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
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!

189 replies

DoctorRobert · 23/05/2013 15:42

This is inspired by a thread about the No More Page 3 campaign on another forum I'm a member of. Some of the attitudes over there (all by female posters) are just depressing.

So many women who don't see a problem with Page 3 & describe it as harmless fun...the old chestnut that "there are worse things in the world to worry about" (maybe, maybe not, but I can think about more than one issue at once)...Page 3 being defended as tradition...and a complete inability to see Page 3 as part of a bigger picture of objectification and inequality. Posters denying that there even is inequality. Posters saying they would support their daughters if they wanted to topless model.

So my question is, how can any woman in 2013 think that way?

Is it normalisation? A lot of the posters also recount their parents buying the Sun and seeing Page 3 from a young age. Has objectification been so deeply ingrained into them that they just can't see why it's a problem?

Or is that it's too uncomfortable for some women to acknowledge that we don't yet have equality? Perhaps on some level they do realise there's a problem with Page 3, but facing up to that isn't an easy thing to do?

OP posts:
NiceTabard · 24/05/2013 22:24

Well

To address your points

He is not the only man who has ever sat near me on public transport or when out and about ogling page 3. It is a common occurrence. And why not? It is, after all, a family newspaper. It always makes me feel uncomfortable and I am quite sure I am not alone in that.

If a man was looking at general pictures of clothed people, it would not be obvious what he was thinking about, if he was fantasising. Therefore not so upsetting / offensive.

Lots of images are banned. For instance, I know it is illegal to show an erect penis in a newspaper, or even a mainstream magazine. I suspect a newspaper would not be allowed to show an erect phallus being stroked through pants, on a daily basis. Why is that, I wonder.

Do you think it would be OK for big blokes to sit next to young boys on the tube and look at soft-core gay porn? Just out of interest. What about on the bus next to 4yo boys? OK? If not, why not? If so, why so?

Interested to hear your views Smile

blueemerald · 24/05/2013 22:29

I do not support page 3 but I don't support banning it either. Life is not that cut and dry. I just don't think banning page 3 will change the way anyone thinks about women in this country. Sexism has gone too far for that. Page 3 gets banned and then...? Everyone (by which I mean MPs and so on, not campaigners) feels like they've done their bit, pats themselves on the back and goes back to their business.

It's treating a symptom and not the cause. I believe the "treatment" (education) needs to be done in schools and/or the work place. I work in a school and had to explain why I thought a topless firemen calandar in the women's staff toilets was inappropriate. The government needs to commit to this reeducation for years and years, not a knee jerk banning of one photo in one paper.

Also, banning page 3 still leaves FHM, Nuts and so on..... Let alone the world of advertising.

libertarianj · 24/05/2013 22:43

So Hullmum why not just campaign for the Sun to ditch the 'news in brief ' bit if the nudity isn't the problem? From buying the sun over the last couple of weeks the poses were pretty natural and there weren't any teenagers, mostly 25+. Most of them were shot in an exotic beach type location, all very tasteful.
As far as kids are concerned page 3 is nothing compared to the rest of the paper, such as the graphic photos of all the violence that goes on in the world on a daily basis. Then you have got Dear Deidre which can't be fairly explicit too.

Again you are making assumptions to peoples thoughts and reactions.

nonameslefttouse · 24/05/2013 22:49

I would object if the girls were forced in to it, its really quite simple don't buy the paper if it offends!!

Are you the women who issue law suits against builders wolf whistles too!

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 24/05/2013 23:40

It can be quite difficult for a woman to be taken seriously in this world- in any situation - in comparison with a man. Be it work, politics, boardroom. Girls, from a young age, at school are socialised over many years to learn that they are somehow less important than men. That how they look is of utmost importance, that how attractive they are to males is of utmost importance, that having a boyfriend is the be all and end all.

Page 3 perpetuates this - it's not the only thing that does - but it plays a part. What's dangerous is that it is not in the "magazines where you can ogle naked women" niche (FHM etc), it's in the "family newspaper" niche (ie widely available with other newspapers, can be sold to children). Because of page 3, any man, woman or child can buy a "news"paper and be confronted with a full size picture of a pair of naked boobs there for 50p.

This makes men ogling naked boobs "ordinary." It normalises it. It endorses it. It perpetuates the myth that women are just around for the titillation of men. And that's not ok. Not for women, not for our daughters. It's all part of the same thing that leads to the many stories on everydaysexism - ie your teenage daughter being groped on the tube.

Considering the opinion polls posted upthread, and RM's own (apparent) feelings on matter, I'm quite surprised it's still going.

Darkesteyes · 24/05/2013 23:42

no names its not just wolf whistles though is it? What about women who get nasty comments shouted at them when they are out and about because they dont meet the "standard" the men have been looking at on Page3 or FHM/Loaded?

HullMum · 24/05/2013 23:51

oh I get it now. tasteful. right. breast in a news story ok. breast for "because men are attracted to women" not ok. although thanks for mansplaining what attraction means earlier, none of us would have understood otherwise, having obviously never been attracted to anyone. I'm not going to campaign to make an offensive throwback not look as offensive. Although can you at least admit news in briefs is offensive or have you never noticed amidst the wank fodder.

HullMum · 24/05/2013 23:53

how do you think women manage without having cocks available in print for our enjoyment?

Darkesteyes · 25/05/2013 00:00

And while im on the subject does anyone remember More magazine in its heyday (before it became a celebrity rag) I do. I remember a politician accusing their editor of "peddling filth to the masses" I remember John Stapleton devoting a whole show of The Time The Place to discuss the "filth" in More.
Now back in the 90s it was an informative magazine for young women with intelligent articles about low wages and articles about the discrimination against lesbian mothers.
With quite a few articles about sex including safe sex.
But i havent seen whole chat shows dedicated to slagging off FHM the Sun etc.
Because mens sexuality is seen as ok and "a bit of a laugh" while womens sexuality is seen as "filth"

HullMum · 25/05/2013 00:03

why doesnt the fact that significant portion of women feel degraded and abused matter? why do people have to stare at tits all day long and whistle at women?

doublecakeplease · 25/05/2013 00:04

I don't want to campaign against it - i couldn't care less! If men want to look at breasts and women want pictures taken of their breasts then that's up to them. I really struggle to see the problem.

Darkesteyes · 25/05/2013 00:07

YY Hullmum. There is a scene in comedy series Porridge which was made in the 1970s where Ronnie Barkers character Fletch is looking at Page 3 and he reads out her name and her AGE. 23.
So Hullmum the young women posing for Page 3 have been getting younger like you have mentioned.

HullMum · 25/05/2013 00:14

have you read the whole thread attempted to see what the problem is? informing yourself isn't a bad thing

Darkesteyes · 25/05/2013 00:20

Hullmum i agree with you.

w1tsend · 25/05/2013 00:24

No one is forcing these women to take their clothes off and be photographed, in fact my sister is a p3 model and does it because she earns a better wage doing this than doing what she has qualifications to do - her feeling is that it is she that is exploiting men and not the other way round, and if you as a women don't personally like it no one is forcing you to buy any of the publications with topless on p3 - now easy internet access to hardcore porn is another matter but that's what parental restrictions and supervised internet access for children is for!

NiceTabard · 25/05/2013 01:26

Read the thread.

w1tsend would you think it was OK for big men to look at softcore gay porn, with men in provocative poses stroking erections through their pants, while sitting next to schoolboys on the bus?

Yes or no? and reasons please Smile

JuicyPear · 25/05/2013 02:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

NiceTabard · 25/05/2013 02:12

uh huh

so you really wish that when you were 12 yo boy a random bloke made it obvious he wanted to fuck you.

Ah yes, happy days Hmm wanker

Being a sexual object is not fun. you twat.

emcwill74 · 25/05/2013 10:08

this campaign is just the thin end of the wedge...

...to women being treated by the media in the same way men are, rather than just as nice things for men to look at.

Indeed.

Startail · 25/05/2013 16:21

I'm a person first, not a woman or a man, a person. I don't want censorship to protect me.

Equal rights and equal pay, yes. Reasonable maternity rights that accept that only women get PG yes, but banning page 3, no. It makes women look like delicate sensative creatures who can't see another womans breasts eithout feeling judged and inadequate.

It makes us out to need molycodling and protecting.

That's just the opposite of my take on life - I'm just as good as any man and cleverer than most.

NiceTabard · 25/05/2013 16:51

I think children do need protecting though.

There seems to be an idea that if you don't want to see page 3 then don't buy the sun. That's not how it works though is it. People read it on public transport - everyone sees it. And I don't understand how some people can't see that for lots of pubescent / young teen girls, having men around looking at pictures of breasts is an uncomfortable experience. And indeed for older girls and women as well.

Also, I think that many young girls are sensitive creatures, and what's wrong with that? So are lots of young boys. It's a normal part of growing up. To tell them that they mustn't get upset over stuff like this is part and parcel of the whole "don't make a fuss" thing that girls are taught around things that other do that make them feel uncomfortable and are related to sex.

Moxiegirl · 25/05/2013 17:13

stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/why-i-never-signed-the-no-more-page-3-petition/ this is how I feel (not my blog-I read this on twitter a while back).

GoshAnneGorilla · 25/05/2013 21:29

Moxie - the argument put forward in that post is one of the most irritatingly More-Feminist-Then-Thou-But-Achieving-Bugger-All arguments I have encountered.

Bonus points go for stating that we need more nudity in the media without mentioning how coercive nude scenes often are for actresses.

"sex-positive" feminism gets right on my tits. A ban on Page 3 would be a huge step forward.

HullMum · 25/05/2013 21:40

men get protecting. they aren't exposed to daily media objectification. I don't think society sees men as delicate flowers Hmm I think society sees men as people

WastedTomatoGuts · 25/05/2013 22:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.