The No More Page 3 campaign

[KidKruger]

Watch out LondonMix you'll get the attack I received...

[Jessie]

Crikey, some of us can't exactly hide them

[LondonMix]

I have big boobs. There is a difference between having them and displaying them. Being overtly sexual at work isn't really on. I'd feel uncomfortable if the roles were reversed. I'm no prude either. On a night out in days gone by I wore some pretty shocking things but there is a time and a place...

[Jessie]

I agree, but sometimes cleavage is just..erm...there. Interestingly, the sun put a call out today for two men who would pose naked for them for some feature they were writing.

[StraferJack]

Yeah but the sun aren't going to publish pics of two chaps are they?

[KidKruger]

Never get this hassle in Kuwait.

Or The Sun.

[Jessie]

I imagine they'd publish them almost naked. It was an aside, more than an argument. I personally loathe page 3.

[UncleBen]

Agree the paper is pitched at families with it's various offes etc. Also agree that page 3 is out dated now, and that it sets a v poor example to young girls etc. But think that the Star and Sport are far worse, not to mention the ads found in the Sun. I would be more likely to sign a petition covering all such pics in all so called 'newspapers'.

[scareyt]

I think the worst thing about page 3 is the sense of entitlement it creates among many men to look at and comment on women's boobs whenever they want to. As if all women's bodies are public property the moment they step outside. Its really intimidating and unpleasant. And is actually a similar mindset to places where women wear burkas - leave your house with any flesh showing at all and you are fair game.

The Star and Sport are also vile but with much smaller circulations they don't have the same scale of influence over our culture. (They are also less hypocritical about what you get when you buy them.) There is another petition about the way these newspapers are displayed in shops. You could always sign both petitions - it only takes a minute or two! :-)

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/edward-timpson-mp-make-it-illegal-to-display-porn-around-children?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_message_notice

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=V2radkYuN3k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DV2radkYuN3k

Really recommend watching the video - I went from thinking you have to be a bit of a nutter to care about this issue, to being really grossed out that its everywhere and we don't even notice it.

[DaveR]

To go back to your earlier question, framing your campaign around children is annoying because (i) it's cliched (ii) it's disingenuous and (iii) it obscures the real and serious issues about the sexualisation of children and childhood. Just stick to the basic point that it's absurd that a mass circulation national paper in 2013 still has pictures of topless girls in it, and that at the very least it promotes the objectification of women in a way that is inappropriate and potentially damaging.

[Loz]

But Murdoch has already said that, if indeed he does anything, all he will do is chuck a bit of lingerie on the models. This will still objectify women, but will almost certainly kill off the No More Page 3 campaign.

So I still believe it is based on prudishness, rather than politics. No nipples, no worries.

[scareyt]

Loz, the vague response so far from Murdoch doesn't define the motivations of the campaigners or the aims of the campaign. A perfect world would not have the Sun in it at all. That's not going to happen but it doesn't mean we are wrong to fight for a world that is slightly less crap.

DaveR, thank you for clarifying. I disagree with your third point and think that getting rid of page 3 is critical in de-sexualising the world our children inhabit.

[Alan Medic]

I've only just read bits and pieces of this thread. If a newspaper is to stop publishing pictures of topless women surely it is the women who pose for them who need to be 'educated' into not doing it. Isn't that obvious?

[UncleBen]

People will do anything for money if they believe it is the only way. If page 3 is available and acceptable girls will still do it. So stop page 3.

[Loz]

Eh? So because some women make a career choice that you don't like, your solution is to forcibly stop them? Even more amazingly, you seem to believe you are 'saving' them.

We're not talking crack-prostitution here. 'Glamour' modelling (I hate the term, but there you go) is seen as a valid career choice that offers lots of money and the opportunity to marry a footballer. Sadly, that seems to triumph over the alternative of a lifetime serving on the till in Tescos. But exploitation it ain't.

[LondonMix]

Its hard for me to articulate why I think page 3 is wrong. I am not against nudity and I am not even against porn. I think both are a healthy part of life. However, the gratuitous nature of the page 3 nudity in a main stream publication does make me uncomfortable. It's a different kind of sexual objectification. By its very inclusion in an otherwise non pornographic publication it kind of says that women can and should be viewed as sexual objects whenever.

Never in London but in Southern European countries this kind of attitude towards women has left me feeling quite unsafe after having be grabbed and groped by strangers in the street. Sex and nudity have their place but the gratuitous sexual objectification of women allows men to think they have a right to all women's bodies in weird way. I may be wrong but its just my rather emotional reaction based on personal experience.

[Loz]

But would it make it any better if they were wearing bikini tops?

[StraferJack]

It would be better if the feature didn't exist at all in a newspaper

Tops or no

[Loz]

I agree entirely, SJ, which is why I think this campaign is more than a bit misguided and is more than a bit hijacked by the prudes.

Let's say Murdoch does what he has suggested and put the tops on. Lovely Chardonnay (23) will still be on page 3 giving her thoughts on the situation in Syria, but now wearing a flimsy top. The 'no more page 3' campaign will peter out and no one will have been saved. Women will be no less objectified (hate that word, too).

I can see (and agree with) the greater cause, but it is being served in such a minute way by this campaign. Because I believe too many of the people backing it are worried about naked breasts and have little concern with fighting sexism. If the 'No More Page 3' campaign gets what it wants then, actually, nothing will have changed. And it won't even be a step to something bigger - other parts of the Sun will continue to be just as offensive as page 3.

Really, I don't read the Sun and I don't give a damn about page 3. But I do hate prudishness. Even when it's my enemy's enemy.

[LondonMix]

Only marginally but yes I think it would be better. Being entirely topless suggests a greater degree of your actual body being publically available for men?s consumption. However, I agree with SJ. The best solution would be if it didn't exist at all.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But would it make it any better if they were

> wearing bikini tops?

[StraferJack]

"Because I believe too many of the people backing it are worried about naked breasts and have little concern with fighting sexism. "

Speculation obviously - but I'd be amazed if that wasn't the case. However, just because you have some people with that mindset doesn't detract from the overall objective

I don't think I can think of a single campaign anywhere that hasn't had to tolerate fringe beliefs in order to garner enough support. If there are some prudes in the campain it's a side issue really

Murdoch suggesting he will put bikini tops on is mild trolling on his part I think

But if that becomes the solution then I disagree it's nothing - yes it would still be pointless but it wouldn't last too long before it gets stopped completely

And just because you (and I ) find large parts of the sun objectionable isn't the point either. When it comes to news and objectivity and sales and all the rest of it as a news organisation they should be free to pursie that angle. But page 3, in a newspaper is just... well it's bloody weird

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And just because you (and I ) find large parts of the sun objectionable isn't the point either. When

> it comes to news and objectivity and sales and all the rest of it as a news organisation they should

> be free to pursie that angle. But page 3, in a newspaper is just... well it's bloody weird

As objectionable is the news reporting is, I was thinking more about the ads section at the mid to back end of the paper with phone lines, soft/hard porn dvds, etc. Dump page 3 and all that will still be there. Frankly, lowering the nipple count by two isn't a big win.

[purplehaze]

but it is still a win

there is a world of difference

between bare breasts and bikini top

[Jeremy]

As StraferJack says, if the models are wearing bikinis, then page 3 will lose its appeal and will die out.

[scareyt]

Even if this particular campaign died out, which I don't think it will, the people who are currently involved in it (speaking for myself at least and some friends I have talked to about it) will be ready to fight other battles for equality, and braver and braver about voicing objections to things like the obscene front covers of the Sport being on display in supermarkets. So many people have assumed for years we just have to put up with this stuff because nobody else cares and now we know different. So if it achieves nothing else it has already made a lot of women feel confident about tackling sexism on many fronts.

Did anyone see the #fbrape campaign on twitter? It scored a huge win over the way Facebook moderates hate speach aimed at women, in the space of a week. And a "Lose the lads mags" campaign against the supermarkets was launched by a group of lawyers the other day. There is definitely a growing movement of people unwilling to ignore this crap any more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10086454/How-three-women-took-on-sexist-Facebook-and-won.html

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/bloggers/1767101-Guest-blog-Lose-the-lads-mags-or-risk-legal-action?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=lads%2Bmags