Should we back the No More Page 3 campaign? Please let us know what you think...

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,

As some of you will know, there have been a few on-board debates about the No More Page 3 nomorepage3.org/ campaign, and whether or not Mumsnet should 'officially' join up as a supporter.

Previous threads here here here and here have been on balance supportive but not of a sufficient consensus for us to feel comfortable putting our full weight behind the cause.

With our most recent blog post on the issue, however, support seemed a bit more clear cut and there were lots of calls for us to back the campaign.

So we thought we'd canvass support more officially and widely. Do please use this thread to let us know whether you think we should sign up.

Obviously this is by no means a precise science, but in order to try to get a representative Mumsnet view, we will be placing a bit less weight on the views of those who have signed up to Mumsnet very recently.

[SanityClause]

I do think this is important, and have already signed the petition.

I think that it is inappropriate for sexualised images of women to be so prominent in what is supposed to be a family newspaper.

My 14yo DD agrees with me!

[TheNightIsDark]

I think you'd have to also campaign that topless photos of men are banned as well. Nipples are nipples. Surely making such a big deal about it only heightens the idea that it's inappropriate and makes teenage boys especially more likely to seek it out?

Im woefully under informed though!

[sleeplessbunny]

I would be very pleased to see mumsnet back this campaign.

[EauRouge]

It's not the nudity that's the problem, it's the context. Topless beaches- fine. Topless photos of women in a 'family' newspaper that are there purely for sexual gratification- objectifying and definitely not fine.

Please, please back this campaign, MNHQ.

[Starballbunny]

No! It's massively too difficult to explain to 90% of men and 80% of women over 40 or under 20 why it matters at all.

I vaguely get it sexualises women and we'd rather not be thought of as objects, but so does every other advert on the planet.

I think it's impossible to have campaign to ban pg. 3 that doesn't have people totally miss the point and just think your a bunch of prudes who don't approve of breasts!

Also, I'd far far rather see a huge campaign directed at the British government on FGM, girls being forced into aranged marriages and honour killings here and abroad.

[Starballbunny]

Also it reinforces the ridiculous notion that nipples are some how dirty and obscene, but the most minimal bikini (normally accompanied by some awful, dangerous, sexist twaddle about the wearers weight) is fine.

As a very long term BFer this really irritates me.

[GwendolynMoon]

I totally support Mumsnet backing the campaign.

I find it extraordinary that people don't grasp the rationale behind the campaign (and compare it to nudes in museums etc) but to be honest I don't see the point in arguing with people about it. Others, and the campaign itself, make the points far more eloquently than me. So will just leave you with 'yes Mumsnet should officially support the campaign'.

[Bowlersarm]

No, I don't think MN should be behind a campaign to ban it.

[lookdeepintotheparka]

Yes please do back this campaign. I have yet to see or hear anything that would persuade me otherwise.

I think it is absolutely essential the debate about increasingly sexualized images of women continues.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

Yes, Mumsnet should officially support the campaign.

[WallyBantersJunkBox]

I already make my thoughts known by not buying or reading these newspapers.

I find the "Page seven fella" equally ridiculous.

But it's still a choice for women and men to feature in this if they want, so I probably wouldn't sign up.

[EauRouge]

See, I think page 3 is damaging to breastfeeding rates because it reinforces the idea that breasts are for sex. Breasts are primarily there for milk production, the sexual function is secondary.

[olgafromthevolga]

Yes, I think you should support the campaign

[NigelMolesworth]

Yes, please support it

[TheNightIsDark]

I think there's more important things to campaign about. FGM, childcare costs, more support for MH awareness and losing the stigma and the increasing pressure on children to be older than they are (make up, video games etc.)

Not to mention from the campaign I've seen (the SN one) they seem to run a bit on here but I've never seen one in a newspaper or magazine where it could reach people and have an effect.

[TheNightIsDark]

Also a family newspaper? Newspapers aren't family orientated. They're for adults. There's far worse in papers that I wouldn't want my children exposed to than boobs.

[EauRouge]

The Sun describes itself as a family newspaper and has lots of deals in it for family holidays, toys etc. And as I said, it's not about the nudity. I don't mind my children seeing me naked if I get out of the shower. I would mind them seeing me pose naked for my husband's sexual gratification- can you not see the difference?

Of course there are worse things in there, there are always worse things going on in the world. That doesn't mean that the small things aren't worth fighting.

[DameDeepRedBetty]

Will the 'no more page 3' campaign also cover the DM's habit (and a couple of other papers too) of showing beach paparazzi shots of celebs, with an effusive storyline about their weightloss/weightgain? Prurience disguised as news.

[TippiShagpile]

Yes - please back it.

[glenthebattleostrich]

Yes, please support it.

And those complaining about the objectification of men, feel free to start a campaign about it.

I read a great comment in one of the papers which said something along the lines of we don't write to cancer research to complain they don't do enough to raise the awareness of heart disease, we accept both are valid concerns we need to raise awareness of. The same can be said of feminist campaigns. We don't disagree that there are issues affecting men, so please don't try to derail an issue affecting women with the but men have it bad too arguments, we are perfectly capable of supporting more than one campaign!

[EauRouge]

BTW the aim of this campaign is not to get Page 3 'banned'. This is covered, alongside lots of other stuff, in the FAQ.

[emcwill74]

Do those posters above saying they don't think MN should support a campaign to 'ban' page 3 realise that the No More Page 3 campaign is not asking for any sort of legal 'ban'? It is asking the editor to voluntarily stop a feature that the Sun voluntarily started over 40 years ago in a very different socio-political landscape. This is an important distinction. Of course MN should support the campaign! Why on earth shouldn't they agree with the sentiments of 'we don't believe women should be presented as passive objects whose main function is to appeal to men's sex drive and pretty up the newspaper by silently decorating it, whilst men are presented clothes-on making the news'. What on earth is controversial about that?! Can't men find pics of boobs elsewhere these days? I for one was so proud to be a MNer when 'the other place' announced feminism was dead and MN shouted back NO IT BLOODY ISN'T!!! So why are we not taking a stand against this sexist message that is driven home day after day in, of all things, a NEWSPAPER?!

No it doesn't give the message that nipples are dirty and obscene and we don't approve of breasts. Because is that what everyone thought before the Sun kindly introduced page 3, when miraculously everyone suddenly then thought them non-dirty, non-obscene and started to approve of these hideous breast things?

There is nothing prudish about believing a woman's value is greater than the sum of her knockers and a vacant smile, however nice her norks might be. And I agree with the poster above about BFing. When the Sun shows us that how lovely our boobs are is one of the most important thing about us to men, why would a young woman choose to do something that is going to make them sag and deflate? I have had a number of friends tell me they were frightened to BF because of this.

As far as I'm concerned the Sun overstepped the mark once and for all when it decorated a disturbing tale of trafficking and forced gang rape with a picture of a woman on page 3 whose sole purpose is to turn men on, hence trivialising and eroticising the article. If this doesn't sum up all that is absolutely wrong with page 3, and how the Sun depicts women, I don't know what does!

[KiwiBanana]

Yes I would be thrilled to see mumsnet supporting this campaign.
Anyone who feels a bit ignorant of this campaign should head straight to the NMP3 FAQs.
It's not about hating boobs or nipples, it's about how inappropriate they are in a family newspaper.

[projectbabyweight]

Yes, I'd really like MN to support it.

[HomeIsWhereTheGinIs]

I'm new in that I only joined to comment when I got pregnant a few months ago but I've been lurking for years. I would love to see MN back the ban. This kind of blatant and casual over-sexualisation in newspapers just contributes to the general misogynistic perception that women are to be valued for their bodies above all else. It's not what I want my son growing up accepting as normal.