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

[DoctorRobert]

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?

I've come across women who probably wouldn't support this campaign. Really.

Had an interesting incident at work when I told my boss that I thought we should get rid of the Sun in our common area as our office was run by a woman and it may be offensive to her and others. She got very angry, said I was coming across as arrogant and that she didn't condone censorship. Her PA sitting beside get said the Sun is an institution and very popular and asked what I thought the problem was. It was inferred that I was being classist as the Sun is a working class paper. Probably would have had more luck if I said I was religious or a Muslim and it offended my religion.

I wasn't brought up with tits in my daily newspaper - but it's amazing how many who have been are not only nonplussed by it but see it as an institution to be preserved.

I dunno though.

When I was young it was standard to have topless calendars in all sorts of businesses, and in the pub you got the peanuts where the more got bought the more of the woman's body was revealed.

Do people on here who support page 3 want to see these things back? They have been generally removed as people realised that, guess what, women didn't want to have these things in their faces while they were in shops / having a drink.

Would people be OK with men looking at softcore gay porn on the tube?

The whole thing is a bit baffling to me.

The point of page 3 is to illicit a sexual response in males. Why is that necessary in mixed groups of strangers, on the tube/bus, first thing in the morning?

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

Has this ever actually happened?

The tragedy is not that a tiny tiny percentage of women in Great Britain want to pose topless for money, or that some girls might see a man reading The Sun on the bus.

The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.

The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.

But why should they change? why should 17 and half million people be dictated to by a very small minority of a 100,000 people who want rid of page 3?

your arguments are weak. Throughout history the majority have frequently got it wrong.The fact that the majority think it's ok to abuse women doesn't make it ok. If the majority thought it was ok to make racist or homophobic jokes in the media would you say they shouldn't have to stop? what about overtly violent? because women are frequently perceived as bits of meat by the media and violently portrayed because of the casual use of our bodies to amuse men.

you won't make any effort to learn anything or listen because you're so scared someone might say you cant stare at tits in public. God forfuckingbid do you realize how pathetic it is,how desperate you sound that you're arguing for boobs to stay in your fucking newspaper?

Rosa Parks wouldn't get up from her bus seat. Some people at the time probably thought she was making a fuss about nothing. After all, she could go to the black section and be transported home perfectly. And millions of black people did that, seemingly unfussed.

Segregation of bus seats was just a symptom of a racist society, how can this tiny symptom of a huge problem possibly make a difference?

But it did.

Page 3 is perhaps a tiny but iconic symptom of sexism in the media. I want it to go because I don't want to have to put up with that anymore. Attitudes in society don't change overnight. We need small steps in the right direction. Getting rid of Page 3 is one such small step. I really can't see how anybody could be against that.

And once again, the petition is not asking for a ban, censorship or restrictive legislation at all. It isn't even about naked breasts or the models. It is about the context Page 3 appears in and the connotations and accessibility that come with that.

Creeping

what a ridiculous comparison.
If you don't like the paper, don't buy it.

What worries me more than anything is the attitude of some people, that just because they don't like it, they want censorship.
Who the hell do you think you are?
There's lots of things I don't like, but I don't go around trying to bann it and spoil other peoples fun.

I knew that someone was going to say that. Fine. Sure, segretation was much worse than how women are portrayed in the media. I just wanted to make the point that even standing up to a seemingly small thing can be worth doing. But of course you choose to miss that point.

It is not about banning or censorship, but I guess it is easier to pretend that is is, foolhardy.

I really dislike the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' argument. Millions don't have that choice, for whatever reason, poor education, family influence etc. their parents read the Sun and so do they. I imagine it's the paper of choice for many young people, easy to ready, full of celebs etc. (when I was 18, I enjoyed reading it - without being aware of the wider implications of its general attitude to women)

'easy to read'

I have never read the sun newspaper, but I do object to a few people trying to stop others from doing something they want to.
It is not up to you or anybody else what people do with their time, I know my ds x2 both looked at page 3 with their mates as young teens. They are both healthy grown men now who have good relationships with women.
I just think many of you are scared or too lazy to talk to your dc and bring them up to respect women.
Oh and I am neither ill educated, nor was I brought up with The Sun, or topless women. My parents were methodist and very respected in the community, they didn't take a newspaper.

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

I guess its called another point of view.

yes segregation is a rubbish comparison. Separate but equal. it's nothing like the parallel lives men and women in our society lead. It's ridiculous to imply that women were not allowed in male spaces or that they were actively discouraged from applying for certain jobs or are still held back by society. yeah ridiculous.

potato I'm interested in how you know your sons have healthy relationships? are you in their bedrooms? would they tell you if they hit their girlfriend or pressure them for sex? or would they tell you sexist jokes they tell share their friends,show you the pics on their phones? No they wouldn't. you've not got a fucking clue. No one does. All you can do is try and make your self feel better about the fact that your teens were allowed to look at women they didn't know as a series of body parts. Have you got daughters would you have sought out naked pics for them to enjoy?

I'm going to raise my son to be a decent human. I'm not scared of that. I'm scared that should my daughter be heterosexual that she'll only have the option of boys who have been brought up on soft porn to sell newspapers and casual misogyny. it's your sons that scare me

NMP3 is not stopping anybody from looking at soft porn if they want to. There are plenty of magazines especially for that.

It just shouldn't be in a newspaper.

yes nothing stopping dads or even teachers reading it in front if young people.

Hullmum

Theres only one of them sexually active and whilst I'm not in their bedroom, he has kept his girlfriend happy for 4 years.
Of course he wouldn't presurise his girlfriend for sex, nor would he hit her. What a ridiculous statement.
I think its you my love who don't have a fuckin clue, mine were man enough to admit to doing this. Are you sure you know what your dc are doing?
Why on earth would you want to source it for your dc if you don't like it? I have no objection but wouldn't encourage mine, perhaps my values are better than yours.

Also.
Y6 was the first time my ds1 came home and said he had seen it. By the time the teacher found it all the boys had had an ogle. The same with ds2.
No matter how many times you tell your dc, or try and educate them, there will always be a few parents who couldn't give a shit and allow their dc to corrupt others.
I think the most you can ask for is that its not yours.
I think pge 3 is the least of your worries if you allow your dc fb accounts, mobile phones, i phones and unsupervised internet access. The content possibilities here are far more disturbing than a pair of boobs. So much so that are dc are going to have to learn about pornography.

how many mothers of abusers sons are abusers do you think? and how many know. you're deluded enough to assume you would know. I'm sorry he may have "kept his girlfriend happy" for for years... interested to how that means he isn't abusive? do you think abused women leave as soon as abuse starts? and you know he hasn't pressured someone? you don't know anything how ridiculous to pretend you do.

*how many mothers know their sons are abusers

I'm 100% sure what my one year old son is up to all times yes BTW. when he is an adult I won't have any other idea then what he tells me though and I'm not clueless enough to assume otherwise. he will however be taught that women are more than a series of parts. Hopefully that will be enough

Page 3 is not the worst example of sexism or porn in our society. It is however in a national newspaper.

The implicit message of it appearing in a newspaper every single day (rather than being restricted to a (soft)-porn magazine) is that society approves of women being presented and judged like meat, while men, in stark contrast, are presented because of and judged by what they do, with clothes on.

This implicit message is harmful, and it is what makes the death of Page 3 worth fighting for.

Hullmum

I thought you had at least brought up a ds the way you spout such rubbish. You have a lot to learn, if you don't think a mother can know her sons aren't abusive.
How does abuse come into anyway? Looking at pge 3 for a gigle with your mates, makes you an abuser. Well both my ds schools must have produced a hell of a lot of abusers then.
Will you suggest your ds will become an abuser when he sees soft porn in the playground? Will you know for sure it wasn't him that took it to school, how will you handle it? what will you tell him? How do you know he won't be more curious, or get a habbit looking at porn.
I know the answers to these questions because I have been there twice.

If appearing as a topless model keeps a young woman off the streets when she has nothing to sell but her body then I think it's preferable for her to model topless. There is a chasm between hard porn and soft porn and this is an issue which in my opinion needs to focus on the worst end first.

Topless on page three is relatively harmless; the sex industry and associated drug addiction is not. Priorities.

We have a Bernard Dunstan nude hanging in our bedroom - do the same people who complain about page three think that should be banned too; that life models should be banned, that the human form and it's artistic characterisation should be banned?

More vulgar than page three to my eye are the herds of young women in dayglo mini skirts, five inch heels, fishnet stockings, sashaying drunkenly through city centers at night. They are probably putting themselves in a great deal more danger too.

I knew a page three model once, her day job was as a temp secretary in a City bank. She was one of the nicest people I have met and saving up to buy a flat. Not stupid, not common, not vulgar and not loose - just making the best of all the assets she owned because in the early 80s not many girls in their 20s had had the opportunity to go to university.