West London Free School founder Toby Young spectacularly misses the point on Page 3

[Alsoflamingo]

I am staggered that there hasn't been more of a reaction to this ridiculous piece in The Spectator: blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/je-suis-page-3/
If I was a parent at WLFS I would be v. tempted to move my child on the basis of these views. Depressing in the extreme.

There’s a fat little squire in all of us ... Orwell believed that the art of Donald McGill served as a release valve in a society that was otherwise virtuous and repressed

Ie. Society is men, and women are other.

He spectacularly misses the point doesn't he. It's not that we want to spoil fun, or that we're repressed or lecturing. It's that we don't like being objectified, having sexually explicit pictures of just one sex in the pages of a newspaper is clearly wrong, that even if there's no proof it contributes to rape culture (interesting that he's very careful with dates on his stats.. I wonder if that's just preciseness, or that he's cherry picking?), it definitely does contribute to a hostile, sexualised environment for women and girls that boys and men have no experience of.

In fact, there you go. I'll stop complaining about page 3, if every other day it's a bloke in tiny pants. That way there's a chance that 15 year old boys will get a dose of the ridicule 15 year old girls get, and so gain some empathy and understanding into why it's unpleasant, and perhaps not grow into such uncaring men.

That article really wound me up. The amount of othering and sniggering at uptight women.

I retract my paragraph about alternating page 3. I don't want pictures of anyone in tiny pants on page 3. I don't want my sons to grow up ridiculing or being ridiculed about the size and shape of any part of their anatomy. I want them to be empathic, nice boys and men without having to experience the down side first.

I am in full agreement with your second post. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. But his sneezy tone really riles me. And the idea that if one can disprove a clear link with rape then there is nothing to worry about is offensive and laughable.

It's Toby Young. I have yet to read anything written by him that doesn't make me want to bang my head repeatedly on the floor and pull out my own hair.

On a separate point, did I misread the article or did he liken Page 3 objectors to suffragettes and try to make that an insult? I thought we'd all agreed a very long time ago that women voting was a good thing.

Tbh I've been quite depressed by the number of men who seem 'confused' by whether or not Page 3 is a good thing (I'm looking at you The Last Leg). It's not harmless fun, feminists are not heartless puritans stealing succour from the masses. If you can't get through your day without staring at the breasts of a 20 year old then you need to seek help.

... Or you need to seek out the internet, where they are readily available in the privacy of your own screen.

I'm not reading the link as Toby young is a twat.

I'll stop complaining about page 3, if every other day it's a bloke in tiny pants.

The problem with this is that it wouldn't have the same impact. Your fifteen year old boy will turn the page and will see men doing all sorts of other things too - sport, business, politics, even crime. So there at least some balance.

When a fifteen year old girl turns the page, women might as well not exist.

Agree with you Sonic on TY. He is an odious little man. I suppose my main gripe here is that, in his capacity as the founder of a school, he is also in a position of considerable influence over children's education. Duty of care and all that. Being sexist misogynistic pig surely problematic in that context, no?

Oh what a joy that was to read - reminds me of Newsnight the other night talking about the same subject when 2 male panelists agreed that feminists really shouldn't be bothered about Page 3 at all but should focus their pretty little heads on serious problems like FGM and child poverty.

He is also trying to turn "his high school" West London Free School, into a pseudo private school by giving preferential places to children who go to the 2 associated primary schools (60 places), pretty much removing it as an option for most other children in the borough & creating an 'elite' publicly funded school.

If you want to object to the change in the constitution please do before 31st Jan at [email protected]

www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/WLFS%20Consultation%20Letter%202016-17_tcm21-192285.pdf

I wonder what the board of governors makes of his comments....

Agree with you Sonic on TY. He is an odious little man. I suppose my main gripe here is that, in his capacity as the founder of a school, he is also in a position of considerable influence over children's education. Duty of care and all that. Being sexist misogynistic pig surely problematic in that context, no?

If evidence that he's 'educated' a child to become a "sexist misogynistic pig" is found then yes, that's a serious problem. Otherwise, no.

Oh what a joy that was to read - reminds me of Newsnight the other night talking about the same subject when 2 male panelists agreed that feminists really shouldn't be bothered about Page 3 at all but should focus their pretty little heads on serious problems like FGM and child poverty.

Would you disagree that 'No Page 3' is a legacy feminist objective that has been rendered redundant by the creation of the internet and the great ease with which it can be accessed? When 14 year old boys and girls can watch high definition hardcore porn on their mobile phones, rejoicing at the removal of page 3 from the Sun strikes me as pitiful when the energy expended against it, relative to its current relevance and comparative impact, is considered.

Haha has he got a Google alert on his name

"Would you disagree that 'No Page 3' is a legacy feminist objective that has been rendered redundant by the creation of the internet "

Nope, because that was never the point Toby

Would you disagree that 'No Page 3' is a legacy feminist objective that has been rendered redundant by the creation of the internet and the great ease with which it can be accessed? When 14 year old boys and girls can watch high definition hardcore porn on their mobile phones, rejoicing at the removal of page 3 from the Sun strikes me as pitiful when the energy expended against it, relative to its current relevance and comparative impact, is considered

No.

HTH.

Would I disagree? Er - yes Toby

Big time.

As far as Toby Young is concerned he is still at the adolescent stage of rebelling against the beliefs and ideals of his parents. He needs to go away to study and analyse the life and writings of his father.

Ask a valid question; get childish sarcasm in response.

And some feminists wonder why more women do not flock to their banner.

Would you disagree that 'No Page 3' is a legacy feminist objective that has been rendered redundant by the creation of the internet and the great ease with which it can be accessed? When 14 year old boys and girls can watch high definition hardcore porn on their mobile phones, rejoicing at the removal of page 3 from the Sun strikes me as pitiful when the energy expended against it, relative to its current relevance and comparative impact, is considered.

Yes I would disagree!

Keep it coming

I don't think anyone was being sarcastic Toby DoTheyFloat. They just disagree with you and can't be bothered arguing. Because it wastes our energy, something you seem to be very concerned about, and we've made these point hundreds of times before.

We don't actually have to debate with you, just because you want to.

There's so much lazy thinking in that article and recycled clap trap. Amazing that anyone gets paid to write that, a 14 year old boy could have done it.

I can't work out whether Toby Dotheyfloat is so narrow-minded that he can't be bothered to listen to anyone else's opinion or whether he is simply too 'thick' (nice non-PC word there for you Toby) to grasp the issues. Neither is great, let's face it. And so we don't waste our time any further, as we know how worried you are about that, may I suggest you take 5 mins to go to the Nomorepage3 site and educate yourself; you'll find the key points extremely well expressed and really quite simple.

Also interesting to note that you appear to be a lone voice here (and we all know who you are). I wonder whether you are able to conclude anything meaningful from that.

BeCool

The proposals don't actually guarantee the 60 kids at the primary school a place at the secondary, merely gives them priority

They are ranked behind siblings of those already at the secondary, of which there will be many come 2020 when the first lot from the primary school 'graduate'.

This proposal to withdraw the automatic place has caused some angst (to, er, say the least) among the primary parents as they they were promised their kids would automatically go to the Secondary when they enrolled in the primary, which is why so many chose it above John Betts, Brackenbury etc. Parents are rightly angry that this promise might not now be honoured. The primary was sold to them as a feeder school - for example, older siblings of those at the primary are given priority to the secondary and vice versa. To propose removing that guarantee from those who were given it seems unfair. Unlike the secondary school, which it could be argued was needed because there were no other secondary schools in Hammersmith, the primary school was set up in a area where there was more than enough primary provision. It's raison d'etre was to feed the secondary school.

So it seems Mr Young has managed to anger all sides. Quelle surprise as they say in Germany.

Also but wait. Surely you are overlooking TY's amazing ability to read minds. He doesn't need to listen or grasp the issues. He has his magical ability to determine that it's all about prudishness, nothing more.

Oh sorry, Flora, of course you are right. What was I thinking? Indeed, why was I even thinking at all? Far better to grin and get my tits out.