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?

God, totally agree Sabrina! Equating all anti-page 3ers as prude/jealous/ugly/sex-hating/any combo thereof shows a complete inability to deal intellectually with the real issues involved. (And, of course, is symptomatic of the very problem that page 3 is part of!)

There's a lot of nudity in hard core porn films and I think it's fair to say they have little in the sense of narrative context. Does sport have a narrative context? Does pop music? These are still popular things.

Popular, in some circles, yes, but not in your face while grocery shopping/on the bus - that's an entirely separate issue

Hard core porn I mean. Yes, sport and pop music do have some context, though pop music in particular, in some instances, objectifies women in a way that is disliked by many.

Yes, songs and sport have a narrative context. Songs are one of the most commonly experienced forms of narrative and have been for thousands of years.

I suspect a lot of hard core porn films don't have a narrative, but they're not on in the middle of breakfast news so I wouldn't know.

Totally agree abut hard-core porn, but the difference is that it is consumed in a private arena, not a public one. It is not normalised in a newspaper that people read on the bus! There is a whole separate debate regarding porn from a feminist perspective, and whether it is a good thing in general, but this is not what this thread is about.

I don't understand the analogy with sport. I think a woman walking round a boxing ring in a bikini holding up a placard is objectifying. Other than that I don't see any relevance to this debate. Same goes for pop music: overt nudity (and by this I mean female nudity) I also find objectifying, but it doesn't make page 3 OK.

emcwill74 My point about Clare Short, a democratically elected politician, a public figure, bullied by a bunch of "brainless bimbos". Surely not. To me Clare Short comes across as cocky and arrogant. I recall reading that she was invited to a radio discussion with Feminists Against Censorship but adamantly refused to participate. Only listens to people who say what she wants to hear? Typical politician.

Who are you quoting with 'brainless bimbos'? Not me! And clearly sending a busload of them was meant to intimidate and silence. At the time Short lived with her aged mother who found the experience frightening. I have no idea what actually happened but do you think the models all stood there quietly, one of them knocking politely on Short's door asking if she might have a word? Or were they send with reporters and cameras in full blaze of a publicity stunt? I too would find that intrusive and intimidating! This is how we operate democratic discourse in this country is it?!

Lucy Holmes is running the current campaign - she's not a politician.

No feminist would ever call page 3 models 'brainless bimbos' - as Lucy Holmes points out, the reasons for entering glamour modelling are complex and varied.

I think you're showing your subconscious feelings a bit there, ged

It's endlessly revealing that very often those opposing campaigns like the NMP3 one, demonstrate the problems caused by a society that objectifies women in the way Page 3 does. Again and again anti-page 3 campaigners are told they are ugly or jealous - insults that go straight to their appearance, because the message of page 3 is that appearance, and whether this is appreciated by men, is the most important thing about a women. Where do men get told they only hold an opinion because they are ugly?

Similarly, people assume that glamour models are brainless bimbos because it dichotomises women as clever but ugly or pretty but brainless. News in Briefs did this par excellence.

ged 'brainless bimbos'?

There's a great chunk of privilege showing there, you might want to sit down and have a think about that. I very much get the impression, ged, that the only reason you have come onto this thread is to put the point across that you would be sad if you couldn't get your morning rocks off to a semi-naked 'brainless bimbo' (your words, NOT mine, or any other feminist's). This you have done admirably, we have all completely taken that point on board.

As you're so certain that the girls who are pictured on page 3 are happy to be objectified, perhaps you could show me where your proof comes from. For example, from women who were pictured 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago, how they feel about it now, whether it has enriched their lives in any way? We have heard that it doesn't financially enrich them, so in what way does it make their lives demonstrably better?

I have found those two sound files of the radio discussions of that glamour model , Laura Lacole, that I keep quoting . She is actually with Sarah Anderson of No More Page 3.

soundcloud.com/laura-lacole/lbbcradioulster-eveningextra-lauralacole

soundcloud.com/laura-lacole/bbc-stephen-nolan-show-remove

I used the term "brainless bimbo" facetiously. Laura doesn't sound like a brainless bimbo. What do you make of her?

The term 'brainless bimbo' is horribly misogynistic - why use it all?

Capt asked you for experiences of 'girls' who were doing page 3 10+ years ago though, obviously current models aren't going to be negative about it or they wouldn't be doing it! Even recent glamour model Alex Wise (who doesn't support the campaign) has nothing good to say of her experiences of glamour modelling.

So when you used the term 'brainless bimbos' facetiously, was this because you think this is what we think of page 3 girls? Only we don't. Careful Ged, Lib will be after you for making 'massive assumptions' about what other people are thinking.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist thanks for the article on objectification theory. Had bookmarked it and am now taking the time to read it - looks really interesting. Thanks!

I was being facetious about Clare Short. I found the article where she refused to speak to Feminist Against Censorship. She does come across as a person who considers some people as not good enough for her to talk to. Like Caroline Lucas, she could have invited them to Parliament and spoke to them there. I do have Facebook friends who were Page 3 girls during the 1980s. One of them , Jenny Blyth, I recall seeing in a documentary about Page 3 and I recall her enjoying all the letters she got from admirers. I have mentioned this to her a few times myself. I have mentioned this blog to her but as yet she has not replied to my post.

I do think it's very telling when someone uses a term like 'brainless bimbos' and then claims he was being facetious. In what way is your character assassination of Clare Short relevant to the current No More Page 3? I think you're still living in the 80's

To be brutally honest Ged, having not met Short, we are probably both viewing her through the prism of our views on the wider topic under discussion. You see her an unpleasant politician refusing to engage; whereas having read what she has written about that time, I see her as a genuinely compassionate woman trying to make life better for women generally, and consequently being bullied, intimidated and ridiculed by male politicians and the tabloid press. Neither of these views is actually very meaningful to the issue at hand!

BTW - I have tried googling to find if Short actually used the term 'brainless bimbos', as you imply, and have drawn a blank. Perhaps you can set me right to explain your comment.

I agree emc. Clare Short would be one of the women being given rape threats/death threats/twitter abuse nowadays - for just having the damn nerve to campaign for women's rights.

Well emcwill74 , I guess you've summed up my attitude of Clare Short , an unpleasant politician refusing to engage , rather well. She also once encountered the then editor of Penthouse, Isabel Koproski. I don't believe Clare Short ever said "brainless bimbos" but, who knows, she seems capable of such arrogance and contempt. That said, I do not give countenance to the way she was treated in Parliament. Remember , she tried to ban Page 3 against the backdrop of a general concern about sex and violence in the media. I bet those MPs who laughed at her were quite happy to pontificate about sex and violence on the TV and "video nasties". Hypocricy? I never liked politicians. Sabrina , I know I sound like I live in the 80s but what No More Page 3 is arguing is more or less what Clare Short was saying during the 80s. Clare Short even gave Object.com a message of support. The only problem I have with No More Page 3 is it lacks focus. Page 3 is bad but glamour modelling isn't? What's this all about? I got that feeling listening to that soundfile is posted.

I'd send Object a message of support too, ged.

Just to ask - you are aware you're on a feminist board are you?

It's good to hear that you don't support the vile way Short was treated. However, if you have no evidence that she used that term about page 3 girls then I'm afraid I object to your using the phrase, albeit facetiously, on the grounds that you find her objectionable enough that she might have done so! It is, as Beachcomber says, mysogynistic, and, as I have said, symptomatic of what is wrong with page 3. I regret the choice the models have made to appear on page 3, and perhaps some (note I say 'SOME') of them have made that choice through being failed by education and hence finding it a rewarding career path in a world with limited options, but that does not mean I think them brainless, and the word 'bimbo' is deeply insulting.

It's interesting you say the campaign lacks focus. What would you suggest? (And I ask sincerely, not facetiously!) I suspect that none of the campaigners think glamour modelling is OK, but accept that women have a free choice to do that. What the No More Page 3 campaign is asking for is not that glamour modelling is outlawed (of course many feminists would prefer that), but simply that it is reserved for top shelf publications etc, rather than normalised in a daily paper. I don't see that as a lack of focus, such as a pragmatic and more realistic approach.