Why ban page 3?

[jackburton]

Hi, this is my first post, please be gentle :) . I'm looking for some thoughtful discussion on page 3 and the objectification of women, my wife suggested posting here. Any recommendations for good articles or feedback would be great.

My main issue with a lot of the traditional discussion on this issue is that there seems to be an implicit assumption of passivity and conformity in women that I can't really relate to as a man (or feel is present in many of the women in my life). I don't particularly worry about my son seeing body building or gay lifestyle magazines or other fetishised representations of men because I see them as part of a range of different types of lifestyle that he could adopt. I would think it quite alien that the occasional image of men in this way would significantly affect me (or him). In contrast, advertising and lifestyle magazines aimed at women seem to impose a very disturbing level of conformity and one that I feel would not be acceptable to most men. Frankly a lot of female targeted products seem to objectify (in the sense of judging purely by appearance) and be misogynist (in the sense of appearing to gain pleasure from and dwelling on the humiliation of women, particularly if their superficial appearance is non-conformist). In contrast most pornographic products aimed at men include a great diversity of female personality types, some are passive but many are not, Jordan being a classic example. They aren't treated as objects in the sense that their desire is critical to their appeal, sex dolls are relatively undesirable. While there is certainly some pornography and lifestyle discussions that appear to encourage pleasure in the suffering of women I feel this is in the minority with most magazines presenting their female models as stars who are the centre of attention and whose happiness and desire is an important part of their appeal.

My initial feelings about the campaign against page 3 is that these images are being judged assuming they were present in the kind of magazine targeted at women i.e. they are a conforming image and that they would lead to humiliation of those that didn't conform. I think the majority of male culture is not oppressive in that way. Personally I find mainstream female culture to be much more of a problem for women's liberation than these products. What am I missing?

Tabby yes that's the thing isn't it. It makes females - especially pubescent girls and teenagers - feel uncomfortable. It's all a bit sad really isn't it, somehow. That society doesn't really give a monkeys about that.

Yep I'm wondering about teenage girls civil liberties? Aren't they being denied? Why does a man's civil liberties trump teenage girls or women?

From Wiki:

"Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights.
Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life.
Other civil liberties may also include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, there are distinctions between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights."

Can't see anything about page 3 there.

The bodily integrity thing is interesting though.

The right to equal treatment is also interesting.

Maybe people who are interested in "maximum" civil liberties are less interested with all of the things on that list, and generally focussed on looking at the naked breasts of young women in socially unsuitable situations.

I would be interested to hear what lib had to say about the abortion laws in NI.

Assuming he's a UK -centric sort of civil liberties person.

Globally there is much to fight for, as we are all well aware.

Objectification isn't a radical feminist theory and it isn't nonsense. It isn't about men's 'arousal', it is about how women are viewed - as the sex class. This can range from the narrowed down view of 'attractive' women Page 3 has to offer or the continual stream of passing comments about how a woman looks instead of what she does all the way up to sexual assaults and rape.

but how do you know exactly what people think when they see an image of a topless woman? How do you know they consider her/ him as a mere sex object? I think most people look at them as attractive models, but still appreciate that they are a real people at the end of the day. The objectification theory assumes the worst of people, the shallowest of thoughts, the lowest common denominator. It's just an assumption at the end of the day there's really no escaping that and it's certainly not a fair assumption to make.

scallops don't be bloody silly. Of course men's civil liberties trump women and girl's civil liberties.

nice The bit about the liberty to ogle naked breasts in socially unsuitable situations is in the small print, under the bit about bodily integrity.

But your assumptions lib are completely fair and justified how?

Show me evidence that 'most people look at them as attractive models' that '(most people)... still appreciate that they are real people at the end of the day'.

I don't need to know exactly what they think when they see a topless girl. I know how women are treated in the media and in everyday life. I see and experience how it is to be a woman and valued for my looks and attractiveness to the opposite sex rather than what I do. I know what it is like to harassed on the street. I know what it is like to be sexually assaulted.

Page 3 on its own doesn't cause all this. But the fact that it is in place at all, that to some people it makes sense to have topless women in a newspaper is a symptom of a society that places women as the sex class. Their worth is tied up in their attractiveness to men. And what is designated as attractive is narrowly defined.

I don't want to stop anyone's civil liberties. I just want to live in a society where Page 3 makes no sense.

Plus the presence of page 3 in socially inappropriate situations serves to remind females who are nearby of their position in society as the sex class. Which is part of the reason that pubescent girls and teenage girls feel particularly uncomfortable when they are around it.

At that age you are trying to gets to grips with your burgeoning sexuality and how all of that stuff works, and to be reminded publicly and graphically of what your place is, is confusing and discomfiting.

Absolutely NiceTabard. I think adult women can still feel uncomfortable too but they probably have the tools to be able to turn it round on to the man's behaviour rather than inwards on themselves as teenage girls can.

Also have learnt better to ignore.

The amount of things I ignore. I nearly got hit by a car a few years back as I never ever ever react to a car tooting any more, and haven't done since I was about 18. You learn this stuff.

Where I work, I have seen women put up pictures of popular actors and pop stars. Is that justifyable and acceptable?

Yep I'm wondering about teenage girls civil liberties? Aren't they being denied? Why does a man's civil liberties trump teenage girls or women?

but they are not being denied by page 3, they are being denied by the 'weirdo man' doing the intimidating who is the one who should be being addressed . It's like saying we should ban cars because some people drive like idiots and kill people and me saying that the majority should not be denied the liberty of driving. Then you come back and say well what about the civil liberties of the people who got killed?
But the sensible solution is obviously to educate the bad drivers not ban cars.

and don't forget the civil liberties of the models themselves, are you happy telling other women what they can and can't do with their bodies? or that they must cover up for the good of the sisterhood. Do you even consider the models as equals? I do wonder

You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.

You have said a lot of things that are bizarre. This business about "weirdo man". Did you even read the responses about that upthread? About how assuming that men who break social rules &/or the law surrounding sexual conduct must be "weirdos", "creepy old men". These are rape myths. You need to read the MN guide to rape myths and educate yourself a bit.

Please can you list what you are campaigning for in terms of "maximum civil liberties" with reference to the wiki link upthread re civil liberties. Thank you.

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

The mere existence of page 3 in a daily newspaper is what objectifies women's bodies in everyday life - not the only thing, but one of the more accessible ones. You can't argue that one groups in society is able to objectify another because of civil liberties - it's a fundamentally flawed argument.

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

I am not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. If they want to get naked and pose for photographs I am not stopping them. Their civil liberties are not affected.

But this isn't about the models behaviour it is about men's behaviour. Educate you say? Well that is what the No More Page 3 campaign is trying to do. It is difficult to educate people when the messages from society are telling them it is perfectly OK to view women as the sex class.

And regards the weirdo man thing. The men who shout out us from a van as we are walking along aren't weird. They probably have girlfriends maybe even daughters. They are probably viewed as "one of the lads". It's what boys do innit.

It is creepy to us on the receiving end but 90% of the time they are viewed as normal. Michael LeVell springs to mind. He had a whole host of supporters saying what a thoroughly nice chap he was yet he was telling pre-pubescent girls that they would die if they told anyone what he was doing to them.

Male entertainment... not conformist?? Really?

'Sharon Osbourne shimmers into London's Groucho Club looking a million dollars. Or rather, three million dollars, which is what she later tells me her sensational new look costs at the plastic surgery clinic she frequents in Los Angeles.' Piers Morgan in GQ

'Think back to how she looked bending over that 1976 Chevrolet Camaro in the first Transformers movie ? her otherworldly hotness seemed no more plausible than giant space-robots who could turn into trucks and fighter jets.' FHM on Megan Fox

etc etc

As for the 'emphasised difference' theory, I don't think that washes - sounds very Apewatching. Men in mainstream pornography seem to be increasingly hairless, for example. The point of hairlessness (beyond that it's a change from the past and novelty is exciting) IMO is that the genitals are more visible, and seeing genitals is the USP of pornography, just as the chance to see pert young tits with a sunny 'no issues' smile for 20p whenever you feel like it is the USP of Page 3. And if the page 3 girls are happy to do it (oh and they do look SO happy) why is any other woman remotely bothered at having their breasts appraised sexually, by anyone, at any time? I have heard men remember with emotion how humiliating it felt to have an unwanted visible erection somewhere inconvenient. Imagine having effectively two visible erections on your chest at all times, because just having breasts has been made to = sexually available, by things like page 3.

^You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.^

Actually i did read them but considering there was a barrage of posts from 6 or 7 different posters, there's no way i was going to reply to them all. I would have been up all night! I notice this safety in numbers tactic quite a lot on these forums, it's like 'lets all pile in and overwhelm the opposition, that'll break them down.' That's really no way to have an sensible and honest debate.

Also i think the ins and outs of libertarianism is a thread of it's own for the politics sub forum, and you asking my views on abortion laws in NI, well that was just a blatant derailment attempt.

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

what function does anything serve? What's the point of anything? We could use this argument about everything, just because you don't see it as significant or important or agree with it, doesn't mean it's not relevant or to be liked by other people.
And you totally missed the point of the analogy, which was to demonstrate the principle of civil liberties. Not that cars are more important than page 3.

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

But you say i don't give a toss about the models but then i am not the one who is advocating for them to lose their jobs, i am not the one who isn't even involving them in the debate. Have Object and UK Feminista actually gone and asked them for their views? Nope!

Also how would you feel if you were a model who was proud to appear in page 3 or on the front cover of a magazine. Then next thing a minority of other women and moral/ religious bigots start campaigning not only that your page 3 photos should be ditched but also your magazine cover to be put in a modesty bag or for the magazine to be banned altogether from sale. Then they proceed in telling you that you must be a victim of abuse, coerced, have self esteem issues and that you couldn't possibly have chosen that profession because you enjoy it. Now that's the real objectification as you are denying them agency.