealthy voyeurism for an unobtainable aesthetic ? at least, by contrast, page 3 doesn?t judge or condemn.

Hi princesschick thanks for your lengthy reply, you certainly got me sussed as i do indeed regard myself as a libertarian and i am totally against any form of censorship. Also a lot of people describe me as being a metrosexual or an indy boy. Maybe not the Peter Stringfellow image that some people may have conjured up of me!

I have to agree that your work place does sound pretty horrendous and something from the dark ages. I can't say i ever witnessed that kind of sexism in any of the places i've worked, including both the private and public sector in my current position. Although i do sympathise with your situation i don't think it is fair to use page 3 as a scapegoat. I also don't think it is fair to blame page 3 girls, lap dancers etc for the downfall of womenkind. I don't buy into this whole womens club that somehow if a girl takes her top off for page 3 then she tarnishes the reputation of all other women or that it sets the precedence for what men should expect all women to do. I think people desreve more credit than what you are giving them.

I think as MrJudgeyPants say's in his brilliant post below it is pretty sad that some parents are worried about their sons and daughters seeing a few breasts in a paper and that they will be scarred for life. I would add that i think topless nudity is perfectly acceptable for anytime viewing on tv as per most other european countries.

"So what if some men see women as sex objects, there are many who treat people from different races appallingly too. It's human nature and, fortunately, we have a word that describes them - they are 'arseholes'."

That is an accurate word yes, but does that mean that you wouldn't try and discourage them from being arseholes? Would you in fact allow them a space in which being an arsehole was both allowed and encouraged?

I've signed this petition, though I fear it wont achieve much :(
The problem is the people who dislike Page 3 don't buy the Sun anyway.
The people who do like it, do buy it.
The Sun doesn't care about the people who don't buy it, they'd only care if their sales dropped. Somehow you'd have to change the attitude of their whole demographic - which would be great, but I've no idea how you'd manage it. It's a catch 22.

• In order to change the attitude of the demographic you'd have to change what the think, best way to change what they think is for the paper to be anti Page 3.
• In order to get the paper to be anti Page 3 you'd need the demographic to change their attitude.

great posts MrJudgeyPants
With regards to the free lego i get it for myself not the kids!

Empusa my point was that there are nob-heads spouting nonsense everywhere you look and that you can't silence them all. I think it's much better to get these ideas out in the open where they can be seen for what they are, challenged, ridiculed and then given a damned good ignoring than it is to bottle up any dissent from the majority view. Disappearing off on a tangent here but Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time was the high water mark for the BNP. Once the myth had been shattered and he was seen as just another politician without a clue - albeit one with odious views - their collapse into infighting and irrelevance has been a joy to watch.

Occasionally, and it doesn't happen very often, that lone voice can be right and we are collectively better off for it. So yes, I would allow them space but no, I wouldn't encourage them.

DadDancer Technics is the best - can't wait for my little one to be old enough but I still couldn't buy the Sun.

Curiously enough, much of Liverpool still maintains an embargo on the Sun dating from negative headlines made in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. Whilst many scousers would seek to ban the newspaper outright, I disagree believing that the boycott has sent a more dignified message to the world than a clamour for a ban. Scousers could buy the Sun but chose not to.

I don't agree that all men that buy the sun like p3. I worked with a man that bought the sun for it's sports coverage and would never ever read pages 2 & 3 - would just turn them over together and never even look at them because he hated the images.

Someone says p3 doesn't 'condemn' anyone - well it does - it condemns me, a woman, owner of a very fine pair of breasts, to being ogled and reduced to just a pair of breasts. That's not on. overtly sexual imagery in a 'newspaper' - and that is what the
Sun purports to be- does that. Women should not be sex objects. Morals don't come into it - women are just asking not to be considered sex objects alongside the daily news.

I well remember the discomfort of men bringing the sun into my first ever workplace as a young girl - and I wish my daughter to not have to go through the same.

That's why I signed the petition- which isn't asking for censoreship, but for reconsideration of p3.

Meant to add, I'm heartened by the number of men joining the petition. :)

Im pretty sure that its not the readers of Closer and Heat who shout nasty comments about my figure on the odd occasion when ive walked past a pub.