Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: 'The Sun has shown how little respect it has for women'

184 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 22/01/2015 14:45

If you were in any doubt that The Sun hates women, doubt no more. Two days ago it allowed its sister paper, The Times, to run a report claiming Page Three would no longer be a feature of the tabloid. Today it mocked all those who had been taken in by it. While such mockery took the form of a media in-joke ("We would like to apologise on behalf of the print and broadcast journalists who have spent the last two days talking and writing about us") it’s clear that the stunt had another, crueller target: all the women who have been campaigning against Page Three, women who had been permitted to think, for just one moment, that their voices mattered.

It is, of course, a show of power. The Sun giveth respect, The Sun taketh it away. It’s reminiscent of the way in which teenage boys taunt girls to hide their own insecurity. He says he loves you, then three days later he’s laughing with his mates, telling you it was all for a dare. It’s a form of cruelty which can leave you feeling humiliated, as though you are to blame for having dared to believe that someone male could have appreciated your human worth. You know that sexism isn't your fault but it still makes you feel like a loser. In a world in which value is determined by the male gaze, it’s so easy to end up feeling worthless.

One of feminism’s biggest challenges remains persuading downhearted women that even the little things matter, if for no other reason than because we matter. While some things – male violence, rape conviction statistics, female poverty rates – are clear and measurable, other things – those that contribute to the drip-drip effect of dehumanisation – are dismissed as either unimportant or not real sexism, anyway. Page 3 has always been one such thing. I'm old enough to remember Clare Short campaigning against it in the 1980s and my main response then was one of embarrassment. Why didn't this woman give it a rest? They’re only breasts! Didn't she know how silly she was making the rest of us look? It took me 30 years to put her campaign – and my own dismissive attitude towards it – into any broader context. Nevertheless, I'm hopeful that young women today won’t need quite so long.

The schoolboy meanness of The Sun’s latest stunt has not gone unnoticed. Indeed, the misogyny that drives it is striking. The message to women is "you might be more than just objects, but that makes treating you like one all the more fun". We’re used to all the excuses regarding Page 3. It’s just a pretty woman. It’s just naked flesh. Are you jealous? Maybe you’re some prude who doesn't like sex. Anyhow, what about FGM? Shouldn't you be campaigning against that? Until yesterday, there was always that tiny space for doubt. There isn't any more, though. The Sun has made the link between casual objectification and contempt for women absolutely clear. The little things do matter after all.

Ultimately what The Sun did this week helps us to join the dots. It sends a radicalising message to women who may not otherwise have cared about such things. Whereas we might have thought casual misogyny could never bleed from the page into real life, we now know better. In many ways, this knowledge is more valuable that the concession we thought we were being offered two days ago. Perhaps, in the long run, we will find ourselves thanking The Sun.

OP posts:
PetulaGordino · 24/01/2015 18:32

Basil my post was directed to Phaedra and heyday - I totally agree with you.

PetulaGordino · 24/01/2015 19:14
PurdeyBirdie · 24/01/2015 23:23

Who stands to gain when Madonna gets her jugs out? Er...that would be Madonna. Is it just the Kelsey's of this world you would like to see properly attired?

PurdeyBirdie · 24/01/2015 23:23

My phone added that apostrophe.

AskBasil · 24/01/2015 23:55

LOL Petula, I agree with you too.

Grin
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 25/01/2015 00:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 00:15

Really, really not about the boobs. Sorry to disappoint.

Boobs are fabulous things. Attractive, functional, bouncy and fun to play with. What they really aren't, is news.

What the Sn has basically been saying my entire life is Exclusive!!!1!!11!* teenage girls have tits. Every day. Would it be acceptable if they devoted a page to telling their readership that men have dicks, that bears shit in the woods or that dogs lick their own bums every single edition for over 40 years? So why is it acceptable to point out that women have breasts?

It makes no sense.

chucklingbunny · 25/01/2015 10:35

Buffy, I totally agree with you and hope you don't mind but I've shared your view on my (private) FB page as it sums up my thoughts and feelings on this issue so well. I have been angry about this for years and I am furious with the recent stunt. Nothing else to add that hasn't already been pointed out.

MarrogfromMars · 25/01/2015 10:43

I don't think the problem is 'it's not news'. The problem is the message - here are articles about men doing things, here's a woman, look at her BREASTS! And it really has nothing to do with the choices of the models because if no one posed, they'd fill the space with paparazzi snaps of women on topless beaches or something. It's about the editorial decision that men = news, women = decoration.

chucklingbunny · 25/01/2015 10:45

Just told my DH about this his response: "well the women who do it are just as bad" and "you could argue it's the human body." My DH says he is a feminist and loves his daughters to the end of the earth but even he comes out with this conditioned crap! We have a long way to go, sigh. Sad

PurdeyBirdie · 25/01/2015 13:42

Madonna's tits make the news. She's built a career and a half-billion pound fortune on faking masturbation and flashing her nips. But feminists don't bother with her because the exploitative flesh-flasher v empowered businesswoman argument gets too tricky. Best save your feminist bashing for the working class scum who buy The Sun.

As long as young women want fifteen minutes of fame by posing topless we will always have Page 3. Women are caring less and less about who gains from their tits. Social media screams 'Get 'em out!' far louder than the Sun. Have you seen your daughters' selfies lately? Shy lot, these youngsters, aren't they?

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 13:51

What a pile of classist tripe. Purdey.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 14:26

My daughters are 5 and 7 purdey. What are you saying about them?

Are you in the habit of looking at "not shy" images of young girls on the net? I wouldn't know what social media images of girls are like, I don't search them, personally.

Are you one of the men who likes to sit on public transport next to girls and stares at Page 3? Hmmmm?

Just trying to get a handle on what sort of men are SO SO desperate to keep their right to look at Page 3 anywhere, everywhere and in all situations.

PhaedraIsMyName · 25/01/2015 14:32

If I'm being honest I agree with Purdey re Madonna. I don't think of her as an empowering role model. The actual music and voice are mediocre at best.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 14:51

Men do not commonly use images of Madonna to facilitate perving over females on public transport.

That is the difference.

Page 3 is the only form of soft porn that it is acceptable to look at in public. People who are fighting so hard to keep it, presumably it is because of that aspect. After all there is plenty of porn they can look at when in private. So it is the ability to look at it in public that is key here. And people need to ask themselves what sort of men are keen to look at soft porn in public, specifically, and why that might be.

chockbic · 25/01/2015 15:19

The men who look at and enjoy Page 3. Presumably wouldn't have a problem with their daughter partaking?

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 15:24

I'm quite surprised that Murdoch's daughters haven't been featured. After all, it's just a bit of harmless fun, isn't it?

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 15:24

What looking at it?

Should I sit my children on the bus and encourage them to look at Page 3?

Wouldn't people think that was odd, and potentially creepy?

Yet if a strange man does it, by thrusting the picture under her nose and keeping it there for ages while the poor thing doesn't know where to look, that is AOK and something that needs to be fought FOR?

I am coming fast to the conclusion that all of the men who are so desperate to keep this tie in very closely with all of the men who use it to facilitate perving at / upsetting women and children every day.

MyFriendlyDaemon · 25/01/2015 15:40

Sardine slightly off topic but Madonna normalised soft porn as a way of selling music.

I know this is not what the thread is discussing but there are 2 wrongs here.

MyFriendlyDaemon · 25/01/2015 15:44

And Sardine Of course you wouldn't encourage your children to look at Page 3 but are you happy for your children to see the soft porn videos of Madonna et al?

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 15:45

Yes it is off topic.

Madonna has not been used as a means of harassing girls and women in public in the UK for decades.

If people want to talk about Madonna and whether she is / is not "as bad" as Page 3, or whether she is something else again, then a different thread might be better.

This attempt to say but LOOK this other woman has sometimes taken her clothes off too so what about THAT huh? is a derailment and nothing more.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 15:47

My kids are watching Curious George.

HTH.

And why do you say OF COURSE I wouldn't encourage my children to look at Page 3. The argument is that there's no harm in it, and it's perfectly fit to consume in public. So why on earth should children not be encouraged to look at Page 3?

MyFriendlyDaemon · 25/01/2015 16:11

It was not derailment. You seem to assume mentioning it was a way of saying Page 3 isn't that bad. It is and personally I think both Page 3 and Madonna are problematic. I most definitely did not say there was no harm in Page 3.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 16:15

Well OK then Smile

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 16:25

I don't remember anyone saying there was no harm to what Madonna does either, but that seems to have become some sort of cannon.

A separate thread would be the best place to discuss that though, no?