No More Page 3 petition

(110 Posts)
StephanieDA Tue 27-Nov-12 10:39:45

Anyone else out there supporting the No More Page 3 petition set up by Lucy Holmes?
www.change.org/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
I wrote a blog about it a while ago, as a mother - please look and share if you want to:
www.communicatingwithkids.com/our-daughters/

MrsClown Fri 21-Dec-12 12:02:30

Frans - last time I looked we could discuss anything we liked. If you dont want to then dont, no one is forcing you to discuss something you dont want to discuss. I dont want to discuss certain topics on Mumsnet but I dont go on the threads and tell them not to.

SomersetONeil Fri 21-Dec-12 07:33:31

The only person 'banging on' is you, Frans. This thread had died.

Man, you're a little trouper, aren't you, coming on and resurrecting dead threads... One would almost think you didn't have a life anything better to do. But here you are! Wonderful!

Merry Christmas to you and yours. smile

PiccadillyCervix Fri 21-Dec-12 04:28:40

and yet you felt the need to come back to the thread 9 days after the last post... just to not add anything of value.. or did you think we were all holding our breath for frans words of wisdom?

Frans1980 Fri 21-Dec-12 04:10:46

Still banging on about page 3 are we? Haven't we exhausted this topic? There's nothing else I can say without repeating myself.

DyeInTheEar Wed 12-Dec-12 23:42:20

Free speech is a red herring. The Sun used the same "moral" press freedom argument to print the Vegas pictures of Prince Harry - saying they were making a point about what was available online but not available in the press. Nonsense, they wanted to sell papers and improve their circulation / advertising.

Those who make the Free Speech argument should think about the importance of living free from prejudice and sexism - rather than supporting a newspapers right to endorse it.

RiaUnderTheMistletoe Wed 12-Dec-12 23:02:11

Absolute shock at some of those Somerset And I agree with you.

SomersetONeil Wed 12-Dec-12 21:00:21

I know, DoingIt.

A couple of my links didn't work, but you get the jist...

Here's the blatantly racist one, if anyone's interested...

The 'free speech' thing is such a red herring. Would anyone seriously argue to be allowed to continue to advertise along these lines, in the name of free speech?

Times move on - people need to keep up.

DoingitOnTheRoofTopWithSanta Wed 12-Dec-12 20:35:22

Dominic Mohan had 3 children according to WIKI, any of them daughters do you think? I wonder if he would happy for them to be page 3 girls?

HUgh Heffner made his daughter vice president..not a centerfold. I can not comprehend the mind set that of someone who would so happily use women that way whilst having daughter. It just doesn't make sense.

DyeInTheEar Wed 12-Dec-12 20:29:48

Yes Somerset - good post

SomersetONeil Wed 12-Dec-12 20:08:12

Yes, the real world. That real world where only a few decades ago, easily in living memory of some, ads like these were perfectly acceptable and reasonable...

Show her it's a man's world.

Where she belongs.

Your wife will drive home one of the best reasons...

So the harder a wife works the cuter she looks...

...that's what wives are for.

Most men ask 'is she pretty? Not 'is she clever?'

And a 'delightful' non-gendered one...

I'm sure the first people to complain about these were seen as 'over-reacting' and 'making a big deal about nothing'. I'm sure they were also accused of curtailing 'free speech'...

Breasts in a newspaper are as outdated and antiquated as these images. If not more.

In another generation, people will snigger at Page 3 in the same way that we laugh at these, slightly incredulous that people thought they were in any way OK. Some people seemingly take a lot longer than others to to get to the point of understanding that, and so feel the need to vehemently argue for the status quo.

I lump Page 3 supporters in with the sort of people who didn't see the slightest thing wrong with these messages...

Nancy66 Wed 12-Dec-12 12:08:03

They weren't deleted by a phone hacker though - they just expired.

MrsClown Wed 12-Dec-12 12:05:45

Nancy - it was not an error. Milly's messages were deleted which made her parents think she was still alive. No error involved. But if you think it is not absolutely disgusting you are perfectly entitled to your opinion even though it is a world away from mine.

Dye - I totally understand what you mean. I always go in my Spa and cover the womans arse and vulva with some obscure non offensive publication. I dont say a word to the staff but just look at them. I have never been stopped. A friend of mine was doing the same in a shop and the shopkeeper called the police when she refused to stop doing it. The police came out and said to the shop keeper 'well actually she is right!'. Its not illegal, though the shopkeeper can bar you from the shop.

Nancy66 Wed 12-Dec-12 11:06:11

oh ok. Misunderstood. fair enough.

emcwill74 Wed 12-Dec-12 11:05:20

I'm not talking about me - I'm talking about the page 3 models. What exactly is News in Briefs doing if not that?

Nancy66 Wed 12-Dec-12 10:54:46

If you are getting the piss ripped out of you daily because you have tits then you really should consider moving areas and changing jobs.

emcwill74 Wed 12-Dec-12 10:42:08

I find it so utterly brain-hurtingly baffling when I read comments from women defending page 3. I don't get it. Then I read the guff that follows about how we live in a free democracy and therefore this kind of shitty sexism is apparently really important because it's free speech and if we ban page 3 then OHMYGOD we'll have women in burqas next and it'll be like Victorian Britain and Afghanistan and China all rolled into one only with no sky because that will have fallen in.

So here's a thought. Since we have this 'free speech' on page 3, I'm really concerned that it's not having a pop at any other group that I might want to see having the piss ripped out of them daily, as is my right if I want to spend 40p on that in this democracy. Why can't I have a page 3 devoted to Afro-Carribbeans? I'd love to see the text where they say something 'political' - perhaps it could read 'I don't have no opinion on dat stuff mon because I has been smoking da good stuff all day instead of getting a job'. Then I can laugh at black people when I'm out and about because they are so hilarious and not as clever as me because they are black and lazy. And actually, what about the gays? Why leave them alone? Let's have limp-wristed man in a sailor hat on page 3 and then I can shout at the 'queers' in public and laugh at them because they are so funny and not as normal as me. And I can say to my kids - look kids! You don't want to be like that do you? Now go objectify some women quick and be 'normal'! Those gays aren't like us and we should just laugh at them. And what about the Jews? They could find some for page 3 with big noses and score their noses out of 10 for size? Bigger the better! Brilliant!

No? But free speech, innit.

DyeInTheEar Tue 11-Dec-12 19:01:04

*inured

DyeInTheEar Tue 11-Dec-12 19:00:01

By the way, I think page 3 is outdated and objectifies women. It does not just include page 3, it includes the Star and Sport. I cant believe they get away with it. I went to my local shop the other day to be confronted with a woman's arse and almost vulva in my face on front of the Spa. Anyone who thinks that is ok needs their heads examined IMO

Exactly - and explaining to a four year old DS why a woman was bending over with her backside in the air whilst waiting in the queue at Tesco Metro made me realise how innured I'd become to newspapers showing those images.

They should not be in newspapers. Simple as that. Don't think taking the boobs out of the Mirror changed it that much.

DoingitOnTheRoofTopWithHugh Tue 11-Dec-12 14:09:20

Yes, sausage the real world continues on. And bit by little bit it gets better for all people through activism and knowledge.

AbigailAdams Tue 11-Dec-12 13:56:06

It's amazing how many people will support men's privilege to ogle women's bodies.

Sausageeggbacon Tue 11-Dec-12 13:20:18

Thankfully the real world continues without involvement from these boards.

Nancy66 Tue 11-Dec-12 13:08:08

I wasn't justifying it. I was correcting your error.

MrsClown Tue 11-Dec-12 12:55:30

Nancy66 - thats ok then. I suppose anything can be justified. I still cant believe people do though.

rosa and muddle - thank you!

Nancy66 Tue 11-Dec-12 08:37:45

I agree that hacking Milly Dowler's phone was wrong.

However the family knew nothing about it at the time. The messages were not deleted as has been widely reported and, therefore, the family were not given any false hope that their murdered daughter was alive.

rosabud Tue 11-Dec-12 07:45:04

Me too

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now