The No More Page 3 campaign

[Loz]

Obscene? "Lose the lads' mags'? More anti-nudity, disguised as anti-sexism? Surely the Hello, Closer, Heat, Cosmo, etc magazines of this world are as damaging to female body image and sexism - if not more so. Do we hear a whimper about those? Nope. Why not? Where are those campaigns?

Somewhere in the distance I can hear Mary Whitehouse giggling.

[scareyt]

Loz wrote

More anti-nudity, disguised as anti-sexism?

Odd how you can instantly deduce a motive other than the one given, which then means you can cheerfully dismiss the whole campaign. There is something not quite right with the logic behind your reaction. It seems to go something like "I hate prudes, and I've decided you people are definitely prudes, therefore your campaigns are a pile of crap." The chain of thought is not a million miles from the "if you hate page 3 you must be a fat jealous miserable feminazi" trolling comments that appear over and over again on all the feminist campaign sites.

Laura Bates wrote a great piece in the Independent about the #fbrape campaign which talks about the "prude" tag that often gets thrown at feminists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-day-the-everyday-sexism-project-won--and-facebook-changed-its-image-8636661.html?origin=internalSearch

[Loz]

Actually, the faceboook campaign I like - and could be expanded to a lot of other unpleasantness on there. Though, of course, there are free speech concerns as well. Once you start banning things you disagree with, it's usually not long before it comes around to affect things you do.

But, nicely sidestepped on the nudity vs objectification issue, scareyt. Once someone points out a hole in your defence, blasting them with all manner of strawman allegation is usually a pretty good diversionary tactic. So well done, you. But any chance you could actually answer my query?

[Loz]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Actually, the faceboook campaign I like - and could be expanded to a lot of other unpleasantness

> on there. Though, of course, there are free speech concerns as well. Once you start banning

> things you disagree with, it's usually not long before it comes around to affect things you do.

And, almost immediately, a case in point. Once you start banning stuff, something will always come back to bite you. In this case, the campaign was deemed 'abusive' and banned. You can't really turn around and claim free speech at this point, can you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/facebook-locks-out-campaigner-women

[Jeremy]

Not sure about the "lost the lads mags" thing. They don't normally have topless photos on the cover, do they?

[Loz]

From mammary... erm... memory, they are technically topless on the cover, but generally cover themselves with their hands or arms.

[Jessie]

I think the daily mail and the majority of women's magazines are much more harmful to women of all ages than the lads mags.

[silverfox]

Why don't we rename this thread Prudes corner?

[Bic Basher]

I find various women's media more objectionable to women than any of the crap published in the lads mags.

Diet fads, how to get the perfect man etc play to a stereotype that women supposedly have to conform to. An average lad mag will have a curvy model with admittedly a dire light hearted interview.

The feminist movement is quite right to fight for equality in the workplace and shouldn't have to face abuse from male colleagues, yet I doubt your average Sun or Nuts reader is to blame for that.

[Alan Medic]

So what do we make of women posing naked but covering their bits (mostly) with dead creatures of the sea to help the cause of stopping overfishing the seas? It got my attention.

[Loz]

Well, it looks like the final result was: Nudies 2, Prudies 0....

[JohnL]

Cameron applied for a Review

Result after umpires review - page 3 of Sun to be covered with opt-in veil.

Nudies 0 Prudies 2

[Otta]

An old friend of mine is well in to this campaign and often posts about it on Facebook. I must admit when I see these posts I have thought "aren't there more important femenist arguments for you to put your energy in to?".

I'm not pro Page 3, but I do think some of the arguments about the effect a pair of breasts could have on children are pretty nonsensical.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I would miss the political insights of Nadia (22) from Bromley

[polla2256]

Who reads the sun ? I mean I havent read it since I was in school, at which stage my thoughts were that half nude women were an essential part of the day. Is it really such a pertinent issue ? There are arguments against it but do these people actually read the paper or is it just principle ? If we argue merely on principle where does that path lead ? In Bali you can buy a variety of wooden penises, they are on display everywhere, in greece erotic hard core playing cards are for sale next to the haribo, in Dresden the art hotel has a 20 foot man on the hotel roof displaying his wares to the town, inside the hotel the theme continues with breasts and penises adorning the corridors, rooms and bar yes its a normal business / tourist hotel. This campaign is just too British, no wonder we have a reputation as a nation of prudes. Long live page 3 its like a cup of tea in morning, roast beef on a sunday, a big red london bus and a cheeky cockney London cabby - shall we ban them too for not conforming to a feminists agenda ?

[alice]

Could you possibly post a pic of your genitals?

[polla2256]

Only if you post a picture of your's too LOL typical response really that bears no logic or reason in relation to the topic. Its as much my choice to rock out with my cock out as much as it is not to, I could even wear a dish dash if I wanted or a dress or mankini, personally I'll leave the penis waving to the Ron Jermemys of the world. This is called freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice applies to the papers which people choose to read as much as it does to those who wish to pose nude (ish) in them. Also I don't think the mods would take kindly to it - the site may fall fowl of David Cameron.

[El Pibe]

"the site may fall fowl of David Cameron"

He has an issue with birds too does he?

thengyouverymuchimhereallweek.

[polla2256]

Come on it wasn't hard - I was commenting on his approach to internet sensorship in respect to his idea of a search engines ability to return nil results using certain search strings.

[LondonMix]

You mean his campaign against child porn searches? Its pointless as Google very effectively does this already but there is nothing wrong with the sentiment.

polla2256 Wrote:

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

> Come on it wasn't hard - I was commenting on his

> approach to internet sensorship in respect to his

> idea of a search engines ability to return nil

> results using certain search strings.

[polla2256]

Okay this is going off topic but whatever. Couldn't agree more with the sentiment something has to be done but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it. I agree with a degree of anonymity and freedom online however not at the expense of the vulnerable. These methods are a step closer to total censorship and state control of the web. Given the fact that some ISP's and search engines already have some methods it does raise the question of what is the true motive of the government ?

The methods he is discussing will only go so far. I think there should be a new application layer through an ISP whereby to log in you must have a unique cypher key in the same way we have an NHS number - an ID, internet passport whatever. This key could be totally confidential and only be viewed by an authority whose aim is to prevent crime, track and record your actions online making you accountable but allowing the anonymity in the web community.

Its the point of access that should be controlled and monitored, search engines and DNS servers aren't a hard point of access the gateways are.

.....and now back to page 3

[Dopamine1979]

I'd like to point out that this is Page 3 of the Page 3 debate.

Sorry. I'll go back to the Lounge.

[polla2256]

I know but I couldn't resist

[StraferJack]

Liked this tweet today

"Every time someone confuses 'No More Page 3' with porn/body censorship a rich white man gets his wings."

[Top Banana]

Fear not, polla2256 - your wishes are coming, whether you want it or not.

I introduce the global e-ID program, so that your betters may monitor protect you.

http://www.worlde-idcongress.com/program?postTabs=2#p2a22