NDM Post 46
Should the campaign against Page 3 be abandoned?
The Rupert Murdoch's Tweeted about the page 3 campaign "Brit feminists bang on forever about page 3. I bet never buy paper. I think old fashioned but readers seem to disagree". The article speaks on the history and the reason it was so popular prior to the internet revolution stating that images of naked women where hard to come by in the 70's and putting them in a newspaper did attract readers, however now image and videos can be found on-line and should now be removed because it's tasteless, demeaning to many and unnecessary. Although Murdoch agreed that it was old fashioned he went on to print the next issue with a page three model anyway to possibly show that he hasn't been pressured by the Feminist Campaign.
Interview
Barbara Ellen, Observer columnist
I respectfully disagree. The campaign against Page 3 should not be abandoned just because the Sun decided to blow a last-minute raspberry at supposed PC mores. Admittedly, there have been inconsistencies. I used to wonder: what’s really so different about a top-end glamour model such as Kathy Lloyd and fashion models on catwalks often wearing diaphanous blouses – a couple of leg inches? However, if Page 3 was dreary, dated, and offensive before, now it sits like a pathetic leering bare-breasted woolly mammoth amid modern enlightened sensibilities. It’s bizarre to defend it on the basis that there are “worse things” – there’s no sliding scale for institutionalised sexism. Nor does it matter that, compared to other pornography, the photos are “tame” or “lame” – women’s bodies are neither lame nor tame. The very passivity of Page 3 is offensive. That’s why the efforts of Harriet Harman and Clare Short (amid much vicious lampooning) were so important, and the fight must continue, right?
FSF Don’t you think those women have a right to choose whether they get their boobs out? The same right you have to choose not to buy the Sun? I find it odd that in the same few weeks we’ve been defending the right to offend with cartoons in Paris, people are seriously talking about how awful it is they’re offended by things that half of us have on our ribcages. If it’s nipples that upset, then why not tell breastfeeding mums to keep them away? If it’s women being objectified, why not complain about the vast numbers of celebrities from Kim Kardashian to Celebrity Big Brother reject Chloe Goodman who turn a buck out of it?
And if it’s the fact it’s in a newspaper but isn’t news, then why not turn the same fury on horoscopes, the gardening page, or cheap holiday offers? Admit it – the reason people don’t like Page 3 is snobbery. It’s that paper, run by that man, read by that sort of person, and you find the combination distasteful. Because if it was sexy boobs in newspapers there is a problem with, the campaign against it would have to take in every newspaper in Britain – including the Observer and the Guardian, who print their fair share.
BE True, it’s important to stay aware of hypocrisy, but the snobbery/autonomy arguments don’t wash. Page 3 is the Old Order – reeking of male dominance, of women as sexualised and neutralised objects (Stripping celebrities at least bring a sense of their public personalities). Breastfeeding needs nipples like a newspaper page doesn’t. As for free speech, and the contention that the campaign exacerbates the problem by making the Sun determined to hang on to Page 3 – the claim that “wimmin” (killjoy harridans) only make things worse. Where’s female free speech in that scenario?
FSF In that scenario women’s free speech is in a) baring their boobs if they want and b) complaining about it if they choose. How can we criticise Islamic State for insisting all women cover up, and the next, er, insist women cover up? How can we call Nigel Farage a dinosaur for saying he doesn’t want to see breastfeeding, and say we don’t like to see breasts? It’s got to the point where the No More Page 3 campaign is in danger of tying itself in knots. Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. And Page 3 was tame – it was Carry On Titties, and that’s all it was. Don’t you agree there are more serious issues for us to campaign on – the sexualisation of children, girls being encouraged to buy bras at eight years old, access to porn, the repression of women for spurious religious reasons?
BE Why should caring about one issue cancel out all others? It’s not just about the major wounds where sexist culture is concerned, it’s also about the paper cuts and how they mount up. Nor is it about forcing women to cover up, it’s about a major news outlet recognising that Page 3 is outdated insulting and tragic – Carry on Titties indeed? Do you have “titties” Fox? Or are you allowed actual breasts, because you’re a media professional with influence and power?
FSF I have titties, whammers, bazookas, fun bags, lady lumps, breasts, boobs or anything else you might want to call them. That’s the thing – boobs mean different things to different people, and the campaign for No More Page 3 is sort of insisting they must all mean the same to all of us – some sort of sacrosanct gland we may only expose when feeding, as through we were glossy, middle-class milkers. I think that’s futile, never mind silly, or dare I say it, offensive.
Why can’t I have my boobs, Page 3 girls have their tits, you have yours to call as you wish and all of us team up to tell our brothers that feminism is about having the right to choose?
BE This isn’t about puritanism, snobbery, or censorship, it’s about women being reduced to smutty sideshow turns within the context of family newspapers. Women exposing their breasts on news pages – it’s bizarre, not to mention insultingly easy. If people want porn, however “soft”, at least make them work for it. As you rightly point out, the world has moved on and Page 3 needs to jog on – it’s a tiresome and tired anachronism. That’s why I very much doubt whether any “hairy-arsed feminist
Barbara Ellen, Observer columnist I respectfully disagree. The campaign against Page 3 should not be abandoned just because the Sun decided to blow a last-minute raspberry at supposed PC mores. Admittedly, there have been inconsistencies. I used to wonder: what’s really so different about a top-end glamour model such as Kathy Lloyd and fashion models on catwalks often wearing diaphanous blouses – a couple of leg inches? However, if Page 3 was dreary, dated, and offensive before, now it sits like a pathetic leering bare-breasted woolly mammoth amid modern enlightened sensibilities. It’s bizarre to defend it on the basis that there are “worse things” – there’s no sliding scale for institutionalised sexism. Nor does it matter that, compared to other pornography, the photos are “tame” or “lame” – women’s bodies are neither lame nor tame. The very passivity of Page 3 is offensive. That’s why the efforts of Harriet Harman and Clare Short (amid much vicious lampooning) were so important, and the fight must continue, right? FSF Don’t you think those women have a right to choose whether they get their boobs out? The same right you have to choose not to buy the Sun? I find it odd that in the same few weeks we’ve been defending the right to offend with cartoons in Paris, people are seriously talking about how awful it is they’re offended by things that half of us have on our ribcages. If it’s nipples that upset, then why not tell breastfeeding mums to keep them away? If it’s women being objectified, why not complain about the vast numbers of celebrities from Kim Kardashian to Celebrity Big Brother reject Chloe Goodman who turn a buck out of it? And if it’s the fact it’s in a newspaper but isn’t news, then why not turn the same fury on horoscopes, the gardening page, or cheap holiday offers? Admit it – the reason people don’t like Page 3 is snobbery. It’s that paper, run by that man, read by that sort of person, and you find the combination distasteful. Because if it was sexy boobs in newspapers there is a problem with, the campaign against it would have to take in every newspaper in Britain – including the Observer and the Guardian, who print their fair share. BE True, it’s important to stay aware of hypocrisy, but the snobbery/autonomy arguments don’t wash. Page 3 is the Old Order – reeking of male dominance, of women as sexualised and neutralised objects (Stripping celebrities at least bring a sense of their public personalities). Breastfeeding needs nipples like a newspaper page doesn’t. As for free speech, and the contention that the campaign exacerbates the problem by making the Sun determined to hang on to Page 3 – the claim that “wimmin” (killjoy harridans) only make things worse. Where’s female free speech in that scenario? FSF In that scenario women’s free speech is in a) baring their boobs if they want and b) complaining about it if they choose. How can we criticise Islamic State for insisting all women cover up, and the next, er, insist women cover up? How can we call Nigel Farage a dinosaur for saying he doesn’t want to see breastfeeding, and say we don’t like to see breasts? It’s got to the point where the No More Page 3 campaign is in danger of tying itself in knots. Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. And Page 3 was tame – it was Carry On Titties, and that’s all it was. Don’t you agree there are more serious issues for us to campaign on – the sexualisation of children, girls being encouraged to buy bras at eight years old, access to porn, the repression of women for spurious religious reasons? BE Why should caring about one issue cancel out all others? It’s not just about the major wounds where sexist culture is concerned, it’s also about the paper cuts and how they mount up. Nor is it about forcing women to cover up, it’s about a major news outlet recognising that Page 3 is outdated insulting and tragic – Carry on Titties indeed? Do you have “titties” Fox? Or are you allowed actual breasts, because you’re a media professional with influence and power? FSF I have titties, whammers, bazookas, fun bags, lady lumps, breasts, boobs or anything else you might want to call them. That’s the thing – boobs mean different things to different people, and the campaign for No More Page 3 is sort of insisting they must all mean the same to all of us – some sort of sacrosanct gland we may only expose when feeding, as through we were glossy, middle-class milkers. I think that’s futile, never mind silly, or dare I say it, offensive. Why can’t I have my boobs, Page 3 girls have their tits, you have yours to call as you wish and all of us team up to tell our brothers that feminism is about having the right to choose? BE This isn’t about puritanism, snobbery, or censorship, it’s about women being reduced to smutty sideshow turns within the context of family newspapers. Women exposing their breasts on news pages – it’s bizarre, not to mention insultingly easy. If people want porn, however “soft”, at least make them work for it. As you rightly point out, the world has moved on and Page 3 needs to jog on – it’s a tiresome and tired anachronism. That’s why I very much doubt whether any “hairy-arsed feminist” would question continuing with the campaign to end Page 3, however rocky the road.
Interview
Barbara Ellen, Observer columnist
I respectfully disagree. The campaign against Page 3 should not be abandoned just because the Sun decided to blow a last-minute raspberry at supposed PC mores. Admittedly, there have been inconsistencies. I used to wonder: what’s really so different about a top-end glamour model such as Kathy Lloyd and fashion models on catwalks often wearing diaphanous blouses – a couple of leg inches? However, if Page 3 was dreary, dated, and offensive before, now it sits like a pathetic leering bare-breasted woolly mammoth amid modern enlightened sensibilities. It’s bizarre to defend it on the basis that there are “worse things” – there’s no sliding scale for institutionalised sexism. Nor does it matter that, compared to other pornography, the photos are “tame” or “lame” – women’s bodies are neither lame nor tame. The very passivity of Page 3 is offensive. That’s why the efforts of Harriet Harman and Clare Short (amid much vicious lampooning) were so important, and the fight must continue, right?
FSF Don’t you think those women have a right to choose whether they get their boobs out? The same right you have to choose not to buy the Sun? I find it odd that in the same few weeks we’ve been defending the right to offend with cartoons in Paris, people are seriously talking about how awful it is they’re offended by things that half of us have on our ribcages. If it’s nipples that upset, then why not tell breastfeeding mums to keep them away? If it’s women being objectified, why not complain about the vast numbers of celebrities from Kim Kardashian to Celebrity Big Brother reject Chloe Goodman who turn a buck out of it?
And if it’s the fact it’s in a newspaper but isn’t news, then why not turn the same fury on horoscopes, the gardening page, or cheap holiday offers? Admit it – the reason people don’t like Page 3 is snobbery. It’s that paper, run by that man, read by that sort of person, and you find the combination distasteful. Because if it was sexy boobs in newspapers there is a problem with, the campaign against it would have to take in every newspaper in Britain – including the Observer and the Guardian, who print their fair share.
BE True, it’s important to stay aware of hypocrisy, but the snobbery/autonomy arguments don’t wash. Page 3 is the Old Order – reeking of male dominance, of women as sexualised and neutralised objects (Stripping celebrities at least bring a sense of their public personalities). Breastfeeding needs nipples like a newspaper page doesn’t. As for free speech, and the contention that the campaign exacerbates the problem by making the Sun determined to hang on to Page 3 – the claim that “wimmin” (killjoy harridans) only make things worse. Where’s female free speech in that scenario?
FSF In that scenario women’s free speech is in a) baring their boobs if they want and b) complaining about it if they choose. How can we criticise Islamic State for insisting all women cover up, and the next, er, insist women cover up? How can we call Nigel Farage a dinosaur for saying he doesn’t want to see breastfeeding, and say we don’t like to see breasts? It’s got to the point where the No More Page 3 campaign is in danger of tying itself in knots. Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. And Page 3 was tame – it was Carry On Titties, and that’s all it was. Don’t you agree there are more serious issues for us to campaign on – the sexualisation of children, girls being encouraged to buy bras at eight years old, access to porn, the repression of women for spurious religious reasons?
BE Why should caring about one issue cancel out all others? It’s not just about the major wounds where sexist culture is concerned, it’s also about the paper cuts and how they mount up. Nor is it about forcing women to cover up, it’s about a major news outlet recognising that Page 3 is outdated insulting and tragic – Carry on Titties indeed? Do you have “titties” Fox? Or are you allowed actual breasts, because you’re a media professional with influence and power?
FSF I have titties, whammers, bazookas, fun bags, lady lumps, breasts, boobs or anything else you might want to call them. That’s the thing – boobs mean different things to different people, and the campaign for No More Page 3 is sort of insisting they must all mean the same to all of us – some sort of sacrosanct gland we may only expose when feeding, as through we were glossy, middle-class milkers. I think that’s futile, never mind silly, or dare I say it, offensive.
Why can’t I have my boobs, Page 3 girls have their tits, you have yours to call as you wish and all of us team up to tell our brothers that feminism is about having the right to choose?
BE This isn’t about puritanism, snobbery, or censorship, it’s about women being reduced to smutty sideshow turns within the context of family newspapers. Women exposing their breasts on news pages – it’s bizarre, not to mention insultingly easy. If people want porn, however “soft”, at least make them work for it. As you rightly point out, the world has moved on and Page 3 needs to jog on – it’s a tiresome and tired anachronism. That’s why I very much doubt whether any “hairy-arsed feminist
Barbara Ellen, Observer columnist I respectfully disagree. The campaign against Page 3 should not be abandoned just because the Sun decided to blow a last-minute raspberry at supposed PC mores. Admittedly, there have been inconsistencies. I used to wonder: what’s really so different about a top-end glamour model such as Kathy Lloyd and fashion models on catwalks often wearing diaphanous blouses – a couple of leg inches? However, if Page 3 was dreary, dated, and offensive before, now it sits like a pathetic leering bare-breasted woolly mammoth amid modern enlightened sensibilities. It’s bizarre to defend it on the basis that there are “worse things” – there’s no sliding scale for institutionalised sexism. Nor does it matter that, compared to other pornography, the photos are “tame” or “lame” – women’s bodies are neither lame nor tame. The very passivity of Page 3 is offensive. That’s why the efforts of Harriet Harman and Clare Short (amid much vicious lampooning) were so important, and the fight must continue, right? FSF Don’t you think those women have a right to choose whether they get their boobs out? The same right you have to choose not to buy the Sun? I find it odd that in the same few weeks we’ve been defending the right to offend with cartoons in Paris, people are seriously talking about how awful it is they’re offended by things that half of us have on our ribcages. If it’s nipples that upset, then why not tell breastfeeding mums to keep them away? If it’s women being objectified, why not complain about the vast numbers of celebrities from Kim Kardashian to Celebrity Big Brother reject Chloe Goodman who turn a buck out of it? And if it’s the fact it’s in a newspaper but isn’t news, then why not turn the same fury on horoscopes, the gardening page, or cheap holiday offers? Admit it – the reason people don’t like Page 3 is snobbery. It’s that paper, run by that man, read by that sort of person, and you find the combination distasteful. Because if it was sexy boobs in newspapers there is a problem with, the campaign against it would have to take in every newspaper in Britain – including the Observer and the Guardian, who print their fair share. BE True, it’s important to stay aware of hypocrisy, but the snobbery/autonomy arguments don’t wash. Page 3 is the Old Order – reeking of male dominance, of women as sexualised and neutralised objects (Stripping celebrities at least bring a sense of their public personalities). Breastfeeding needs nipples like a newspaper page doesn’t. As for free speech, and the contention that the campaign exacerbates the problem by making the Sun determined to hang on to Page 3 – the claim that “wimmin” (killjoy harridans) only make things worse. Where’s female free speech in that scenario? FSF In that scenario women’s free speech is in a) baring their boobs if they want and b) complaining about it if they choose. How can we criticise Islamic State for insisting all women cover up, and the next, er, insist women cover up? How can we call Nigel Farage a dinosaur for saying he doesn’t want to see breastfeeding, and say we don’t like to see breasts? It’s got to the point where the No More Page 3 campaign is in danger of tying itself in knots. Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. And Page 3 was tame – it was Carry On Titties, and that’s all it was. Don’t you agree there are more serious issues for us to campaign on – the sexualisation of children, girls being encouraged to buy bras at eight years old, access to porn, the repression of women for spurious religious reasons? BE Why should caring about one issue cancel out all others? It’s not just about the major wounds where sexist culture is concerned, it’s also about the paper cuts and how they mount up. Nor is it about forcing women to cover up, it’s about a major news outlet recognising that Page 3 is outdated insulting and tragic – Carry on Titties indeed? Do you have “titties” Fox? Or are you allowed actual breasts, because you’re a media professional with influence and power? FSF I have titties, whammers, bazookas, fun bags, lady lumps, breasts, boobs or anything else you might want to call them. That’s the thing – boobs mean different things to different people, and the campaign for No More Page 3 is sort of insisting they must all mean the same to all of us – some sort of sacrosanct gland we may only expose when feeding, as through we were glossy, middle-class milkers. I think that’s futile, never mind silly, or dare I say it, offensive. Why can’t I have my boobs, Page 3 girls have their tits, you have yours to call as you wish and all of us team up to tell our brothers that feminism is about having the right to choose? BE This isn’t about puritanism, snobbery, or censorship, it’s about women being reduced to smutty sideshow turns within the context of family newspapers. Women exposing their breasts on news pages – it’s bizarre, not to mention insultingly easy. If people want porn, however “soft”, at least make them work for it. As you rightly point out, the world has moved on and Page 3 needs to jog on – it’s a tiresome and tired anachronism. That’s why I very much doubt whether any “hairy-arsed feminist” would question continuing with the campaign to end Page 3, however rocky the road.
posted by Unknown @ 01:41
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home