Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

466 replies

UnrequitedSkink · 17/09/2012 21:18

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!

OP posts:
emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 19:47

voddie - How you and your partner conduct your relationship is absolutely a personal matter and not one that interests me. In the broader world there is no reason that women should not be men's equals. When we have a newspaper that puts a pic of a woman with her tits out on page 3 everyday but never has a man there, we are not equal. When a male athlete is called 'an athlete' but a female one is called 'a female athlete' we are not equal. When a woman wins a gold medal at the Olympics but the Sun reserves its largest photo of a woman in its paper for another woman one with her top off, but never treats male athletes thus, we are not equal. When the Star invites readers to rate the 'female athletes' (but not male ones) on their attractiveness we are not equal. When women suffer sexual violence and harassment we are not equal. When I am told on internet sites by men who don't know what I look like that I am fat/ugly/jealous/insecure because I express an opinion that is anti-page 3, and thus insulted as to what my body looks like in a way men never are we are not equal. So no, we still have page 3, we have not in any way 'moved on'. We are stuck in 1970.

And it isn't just women making a fuss, plenty of men have signed that petition. But of course no one will accuse them of being 'hysterical feminists'. It must be nice to be a man and be able to express an opinion without being called nagging/hysterical/banging on/a nut job etc.

emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 19:48

Nancy - because it's terrible PR.

Original poster
UnrequitedSkink · 18/09/2012 19:49

Maybe he could take the enlightened view that more women might buy the paper if page 3 wasn't in it? We have money of our own to spend these days you know.

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 18/09/2012 19:51

It's a tough call for the editor all right. Does he

a) change his hugely successful product for 10,000 or so leftie types who wouldn't dream of wiping their arses on it in a million years

or

b) consider the views of the three million or so who DO buy it.

Hmmmmm. tricky.

ladygoldenlion · 18/09/2012 19:51

If you don't like it, don't buy the paper or look at it online.

YABU

cornflower123 · 18/09/2012 19:58

Signed.

They would also sell a lot more copies if there was no page 3- hopefully appealing to good business sense.

emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 19:59

Nancy - why assume all the people who buy the Sun do so for Page 3? It seems quite possible to me that most buy it for its pretence at journalism and trotting out tory policy to people who can't read long words. Not all of them will necessarily miss page 3. Also, so far there have been around 22,000 sigs and shows no sign of slowing. Not 10,000.

lady - oh not the 'don't like it, don't buy it' argument again! It has been explained so many times now as to why it is far from the point, but herewith the summary again as to why this doesn't work (not written by me, just a good summary): slaveofthepassions.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/no-more-page-3/.

Original poster
UnrequitedSkink · 18/09/2012 20:00

Oh FFS, how many times, I DON'T buy the sodding paper, it's not about whether I look at it, it's about the fact that The Sun printing page 3 normalises the objectification of women EVERY SINGLE DAY in a publication that purports itself to be a family paper.

It's about the fact that this paper's largest single image of women throughout the Olympics was their page 3 model.

It's about the fact that it's archaic and, as someone else has said, frankly creepy.

21,000 people (loads of men too) have signed the petition since it opened, 10,000 of them in the last 24 hours.

OP posts:
Original poster
UnrequitedSkink · 18/09/2012 20:01

emcwill - "trotting out tory policy to people who can't read long words." Grin

OP posts:
notanaxemurderer · 18/09/2012 20:03

I can't believe the people saying 'if you don't like it, don't look at it'.

Do you feel this way about all issues? Poverty? War? And I doubt anyone who has signed the petition actually DOES look at page 3! It's about its significance on wider society, not actually about being offended by a pair of breasts.

Flisspaps · 18/09/2012 20:04

From what I can see, the only difference between Page 3 and what most people deem as porn is a pair of knickers.

I have no problem with porn, but given that so many women on MN do, I am surprised that on this thread there are so many voices saying Page 3 is fine, it's a choice these women make etc yet on a thread where the OP is concerned that her DP is looking at porn, the general consensus is that it's evil, women are being exploited and that anyone who looks at it should be ashamed and educated about the horrors of the porn industry.

How is a girl (and they're barely more than girls) standing with her top off in The Sun so much better than a girl (and quite possibly the same girl) posing with her knickers off in Escort?

Nancy66 · 18/09/2012 20:05

I don't assume they buy it for page 3 - but some will and the editor is going to be more inclined to keep them happy than you lot isn't he?

emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 20:08

Nancy - well I guess time will tell. I actually think there is a very high chance of this succeeding. And if not, anyone signing has wasted a whole minute of their life. So what? Hardly a reason not to sign!

cornflower123 · 18/09/2012 20:09

Well I'd be more likely to buy it/read it if it didn't have the bare boobs in. I know a lot of men think the same.

catwoo · 18/09/2012 20:11

yabu the arguments on this page have more holds than a hold course

catwoo · 18/09/2012 20:12

holes than a golf course . Silly phone

emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 20:16

...as you plan to elucidate, presumably...

LynetteScavo · 18/09/2012 20:18

I'm not sure how this would be enforced?

Would it mean the end to all pictures of naked breasts in all newspapers? What about a picture of a a woman breast feeding, showing some nipple in a broadsheet? Would that still be allowed? Would fashion pages be allowed to show models wearing see through tops?

I'm not sure how P3 can be banned. If someone can explain how it can be banned, without all boobs being censored then I'll happily sign. Otherwise I'll continue to show my distaste by not purchasing the Sun.

emcwill74 · 18/09/2012 20:21

Lynette - it's not about a 'ban'. It's asking Mohan to stop putting a woman with her tits out who bears no relation to any news story on page 3 of the Sun. (If he moves it to another page that doesn't cut it.) It is a very narrow focus. We used not to have page 3 (pre-1970), now we do. We are asking to go back to not doing. No boob censorship.

Look forward to you signing Smile.

MirandaGoshawk · 18/09/2012 20:29

Signed.
Page 3 has always made me feel uneasy.

FreudiansGoldSlipper · 18/09/2012 20:36

done

passed on to friends who i know will sign it

CakeBump · 18/09/2012 20:37

Well it's not the tits that stops me buying the Sun - it's a rag.

Although I don't really care that there are naked girls on page 3 because I don't read it, no-one I know reads it and my children won't ever see it. Meh.

Kasbaah · 18/09/2012 20:38

Signed, with a sigh. What a huge waste of effort that really should be directed elsewhere. Not that I disagree with the campaign, just it needs to get sorted. Are we doing something wrong that its still here?

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 18/09/2012 20:51

75,000 signed the petition for a debate for more midwives in the UK. In six months.

21,000 signed this petition in a couple of days.

Just goes to show the power of tits...

Now what does that say about this country?

ConstantCraving · 18/09/2012 20:55

Signed.