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!

Signed. Twibble I enjoyed your post, interesting viewpoint.

nancy I think thats a little uncalled for! I worked in a ridiculously macho office, I don't work there now and the comments above were about my DHs school. We went to school at different ends of the country??? And no I don't think I need to move in different circles; the vast majority of my friends and family and lovely and not perves. However, it is sad that perves are so common place, I'll give you that

I think fundamentally people can set freedom of speech above all other rights which I think is wrong.

There has to be a limit to peoples rights.

For example, the right to tell the truth and invasion of privacy. What is in the public interest.

Where are the boundaries of freedom of speech? In my view freedom of speech should run until it runs right up to someone's right not to be discriminated against.

In this case no-one is asking to curb freedom of speech they are saying that use of freedom of speech run into the rights of women not to feel discriminated against.

sorry last sentence doesn't make sense

No-one is asking for the publication of page three to be legally banned, the petition is asking for the editor to ask his discretion not to publish topless photo's of young women.

It's simply a protest against what the petitioners see as an offensive use of free speech. In the same way as people are legitimately entitled to demonstrate against political groups expressing far-right views.

No - for all the reasons that have been stated by others. So many people want to ban so many things but all think that they themselves have the right to do want they want.

So why don't we ban great big four-wheel drive cars that are more likely to kill a child if they hit him than a "normal" car is. Or alcohol, (drunkeness and the effect on the family??), or "fashion" magazines with their pics of emaciated teenagers in, or video games or free speech in case someone says something that offends someone else. Can we just deal with it sensibly and not buy the paper?

wowzers! emcwill74

Who defines what is appropriate? it could be a nude photo in the Guardian ( and they do feature nudity from time to time under the guise of art) it could be a religous piece that someone could find offensive or a war hero that has been killed which could be upsetting to some people who have lost relative in similar circumstances. Under your logic we would have to ban all of the things just in case someone happens to inadvertently view it or find it offensive.

yeah you already know my thoughts on the whole objectification argument...

Daddancer - Not quite sure what the 'wowzers' was for! You said yourself that it was wrong of men to 'gawp' at page 3 in front of delightfullyfragrant - I was quoting YOU on that. So given you said that was wrong, but it was OK by you if she saw a flash of it as someone was 'reading' it ('reading page 3?' ho ho ho) I was asking YOU who policed what was a flash and what was a gawp. And if people had reason to gawp and you thought that wrong, then what is making it wrong? And if the reason it is wrong is that it is horribly creepy when a woman has to sit next to a bloke on public transport perving over some tits when she has no choice in the matter (as you yourself suggest, may I add) then that suggests to me there is just reason we just get rid of it rather than saying the man should glance and not gawp, according to some vague criteria that you are unable to confirm who sets.

I have no idea whether all of the other 30,000 would consider your compromise but I know full well the vast majority wouldn't by reading the comments they post on signing which can be seen on the petition page and are also tweeted by @NoMorePage3. It is quite unambiguous that the people signing and leave comments feel exactly as I do!

Am I sure there would be a positive outcome: yes. Am I sure it wouldn't backfire: yes. Quite honestly I don't have a clue what you mean by 'backfire' but I've had some wine and don't give two hoots what you mean and am going to bed. Nighty night.

princesschick

As i've said before in my first post i don't buy into the whole obectification argument one little bit. I see you have started using the word 'appreciate' now that's a bit more accurate term i feel.

Anyway to your questions:
Would you be happy for your daughter's picture to be put on walls across the UK for people to 'appreciate'? I think my Dad, DH and other male relatives would be mortified!!!

Actually you did say you didn't have a problem with people getting their kit off in other media forms, it's in the context of the paper that was your problem so how is this relevent anyway? getting you kit off is getting your kit off, if it's in a magazine, the internet or page 3. My daughters career choice will be entirely up to her when she hits 18. It's not for me to decide.

Anyway, I digress. I don't get how taking page 3 out of a newspaper is infringing on freedom of speech?

i am sure i have answered that one before?

And if I choose to go out topless, or naked, I could be arrested for indecency. How is it that it's ok to put these sorts of pictures in the Newspaper if I can't walk down the road with my breasts out?

I agree women should have equal status to men with going topless in public places, but thinking about it there's only really sunbathing and swimming where blokes go topless these days. work persons have to wear high vis jackets at all times now. The most radical one would be going topless at a public pool. Really what is the point in girls/ women having to wear bikini tops if they have smaller sized breasts and not needing the support? Some blokes moobs can be bigger! they should be free to decide. I suppose when women go topless abroad initially it's bit strange but then it gets normalised very quickly and reckon most blokes get desensitized to it eventually. The alternative would be to make men cover up. What are your views on this?

Can I ask you how you feel about public breast feeding. Merely because I'm interested

I 100% support it, and think its a shame that some blokes have a problem with it. i am used to seeing it when i go to baby clubs and is perfectly natural and no big deal.

I will add that unlike some of the guys who have posted here i am not a big breast fan and although i think they are attractive they don't specifically turn me on. That's probably is another reason why i don't take issue with page 3.

CastielsTrenchcoat and thebeesnees79, thank you for for your kind words.

DadDancer

'I will add that unlike some of the guys who have posted here i am not a big breast fan and although i think they are attractive they don't specifically turn me on. That's probably is another reason why i don't take issue with page 3.'

For those of us to whom breasts are a powerful erotic force, Page 3 does seem positively pornographic.
The point is that we aren't women, we will never fully understand how women feel and if large numbers of them tell society they hate Page 3 then that society should do something to help them. It shouldn't be up to men to dictate what upsets or doesn't upset women.

Having said that, in the erm... 'heyday' of the Sunday Sport, there were only two people who ever brought it into my open plan office, and they were both women in their thirties. When you try and split society along gender-lines, you always end up confused. We are all just people, ultimately.

Shriekingharpy

I think the difference is that those stories you mentioned are news.

I think the offended/morality arguments are sidetracks. The point (as far as I can see) is that women should be portrayed as equals and this constant use of them on p3 undermines any efforts to help value women's intelligence, personality, abilities or diligence.

It's especially relevant to MN because most mothers would not want their daughters and sons to grow up with this skewed view that women can be valued purely on their primary and secondary genitalia.

Women are massively under represented in parliament and the board room though.

Harpy - but the page 3 girl is in the nation's biggest-selling paper giving out the message to a huge readership that women are essentially decorative items whose voices are not worth listening to, so much so that a sub-ed gets to fill in her opinion for so you can further laugh and dismiss her. If that has no impact on how women are viewed and hence treated then why does the media frequently do things like start pieces on actors saying the male actor is a great actor and female one gorgeous? Why when women post on the internet about page 3/feminist issues are they immediately shouted down as jealous/fat/ugly/insecure - insulted as being 'not good enough' to get their tits out on page 3? This is what happens every time - insults that go straight to her appearance, believe me, I speak whereof I know!

DadDancer - I don't want to know your preferred tit size given you don't have any, thanks. The fact that you even feel the need to share this makes me think that were I introduced to you professionally you'd first and foremost cast your eyes over my bosom to see if it's too large/small for your liking. Women are people, like you, not a collection of body parts put on for your viewing pleasure. But you can't possibly understand that when you go to strip clubs.

Oh.... Of course, just like there's no racism or homophobia.

Women are not perceived by equals. It's not as simple an equation as 'see p3 = women are objects'. It's a wider issue about how women are used and portrayed overall.

Of course Mizz didn't have that effect on you, because men are on the whole mostly portrayed as leaders and power-brokers. However, mainstream advertising tends to portray men as hapless fools, useless at cleaning, cooking, living, leading many women to treat them as such, which does nothing to help equality either. Many intelligent men I know get pretty irritated by this and they are quite entitled to.

harpy
women are not equal in the work place including pay!

justoneofmanyarticlesonthegendergap

I totally disagree Harpy. "47% of all FTSE 250 companies continuing to have all-male boards."