How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!

(190 Posts)
DoctorRobert Thu 23-May-13 15:42:21

This is inspired by a thread about the No More Page 3 campaign on another forum I'm a member of. Some of the attitudes over there (all by female posters) are just depressing.

So many women who don't see a problem with Page 3 & describe it as harmless fun...the old chestnut that "there are worse things in the world to worry about" (maybe, maybe not, but I can think about more than one issue at once)...Page 3 being defended as tradition...and a complete inability to see Page 3 as part of a bigger picture of objectification and inequality. Posters denying that there even is inequality. Posters saying they would support their daughters if they wanted to topless model.

So my question is, how can any woman in 2013 think that way?

Is it normalisation? A lot of the posters also recount their parents buying the Sun and seeing Page 3 from a young age. Has objectification been so deeply ingrained into them that they just can't see why it's a problem?

Or is that it's too uncomfortable for some women to acknowledge that we don't yet have equality? Perhaps on some level they do realise there's a problem with Page 3, but facing up to that isn't an easy thing to do?

junobaby74 Fri 20-Sep-13 13:29:30

I too find it very depressing when other women don't see anything wrong with page 3. I agree with another poster that they probably just don't want to come across as prudish or jealous. I sometimes think this about my sister. Once upon a time we would have had conversations about the objectification of women and how it denigrates us all, now however I don't want to ask her opinion of the get rid of page 3 protest because I fear what her answer will be. A few years ago she went to Thailand and when she came home she was quite open about the go-go bars she had been to there with her friends. Recently when my mum complained about, what she considered gratuitous and unnecessary nudity (female of course) in a film she was watching my sister said to her "just because you are uncomfortable with your own body". So yes I personally think many women are kidding themselves about it because they want to come across as cool and liberal, un-jealous and good fun about these things to other women but also to men.

Well I certainly don't support the campaign. This is predominantly because Page 3 is one of the least horrible things the Sun publishes. Do people really think that if Murdoch were to make the tokenistic gesture of getting rid of Page 3 the Sun would suddenly stop peddling its usual vile cocktail of bigotry, misinformation, fake outrage, manipulation of the stupid and dangerous lies?

SigmundFraude Sun 18-Aug-13 22:33:39

' i don't buy into this whole objectifcation argument.'

It's a bit like 'Down With Biology. No more Sexual Attraction. We want None of That'

'As I stated earlier, a YouGov poll suggests 49% of the population want rid and 16% are undecided, meaning a minority actually want it kept.'

How many folks took took part in that poll? Do you know?

gedhession Sun 18-Aug-13 15:04:06

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

ThirdTimesABrokenFanjo Thu 27-Jun-13 13:46:06
edukation1 Wed 26-Jun-13 14:42:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

edukation1 Wed 26-Jun-13 14:40:45

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Sausageeggbacon Wed 26-Jun-13 10:54:02

There is probably a better thread to bring this up but this was the first one I found. Sun Editor saying they are keeping page 3 as two thirds of readers support it. Radio 5 live interview here

Not sure if this was picked up on another thread as I am not reading mumsnet much at the moment.

HullMum Mon 27-May-13 18:52:26

a petition is never meant to be taken as a comprehensive list of every person who thinks a certain way, obviously. It's a list of people who (in this case) firstly know there is a petition, are politicaly motivated enough to bother signing it, have internet in the first place. It's a quite healthy number really. if a company gets a hundred complaints about something they know that actually quite a lot more than a hundred were dissatisfied.

emcwill74 Mon 27-May-13 09:32:17

sausage I think there is a groundswell of support for it actually. As I stated earlier, a YouGov poll suggests 49% of the population want rid and 16% are undecided, meaning a minority actually want it kept. I don't think it matters whether they are Sun readers or not, we are all entitled to an opinion on what affects wider society. One doesn't have to be a BNP member to believe that they shouldn't distribute racist literature.

libertarianj I have never said I think everyone who reads the Sun is a moron and neither has anyone who has anything to do with the NMP3 campaign. I have also pointed out before that 7m readers simply does not equate to 7m people who actively support page 3. But yes I think I do know better (on this issue) than those Sun readers who do want it. But so what? Why does that make this an elitist/class thing? UKIP supporters no doubt think they know better than Green Party supporters. You no doubt think you know better than a bunch of silly feminists on MN.

Saying you don't believe in objectification is like eating a piece of cheese between 2 slices of bread and saying you don't believe in a cheese sandwich. Objectification is what page 3 is no matter how much you want to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and say, la la laaa no objectification here. It doesn't matter what is going on in your head when you look at the model's body, the Sun has objectified her by presenting a picture of a woman showing sexual body parts that society deems we cover up. If it isn't doing it for men's arousal/pleasure then why is it doing it? That doesn't make me a prude or scared of nudity, I have no problem with women BFing in public, but funnily enough the p3 girl is never BFing.

I totally agree with coal dust's point about naked male models being targeted at gay men. Why is appealing to men's sexuality so important it has to be in a newspaper?

Sausageeggbacon Mon 27-May-13 09:24:39

CoalDust ok money counts for everything, 7m readers is enough to get any advertiser thinking of using the rag. What we have though is very loud voices for very small numbers expecting to be listened to. The look we made 100k signatures like it is the whole of the country makes me giggle. Be interesting to see the reaction of those who claim we don't buy sex on Thursday after the program coming up on the explosion of the male stripper industry. If men are buying sex with strippers then we must be doing the same. It highlights that in fact the numbers against page 3 and against strippers are relatively small but awfully loud.

I agree about how long it took the whole rape in marriage issue to get sorted. Had me very surprised as I was about to get married to XH at the time the law was passed.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:28:48

Do you want a race to the, erm, bottom?

What about men's packages? I accept that breasts don't equal penii, but what about page 5 being obvious erections encased in boxers? Or a sturdy 9 incher next to the button down fly of a jean? The Page 7 stuff wasn't really equivalent, was it?

Bizarrely (and I never get this - maybe I'm a lesbian and I don't know it), most of the time when men pose for seemingly equivalent pictures, I don't get it's for me. It's for gay men. I (honestly) wonder why that is. I'm pretty visual, too. I have eyes.

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 22:20:34

CoalDust in my defence i did mention earlier in this thread that i would be happy for the campaign to be against the 'news in brief bit', just not about the nudity.

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 22:15:56

it's all very well saying it's weak but how about trying to argue the points i have raised? and it's not a strawman it's my observation and impression.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:13:16

Heh, libertarians make me chuckle.

No-ones calling for a ban, are they? As in legally. Just appealing to better natures.

It's the taglines that enrage me, particularly. Mocking women by putting them in their tits out place is one thing that annoys intensely. Mocking the women posing is another thing altogether. How dare they? And, yes, put anyone else in that scenario and there would be outrage. That there isn't is massively depressing.

Creeping Sun 26-May-13 22:05:00

Weak try of putting words into the mouth of the NMP3 supporters, libertarianj. Strawman argument.

And denying all the negative experiences people have had with Page 3 as well. That is not an assumption, it is real.

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 21:56:38

Agreed Sausage i raised a similar point earlier, it's almost as if peeps objecting on here are saying 'we know better than those other 7 million morons who read the sun'

On the other hand LittleDirewolfBitJoffrey i have yet to hear a convincing argument to ban page 3 and having looked at your blog i don't buy into this whole objectifcation argument. As i said earlier peeps are trying to make physical attraction/ fancing people into this more sinister concept of objectification. How does one know what other people think when they see a topless photograph in the Sun? everyone is an individual and has their own views and perceptions. Objectification therefore assumes people with the lowest, most primitive thoughts. This is pretty offensive and elitist thing to claim when you think about it?

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 20:28:11

Oh, and we're talking about a business here. Majority rule counts for nothing. Money counts for everything.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 20:26:52

I don't want to ban anything. I am not anti-democratic.

I am, however, aware that people have limited time to think about a lot of stuff and I think that consciousness-raising by drawing things to their attention with reasoned argument is a useful exercise. It might not work this time. After all, it took until 1992 to get un-consented penetration of a wife by a husband to be unlawful. (Anyone else still shocked by this? That I was an adult before this came into law still floors me). But more people will be aware of the debate. That's pretty democratic in my book.

Sausageeggbacon Sun 26-May-13 20:19:16

Hate to point out to people we live in a democracy which means majority rule. Even when we know something is wrong we can't change it unless enough people agree. So get 7 million signatures against page 3 maybe people will listen. Or more likely those who are going to sign have signed by now and there may be dribbles but there is not the groundswell of support for getting rid of it.

100,000 or even 500,000 would not be a big enough to make a point.

scottishmummy Sun 26-May-13 19:10:15

does it really make you feel more secure in your view to demonise others as women haters?
how do you deal with conflicting opinion in real life?label everyone else haters?
it must make life v black and white for you

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 19:04:05

I don't see this campaign as a call for banning. I see it is a consciousness-raising exercise. I'm all for them - get the debates happening in the public sphere. On anything, particularly to do with issues to do with inequality, whether large or small.

Getting people engaged and thinking about stuff is the way change happens in society, alongside direct actions and fights for legal changes. And that works for stuff we don't like, as well as stuff we do.

I never quite understand the hierarchy of causes thing, though. Or, rather, I never understand why some posters post to argue against something that they think unworthy of time spent (not against the cause itself), rather than for something they think is important. What a baffling use of time. Ironically.

My views were laid out on my blog a few months ago and they haven't changed
Needless to say I have not heard a single view for keeping page 3 that has convinced me that it should stay.
I agree with the poster who said that at best they (people who want to keep page 3) have accepted casual, everyday sexism and at worst they hate women. Sums it up.

morethanpotatoprints Sun 26-May-13 18:50:17

I think (only opinion) that it is important to bring your dc up to respect women. They will come across pornography unless you intend to wrap them in cotton wool, its just up to us as parents whether we try to protect them, pretend it won't be our dc, educate them in an age appropriate way or a mix of the above.
Trying to ban the source whether The Sun, soft porn magazines, or internet sites, isn't going to stop a person's desire if this is what they choose.
The Sun isn't my thing, nor dh, nor my ds (the latter grew out of it a long time ago) grin

Xenia Sun 26-May-13 18:47:07

When men stop liking breasts there will be no children on the earth. Their sex is one of the few things many women who are low earners can sell. Arguably by denying them that you give in to male power - anyway that's one point of view.

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