Monday 1 September 2014

No More Page 3

The first responsibility that needs to be accounted for is to acknowledge that there is power in these images in a national newspaper.  Advertising, magazine covers and editorial spreads all have power.  There are people who have dedicated their lives to studying, researching and understanding how people will have an emotional, intellectual and moral response to an image, sound, voice or text.  This is what people have researched, and this is why they are paid such large salaries.  But to pretend that all this knowledge and the outcomes of research means nothing morally, that these people are servants of the people and seek to reflect back what the people want, is ridiculous. 

Mainstream media still regularly portrays women as meek sexual wallflowers in need of objectification by men.  The media is a tool of social control which nobody seems willing to take responsibility for: it can create a degree of passivity or a reluctance to take action on social problems, numbing our response to violence and maintaining a view that the world is a corrupt, evil and negative place.  Consequently, our consumption of such media forms casts a vote for the type of world we wish to live in, solidifying representations of groups in society based on traditionally accepted roles as inherent truths.  This perpetuates gender stereotypes in the media.  Such blatantly unequal treatment and subjugation of women undoubtedly aids the development of a warped and perverted perspective on gender equality. 

We should not be spreading the message that sex sells or that a woman’s naked body is her entire worth and that young boys should be judging women by their physical appearance.  Page 3 has been perpetuating rape culture for far too long; there is still too much misogyny and sexism in our supposedly westernised civilised society.  We must halt the over-sexualisation of the female form.

Page 3 disseminates the vile myth that women are to be objectified, dehumanised and treated as a tradable commodity, all for men to be sexually aroused by.  We do not need a publicly publishable route to access pornography because this is degrading to women and suggestive of their availability to men, possibly resulting in the contribution to sexual assaults and rapes.  It is time mainstream media outlets took responsibility for the image they are putting out to the world; they need to acknowledge their moral responsibility in the way they represent the role of women in our society.

Furthermore, Page 3 is not just demeaning to women, it’s patronising to men.  It assumes that the only way they will read the news is if there is soft porn pasted throughout.  It suggests that men seek solely to view women as objects.  Men can choose to question the inherent sexism in societal institutions.  They can challenge misogyny, assault and rape wherever they see it.  They can take risks to support their fellow peers to create a fairer society.  They can make good use of their male privilege and redefine the negative connotations for the better.  The first step to making society more equal is gaining the support of men to remove Page 3.  It should not be the struggle of individual, previously persecuted minorities to deconstruct the nature of societal institutions such as The Sun.

And if these are not valid enough reasons for taking the bare boobs out of The Sun, perhaps the 202,397 people who have signed the change.org campaign* can convince you otherwise.

When the value of women is continuously reliant on whether a woman fits the ideal of sexual beauty and whether she fulfils what society has socialised us into expecting from her sexually, we create a society in which the goal of a woman is to be sexually appealing.  The feminine contribution to society is reduced to looking or being sexy. 
Oversimplified and inaccurate (sexist) portrayals of these groups have profoundly affected how we perceive and relate to one another and how we value ourselves.  This is why we still need to fight for equality and the removal of Page 3 from a national newspaper.

If you wish to sign the campaign, follow this link

* (at time of publishing)

6 comments:

  1. Hi Meg, I am so proud of your generation. I am a 42 year old (sounds so old)! With a daughter of 16, who I dreaded her growing up in a society where things like page 3 are seen as 'normal'. When I was your age, I was an angry, militant feminist, but there was no Internet or social media then. At university, all the women I spoke to about feminism and things like page 3, were totally apathetic. I don't think they liked it, but they didn't appear as bothered about it as I was. In the words of my sister, "I just try not to think about it". I couldn't do that; this led to problems in my relationships with men and me feeling real anger and hatred towards our society.
    I remember reading an interview with Michael Hutchence (lead singer with Australian band INXS, who sadly died prematurely), around 1990 ish and he said he was disgusted at what British women have to go through, living in a country where page 3 is seen as normal. No-one else (except the wonderful Claire Short), ever mentioned it. It was something that you didn't talk about and if you did, you were seen as odd or jealous!
    So, I salute you and your generation. I don't know how much emotional trauma page 3 has caused, but speaking for myself, I can say, hand on heart that it played a large part in ruining my life (I have substance abuse issues). I thank you and am so grateful to you. I thought we would never rise up against it. With much love xxx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, thank you for taking the time to write this and share your story. I’m very sorry to hear what you’ve been through and how Page 3 has affected you and your life. I do feel that my generation still has a long way to go because, even if we are speaking out about issues such as Page 3, people still try to shut us down and reject our views. These people encourage us, as you said, to not think about it. Having read Clare Short’s story about her views on Page 3, I found her documentation on The Star’s publication quite interesting. Considering they received such a vast majority of women and men who were in support of removing Page 3, it seems quite absurd that they didn’t remove the images. It is rather atrocious that there has been this backlash against the page for so long, but nothing has changed because the editors do not seem to want to acknowledge our voices. I do hope that in the near future that Page 3 is removed from national newspapers for good, and hopefully then it will be recognised nationally for the damage that has been caused for so many. Thank you again for sharing, with love xxx

      Delete
  2. Sex Positive Feminist5 September 2014 at 23:30

    This article is a puritanical, ill thought out, and dangerous position. Pornography is not a problem, much less Page 3, sexism is the problem. If anyone is objectified by Page 3, it is not women at large but the individual woman posing for the picture. She should be allowed to do so, and it is not your place to restrict the method that she wants to use to earn a living. Both men and women like pornography and the sales of Fifty Shades of Grey, mainly to women, demonstrate that this is so.
    You accuse the mainstream media of portraying women as "meek sexual wallflowers," but that is exactly what you are doing, trying to make women all prim and proper. Well it is not the case. Women like sex and they should be proud of the fact and some women want to strip off or have sex for money. They do not need to be told by you what they can and cannot do. Take your views to the church because that is where they belong, not in the feminist movement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not denying that women shouldn't be allowed to make a living. Opposition to Page 3 is not opposition to sex. I have nothing against glamour modelling, but Page 3 is in a family newspaper, and this is why it is such a problem within mainstream media. It's about context. I don't deny that women enjoy sex, but if they want to take their kit off or have sex for money, then the context of where these images are published is something that needs to be considered (less by the woman herself, and more by the publishers and editors of the likes of The Sun – the campaign is asking for a voluntary removal by the editors of these images. It won’t put these women out of work for there are other publications they can work for that are more appropriate for the target audience).
      I'm not aiming to dissuade any glamour models from pursuing their career but I do think sexualised images should be in adult publications. Perhaps Page 3 would be more appropriate as an age restricted website or a top shelf publication, not in a family newspaper which is placed on the bottom shelf alongside children's comics?

      Page 3 isn't about sex for women. It was introduced to The Sun in the 1970s for the working class men down in the mines for hours on end, back when women truly were subservient to men and didn't know they could say "no" to sex (or, if they did, they'd have seven bells knocked out of them). Society is not like this today, but Page 3 has this as its historical background, therefore it is now outdated. Glamour modelling is not outdated as women are able to make a conscious choice and say "yes" or "no" to many things in their sexual lives, but when their images are printed in a national newspaper it is a dangerous position with sexism as the problem with the publication of the page, for it subliminally reinforces the reasoning behind the first Page 3 spread.

      And whilst you mention the support for Fifty Shades of Grey from both men and women (and primarily women at that), I feel it is important to acknowledge that, whilst it has been successful and consequently made into a film, there is a rating of at least 15 attached. Therefore, surely a similar thing should be in place for Page 3? It has been recognised by the producers of the film that the content is powerful and, for young people, it is inappropriate, which is the same reasoning behind support for the removal of Page 3 from a national, family newspaper.

      Although, these are just my views, which are clearly different to yours. But before you tell me that I should not be welcomed within the feminist movement, you need to realise that there are several branches of feminism with different agendas. I will reiterate again, I am not against glamour modelling or women making a living by removing their tops, but I am against these images being used in a widely circulated, national, family newspaper with a crude history. Thank you.

      Delete
  3. I am saddened by the 2 comments so far regarding this article for two entirely different reasons:

    The first comment from Anonymous (05 September) saddens me for the fact that a woman's life has been so deeply affected by this. As a 48 year old woman myself, I feel that I have witnessed far too much in my lifetime and seen the treatment and abuse of women not only continue, but worsen over the years, much of which I am unable to even discuss here owing to the nature of it. I have worked in women's groups for many years and supported women's causes worldwide and there have been times that I have feared what my two daughters could possibly encounter growing up.

    Like Anonymous, I recall my thoughts and feelings around Page 3 with anger and outrage and this too caused issues within my first marriage, as my husband was unable to quantify what was so great about seeing a woman's breasts in that context.

    This would have been around the time when the trend for nude sunbathing became a hot item and the double-standards within male society reared its head. I was not 'allowed' (even if I'd wanted to) sunbathe topless. I was his wife, but it was ok for him to see other women's breasts. Many of my friends experienced similar double-standards.

    Sex Positive Feminist's comment is suggestive of someone who doesn't understand basic literacy - as is clear from your article, it is all about context. I fear that this has been overlooked and instead, she has seen this as an opportunity to strike out against another woman / feminist who doesn't share her agenda. This saddens me too.

    Where's women's solidarity?

    Take for example that page 3 is seen to be acceptable - why is it then that Facebook shuts down or asks users to remove images of women breastfeeding? Positive, non-sexualised images of women feeding their infant is deemed to be unacceptable, but seeing a woman in nothing other than a cheeky facial expression is? When I think of the images that have flashed up before me whilst on Facebook it leaves me in despair.

    Can we not see the real issues here?

    The quality of the media that resorts to using these 'tactics' as a tool to sell is due to the insipid quality of the publications to begin with. It doesn't acknowledge that women are more than their individual parts - and for women to 'choose' to have this as a career of choice begs many questions in and of itself. What makes a woman want to display her breasts in the first place? Is this the only way she can feel needed / wanted / worthy? Does she not consider the backlash of how alienating it is for women and more importantly, young, impressionable girls, who will bench-mark themselves against her body and believe they don't measure up?

    And yes, women do like sex - given the right parameters and in the right context. I have no idea why she has resorted to bring the church in to this, but I guess when you don't have a reasonable argument, you will resort to all sorts of measures to try and get a point across.

    To help her out a bit:
    Context = noun = the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation
    In this case the blog is about page 3 of a newspaper, which is very different to women enjoying sex in the privacy of their own homes (or someone else's if consenting adults).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sex positive feminist is talking b######s. The sex industry is by men for men. They do not care about women's desires. If you enjoy sex do it in private not for money and not therefore objectifying women in general.

    ReplyDelete