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?

I never considered Samantha Fox the perfect woman. In fact I do recall quite a few people making play of the fact she's very short with a dumpy body. I seem to recall a conversation at school where quite a few of the girls considered her grotesque and hideous. I also recall Linda Lursardi having a woman scream "God you are ugly" in her face. The very idea of a "perfect" human fills me with horror , reminding me of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi gas chambers. Since you mentioned men oling Page 3 on The Tube, I notice that on The Tube there is a plethora of images of women in lingerie, swimware, women dressed in hot pants, mini skirts , basques and crop tops. I wonder if children ask their parents disconcerting questions about those images? The irony of feminism and women going out to work is that instead of liberating them it has turned them into consumers. Instead of women being objectified we should become more concerned about women being commodified, the female body has become a commodity for the consumption of more goods and services so as to consume a "perfect image". There are plenty of ads on The Tube for cosmertic surgery as well. What you mentioned Sabrina goes far beyond Page 3 for it to be blamed for it.

Yes, the female form has been commodified. That's part of the same deal as objectification by the way, and has fuck all to do with women "going out to work"

By the way, you do know that, throughout history, the majority of women have always worked, whether in the fields with babies strapped to them or whatever.

It's like ged is having a different conversation to the rest of us.

However - I call Godwin's.

Beat me to it Sabrina

ged You sound like a very confused individual who seems completely incapable of rational interaction and debate. I struggle to understand your ramblings and to say you make little sense, let alone a reasonable argument, is an understatement.

That's not a personal attack, just an observation.

Libertarian While your opinions are easier to understand, they are still inconsistent and offensive. Freedom of speech and expression does not equal freedom to objectify and exploit young slim white large bosomed women

You are from the same stable of people who used to find it completely acceptable and sensible to declare homosexuals as abominations and people of colour as inferior. No, I'm not saying you are racist or homophobic but I am saying you are sexist and I can't wait for the day when that is looked upon with as much scorn as racism and homophobia.

Obvious, when you have a job , you have money to spend. The peddlers of the "perfect image" want you to spend it on their wares. Probably explains why so many young women want to be models today, being employed to sell this "perfect image".

So, say, the women in bikinis draped over high end cars at car shows are feminism's fault?

I have been so blind, but now I see.

Is that an argument for keeping page 3 ged?

Because tbh, in general it is recognised that the culture and media do place a huge emphasis on women's value being very tied into looks and beauty alone. Too much so, and way more important than for men. And this is obviously not a good thing.

But that really is a different issue to the page 3 argument. Page 3 isn't selling beauty, or fashion - but sexuality. It shows teenagers in sexually provocative poses - in a readily accessible daily newspaper. There is no male equivalent of page 3. It shows that women can be viewed as sexually available playthings - and it is all part of the same continuum that ends up with women and girls being catcalled in the street and groped on public transport.

You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality - it is entirely irrelevant to the argument whether they are "the perfect female form" or whatever you were arguing. The fact is that this sort of objectification has a detrimental effect on all women and their perceived place in society.

Probably explains why so many young women want to be models today

Not one single young woman of my acquaintance wants to be a model, not one. They all want to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, mothers and one (randomly) wants to be an actuary.

None of them (and I know a fair few) wants to get their breasts out and be featured on Page 3, or drape themselves across cars for the titillation of men.

Maybe my circle of friends is just strange, but they come from all walks of life, all classes and all strata of society, but they all share a common idea, that children and young people should be allowed to follow their aspirations. That and none of my friends seems to be a sexist idiot who thinks that because they had a hard childhood, they should now be allowed to ogle young women's breasts at will.

Sabrina beat me to it on the Godwin's call!

Obvious , I didn't mean it like that. Feminists wanted women to have more influence in the workplace because they saw it as a place of power, where society tried out its ideas. However , women earning also means that Rimmel tells them that they MUST wear that Kate Moss lipstick and get that boob job. It's become a £billion industry. Would you all say this is more harmful than Page 3?

Yes, I have a cracking personality but they wouldn't put me on page 3 (I am 30, post partum and still bfing)

In fact, if they did I reckon ged would soon be signing the petition and libertarian would discover some decency and stop vainly trying to defend the indefensible.

Is that right, men?

it's not soft porn it's topless nudity. How can a woman posing in some bikini bottoms be considered porn? your beginning to sound like Mary Whitehouse. - libertarianj Sun 01-Sep-13 00:47:15

I've always known that there are people who consider porn to be an evil thing; created by evil people for evil people. I don't see why I shouldn't take exception to that belief and challenge it. - gedhession Thu 05-Sep-13 23:05:37

So is it porn or not? And if it's so closely related why is it in a 'family' newspaper?

Feminists just want women to be on an equal par to men, ged. That is all.

It is totally irrelevant whether a woman wants to wear Rimmel or not - you are conflating two different issues here. I'm a sahm at the moment and I wear make up. I'm fully aware of the reasons I wear make-up.

Arguably, you could say that p3 adds to the pressure on women to have perfect bodies and beautiful big boobs - and that, rather than women having jobs, is what contributes to the escalation in boob jobs these days.

I wonder what proportion of women who have boob jobs are in the workplace vs (a) those whose job IS their appearance in some way (actress, singer, model etc) or (b) those who do not earn money personally but their partner does.

Oh I don't know LaLa, if you did Page 3 you might get some admirers. There were a few Page 3 girls I didn't totally admire. Everybody has their favourites. By the way Sabrina, to the best of my knowledge I have NEVER catcalled a woman in public , NEVER groped a woman on public transport , NO woman has ever accused me of sexual harassment or taken action against me. Some people know about me but they've never made a serious issue of it.

1. I would not be allowed on page 3 because the patriarchy has a very narrow view of beauty.

1. 'to the best of my knowledge' is not very reassuring

1. 'Some people know about me but they've never made a serious issue of it'...

I'm out.

being 'admired' (or do you mean wanked over?) by men isn't the pinnacle of female aspiration.
Pg 3, and it's defenders, say it is.

In a different world, where a woman's looks were considered as an attribute no more important than having a good singing voice, say, or being really good at running, then the pro pg 3 argument might stand. Having great boobs is a nice thing. But we live in a world where women's sexuality and sexual attractiveness is brought into every aspect of our lives. It belongs in pulling situations, and bedrooms, and places like that. Not overriding every other aspect. It does not enhance our lives, to put it mildly.

And pg 3 is shoving that message down our throats from childhood. It's not like ordinary porn, soft or otherwise, which starts pushing that message a little later in life when we may (or may not) have the tools to analyse that.

Banning page three won't stop pictures of teenagers breasts being available to those who want them. The world is not suffering a shortage. But it will take them away from people who don't. Win win surely.

Ged: "To the best of my knowledge" ???

And what LaLa said.

And what SinisterSal said.

No Sabrina, can't say I have ever catcalled , groped a woman and no woman have ever made a serious accusation against me, never. That doesn't mean there are women who'd want to accuse me of something but, to date, this has never happened. I've never regarded Page 3 as some sort of career aspiration, it's just a model doing her job. I've mentioned that I know several women who have become popular in other ways, like Melinda Messenger. I even recall reading an interview by a woman who modelled whilst she was studying to be a barrister. For as long as I recall , it's always been fashionable to blame the media for society's evils. When I read This Is What Women Really Think of Page 3 , I noticed that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at a time when it blaming the media was common, especially during the 80s and all that stuff about violent videos. If you want to know why there are men who grope women on public transport why don't you just ask them?

You said "to the best of my knowledge..." which sounds well dubious to me! I'm fucking certain I've never groped anyone on the tube. And wtaf does "Some people know about me but they've never made a serious issue of it." Some people know what about you, have never made a serious issue of what?

Men grope women on the tube because they feel they are entitled to, ged.
Many things in society feed into that entitlement, that belief that women are sexually available to men, that they are not equal human beings entitled to bodily integrity - page 3 is one of them.

I once met one of my favourite Page 3 girls and photographed her. I also once built a website dedicated to her. I told my work colleagues about the website and showed them the pictures I took of her. It was all a ten minute wonder and that was the end of that. Have you ever met a man who has told you that he's entitled to a woman? A man who has said that? As far as I'm concerned a man who gropes a woman in public is just an ignorant bully getting his simple minded kick. I've met my fair share of people like that. I've since recalled that I had to work with a guy (who I believed was psychopathic) who loved going on about Irish people being stupid. I took solace from the fact that none of my colleagues gave him countenance and hated him.

Riiiiiight.

gedhession your posts are lacking in even the most basic coherent argument. They don't make sense.

Frankly, you're coming across as some page 3 model obsessive - and it's more than a little bit creepy.

Ged

Ummm, really? You've stalked a Page 3 guy, showed your workmates the evidence and they had a ten minute wonder about it. I dread to think what that entailed.

You're not sure if you've groped someone, catcalled or otherwise sexually assaulted someone.

Okkkkk.

I'm out!

For the record, I did not stalk her. She fully agreed to be photographed. I have most certainly NEVER sexually assaulted anybody.