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!

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.

^ This.

I just don't like the fact it can be left open and on display in a workplace because it's a "newspaper".

Harpy...its well known, observable fact that many women seek a fine balance between work and family life. This is rarely compatible with many high-powered, white collar roles hence the absence of women in the boards..

It's also well known that this is not the only reason there are no women at all in 47% of FTSE company boards.

Maybe the boards need to change then.

emcwill74
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.

I was supposed to say ' i am not a big fan of breasts' but termed it as 'not a big breast fan' I wasn't talking about breast size just making the point that breasts aren't a big deal to me as Princesschick had asked me some questions. Would have thought in the context of what i wrote that was obvious.

that aside i am appalled with your response if i had have meant breast size. Who are you to tell me what i can and can't say. Didn't realise you were a forum moderator? Think you have shown your true colours now. So aside from being against page 3 you are also against freedom of speach and expression. Love the way you created your own little story about how i'd react in a given situtation. But i suppose you probably didn't like the fact that i supported some feminst issues like breast feeding in public. This didn't compute with your man hating agenda so you thought you'd have a go at trying to belittle me. Nice try

blonderthanred
Maybe the boards need to change then.

Nah it would be too obvious for them to challenge something like that. Far more easy to target something like page 3, where they can have fun belittling sun readers and the models.

'Man-hating agenda'?! Despite the fact that I'm married and have easily as many male friends as female, if not more. But yeah I obviously really hate all those people I'm really fond of. Definitely. And breast feeding in public is a 'feminist issue' is it? Funny, I thought it was just something that any sane person supported.

I'm so sorry I misunderstood your statement 'i am not a big breast fan and although i think they are attractive they don't specifically turn me on'. Clearly that was entirely my fault. Actually, FYI, no it wasn't 'obvious' that breasts, as opposed to big breasts, aren't a big deal to you in that comment.

But really, whatever. Since none of this has anything to do with the OP's AIBU question anyway.

And can you tell me where I have belittled the models? I think you'l find it is the Sun who belittles its models, in News in Briefs.

thanks for your reply Twibble, according to some of the logic on here from the p3 objectors you aren't supposed to be turned on by a single body parts because its objectifying and reducing persons to pieces of meat and not thinking of them as being real people.
Also i get turned on by legs, does that mean that all women should have to wear trousers, in case i deem them as being pornographic?

I also don't think that 30,000 plus objectors is a sufficient number to dictate what the 3 million sun readers should see in their paper.

Yeah twibble, because women wearing trousers is EXACTLY the same thing as a women not showing her breasts in a newspaper, right? As I'm sure you'll agree.

If 'the readers' do actually read the Sun (i prefere the tirle of Scum), why do they need topless women in it?

Tonight , I changed a male someone's mind about this! Mentioned the petition, he started with the 'don't like it don't buy it' argument. I gave him, v calmly, the arguments against - and he changed his opinion and signed!!

Yay! (it was my darling brother). :)

I think it's possible to challenge the way that boards are run and made up while still wanting to see an end to page 3. And no, not because I don't want anyone to be turned on. Because a society that constantly shows that it values women firstly on appearance and body parts will never achieve equality.

I find it odd how many men and women who are anti-racism, anti-homophobia want to deny that sexism is a problem and refuse to accept any other argument or the experiences and views of others.

'Yeah, Twibble, because women wearing trousers is EXACTLY the same thing as a women not showing her breasts in a newspaper, right? As I'm sure you'll agree. '

Oooh, that makes it look like it was me who made that comparison. I didn't, just to clarify.

I assume ecm was just mentioning me in the context of DadDancer's post (though I might just be being a bit thick, which is always an explanation to be seriously considered.)

DadDancer - I can't find anyone saying that people shouldn't be turned on by a single body part, though there are so many posts in this thread I may have missed it.

People are turned on by what they are turned on by. It is a matter of context and behaviour. If you are always well-mannered and never make anyone uncomfortable that's fine. If you leer openly, mock those with less than perfect legs, or run a national newspaper and print a daily photo of a pair of legs inbetween news items, that is bad manners because you are allowing your personal sexual tastes to make others feel uncomfortable and even degrade society as a whole. If you have manners, you will never make anyone else feel uncomfortable without very good cause.

It's like flirting. You know good flirting because it makes the other person feel good. If what you say or do is causing discomfort in the other person, you must stop immediately. Page 3 makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable, so it should be stopped or at least marginalised by being top-shelved.

I'm also aware that as a male poster on a female-dominated board talking about female bodies I may also be causing discomfort or irritation, so I'll post no more unless specifically asked a question

That's the way I see it, anyway. But I'm possibly blathering nonsense.

I signed a week or so ago. I'm really pleased to see it growing so fast.

The whole freedom of speech thing is a pile of hooey. If a pair of breasts are free speech then why not a fanjo on p3? Why not a black person of the day? A gay person of the day? A disabled person of the day? Aren't these things also 'free speech'? The whole freedom of speech argument, used to defend p3, is frankly insulting to those who genuinely do not have the political freedom to speak their minds.

If a pair of breasts are free speech, what exactly are they saying?

emc, princess and others for your excellent posts, you must be exhausted!

also to twibble for this: 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.

Thank you PlentyOf! I agree with all you say about free speech - I too am not anti-free speech, but I am anti the promotion of harmful stereotypes. Freedom is not worth defending for freedom's sake when it encroaches too far on others' freedoms or causes harm.

And yes Twibble I didn't mean to imply you had made that point at all, but as you say, mentioned you in the context of DadDancer's post, knowing you were far too sensible to concur!

And well done Sabrina! A male friend of mine is very anti-censorship and pro-porn and wasn't on board, but after reading a blog I RTed (not by me!) on Twitter (that I linked to earlier in the thread a few times) he said he agreed with everything it said and signed.

I got flowers!

Thank you, Plentyof, I'm touched.

Exactly. Well said.

Signed it, shared it, talking about it to anyone who will listen. All points pretty much been covered. Got told it will never change by my lovely bf!! Why the bloody hell can't and won't it is what I said! Lets do this.

the petition still seems to be pretty underwhelming considering the publicity it's received. Mentioned on at least two TV shows that i know of and several radio shows and yet only 3,000 seem to have signed in last five days or so.

Nancy it seems like MN now has a "Petition of the Week" thing going on pretty much.

It's "petition-ennui"

Plus the fact that I don't actually agree with it, but hey-ho.

What is next week's hobby horse target going to be?

Nancy your figures aren't quite right. I'm pretty certain it was about about 27k Friday morning and is currently near 32k. It's still going up around 2k a day every day. One day last week there were 5k in one day.