Something is occurring, there is a chink of light, a slow but steady turning of the tide in our UK media. It seems that the No More Page 3 campaign now has real momentum. It is not alone - Child Eyes http://www.childeyes.org/ has had some significant recent successes as have Object and Feminista's joint campaign against Lad mags http://www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about/faqs/. When I first became involved in January of this year the highs came and they went. Flurries of activity would occur, with Murdoch's infamous tweet bringing us 20 000 signatures in one week (it could have been more if the Pope hadn't resigned) and UK Girlrguiding announcing their backing with excellent media coverage despite the demise of Lady Thatcher (Is there a conspiracy here between ex-politicians and religious leaders?). These patches of crazy activity and interest would be interspersed with quieter periods and the sadly inevitable lows of Sun articles like the Reeva Steencamp murder coverage or the comparison of a Swedish woman to a root vegetable (I kid you not).
Over the last month or so however, there has been a palpable change. With reasoned and unchallenged discussion in the Scottish Parliament http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/no-more-page-3-campaign-boosted-by-show-of-support-from-scottish-parliament-8928739.html , the 43rd anniversary protests and a run of support from Universities and celebrities the last few weeks have been a whirlwind of activity in HQ.
I the meantime, as a sure fire sign that we have them running scared, David Dinsmore, current editor was once again wheeled out by the BBC to read from the "Page 3 Stays" prompt card. A stand point which rarely seems to be challenged by any depth of cross questioning. You know, bringing up awkward questions like personal editorial responsibility or addressing the body of research evidence linking sexualised images to low achievement in women and girls http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2012-0401+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN , sexual assault and violence against women, stuff like that. That said, there did seem to be a suggestion on this occasion that the Page 3 format is not set in stone and as many an amusing visitor to our twitter and Facebook pages have pointed out, it does make sense that a page 3 of some sort has to stay. The alternative presumably being numerical upset - page 4 directly following page 2 and causing an odd spare page at the back. Anyway, whatever it was that he was trying to cryptically say without looking like he was giving in, there was Mr D again talking about the newspaper keeping a page 3. He also referred again to The Sun's recent, factually illusive focus group during which some women were, it seems, very vocal about the need to leave page 3 alone.
David seemed to want us to believe he was surprised by this. I'm not sure why he thought we would be? 43 years of conditioning, convincing a nation that a sexualised, topless picture of a young woman or girl in the newspaper is acceptable and commonplace, have had a certain affect on us all. For many they have caused body image issues, questions about our position in society, our role in our own sexual relationships. But to actually begin to see that, to start to take apart the damage of page 3 and similar images, recognise its effects relies on a certain depth of thought that our lives may or may not give us space for.
A difficult marriage, early family and several traumas saw to it that I personally reached 38 before I gave it any real thought and for many women, to question page 3 would rely on headspace they just don't have in a busy life. It could also easily be instantly shutdown by any fear of unearthing a tirade of abuse or dismantling a persona that has served them well for many years. To remove the blinkers and question the world of sexism we are part of, would mean questioning the very nature of ourselves and of those we hold most dear. For many it is an uncomfortable journey they do not want to make.
In addition there are those we have to mention who have done the thinking, who know the extent of the potential damage, but who then, perhaps for reason of personal gain, choose to ignore or bury it deep and to collude in the degradation. They may even suggest that women who question page 3 are not feminists as they are removing the choices of other women. For them I will say this - Feminism doesn't suppose that all of the individual choices women make are right, valid or to be instantly upheld simply by virtue of the fact that they were made by a woman. Feminism and the opposition to page 3 is simply the belief that women are human, just as human in fact as men and that because of this women have a fundamental human right to equal treatment and equal representation. Objectification reduces the choices of all women by reinforcing a society which aims to keep women in their place, as décor, as sex objects and not as agents of their own lives for whom abilities, talents and hard work will be appreciated in the same way as it is for men. In a newspaper I would argue it drives that message home all the harder.
The NMP3 Campaign may have been successful, as were others before it, in giving people the permission to question and the space to voice concerns. It will not however reach everyone and it will naturally make some extremely angry, as does any force of change which seeks to challenge the beliefs that lie at the foundation of our current lives.
Despite the protestations of the editor the 43rd anniversary weekend saw more people than ever take to the streets to protest against Page 3. They did so in celebration of women and many marked the occasion by making clear the things that women have achieved that could be celebrated by the media. The question has not been answered - is it really too much to ask that the media in the UK mark the achievements, the talents and the intelligence of the 50% of the population that happen to have breasts? That they represent them for all that they do and are instead of drawing attention constantly to their appearance or the parts of them which may titillate. That they stop reinforcing an idea that women are or should be sexually available at all times, whilst just a few pages away reporting with horror the rape, assault and maltreatment of hundreds of girls every year at the hands of not just adults but their peers who view them as nothing but sexual commodities to be used http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25090896.
During a "media breakfast" on at News UK on Tuesday Page Three was the first topic of discussion. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/senior-sun-journalist-reviewing-page-three-says-page-three-doesnt-have-stay-way-it and "A senior Sun journalist has revealed that Page Three may not survive in its current form". Looking to the success of The Sun at weekends when there is no traditional page 3 there was a suggestion that: “What we do in the week might change.” and that Page 3 in the UK may well go in the same direction as that of the Irish Sun and/or Rupert's proposed "glamorous fashionistas". It seems then that Dinsmore's words may to some degree be referring to the numeric alone and that page 3 as we have known it for 43 years may be about to don her last signature necklace.
Could it be that The Sun will join The Sport who are also "toning down" in their case their front page, in a last ditch attempt to hang on to newsagent shelf space amidst the growing tide of parental disquiet at the sexualised images sitting alongside the children's comics.
Following on from The Coop's refusal to stock lads mags without modesty wrappers and a growing call from celebrities and campaigners to age restrict music videos, if page 3 stops showing bare breasts will this be a landmark moment? I would say, at least to some degree it is. It would after all mark the end to a feature as we know it, which despite protest has remained largely unaltered for 4 decades. An end which will have come about due to the public's growing awareness of the consequences of objectification of women and the sheer volume of opposition. Make no mistake however, we have a long way to go before the women of this country are portrayed as they deserve to be, as thinking, feeling, contributing, achieving citizens and as agents of their own bodies. We have a long way to go before we have equal representation and until that happens we're not going anywhere.
Thursday 28 November 2013
Monday 4 November 2013
Feminist resurgence
Introduction - 39, mother or 2, Nurse, member of NMP3 team since Jan this year
How did that happen?
I have I think always been feminist in my approach but to a point. I didn't identify as a feminist until about 3 years or so ago. I thought I assumed equality was fundamental but actually on reflection I can see that many of the things I didn't question and that I actually reinforced with my own use of language and my own behaviour were absolutely not feminist. eg. I need a man to come and do this job in my house
Then I read Caitlyn Moran and said it out loud in the bath "I am a feminist"
I started to read some bits on twitter
Not very long after that I saw the NMP3 petition and signed immediately
My Page 3 background
Working class household, page 3 at home
Linda on the wall
How that affected me - still appreciating that
Started following NMP3 of twitter and Facebook
Engaged in debates
Wrote a song
Organised demo's
Asked to Join
Lucy's burnout and appeal
Since Jan it's been a whirlwind bonkers ride of amazing experiences, stress and amazing ups coupled with a feeling of banging ones head repetitively on a wall
Support
HQ - amazing people, strong combination of motivation, talent and support, has grown and grown and will continue to . Now trying to add more diversity as its been quite organics until now and we're aware that hasn't covered all the areas we should be covering.
Why
Sexism in media, objectification in mainstream media, out of context, child protection, body image issues etc
Criticism
Why just page 3
It is none feminist because we are taking a choice away form those who wish to be page 3 models
NMP3 not anti-glamour models as a whole, not anti-porn.
For myself though I will say one thing - ( I wrote this last week after a debate where once again I was questioned by a feminist supporting page 3 about how I as a feminist could reduce the choices of other women)
Feminism for me is essentially humanitarianism
Humanitarians do not suggest that all choices of all humans are right and valid and should be supported. Humans do some terrible things and make poor choices at least as much as they make good ones, they choose to hurt other humans in direct and indirect ways.
Feminism similarly doesn't suppose that all of the individual choices women make are right, valid or to be instantly upheld simply by virtue of the fact that they were made by a woman.
Feminism isn't about women fighting against men.
Feminism is the belief that women are human, just as human in fact as men.
Feminism is the belief that because of this it is a fundamental human right that women have equal rights, equal treatment and equal representation.
Feminism fights for those rights and representations and against unequal ones.
This fight often involves standing up to the actions of men but also at times standing up to those of other women who may be reinforcing the opposite message.
Objectification reduces the choices of all women by reinforcing a society which aims to keep women in their place, as décor, as sex objects and not as agents of their own lives for whom abilities, talents and hard work will be appreciated in the same way as it is for men. In a newspaper I would argue it drives that message home all the harder.
How did that happen?
I have I think always been feminist in my approach but to a point. I didn't identify as a feminist until about 3 years or so ago. I thought I assumed equality was fundamental but actually on reflection I can see that many of the things I didn't question and that I actually reinforced with my own use of language and my own behaviour were absolutely not feminist. eg. I need a man to come and do this job in my house
Then I read Caitlyn Moran and said it out loud in the bath "I am a feminist"
I started to read some bits on twitter
Not very long after that I saw the NMP3 petition and signed immediately
My Page 3 background
Working class household, page 3 at home
Linda on the wall
How that affected me - still appreciating that
Started following NMP3 of twitter and Facebook
Engaged in debates
Wrote a song
Organised demo's
Asked to Join
Lucy's burnout and appeal
Since Jan it's been a whirlwind bonkers ride of amazing experiences, stress and amazing ups coupled with a feeling of banging ones head repetitively on a wall
Support
HQ - amazing people, strong combination of motivation, talent and support, has grown and grown and will continue to . Now trying to add more diversity as its been quite organics until now and we're aware that hasn't covered all the areas we should be covering.
Why
Sexism in media, objectification in mainstream media, out of context, child protection, body image issues etc
Criticism
Why just page 3
It is none feminist because we are taking a choice away form those who wish to be page 3 models
NMP3 not anti-glamour models as a whole, not anti-porn.
For myself though I will say one thing - ( I wrote this last week after a debate where once again I was questioned by a feminist supporting page 3 about how I as a feminist could reduce the choices of other women)
Feminism for me is essentially humanitarianism
Humanitarians do not suggest that all choices of all humans are right and valid and should be supported. Humans do some terrible things and make poor choices at least as much as they make good ones, they choose to hurt other humans in direct and indirect ways.
Feminism similarly doesn't suppose that all of the individual choices women make are right, valid or to be instantly upheld simply by virtue of the fact that they were made by a woman.
Feminism isn't about women fighting against men.
Feminism is the belief that women are human, just as human in fact as men.
Feminism is the belief that because of this it is a fundamental human right that women have equal rights, equal treatment and equal representation.
Feminism fights for those rights and representations and against unequal ones.
This fight often involves standing up to the actions of men but also at times standing up to those of other women who may be reinforcing the opposite message.
Objectification reduces the choices of all women by reinforcing a society which aims to keep women in their place, as décor, as sex objects and not as agents of their own lives for whom abilities, talents and hard work will be appreciated in the same way as it is for men. In a newspaper I would argue it drives that message home all the harder.
Wednesday 21 August 2013
David's reply
From david.dinsmore@news.co.uk
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for your note.
Unfortunately, we don't have time for holidays here!
I'm glad you had a good weekend. I am a fan of the Guides - I was a Scout myself.
To save you any further effort, I won't be changing my stance on Page 3. It is a pillar of the paper, the readers (both male and female) like it and I do not for one moment believe it is the basis of all evil. There are, I believe, many much more worthy targets you could be turning your admirable attentions to. I will continue to enjoy the Twitter banter.
Regards
David
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for your note.
Unfortunately, we don't have time for holidays here!
I'm glad you had a good weekend. I am a fan of the Guides - I was a Scout myself.
To save you any further effort, I won't be changing my stance on Page 3. It is a pillar of the paper, the readers (both male and female) like it and I do not for one moment believe it is the basis of all evil. There are, I believe, many much more worthy targets you could be turning your admirable attentions to. I will continue to enjoy the Twitter banter.
Regards
David
Wednesday 14 August 2013
A Woman's Worth (A message to my daughter)
I cycled home today, like I do every day or at least Monday to Friday. It's not something I enjoy if I'm honest but then it's not a nice route as its quite busy roads and lots of crappy junctions. In honesty I much prefer running and despite always describing myself as "not a natural runner" this year I ran my very first marathon and I ran it well. It took me a little over 4 1/2 hours and I didn't stop, I didn't flag, I trained hard and I got the engineering just right. My body, with hard work, did an amazing thing, it carried me 26 miles and it didn't break. I feel proud of that, just like I feel proud of the other signs of my physical fitness like my resting pulse of 50 which shows a healthy heart and yes to some degree my physique which looks really healthy.
During today's bike ride however I had a strange little moment which seems like nothing if I describe it, but it brought back a sad reminder of a bygone me I hoped to forget. I stopped at some lights in my tight leggings and a man in a white van pulled up beside me. He had clearly been looking at my arse as he pulled up and he leaned out of the window to give me a look see. I thought he was going to make some awful sexist, Neanderthal comment and I was ready for that. As an emerging feminist of about 2 years now I had a whole plethora of comebacks ready - To question his motivation, to tell him I didn't require his approval or if all else failed to "flip the birdy". What happened though was this - he pulled up, glanced from my arse to my face and pulled is head quickly back in. That is about the third time I've noticed that happen in the last 6 months and I am utterly ashamed to say it totally disarms me. It makes me sad to my core in a way I can't quite fix.
Partly it makes me sad because I realise that no matter how long and hard I have fought and to some degree succeeded in judging my merit on my health and wellbeing, my achievements and my loving and gentle character I am still cursed with the legacy of my youth - valuing myself on the positive gaze of others. I'm not talking about others recognising my nice nature here or my not too shabby singing voice but my physical appearance - them liking my face, hair, long legs and sex appeal. Those bits my Mum told me that as I "had" I should "flaunt".
What were the roots of this? Well I suppose in some ways I was lucky, don't get me wrong Cindy Crawford I was not but I have since about 14 years of age always been able to "turn a few heads" and "scrub up well". My Mum was over the moon for me. I love my Mum, she has been a constant friend and support to me all my life and I never doubted her wisdom. She was clearly proud to have a pretty daughter and all through my slightly goofy, difficult phase from 12-15 she never stopped telling me I was beautiful and that I was going to "break boys hearts".
The change started at about 14 and it was really quite unnerving at first, realising you can walk into a room and influence the behaviour of some people, realising that even though I was only a child some men were already "chatting me up" - I had no idea how to respond. If I was going to fit into this "desirable" box though, I was, as everything else in my life, going to do it bloody properly. So I started going to the gym, running and keeping in shape. I thankfully didn't start spending ridiculous amounts of money on cosmetics, waxes or spray tans (this was before the rather unnerving infiltration of porn glamour into the lives and aspirations of teenage girls) but as a keen actress I did start playing the parts I'd seen the good looking women play in films. And did I blooming play it! When I started having relationships and going out I knew how to swish my hair in a sexy way, walk across a room to show my legs off just so, roll on top of a guy in bed in a dramatic and sexy fashion so he couldn't resist. I knew about sex too, oh yes....what noises to make oohing and ahhing and making it sound good, making sure I was at the right angle or in the right underwear. Did it feel good? .....Honestly I have no idea.... I wasn't focused on that at all, all that mattered was whether or not I looked good and whether it felt good to them. That was my role after all....to look sexy and be sexy. I don't think I learned from anywhere that I was supposed to be seeking out my own pleasure, working out who I was for me, what I wanted. I can't remember anybody telling me I was supposed to want anything for myself other than to look good. The woman on my Mum and Dad's bedroom wall and in the paper every day looking sexy and available was the one the men wanted and I could be the one they wanted too. Lucky me! I never heard these women speak, I never saw women in films ask for anything during sex, they didn't need to, they all had obvious, instantaneous and vocal orgasms form vaginal sex alone.
At 16 I met the man I married at 21 and had my first child at 23. Don't get me wrong there was other stuff going on here, I'm not one dimensional. I did well in school, I passed 2 A levels, trained in nursing and had a progressive and successful career. I was professionally ambitious and I loved motherhood and breastfeeding and had some great friends. But behind it all, at all times I was not matching up if I wasn't still sexy and desirable, if I didn't still get a few shouts or horn blasts when I dressed up to go out. If I didn't get some looks when I entered a room. Within my relationship too it took me 20 years to realise I could and should want something or myself other than to be the model wife and mother and only now at 39 after a divorce, a profound aligning of my self-awareness and a new found passion for meditation and mindfulness have I really felt I know my true worth. I have finally found me, I have found feminism and a passion for campaigning that has brought me into a group of people that are beautiful to their core and alive and colourful and inspiring in a multitude of ways. My life has depth and it has colour and it has the love of a selfless and warm man who sees the whole of me completely.
I now finally understand real sense of worth and worth that I wish to instil in my own daughter.
So for you my amazing girl I will not say - "If you've got it flaunt it", "you will break some hearts", "they will all come running". For you I want more than superficial worth based on a beauty that will not stand the test of time, of grief, or even of a bad night up with a sick toddler. I want you to want more for yourself and be more yourself than I even knew to want for.
So to my daughter I will say this...
You're worth is in the beauty you have inside and out, in the warmth and generosity and time you show others. In the talents that you were born with and have nurtured and have learnt and worked hard at. In your healthy strong body that is capable of amazing things. In the people you choose to surround yourself with and the fact they have chosen you too. It is in the very moment in which you are right now, in all the ones I remember of you in my heart and all the amazing ones you have yet to come. Please amazing girl, don't ever hang it all, or even part of it, on the fickle glances of strangers who have learned, just like I did, to value the wrong things. Who will reduce your value to a horn blow or a body part or an uninvited hand on your person. If I can somehow be sure you won't ever do that and then I can be sure that you will not feel sad, in in some much younger and buried part of yourself, that you can't quite reach to fix at 39, because a man you don't even know looked and then looked away. You are worth so much more than that Aeron and so am I x
During today's bike ride however I had a strange little moment which seems like nothing if I describe it, but it brought back a sad reminder of a bygone me I hoped to forget. I stopped at some lights in my tight leggings and a man in a white van pulled up beside me. He had clearly been looking at my arse as he pulled up and he leaned out of the window to give me a look see. I thought he was going to make some awful sexist, Neanderthal comment and I was ready for that. As an emerging feminist of about 2 years now I had a whole plethora of comebacks ready - To question his motivation, to tell him I didn't require his approval or if all else failed to "flip the birdy". What happened though was this - he pulled up, glanced from my arse to my face and pulled is head quickly back in. That is about the third time I've noticed that happen in the last 6 months and I am utterly ashamed to say it totally disarms me. It makes me sad to my core in a way I can't quite fix.
Partly it makes me sad because I realise that no matter how long and hard I have fought and to some degree succeeded in judging my merit on my health and wellbeing, my achievements and my loving and gentle character I am still cursed with the legacy of my youth - valuing myself on the positive gaze of others. I'm not talking about others recognising my nice nature here or my not too shabby singing voice but my physical appearance - them liking my face, hair, long legs and sex appeal. Those bits my Mum told me that as I "had" I should "flaunt".
What were the roots of this? Well I suppose in some ways I was lucky, don't get me wrong Cindy Crawford I was not but I have since about 14 years of age always been able to "turn a few heads" and "scrub up well". My Mum was over the moon for me. I love my Mum, she has been a constant friend and support to me all my life and I never doubted her wisdom. She was clearly proud to have a pretty daughter and all through my slightly goofy, difficult phase from 12-15 she never stopped telling me I was beautiful and that I was going to "break boys hearts".
The change started at about 14 and it was really quite unnerving at first, realising you can walk into a room and influence the behaviour of some people, realising that even though I was only a child some men were already "chatting me up" - I had no idea how to respond. If I was going to fit into this "desirable" box though, I was, as everything else in my life, going to do it bloody properly. So I started going to the gym, running and keeping in shape. I thankfully didn't start spending ridiculous amounts of money on cosmetics, waxes or spray tans (this was before the rather unnerving infiltration of porn glamour into the lives and aspirations of teenage girls) but as a keen actress I did start playing the parts I'd seen the good looking women play in films. And did I blooming play it! When I started having relationships and going out I knew how to swish my hair in a sexy way, walk across a room to show my legs off just so, roll on top of a guy in bed in a dramatic and sexy fashion so he couldn't resist. I knew about sex too, oh yes....what noises to make oohing and ahhing and making it sound good, making sure I was at the right angle or in the right underwear. Did it feel good? .....Honestly I have no idea.... I wasn't focused on that at all, all that mattered was whether or not I looked good and whether it felt good to them. That was my role after all....to look sexy and be sexy. I don't think I learned from anywhere that I was supposed to be seeking out my own pleasure, working out who I was for me, what I wanted. I can't remember anybody telling me I was supposed to want anything for myself other than to look good. The woman on my Mum and Dad's bedroom wall and in the paper every day looking sexy and available was the one the men wanted and I could be the one they wanted too. Lucky me! I never heard these women speak, I never saw women in films ask for anything during sex, they didn't need to, they all had obvious, instantaneous and vocal orgasms form vaginal sex alone.
At 16 I met the man I married at 21 and had my first child at 23. Don't get me wrong there was other stuff going on here, I'm not one dimensional. I did well in school, I passed 2 A levels, trained in nursing and had a progressive and successful career. I was professionally ambitious and I loved motherhood and breastfeeding and had some great friends. But behind it all, at all times I was not matching up if I wasn't still sexy and desirable, if I didn't still get a few shouts or horn blasts when I dressed up to go out. If I didn't get some looks when I entered a room. Within my relationship too it took me 20 years to realise I could and should want something or myself other than to be the model wife and mother and only now at 39 after a divorce, a profound aligning of my self-awareness and a new found passion for meditation and mindfulness have I really felt I know my true worth. I have finally found me, I have found feminism and a passion for campaigning that has brought me into a group of people that are beautiful to their core and alive and colourful and inspiring in a multitude of ways. My life has depth and it has colour and it has the love of a selfless and warm man who sees the whole of me completely.
I now finally understand real sense of worth and worth that I wish to instil in my own daughter.
So for you my amazing girl I will not say - "If you've got it flaunt it", "you will break some hearts", "they will all come running". For you I want more than superficial worth based on a beauty that will not stand the test of time, of grief, or even of a bad night up with a sick toddler. I want you to want more for yourself and be more yourself than I even knew to want for.
So to my daughter I will say this...
You're worth is in the beauty you have inside and out, in the warmth and generosity and time you show others. In the talents that you were born with and have nurtured and have learnt and worked hard at. In your healthy strong body that is capable of amazing things. In the people you choose to surround yourself with and the fact they have chosen you too. It is in the very moment in which you are right now, in all the ones I remember of you in my heart and all the amazing ones you have yet to come. Please amazing girl, don't ever hang it all, or even part of it, on the fickle glances of strangers who have learned, just like I did, to value the wrong things. Who will reduce your value to a horn blow or a body part or an uninvited hand on your person. If I can somehow be sure you won't ever do that and then I can be sure that you will not feel sad, in in some much younger and buried part of yourself, that you can't quite reach to fix at 39, because a man you don't even know looked and then looked away. You are worth so much more than that Aeron and so am I x
Saturday 22 June 2013
What have these bloody feminists ever done for us blokes?
A small group of blokes sitting in the pub having a chat....
...I'm sick to death of these bloody feminists. Its all you bloody hear about now. We don't like this, we don't like that. I'm up to here with it. Now they want rid of bloomin Page 3!! Page 3 I ask you?! What is the world coming to when a bloke can't even have a cheeky look at a nice pair of a morning in his paper. Well they're bleeding us dry these wimmin. They want to take everything we have, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
.....And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
......Yes.
......And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
......All right, lets not labour the point. but what have they ever given us in return?
...More time with the kids?
Wha....Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
And the birth control.
Oh yes... birth control mate, remember what it used to be like used to be like. Always thinking she might get pregnant. All those kids.
All right, granted you got more time with the kids and the birth control are two things that the feminist movement have done...
And not being expected to go to war...
Well yes obviously its better that that its not assumed all men or not just men for that matter would have to defend their country at the drop of a hat... that goes without saying. But apart from more time with the kids, the contraception and not going to war...
Not being the main and only provider?...
...erm Job choices? You know...I'm a nurse, that wouldn't have been allowed.
...talking about our feelings,
What?!
Well...... you know, we can talk..... we can think about getting counselling or support...
Hmmmm...
....having sex without being expected to marry the woman!!
Oooooo Yes, all the sex is certainly one of the best bits... (general nodding)... let's face it, we're not the only ones after a bloomin good time.... know what I mean hahahhahaha
Ha ha ha yep that's true... I've had some great.....
Alright, alright I get it.
...being able to report abuse, assault or rape?
Yeah and no fault divorce - we don't have to have a reason to call it quits on an unhappy marriage now do we.
Yes that's true plus you know your girlfriend or wife is with you because she wants to be not because you own her or because she can't have her own income and property and stuff ya know...manage on her own and that.
All right... all right... but apart from birth control and time with the kids, not being the only provider, getting support and not going to war and talking about how we feel, reporting abuse, easier divorce, women being with us because they want to be and all the sex outside of marriage... what has feminism ever done for us blokes?
Erm....made it clear that women are valued?
What?
You know, your Mum, your wife, your sister - showing they are people too?!
Oh...you...you know what lets change the subject.
...I'm sick to death of these bloody feminists. Its all you bloody hear about now. We don't like this, we don't like that. I'm up to here with it. Now they want rid of bloomin Page 3!! Page 3 I ask you?! What is the world coming to when a bloke can't even have a cheeky look at a nice pair of a morning in his paper. Well they're bleeding us dry these wimmin. They want to take everything we have, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
...More time with the kids?
Wha....Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
And the birth control.
Oh yes... birth control mate, remember what it used to be like used to be like. Always thinking she might get pregnant. All those kids.
All right, granted you got more time with the kids and the birth control are two things that the feminist movement have done...
And not being expected to go to war...
Well yes obviously its better that that its not assumed all men or not just men for that matter would have to defend their country at the drop of a hat... that goes without saying. But apart from more time with the kids, the contraception and not going to war...
Not being the main and only provider?...
...erm Job choices? You know...I'm a nurse, that wouldn't have been allowed.
...talking about our feelings,
What?!
Well...... you know, we can talk..... we can think about getting counselling or support...
Hmmmm...
....having sex without being expected to marry the woman!!
Oooooo Yes, all the sex is certainly one of the best bits... (general nodding)... let's face it, we're not the only ones after a bloomin good time.... know what I mean hahahhahaha
Ha ha ha yep that's true... I've had some great.....
Alright, alright I get it.
...being able to report abuse, assault or rape?
Yeah and no fault divorce - we don't have to have a reason to call it quits on an unhappy marriage now do we.
Yes that's true plus you know your girlfriend or wife is with you because she wants to be not because you own her or because she can't have her own income and property and stuff ya know...manage on her own and that.
All right... all right... but apart from birth control and time with the kids, not being the only provider, getting support and not going to war and talking about how we feel, reporting abuse, easier divorce, women being with us because they want to be and all the sex outside of marriage... what has feminism ever done for us blokes?
Erm....made it clear that women are valued?
You know, your Mum, your wife, your sister - showing they are people too?!
Oh...you...you know what lets change the subject.
Friday 14 June 2013
- It seems it is somewhat of a shame that Paul Connew has never been given the honour of being editor of The Sun as if he had we would not be having to talk about page 3 in the present tense, or so he tells us in his guardian piece today http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/page-3-internet-porn-damages-young-minds. Paul would have got rid of the "Page 3 girls" because they are an "anachronism" long past their sell by date. He would not however have wasted precious time and energy campaigning against it as that would be "tedious" and "disproportionate" as "The problem with is not that they are a corrupting influence on young minds, or that they turn men into rapists; it is simply that they are past their sell-by date".
In short Mr Connew is of the opinion that if we all just kept quiet the really not very important problem of page 3 girls would just go away.
I'm always made to feel immediately uncomfortable when any issue around page 3 is discussed by referring to the "Page 3 girls". I think the term in itself is problematic. It may have been appropriate at one time when indeed some of them were in fact under 18 but given that they are all of age they are in fact all now "women" and professionally speaking they are "models".
There is a very good reason why the current campaign for an end to page 3 doesn't focus on the models and that is because it is not a campaign aimed at or against glamour models, glamour modelling or pornography. What No More Page 3 aims itself at is the bizarre editorial decision made in the 1970's, to make a feature of the breasts of very young women in a daily Newspaper. Paul no doubt has a problem accepting any socially sweeping consequences of this decision, not really surprising given his career choices and gender. Why would he be aware? In contrast as a 39 year old woman who grew up with a Sun newspaper in the house daily, as a mother of a teenage boy and girl and a now insider of the NMP3 campaign it wouldn't surprise you to hear that I do have quite a different slant. My experience of the effect on personal body image and understanding of my own sexuality has been reinforced numerous times in the words of supporters. The incidence I would struggle to remember or list (as they are so numerous) of sexual harassment and common sexual assault on the street, at work and in bars is not unusual either. Mine is of course anecdotal evidence and although I see it mirrored time and time again it could be easily dismissed as invalid were it not for the fact it is backed up by evidence presented in numerous studies and government commissioned reports. These reports obviously don't point specifically to page 3, but refer to all sexualised and pornographic images and the effects of exposure. Given the accessibility of The Sun's iconic page however it could very much be used to argue that page 3 is more than an out of date, harmless embarrassment. The effects on female mental health and young women's aspirations is well documented along with the evidence of a reinforcement for boys and men of a sexist and derogatory view of women which in tern makes harmful behaviour towards the opposite sex more likely. The reason no doubt that the campaign enjoys the support of so many charities and groups fighting domestic and sexual violence against women.
Page 3 we hope may soon be consigned to the same, "did we really once think that was ok" archive to which we consigned Golly Wogs. It may, with time join the other unhelpful symbols which were once supposed harmless until we realised they undermined and misrepresented an entire section of society. It does seem massively naive however to assume that any of these changes would have occurred because people quietly waited for something to go away. Change happens because people start to speak up and ask for it. Awareness is raised, blinkers removed. Generation on generation in its own way has chipped away at the status quo of female objectification in the media and on Page 3. More recently this shift in the moral zeitgeist has gained momentum but make no mistake Mr Connew we have reached where we are today not because people were quiet but because they spoke up, they found allies and the whispers grew to shouts. No More Page 3 has never asked for parliamentary time or legislation, it does not affiliate itself to a particular party, it enjoys the support to those with the common sense and insight to realise the time has come for change. We love Caroline Lucas for having the gall to stand up and speak out about media sexism, of course we do, but we love her no more or less than any of the other brilliant people who have added their voice to ours. It's getting quite difficult to ignore isn't it, but be warned - we will not be quiet any time soon.
Tuesday 28 May 2013
So we are now over run with amazing people power, grass routes activism against media sexism.
We have No More Page 3, Everyday sexism's #fbrape campaign, Child Eyes and now Object and UK Feminista's Drop the lad mags project threatening retailers for the first time with legal action.
I believe this latest Lad mags campaign on top of all else will be the final straw and things will change but I believe it will take a focus from all of us, in small different ways to make it happen and to clearly say to our own local retailers that we are not happy with the status quo and never have been. These campaigns give us momentum and a voice and I think we should act now.
I am used to being affected locally (In stapleford) by pornography in mainstream papers here's a small sample
We have No More Page 3, Everyday sexism's #fbrape campaign, Child Eyes and now Object and UK Feminista's Drop the lad mags project threatening retailers for the first time with legal action.
I believe this latest Lad mags campaign on top of all else will be the final straw and things will change but I believe it will take a focus from all of us, in small different ways to make it happen and to clearly say to our own local retailers that we are not happy with the status quo and never have been. These campaigns give us momentum and a voice and I think we should act now.
I am used to being affected locally (In stapleford) by pornography in mainstream papers here's a small sample
To be honest I'm sick to death of being greeted by this every time I shop or nip in for electric with or without children and it is placed right next to or opposite children's mags. It is placed (usually) face down initially but is turned over by men in the shop after thumbing through it (vomit).
Anyway,on Saturday I took my daughter into town to celebrate finishing her Sats, she is 11. We went to Nando's near market square and then popped into the newsagents next door to buy treats to take home and have with a movie we had bought. We stood in the shop choosing (it takes a while as she has food allergies so we have to read everything) and she suddenly tapped me on the shoulder and looked horrified over at the magazine shelf taking up most of the wall to our left. I turned to see a sea of pornography like I can't remember seeing for some time, all quite openly displayed on middle shelves, in her face quite literally in this little shop. Lads mags but also Mayfair etc all middle shelf with no attempt to layer up,top shelf, cover or hide it. I felt so awful both for me and her. If it's intimating to me at 39 what is it like at 11?!
I'm livid and I think on the back of this current wave of activism we could do some really positive, directed and hopefully quite effective local action. It might start with just putting together a small flyer or set of flyer's, dropping into these little newsagents and the big ones and having our say. Obviously we may meet some abuse but we may, if we're really annoyingly reasonable and fair, get some positive responses too. If that doesn't work we then now which shops we could target if we wanted to, with a slightly noisier gathering outside where we can raise public awareness about these shops not being welcoming to women or children?
What do you think? We may be able to get some leaflets etc ready made from Object and we have some No More Page 3 stuff I can source. I also now know who the nice and on side journos are at the Nottingham post as I'm sure some of you do too, so we could get some local coverage??
If you fancy it let me know and I can set up a small group on facebook linked to NFAM where we can chat and plan etc.I don't envisage it being a big time commitment ( I have very, very little time) but we could put a half day aside at a weekend initially to case local shops perhaps just in the town centre initially and then take it from there? We can meet up before hand and take an area each, take leaflets, note responses etc?
Any other ideas very welcome or you can tell me to shut up and I will go away.
Thanks for listening.
Lisa (Nottingham Lass mostly hanging out at NMP3HQ)
Friday 10 May 2013
A voice from inside the elite
Hello there minions! I have deemed it appropriate to engage with you all again from my ivory tower in order to tell you all what to think. Yes, that's it folks, here I sit with my manicure and my privilege and tell you what is right and what is wrong and detest the human form, loathe sex and want to deprive the average working class man who has rightfully earned his daily breasts. What a detestable bore I must be, what a killjoy?
Or.......
Here's a spanner in your particulars... I might just be from a working class background? Maybe I grew up with a workshop engineer Dad, who brought home The Sun, had Linda Lusardi on his wall and did a part time bar job as well to make ends meet. I might be a full time nurse with two kids (and very unmanicured, short nails, hey that's infection control folks), just about managing to keep the end terrace I bought thanks to having no pay rise for over 3 years. It could be that despite being ridiculously busy already, I feel passionately about trying to change the world for my two children. So that by the time my daughter reaches the age of my son's female Facebook friends she won't feel she has to pout, arch her back and show cleavage in every profile picture, or be lying in her underwear with her boyfriend's name scrawled across her thigh in marker pen like a brand. Just perhaps seeing a young woman in just her pants, in the newspaper everyday affected me as a child and still does and perhaps I want a better future?
I'd hate to misrepresent myself however, it's not all beans on toast and austerity, I do get out. This week for example, I met up with some of my colleagues from NMP3HQ and we visited Claire Short at the Commonwealth Club in London. It was quite posh. We were all a little nervous and in awe of this extraordinary woman who stood up in the 80's, unnoticed by me, a child at the time and opposed the Sun's page 3 http://www.clareshort.co.uk/node/12 . She was brave and was abused and bullied as a result and I wish I had known and understood then what she was trying to do for me and for society. I can truly say she was one of the most approachable and down to earth people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Our discussion with her lasted an hour, she bought us coffee, it was lighthearted, it was funny and we left with a long list of things to consider, some possible allies we might approach and some brave moves that may be required. For me however the biggest take home message from the entire meeting was this - that with this campaign we are already making an important difference. That the most important thing is not just the end point of an end to page 3, it is the journey. It's the voices of men http://wp.me/p2UPwb-4j , women http://nomorepage3.org/news/one-daughters-story/ and girls http://nomorepage3.org/news/youthful-voices-against-page-3/ who have joined ours and continue to join ours and be heard. It's the "ping" of recognition when somebody realises how this has affected them and how it continues to affect them, how it has informed and reinforced a certain attitude in society. It is the recognition that, even in a sea or pornographic imagery, removing page 3 would be significant. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/bloggers/1744704-Guest-Blog-Time-to-listen-to-young-women-Page-3-is-not-innocuous?pg=1 .
While we were at the lovely commonwealth club Mr Murdoch it seems, from somewhere in one of his houses in one of his countries, sat at one of his PCs and did a tweet https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/330092925029597184 Interesting....I wonder how much thought he gave that? But hey, let's not poo poo it, he doesn't tweet often, lets take a moment and look at these words. "Is anybody complaining a reader" he asks. Well...the petition now has over 100 000 signatures and in all honesty we have no idea how many are Sun readers, we know some are. We all have experience of Sun readers anecdotally telling us they don't like it on the street etc. and a Yougov pole dated from October 2012 http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6jyst3v95o/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-021012-Page-3-girls.pdf (when this campaign was in its infancy) may have suggested 60% of readers wanted to keep it, but it also showed (even then) that 24% of the Sun's own readership wanted it gone and 16% didn't know. To be honest, in a time when newspaper readership can be hard to hold onto if 40% of your readership are either opposed to or indifferent to something I'd say that's not to be ignored. I can't help but wonder as well, what affect a little education and information on the matter might have had on that? Was this what us nurses call "an informed choice"? The Sun is very good at it's "Justice campaigns", perhaps if it raised awareness of some of the damaging affects of page 3 or maybe even showed just some of the news about this campaign which it has so far chosen to completely ignore, such the Girl Guides backing us http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9979877/Girl-guides-sign-No-More-Page-3-campaign.html. If they shared these things perhaps opinion may begin to change? Just a thought. Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that The Sun is being selective about what it chooses to report...surely not....that could be classed as censorship.
So anyway, sorry Mr Murdoch...you were saying... ah yes "complaining about page 3 pix".You mean these naked, post watershed, sexualised, airbrushed photographs of young women in the newspaper with no relation to a story of any sort? Those "pix"? Yes, we're not very happy about them (although the News in Briefs caption which appears to insult the model and the readers intelligence alike does seem to upset a lot of people too). Mr Mohan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6QW9JZZAf4 made them sound like so much more than just "pix" though? An "institution" he said, an "icon"? I remember it well because my experience of visitors to the country is that they are generally shocked and appalled at page 3 and considering we've just hosted one of the most successful Olympics there has ever been I personally prefer that legacy, maybe that's just me?...Oh no sorry...it's not just me....going back to that poll, it seemed 49% of all of those polled wanted page 3 gone and I'm just guessing here but if I was educating a foreign friend about Great Britain I'd be inclined to focus on the GREAT. The British institutions.. The NHS (while we have it........sore point) pasties, cream teas, Irony and humour, custard pie fights...The very last thing I would draw their attention to is the embarrassment that is the Tits in the paper. Just a thought....
Moving on ....Oooo yes.....and this is my favourite bit "Enough of this elitist nonsense"........Wow! I mean WOW!! To be called elitist by a billionaire owner of one of the biggest news industries in the world, one of the most powerful men in the world....."elite".....us?...really?
Oh dear, once again it seems we are having the tired old class argument *Yawn*. The same old rubbish Richard Caseby http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephanie-davies/how-the-sun-responds-to-w_b_3237884.html tried to suggest, that NMP3 is a bunch of middle class "wimin" having a silly moan...now just wait a minute...
There are over 100 000 signatures on the NMP3 petition (sorry, I do love saying that) from all walks of life. The social media gives us voices from middle and working class, males, young teens, middle aged and older people. Within the team at HQ there are 12 including one man, ranging in age from late teens to mid-fifties. Lots of us have grown up with pg 3 and similar, many of us in working class households http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/no-more-page-3-and-class-war.html#!/2013/04/no-more-page-3-and-class-war.html . We, as thousands of other women and girls, while our bodies were taking womanly shape, had in our home, day on day images of posed, passive, apparently perfect women reaffirming to us the way we were supposed to turn out and telling us in no uncertain terms that our sexual availability was the most important thing about us. It wasn't just us that learnt that lesson, the boys learnt it too. Through our lives we've had boys at school, men on the street, in bars and workplaces reinforcing this view of women for us over and over and over again - with street harassment and sexist, derogatory comments, with repetitive casual sexual assaults that others laughed off and accepted or asked us to take as a compliment. Did Mr Murdoch's daughters grow up with these influences? Did they have page 3 in their living room? Will Mr Mohan's daughters see it every day? Or like Mr David Banks (another ex-deputy editor) revealed in a radio interview a couple of months ago, will their wives insist it isn't bought home as it isn't appropriate for the children? I wonder if any of the Murdoch family will travel to work with people overtly ogling naked teenagers quite openly in public and with total license, because they have not opened a top shelf magazine or clicked Porn Hub on their mobile but are simply "reading the paper"?
Sorry, forgive me Mr Murdoch, who is it that is being elitist here? If it's not good enough for your family homes then why is it ok for you to keep sending it into the homes of the Sun readers who are predominantly working class? Do their children., their daughters and wives not matter? Should they not be afforded some respect? Why did the Sun's deputy editor reply to a male member of parliament but Mr Mohan felt it ok to ignore a letter from the entire Girl guide movement? Why do some police stations not have the Sun on the premises? Why is it that access to the Page 3 website is now restricted by the military, who have a multitude of female staff and recently publicised problems with sexual harassment? When 11 universities decide it is no longer fitting in their equal learning environment to stock The Sun and when a petition and a social movement, that attracts people from every conceivable background, begins to point out, NO SHOUT OUT, that enough is enough, perhaps, just perhaps this is not elitist nonsense? Perhaps we all want something really simple, a media that sees and represents women for what they do and what they are - wives, daughters, mothers, police, nurses, politicians, musicians, footballers, athletes and sometimes glamour models, from all social classes. Because, Mr Murdoch, every single one of us, no matter what our background, deserves that respect..... just saying.
Or.......
Here's a spanner in your particulars... I might just be from a working class background? Maybe I grew up with a workshop engineer Dad, who brought home The Sun, had Linda Lusardi on his wall and did a part time bar job as well to make ends meet. I might be a full time nurse with two kids (and very unmanicured, short nails, hey that's infection control folks), just about managing to keep the end terrace I bought thanks to having no pay rise for over 3 years. It could be that despite being ridiculously busy already, I feel passionately about trying to change the world for my two children. So that by the time my daughter reaches the age of my son's female Facebook friends she won't feel she has to pout, arch her back and show cleavage in every profile picture, or be lying in her underwear with her boyfriend's name scrawled across her thigh in marker pen like a brand. Just perhaps seeing a young woman in just her pants, in the newspaper everyday affected me as a child and still does and perhaps I want a better future?
I'd hate to misrepresent myself however, it's not all beans on toast and austerity, I do get out. This week for example, I met up with some of my colleagues from NMP3HQ and we visited Claire Short at the Commonwealth Club in London. It was quite posh. We were all a little nervous and in awe of this extraordinary woman who stood up in the 80's, unnoticed by me, a child at the time and opposed the Sun's page 3 http://www.clareshort.co.uk/node/12 . She was brave and was abused and bullied as a result and I wish I had known and understood then what she was trying to do for me and for society. I can truly say she was one of the most approachable and down to earth people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Our discussion with her lasted an hour, she bought us coffee, it was lighthearted, it was funny and we left with a long list of things to consider, some possible allies we might approach and some brave moves that may be required. For me however the biggest take home message from the entire meeting was this - that with this campaign we are already making an important difference. That the most important thing is not just the end point of an end to page 3, it is the journey. It's the voices of men http://wp.me/p2UPwb-4j , women http://nomorepage3.org/news/one-daughters-story/ and girls http://nomorepage3.org/news/youthful-voices-against-page-3/ who have joined ours and continue to join ours and be heard. It's the "ping" of recognition when somebody realises how this has affected them and how it continues to affect them, how it has informed and reinforced a certain attitude in society. It is the recognition that, even in a sea or pornographic imagery, removing page 3 would be significant. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/bloggers/1744704-Guest-Blog-Time-to-listen-to-young-women-Page-3-is-not-innocuous?pg=1 .
While we were at the lovely commonwealth club Mr Murdoch it seems, from somewhere in one of his houses in one of his countries, sat at one of his PCs and did a tweet https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/330092925029597184 Interesting....I wonder how much thought he gave that? But hey, let's not poo poo it, he doesn't tweet often, lets take a moment and look at these words. "Is anybody complaining a reader" he asks. Well...the petition now has over 100 000 signatures and in all honesty we have no idea how many are Sun readers, we know some are. We all have experience of Sun readers anecdotally telling us they don't like it on the street etc. and a Yougov pole dated from October 2012 http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6jyst3v95o/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-021012-Page-3-girls.pdf (when this campaign was in its infancy) may have suggested 60% of readers wanted to keep it, but it also showed (even then) that 24% of the Sun's own readership wanted it gone and 16% didn't know. To be honest, in a time when newspaper readership can be hard to hold onto if 40% of your readership are either opposed to or indifferent to something I'd say that's not to be ignored. I can't help but wonder as well, what affect a little education and information on the matter might have had on that? Was this what us nurses call "an informed choice"? The Sun is very good at it's "Justice campaigns", perhaps if it raised awareness of some of the damaging affects of page 3 or maybe even showed just some of the news about this campaign which it has so far chosen to completely ignore, such the Girl Guides backing us http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9979877/Girl-guides-sign-No-More-Page-3-campaign.html. If they shared these things perhaps opinion may begin to change? Just a thought. Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that The Sun is being selective about what it chooses to report...surely not....that could be classed as censorship.
So anyway, sorry Mr Murdoch...you were saying... ah yes "complaining about page 3 pix".You mean these naked, post watershed, sexualised, airbrushed photographs of young women in the newspaper with no relation to a story of any sort? Those "pix"? Yes, we're not very happy about them (although the News in Briefs caption which appears to insult the model and the readers intelligence alike does seem to upset a lot of people too). Mr Mohan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6QW9JZZAf4 made them sound like so much more than just "pix" though? An "institution" he said, an "icon"? I remember it well because my experience of visitors to the country is that they are generally shocked and appalled at page 3 and considering we've just hosted one of the most successful Olympics there has ever been I personally prefer that legacy, maybe that's just me?...Oh no sorry...it's not just me....going back to that poll, it seemed 49% of all of those polled wanted page 3 gone and I'm just guessing here but if I was educating a foreign friend about Great Britain I'd be inclined to focus on the GREAT. The British institutions.. The NHS (while we have it........sore point) pasties, cream teas, Irony and humour, custard pie fights...The very last thing I would draw their attention to is the embarrassment that is the Tits in the paper. Just a thought....
Moving on ....Oooo yes.....and this is my favourite bit "Enough of this elitist nonsense"........Wow! I mean WOW!! To be called elitist by a billionaire owner of one of the biggest news industries in the world, one of the most powerful men in the world....."elite".....us?...really?
Oh dear, once again it seems we are having the tired old class argument *Yawn*. The same old rubbish Richard Caseby http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephanie-davies/how-the-sun-responds-to-w_b_3237884.html tried to suggest, that NMP3 is a bunch of middle class "wimin" having a silly moan...now just wait a minute...
There are over 100 000 signatures on the NMP3 petition (sorry, I do love saying that) from all walks of life. The social media gives us voices from middle and working class, males, young teens, middle aged and older people. Within the team at HQ there are 12 including one man, ranging in age from late teens to mid-fifties. Lots of us have grown up with pg 3 and similar, many of us in working class households http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/no-more-page-3-and-class-war.html#!/2013/04/no-more-page-3-and-class-war.html . We, as thousands of other women and girls, while our bodies were taking womanly shape, had in our home, day on day images of posed, passive, apparently perfect women reaffirming to us the way we were supposed to turn out and telling us in no uncertain terms that our sexual availability was the most important thing about us. It wasn't just us that learnt that lesson, the boys learnt it too. Through our lives we've had boys at school, men on the street, in bars and workplaces reinforcing this view of women for us over and over and over again - with street harassment and sexist, derogatory comments, with repetitive casual sexual assaults that others laughed off and accepted or asked us to take as a compliment. Did Mr Murdoch's daughters grow up with these influences? Did they have page 3 in their living room? Will Mr Mohan's daughters see it every day? Or like Mr David Banks (another ex-deputy editor) revealed in a radio interview a couple of months ago, will their wives insist it isn't bought home as it isn't appropriate for the children? I wonder if any of the Murdoch family will travel to work with people overtly ogling naked teenagers quite openly in public and with total license, because they have not opened a top shelf magazine or clicked Porn Hub on their mobile but are simply "reading the paper"?
Sorry, forgive me Mr Murdoch, who is it that is being elitist here? If it's not good enough for your family homes then why is it ok for you to keep sending it into the homes of the Sun readers who are predominantly working class? Do their children., their daughters and wives not matter? Should they not be afforded some respect? Why did the Sun's deputy editor reply to a male member of parliament but Mr Mohan felt it ok to ignore a letter from the entire Girl guide movement? Why do some police stations not have the Sun on the premises? Why is it that access to the Page 3 website is now restricted by the military, who have a multitude of female staff and recently publicised problems with sexual harassment? When 11 universities decide it is no longer fitting in their equal learning environment to stock The Sun and when a petition and a social movement, that attracts people from every conceivable background, begins to point out, NO SHOUT OUT, that enough is enough, perhaps, just perhaps this is not elitist nonsense? Perhaps we all want something really simple, a media that sees and represents women for what they do and what they are - wives, daughters, mothers, police, nurses, politicians, musicians, footballers, athletes and sometimes glamour models, from all social classes. Because, Mr Murdoch, every single one of us, no matter what our background, deserves that respect..... just saying.
Tuesday 16 April 2013
A small victory for people power
It has occurred to me this week, for reasons which I will explain (whether you like it or not) that people mostly have no idea whatsoever how important or amazing they are or how much of a difference they can make...and yes...that includes you....yes...you there.
This week I ran a marathon for the very first time and I now feel super powerful myself...I mean seriously, like wonder woman or something; but I have to say, I have never had such an extraordinary sense of the power of collective thought and behaviour of people. Had I run 26 miles on my own, as I have done throughout my training, I may well have completed the distance but I absolutely would not have done it in such a good time or with such a huge sense of well being and excitement and euphoria. The runners beside me powered me on and the reactions and encouragement from the crowd drove me every inch of the way.
In my other life I have spent over 20 years working as a health professional. Everyday I see small actions make a big difference. You simply have to notice the look of gratitude on the face of a patient when you take a little extra time to sit and listen or you explain their condition to them in a way that makes sense for the first time. You don't have to be in health care though - give up your seat on the bus, pass your day pass for the car park to somebody just coming in, help somebody carry their shopping or go along and cheer on the runners this Sunday at the London marathon. People are tremendously powerful. I wonder at what can be achieved when we realise that power.
History is littered with examples of ordinary people standing up, sometimes all by themselves at first, saying that something is wrong and pointing out how it could be different and sometimes more people add their voice and then more and slowly but slowly things change for the better. At the moment there are a multitude of voices speaking out in the battle for equality, in the UK and across the world. It's getting pretty damned loud and you can't fail to notice it. Everyday sexism (http://www.everydaysexism.com/), celebrating it's first birthday this week, has had incredible success in exposing the issues that face women and girls in their day to day lives, One Billion Rising http://onebillionrising.org/ saw women getting up to dance and say no more to sexual violence across the world. We are Chiming for Change http://www.chimeforchange.org/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=CFC+-+UK+-+Alone+-+Exact&utm_term=Chime+For+Change&utm_content=CFC+-+UK+-+Alone+-+Exact&gclid=CMTlk9m7z7YCFU3KtAod7DoAaA in London this summer and in India we saw incredibly brave women and men stand up in protest at endemic rape. People are making it clear that women are worth respect, that women are not here just here to look at and be admired as a sexual object or a plaything or to be insulted if they fail to meet some narrow standard of "beauty". Just like the other 49% of the population women are thinking, feeling human beings with talents and aspirations and flaws. I am lucky enough that most of the significant men in my life recognise, as so many men do, that the alternative limited view of women is just as limiting to them as men and to all of us in our relationships. The fight for a more real and equal representation of women in the media is an important one if we are to achieve true equality. As Miss Representation put it http://www.missrepresentation.org/ "you can't be what you can't see" and with that in mind it is little wonder we are not seeing enough women in sport and that the latest figures http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/24/shocking-absence-women-uk-public-life show that the number of women in powerful public positions is on a decline.
Last week in team No More Page 3 we did a little digging around some of the darker parts of the tabloid sites and I wrote, in response to our findings in my last Huff Post blog http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lisa-clarke/page-three-mostly-harmless-i-beg-to-differ_b_3034030.html. The piece (you'll be forgiven for not putting yourself through it again) centres around the connections between Page 3 type images and rape and violence against women. In particular it showcased some of the awful comments appearing below the model's pictures on the Daily Star's website which are, at best unsettling and I suggested that as a woman and as a mother of a daughter it was difficult to read them and feel completely safe for yourself or any young women in your family, amongst men who had been viewing these images. Clearly the impact was felt somewhat wider than we'd anticipated, as a few days after the publication and sharing of this blog across our NMP3 social media sites, we were informed by a supporter that the Daily Star had (as The Sun did some time ago) deleted all comments and disabled the ability to comment altogether.
I cannot deny that we were really pleased to hear this. It felt like another small victory for people power and for decency, to remove this awful language from the public domain. In my post-marathon, euphoria I would like to think it is because they realise it was, at the very least, very disrespectful to the models in their employment to have these words next to their pictures, particularly the comments calling them s**ts or suggesting their t**s we're not up to scratch. But then I noticed they haven't done away with the scoring out of 10 so the models are still exposed to that humiliation unfortunately.
If that wasn't there motivation however then what was?
Could it be that they were trying to destroy any damning evidence of the links between their objectification and exploitation of women and any potential danger of street harassment and or violence towards women? Will they try and pretend this never happened? If that is the case then removal of these words doesn't remove that evidence. We have kept a record (in case they were wondering) of these comments, along with a record of some of the "reasons for signing" on the "Keep Page 3" petition, which sadly used very similar language. So I'm afraid, if that was the ploy it came a little too late. The Sun are pretty careful with the Page 3 model's photographs. For example if you take a look at Page 3's official You Tube videos comments are disabled as they are on the Page 3 website. There are however other videos of the same models where comments are allowed, one of which we found only this week...
..and The Sun it seems don't extend this level of care to all the women they show topless either. You can still visit the page containing the unairbrushed (unlike Page 3) topless photographs of the young woman who was so depressed about the size of her breasts that she obtained breast augmentation on the NHS and there you can read a multitude of horrendously rude and personal comments that have been allowed to appear uncensored.
Most importantly though, The Sun and Daily Star may have removed the ability to comment below page 3 but they have not yet removed the stimulus which fuelled this language. They cannot stop the thought process which occurs in the minds of the people who will continue to be fed their daily topless picture. It doesn't stop some men sharing their thoughts about the model's attributes and how much she should "Get her tits out NOW!!!" with other men around them.
I am not making apologies for the individual behaviour of the men who make these comments, they are to blame for there own behaviour. I know their attitudes to women will not have been formed simply by looking at page 3 and I am fully aware that some men, from time to time may seek out naked images of women, as women will of men. Something which I believe to be completely natural. Most, importantly most would still never dream of speaking about the woman they are looking at or those around them as things rather than people.
These newspapers however, in their normalisation of these images, not in a media which must be sought out, but sitting there, in a newspaper, next to the headlines about politics and world events; being opened in Cafes and buses and trains; achieve a reinforcement of the idea that women are things. That they are consumables, there to be looked at, to be sexually available on tap. As available as the weather forecast, the crossword and the cup of tea or the latte they are drinking. This gives some a sense of privilege over women, of ownership of women's breasts and bodies. It is their right to comment on these women and to demand more. For years the Daily Star and before it the Sun has not only perpetuated this myth by printing these images every day but it has allowed such derogatory use of language associated with these pictures on a public website, that would never have been accepted in relation to a persons race or religion. It has accepted it because this particular hate speech and damn right rudeness is on the basis of gender and this prejudice has been allowed safe passage for far too long. The comments have been there for months, years some of them, for people to read. The very presence of these derogatory words has served to justify any mans right to think of or comment on these women, and perhaps others, in the same inhuman way and their deletion is an overdue move towards old fashioned good manners if nothing else.
So yes, We'll take that victory. It may be a small one but we think it an important one. It presumably won't stop the thought processes that we know will occur in some. It won't end the conversations about "the t**s on that" that or the sexist attitudes that it will perpetuate but it is a small step in the right direction.
So people, take my word for it, you are all incredibly powerful...and...just like the marathon, join me, one step at a time, best foot forward, with 90 000 cheering us on or running alongside including 500 000 Guides http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/09/page-3-girl-guides-uk_n_3042348.html (whoop whoop)...... onwards to the finish....look out Mr Mohan, we're on the home straight and my goodness do we have some support!!
This week I ran a marathon for the very first time and I now feel super powerful myself...I mean seriously, like wonder woman or something; but I have to say, I have never had such an extraordinary sense of the power of collective thought and behaviour of people. Had I run 26 miles on my own, as I have done throughout my training, I may well have completed the distance but I absolutely would not have done it in such a good time or with such a huge sense of well being and excitement and euphoria. The runners beside me powered me on and the reactions and encouragement from the crowd drove me every inch of the way.
In my other life I have spent over 20 years working as a health professional. Everyday I see small actions make a big difference. You simply have to notice the look of gratitude on the face of a patient when you take a little extra time to sit and listen or you explain their condition to them in a way that makes sense for the first time. You don't have to be in health care though - give up your seat on the bus, pass your day pass for the car park to somebody just coming in, help somebody carry their shopping or go along and cheer on the runners this Sunday at the London marathon. People are tremendously powerful. I wonder at what can be achieved when we realise that power.
History is littered with examples of ordinary people standing up, sometimes all by themselves at first, saying that something is wrong and pointing out how it could be different and sometimes more people add their voice and then more and slowly but slowly things change for the better. At the moment there are a multitude of voices speaking out in the battle for equality, in the UK and across the world. It's getting pretty damned loud and you can't fail to notice it. Everyday sexism (http://www.everydaysexism.com/), celebrating it's first birthday this week, has had incredible success in exposing the issues that face women and girls in their day to day lives, One Billion Rising http://onebillionrising.org/ saw women getting up to dance and say no more to sexual violence across the world. We are Chiming for Change http://www.chimeforchange.org/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=CFC+-+UK+-+Alone+-+Exact&utm_term=Chime+For+Change&utm_content=CFC+-+UK+-+Alone+-+Exact&gclid=CMTlk9m7z7YCFU3KtAod7DoAaA in London this summer and in India we saw incredibly brave women and men stand up in protest at endemic rape. People are making it clear that women are worth respect, that women are not here just here to look at and be admired as a sexual object or a plaything or to be insulted if they fail to meet some narrow standard of "beauty". Just like the other 49% of the population women are thinking, feeling human beings with talents and aspirations and flaws. I am lucky enough that most of the significant men in my life recognise, as so many men do, that the alternative limited view of women is just as limiting to them as men and to all of us in our relationships. The fight for a more real and equal representation of women in the media is an important one if we are to achieve true equality. As Miss Representation put it http://www.missrepresentation.org/ "you can't be what you can't see" and with that in mind it is little wonder we are not seeing enough women in sport and that the latest figures http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/24/shocking-absence-women-uk-public-life show that the number of women in powerful public positions is on a decline.
Last week in team No More Page 3 we did a little digging around some of the darker parts of the tabloid sites and I wrote, in response to our findings in my last Huff Post blog http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lisa-clarke/page-three-mostly-harmless-i-beg-to-differ_b_3034030.html. The piece (you'll be forgiven for not putting yourself through it again) centres around the connections between Page 3 type images and rape and violence against women. In particular it showcased some of the awful comments appearing below the model's pictures on the Daily Star's website which are, at best unsettling and I suggested that as a woman and as a mother of a daughter it was difficult to read them and feel completely safe for yourself or any young women in your family, amongst men who had been viewing these images. Clearly the impact was felt somewhat wider than we'd anticipated, as a few days after the publication and sharing of this blog across our NMP3 social media sites, we were informed by a supporter that the Daily Star had (as The Sun did some time ago) deleted all comments and disabled the ability to comment altogether.
I cannot deny that we were really pleased to hear this. It felt like another small victory for people power and for decency, to remove this awful language from the public domain. In my post-marathon, euphoria I would like to think it is because they realise it was, at the very least, very disrespectful to the models in their employment to have these words next to their pictures, particularly the comments calling them s**ts or suggesting their t**s we're not up to scratch. But then I noticed they haven't done away with the scoring out of 10 so the models are still exposed to that humiliation unfortunately.
If that wasn't there motivation however then what was?
Could it be that they were trying to destroy any damning evidence of the links between their objectification and exploitation of women and any potential danger of street harassment and or violence towards women? Will they try and pretend this never happened? If that is the case then removal of these words doesn't remove that evidence. We have kept a record (in case they were wondering) of these comments, along with a record of some of the "reasons for signing" on the "Keep Page 3" petition, which sadly used very similar language. So I'm afraid, if that was the ploy it came a little too late. The Sun are pretty careful with the Page 3 model's photographs. For example if you take a look at Page 3's official You Tube videos comments are disabled as they are on the Page 3 website. There are however other videos of the same models where comments are allowed, one of which we found only this week...
..and The Sun it seems don't extend this level of care to all the women they show topless either. You can still visit the page containing the unairbrushed (unlike Page 3) topless photographs of the young woman who was so depressed about the size of her breasts that she obtained breast augmentation on the NHS and there you can read a multitude of horrendously rude and personal comments that have been allowed to appear uncensored.
Most importantly though, The Sun and Daily Star may have removed the ability to comment below page 3 but they have not yet removed the stimulus which fuelled this language. They cannot stop the thought process which occurs in the minds of the people who will continue to be fed their daily topless picture. It doesn't stop some men sharing their thoughts about the model's attributes and how much she should "Get her tits out NOW!!!" with other men around them.
I am not making apologies for the individual behaviour of the men who make these comments, they are to blame for there own behaviour. I know their attitudes to women will not have been formed simply by looking at page 3 and I am fully aware that some men, from time to time may seek out naked images of women, as women will of men. Something which I believe to be completely natural. Most, importantly most would still never dream of speaking about the woman they are looking at or those around them as things rather than people.
These newspapers however, in their normalisation of these images, not in a media which must be sought out, but sitting there, in a newspaper, next to the headlines about politics and world events; being opened in Cafes and buses and trains; achieve a reinforcement of the idea that women are things. That they are consumables, there to be looked at, to be sexually available on tap. As available as the weather forecast, the crossword and the cup of tea or the latte they are drinking. This gives some a sense of privilege over women, of ownership of women's breasts and bodies. It is their right to comment on these women and to demand more. For years the Daily Star and before it the Sun has not only perpetuated this myth by printing these images every day but it has allowed such derogatory use of language associated with these pictures on a public website, that would never have been accepted in relation to a persons race or religion. It has accepted it because this particular hate speech and damn right rudeness is on the basis of gender and this prejudice has been allowed safe passage for far too long. The comments have been there for months, years some of them, for people to read. The very presence of these derogatory words has served to justify any mans right to think of or comment on these women, and perhaps others, in the same inhuman way and their deletion is an overdue move towards old fashioned good manners if nothing else.
So yes, We'll take that victory. It may be a small one but we think it an important one. It presumably won't stop the thought processes that we know will occur in some. It won't end the conversations about "the t**s on that" that or the sexist attitudes that it will perpetuate but it is a small step in the right direction.
So people, take my word for it, you are all incredibly powerful...and...just like the marathon, join me, one step at a time, best foot forward, with 90 000 cheering us on or running alongside including 500 000 Guides http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/09/page-3-girl-guides-uk_n_3042348.html (whoop whoop)...... onwards to the finish....look out Mr Mohan, we're on the home straight and my goodness do we have some support!!
Sunday 7 April 2013
Mostly Harmless? I beg to differ
One of the most interesting things about campaigning for an end to Page 3 is the way different areas of the argument engage different people. When out on the street or on social media you work through all of the reasons why having sexualised images of women in mainstream media is a bad idea and it's always fascinating to see which one hits home to people.
I recently had a meeting with my local Tory MP, I can't say it was an experience I enjoyed but once we had got past her initial instinct that drawing attention to Page 3 was simply going to make things worse, at which I pointed out that ignoring it for 42 years doesn't seem to have worked too well, she was generally in support. Her preferred line and one she thought many conservatives would be moved by, was that Page 3 is a tired, old fashioned embarrassment to the country, which of course it is. But what she felt very uncomfortable about was any suggestion that this image was in any way associated with violence against women and sexual violence in particular.
This is often a difficult area of the campaign, I suppose because, for a start, it's something a lot of people feel they would rather avoid discussing at all. It also often elicits a reactionary response, many immediately assuming you are suggesting that any man who looks at pictures of naked women is a potential rapist. This is clearly not the case, nor would any of us suggest it was. The issue is far more complex and to do with the way men are raised and socialised, their past experiences and many, many other factors too complex to go into here. However, it is not difficult to appreciate how the constant reinforcement of women as sex objects both reflects and reinforces that idea in the general public.
The difficulty many have with this viewpoint is in someways connected to the misapprehension a lot of people hold that Rapists are street attackers who lurk in dark alleyways, when in actual fact we know that the vast majority of women are raped by people they know and often in their own homes. Personally I have no difficulty associating the objectification of women, the dehumanisation of them from a "she" to a "that", from a thinking, feeling person to a commodity, with an increased ease in treating them as less than human and thereby making it easier to use them as such. Research by Kalot in 1999 and Vogel in 2000 drew attention to this very fact showing that after looking at sexualised images of women, men are significantly more likely to answer ‘yes’ to the questions ‘would you ever consider having sex with an underage girl?’ and ‘would you ever consider forcing a woman to have sex?’ This evidence is worrying enough in its self but if you are still not convinced you can always, if the mood takes you, visit The Daily Star website.
....I say if the mood takes you, it is a mood that I experience about as often as the mood to gouge both eyes out with a spoon but each to their own...
I realise I may be confusing some of you here. No more Page 3 concentrates on asking for removal of The Sun's page 3 feature and that is in no small part because the Sun remains Britain's best selling newspaper with the Mail now hot on it's heels. This means its ability to infiltrate many areas of your lives is bigger that that of the other newspapers with similar content but The Sun, no longer allows visitors to its Page 3 website to leave comments. There may be good reason for this. The Daily Star's page 3 images are however, more or less identical and we can therefore assume would illicit a similar response in it's readers. Below is a sample of some comments from page 3 images on the Star's website which have not been removed (some apparently have because they were "too offensive") (Warning! Do not read if you are a delicate disposition!) -
"I'd love to spray my load over those juicy titties"
"Come on Jodie you little Teaser....we wanna see you whippin' your tits out for the Lads this week!!! We demand it you piece of Fodder! GET YOUR TITS OUT NOW!!!"
"Just wanked over this picture"
"Good set of tits on this dollop of fodder"
"Stacey is bleedin gorgeous!!!! So why has she only been given one chance to get her cracking tits out for the lads!!!????She loves unleashing that juicy rack when we demand it!!!!AND WE DEMAND IT NOW!!!! GET YER TITS OUT STACEY!!!!! XXXX"
"Now you are a babe. I bet you have a gorgeous pu**y if it's anything like your lovely tits which I would very much like to nuzzle into. I'd love to look down on you lovely lips wrapped around my ****. If your dirty, I'll give you anything you want, who wouldn't?!!!"
"Look at the wobbly knockers on that!! and todays **** slut is....emma frain with her pear shaped dark textured nipples out.
I love you, For you there is nothing I would not do. Your smile is so pretty, Not to mention your titties. They're gorgeous and cute, They make me wanna shove my **** up your chute, Because your practically perfect, Emma I love you now can we have some sex!"
"a wonderful beauty with a very shapely body just the right size tits to enjoy sucking on and have fun with would enjoy getting u as a present"
And these are the comments left on pictures they approved of. They do however seem to be quite picky...
"Not impressed by this piece of Essex Fodder...crap tits...fake sun tan and that jet black dyed hair. Nothing attractive about Geena facially either."
"These tits just aren't good enough....it's embarrassing."
"Yes you have nice boobs but your face is not the best"
"This Girl has no tits! Why for **** sake is she on Page 3!!"
"And what a saggy pair of tits this Welsh wannabe has...you could park a bus between that cleavage."
I'm sorry to share that with you but it is one of those things that once you've seen you know is important to share even if it is an uncomfortable read. These were not difficult to find incidentally, this is the common content and language used. Of particular note is the very small number of times the model is referred to by name or as a she, whilst words like "fodder", "dollop" referring to them as "that"or using words like "Slut" are frequent. The sense of privilege, of authority the commentators have that these women will whip their tits out on demand is clear, as is the overall sense of ownership.
What all of this leaves us with is a worrying picture of the attitudes of some young men after looking repetitively at these images. How do these men then interact with the women in their lives and those they encounter after forming these opinions and feeling confident enough in their views to type them onto a website. Are these the same young men who feel entitled, at the very least, to shout some sexual comment to a woman on the street or manhandle a woman on a dance floor. How can we continue to allow mainstream reinforcement of these attitudes when we still have the problems we have with violence and sexual violence against women? If nothing else this reality certainly makes a mockery of Dominic Mohan’s defence of Page 3 as ‘not sexualised’.
So I will not mince my words in saying that Page 3 needs to go, not just because it is a national embarrassment and a dinosaur of the 1970s but because it is anything other than a "harmless fun". It is difficult to understand how any woman, having read these comments, could not feel some sense of challenge to their safety and in the current climate where it is becoming clear that women face sexual harassment and assault as much as ever and where rape is sadly hugely under reported and rarely results in a conviction, to make an excuse for this as "fun for the lads" in inexcuseable. So for these reasons I make no apologies, even though I know it doesn't sit well with some, in connecting Page 3 images with sexual assault, domestic violence and rape. It may be a small part of a big problem but it's certainly not helping, which is why, at No More Page 3 we are proud to count Women's Aid and Rape Crisis amongst our supporters.
I recently had a meeting with my local Tory MP, I can't say it was an experience I enjoyed but once we had got past her initial instinct that drawing attention to Page 3 was simply going to make things worse, at which I pointed out that ignoring it for 42 years doesn't seem to have worked too well, she was generally in support. Her preferred line and one she thought many conservatives would be moved by, was that Page 3 is a tired, old fashioned embarrassment to the country, which of course it is. But what she felt very uncomfortable about was any suggestion that this image was in any way associated with violence against women and sexual violence in particular.
This is often a difficult area of the campaign, I suppose because, for a start, it's something a lot of people feel they would rather avoid discussing at all. It also often elicits a reactionary response, many immediately assuming you are suggesting that any man who looks at pictures of naked women is a potential rapist. This is clearly not the case, nor would any of us suggest it was. The issue is far more complex and to do with the way men are raised and socialised, their past experiences and many, many other factors too complex to go into here. However, it is not difficult to appreciate how the constant reinforcement of women as sex objects both reflects and reinforces that idea in the general public.
The difficulty many have with this viewpoint is in someways connected to the misapprehension a lot of people hold that Rapists are street attackers who lurk in dark alleyways, when in actual fact we know that the vast majority of women are raped by people they know and often in their own homes. Personally I have no difficulty associating the objectification of women, the dehumanisation of them from a "she" to a "that", from a thinking, feeling person to a commodity, with an increased ease in treating them as less than human and thereby making it easier to use them as such. Research by Kalot in 1999 and Vogel in 2000 drew attention to this very fact showing that after looking at sexualised images of women, men are significantly more likely to answer ‘yes’ to the questions ‘would you ever consider having sex with an underage girl?’ and ‘would you ever consider forcing a woman to have sex?’ This evidence is worrying enough in its self but if you are still not convinced you can always, if the mood takes you, visit The Daily Star website.
....I say if the mood takes you, it is a mood that I experience about as often as the mood to gouge both eyes out with a spoon but each to their own...
I realise I may be confusing some of you here. No more Page 3 concentrates on asking for removal of The Sun's page 3 feature and that is in no small part because the Sun remains Britain's best selling newspaper with the Mail now hot on it's heels. This means its ability to infiltrate many areas of your lives is bigger that that of the other newspapers with similar content but The Sun, no longer allows visitors to its Page 3 website to leave comments. There may be good reason for this. The Daily Star's page 3 images are however, more or less identical and we can therefore assume would illicit a similar response in it's readers. Below is a sample of some comments from page 3 images on the Star's website which have not been removed (some apparently have because they were "too offensive") (Warning! Do not read if you are a delicate disposition!) -
"I'd love to spray my load over those juicy titties"
"Come on Jodie you little Teaser....we wanna see you whippin' your tits out for the Lads this week!!! We demand it you piece of Fodder! GET YOUR TITS OUT NOW!!!"
"Just wanked over this picture"
"Good set of tits on this dollop of fodder"
"Stacey is bleedin gorgeous!!!! So why has she only been given one chance to get her cracking tits out for the lads!!!????She loves unleashing that juicy rack when we demand it!!!!AND WE DEMAND IT NOW!!!! GET YER TITS OUT STACEY!!!!! XXXX"
"Now you are a babe. I bet you have a gorgeous pu**y if it's anything like your lovely tits which I would very much like to nuzzle into. I'd love to look down on you lovely lips wrapped around my ****. If your dirty, I'll give you anything you want, who wouldn't?!!!"
"Look at the wobbly knockers on that!! and todays **** slut is....emma frain with her pear shaped dark textured nipples out.
I love you, For you there is nothing I would not do. Your smile is so pretty, Not to mention your titties. They're gorgeous and cute, They make me wanna shove my **** up your chute, Because your practically perfect, Emma I love you now can we have some sex!"
"a wonderful beauty with a very shapely body just the right size tits to enjoy sucking on and have fun with would enjoy getting u as a present"
And these are the comments left on pictures they approved of. They do however seem to be quite picky...
"Not impressed by this piece of Essex Fodder...crap tits...fake sun tan and that jet black dyed hair. Nothing attractive about Geena facially either."
"These tits just aren't good enough....it's embarrassing."
"Yes you have nice boobs but your face is not the best"
"This Girl has no tits! Why for **** sake is she on Page 3!!"
"And what a saggy pair of tits this Welsh wannabe has...you could park a bus between that cleavage."
I'm sorry to share that with you but it is one of those things that once you've seen you know is important to share even if it is an uncomfortable read. These were not difficult to find incidentally, this is the common content and language used. Of particular note is the very small number of times the model is referred to by name or as a she, whilst words like "fodder", "dollop" referring to them as "that"or using words like "Slut" are frequent. The sense of privilege, of authority the commentators have that these women will whip their tits out on demand is clear, as is the overall sense of ownership.
What all of this leaves us with is a worrying picture of the attitudes of some young men after looking repetitively at these images. How do these men then interact with the women in their lives and those they encounter after forming these opinions and feeling confident enough in their views to type them onto a website. Are these the same young men who feel entitled, at the very least, to shout some sexual comment to a woman on the street or manhandle a woman on a dance floor. How can we continue to allow mainstream reinforcement of these attitudes when we still have the problems we have with violence and sexual violence against women? If nothing else this reality certainly makes a mockery of Dominic Mohan’s defence of Page 3 as ‘not sexualised’.
So I will not mince my words in saying that Page 3 needs to go, not just because it is a national embarrassment and a dinosaur of the 1970s but because it is anything other than a "harmless fun". It is difficult to understand how any woman, having read these comments, could not feel some sense of challenge to their safety and in the current climate where it is becoming clear that women face sexual harassment and assault as much as ever and where rape is sadly hugely under reported and rarely results in a conviction, to make an excuse for this as "fun for the lads" in inexcuseable. So for these reasons I make no apologies, even though I know it doesn't sit well with some, in connecting Page 3 images with sexual assault, domestic violence and rape. It may be a small part of a big problem but it's certainly not helping, which is why, at No More Page 3 we are proud to count Women's Aid and Rape Crisis amongst our supporters.
Sunday 31 March 2013
Oh, Hello Mr Mohan
On Saturday an unusual thing happened. The Sun (almost....in a round about way) acknowledged our existence.
You see for the last 7 months they have done a rather sterling job of pretending we're not here at all. I mean , ok Rupert Murdoch replied to a supporter but he didn't acknowledge us and other than sending out an ex-deputy editor to trawl out the same old, old arguments in favour whilst stating, quite without irony, that he would never take it home because his wife didn't like the children seeing it (I kid you not). The current Sun staff have been deafening in their silence towards us. Then yesterday a supporter sent us this...
Ohhhh interesting we thought. They are talking to us...I mean we assume it's us as they seem to be referring to a "sisterhood" and whilst we bloody love our sister supporters who stand shoulder with us we also have many, many supporters who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves immediately as feminists and we have thousands and thousands of male supporters, fathers, grandfathers, brothers etc who simply want to see women shown some respect.
Add to that those running the country who feel that page 3 has become a national embarrassment http://nomorepage3.org/letter-to-the-editor-signed-by-mps/ a list which is growing day on day because they seem to think (and we agree) that we are really rather better than this. We did after all just stage the Olympics?
Of course there is a real, proud element of sisterhood in our group support http://nomorepage3.org/orgsupport/ including some groups who support victims of rape, sexual assault and violence and backed up by groups trying desperately to promote positive body image or women in sport against the backdrop of this overt sexism. All of these groups have their own very serious reasons for asking for the end of a "National Institution" which objectifies, sexualises and belittles women's place in society.
So yes, many are joined in solidarity with the (give me strength) ..."Pretty Tunisian girl" who firstly isn't a girl..she is in fact a 19-year-old woman and who is not trying to look "pretty" or provocative in any way but is posting her own topless pictures of herself in an effort to promote her own bodily integrity and ownership, in a culture which seeks everyday to remove that right from her in multiple ways.
So why, the Sun asks, if we support this young woman, do we "look down our nose at Zoe 24 from Coventry"
Wow! Erm...where to begin?
Well firstly... WE ARE NOT LOOKING DOWN OUR NOSE AT ANYBODY! Not 24-year-old Zoe, not 18-year-old Suzy, none of them. We have never been against the glamour models in any way. We support all women's choice to do what they choose with their life and if they make an informed choice towards the glamour industry we have no issue with that. The issue with page 3 is about context and the choice of where these pictures go is not made by the model it is made by the editors who for 42 very long years have somehow felt it appropriate to put these post watershed images just inside the front cover of a national family newspaper.
Well here Mr Mohan,/Mr Murdoch /The Sun is the thing.... We in the UK don't live in a culture that reinforces to women that their body should be covered and limits their freedom of choice or movement in numerous ways. What we live in is a culture which limits women everyday by reinforcing, through images like page 3, that they should be of a certain size, shape, colour. A culture where the biggest image of a woman in the press is one of her standing in just her pants, exposed and posing provocatively. Not in a publication with other similar images or one with similarly sexual images of men, but in a newspaper with men in suits running the country or playing sports and the contrast is glaringly obvious. What is reinforced everyday, in the homes into which this image infiltrates, is that a woman's place in society is to decorate it and be sexually available to men. It isn't freedom of speech. These women are not given a voice and the young women in these homes learn that the most important thing about them is not what they think or feel, not what they may be capable of, their talents or abilities but above all else their appearance and their sexual availability. It's hard to see therefore any decision to go into glamour modelling as one that isn't strongly influenced by this constant reinforcement, particularly for those who may have watched the significant men in her life looking at page 3 and commenting on the models throughout their upbringing.
No, No more page 3 supporters do not look down their nose at the page 3 girls at all, but what about the newspaper in which their pictures are showcased? How much are these women paid for their work in comparison to the profit made? How are they respected when the "News in Briefs" mocks them and suggests they can clearly have no intelligence if they are attractive or choose to pose naked? How do the page 3 fans show respect to these women when they go online and rotate them 360 degrees like cattle paraded at market or comment and refer to them as "wanking fodder"? How does the Sun choose to represent a young women who after years of page 3 conditioning is so utterly depressed about how the size or shape of her breasts isn't "normal" that she turns to her GP who recommends surgery on the NHS? So appalled is the Sun about this that it then has the young woman pose topless in its paper, un-airbrushed (unlike the page 3 models) to ridicule and mock her, perpetuating a torrent of abuse against her which litters everybody's Facebook and twitter feed. Sorry...who was looking down their nose at who....I forget.
Who used these images to mock, ridicule and belittle Claire Short when she tried to stand up for the 100's of women who had written to her in support of her plans to ask for a ban on page 3, including the 12 women who had told her they had page 3 mentioned to them whilst being raped. Who supported Seth MacFarlane's ridicule of Hollywood actresses by printing pictures of all the breasts he had mentioned including some from rape scenes that were depictions of true stories?Who is it that "respects" victims of assault by running the story with a picture of the victim posed in sexy underwear completely undermining the seriousness of the crime?
You can see my confusion.... I think if we are looking for those happy to look down noses at women you will struggle to find them in the sisterhood or anywhere amongst all of the 89 000 who have signed the no more page 3 petition. The easiest place it seems to find it is sadly amongst those publishing these images in the mainstream who have been quoted as saying these women are "as stupid as they look", amongst the page 3 supporters who have said if "slags want to pose naked we should let them" and who refer to those of us who want an end to this as ugly, fat or with crap tits because they can only assume our motivation must be jealousy.
So yes, we do rather love the bravery and importance of what Amina Tyler is doing (that's her name by the way Mr Mohan/Mr Murdoch, perhaps you couldn't find it on the internet?) but seeing as you ask we think Page 3 is totally different in the context of our western culture, well to be frank in any culture. None of the European journalist, American, Australian, Mexican people understand it and many of your own readers seem so embarrassed by it that we watch them skip straight to page 4. You see..it is so terribly old hat isn't it?
We are so much better than this.
You see for the last 7 months they have done a rather sterling job of pretending we're not here at all. I mean , ok Rupert Murdoch replied to a supporter but he didn't acknowledge us and other than sending out an ex-deputy editor to trawl out the same old, old arguments in favour whilst stating, quite without irony, that he would never take it home because his wife didn't like the children seeing it (I kid you not). The current Sun staff have been deafening in their silence towards us. Then yesterday a supporter sent us this...
Ohhhh interesting we thought. They are talking to us...I mean we assume it's us as they seem to be referring to a "sisterhood" and whilst we bloody love our sister supporters who stand shoulder with us we also have many, many supporters who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves immediately as feminists and we have thousands and thousands of male supporters, fathers, grandfathers, brothers etc who simply want to see women shown some respect.
Add to that those running the country who feel that page 3 has become a national embarrassment http://nomorepage3.org/letter-to-the-editor-signed-by-mps/ a list which is growing day on day because they seem to think (and we agree) that we are really rather better than this. We did after all just stage the Olympics?
Of course there is a real, proud element of sisterhood in our group support http://nomorepage3.org/orgsupport/ including some groups who support victims of rape, sexual assault and violence and backed up by groups trying desperately to promote positive body image or women in sport against the backdrop of this overt sexism. All of these groups have their own very serious reasons for asking for the end of a "National Institution" which objectifies, sexualises and belittles women's place in society.
So yes, many are joined in solidarity with the (give me strength) ..."Pretty Tunisian girl" who firstly isn't a girl..she is in fact a 19-year-old woman and who is not trying to look "pretty" or provocative in any way but is posting her own topless pictures of herself in an effort to promote her own bodily integrity and ownership, in a culture which seeks everyday to remove that right from her in multiple ways.
So why, the Sun asks, if we support this young woman, do we "look down our nose at Zoe 24 from Coventry"
Wow! Erm...where to begin?
Well firstly... WE ARE NOT LOOKING DOWN OUR NOSE AT ANYBODY! Not 24-year-old Zoe, not 18-year-old Suzy, none of them. We have never been against the glamour models in any way. We support all women's choice to do what they choose with their life and if they make an informed choice towards the glamour industry we have no issue with that. The issue with page 3 is about context and the choice of where these pictures go is not made by the model it is made by the editors who for 42 very long years have somehow felt it appropriate to put these post watershed images just inside the front cover of a national family newspaper.
Well here Mr Mohan,/Mr Murdoch /The Sun is the thing.... We in the UK don't live in a culture that reinforces to women that their body should be covered and limits their freedom of choice or movement in numerous ways. What we live in is a culture which limits women everyday by reinforcing, through images like page 3, that they should be of a certain size, shape, colour. A culture where the biggest image of a woman in the press is one of her standing in just her pants, exposed and posing provocatively. Not in a publication with other similar images or one with similarly sexual images of men, but in a newspaper with men in suits running the country or playing sports and the contrast is glaringly obvious. What is reinforced everyday, in the homes into which this image infiltrates, is that a woman's place in society is to decorate it and be sexually available to men. It isn't freedom of speech. These women are not given a voice and the young women in these homes learn that the most important thing about them is not what they think or feel, not what they may be capable of, their talents or abilities but above all else their appearance and their sexual availability. It's hard to see therefore any decision to go into glamour modelling as one that isn't strongly influenced by this constant reinforcement, particularly for those who may have watched the significant men in her life looking at page 3 and commenting on the models throughout their upbringing.
No, No more page 3 supporters do not look down their nose at the page 3 girls at all, but what about the newspaper in which their pictures are showcased? How much are these women paid for their work in comparison to the profit made? How are they respected when the "News in Briefs" mocks them and suggests they can clearly have no intelligence if they are attractive or choose to pose naked? How do the page 3 fans show respect to these women when they go online and rotate them 360 degrees like cattle paraded at market or comment and refer to them as "wanking fodder"? How does the Sun choose to represent a young women who after years of page 3 conditioning is so utterly depressed about how the size or shape of her breasts isn't "normal" that she turns to her GP who recommends surgery on the NHS? So appalled is the Sun about this that it then has the young woman pose topless in its paper, un-airbrushed (unlike the page 3 models) to ridicule and mock her, perpetuating a torrent of abuse against her which litters everybody's Facebook and twitter feed. Sorry...who was looking down their nose at who....I forget.
Who used these images to mock, ridicule and belittle Claire Short when she tried to stand up for the 100's of women who had written to her in support of her plans to ask for a ban on page 3, including the 12 women who had told her they had page 3 mentioned to them whilst being raped. Who supported Seth MacFarlane's ridicule of Hollywood actresses by printing pictures of all the breasts he had mentioned including some from rape scenes that were depictions of true stories?Who is it that "respects" victims of assault by running the story with a picture of the victim posed in sexy underwear completely undermining the seriousness of the crime?
You can see my confusion.... I think if we are looking for those happy to look down noses at women you will struggle to find them in the sisterhood or anywhere amongst all of the 89 000 who have signed the no more page 3 petition. The easiest place it seems to find it is sadly amongst those publishing these images in the mainstream who have been quoted as saying these women are "as stupid as they look", amongst the page 3 supporters who have said if "slags want to pose naked we should let them" and who refer to those of us who want an end to this as ugly, fat or with crap tits because they can only assume our motivation must be jealousy.
So yes, we do rather love the bravery and importance of what Amina Tyler is doing (that's her name by the way Mr Mohan/Mr Murdoch, perhaps you couldn't find it on the internet?) but seeing as you ask we think Page 3 is totally different in the context of our western culture, well to be frank in any culture. None of the European journalist, American, Australian, Mexican people understand it and many of your own readers seem so embarrassed by it that we watch them skip straight to page 4. You see..it is so terribly old hat isn't it?
We are so much better than this.
Thursday 14 March 2013
Newsbeat rape coverage
Following this http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808#TWEET659531 seemingly awful and biased mis-reporting of rape figures I made a formal complaint to newsbeat. This is their response -
Dear Ms Clarke
Thank you for contacting us regarding ‘Newsbeat’.
We understand you had concerns about a news article which related to a recent CPS report on the number of false rape claims made in proportion to legitimate claims prosecuted.
We passed your concerns to Rod McKenzie, Editor, Newsbeat who has responded with the following:
“This was a story commissioned to specifically examine what it was like to be falsely accused of rape. To help contextualise the story we reported on a 17 month study carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service which set out to establish how common such false rape allegations were. In the past we have published many stories highlighting the issues surrounding rape and domestic violence, specifically targeted at our core audience of 15 to 24 year olds. Please find links for two such stories below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17230648
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17238674
On this occasion we chose to look at those young people – usually men – who are occasionally wrongly accused. We know from our audience research that among this group concern over this issue is commonplace – we sought to contextualise this anxiety. I do not agree we misrepresented the study, or published an article that might somehow put people off reporting such serious crimes. However, having considered feedback I agree we were not clear enough in our wording. For clarity we have replaced a word in the second sentence from ‘common’ to ‘unusual’.
In the fourth line of our story we quote the Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer who says false rape allegations are ‘serious but rare’. In the accompanying video he makes the same statement within the first fifty seconds. Whilst our story hears from a young man who says he was wrongly accused, we ensure that rape victims are given a voice by running quotes from Dianne Whitfield from Rape Crisis. We also feature a video which contains a Nottinghamshire Police spokeswoman who says their starting point is always to believe allegations of serious sexual assault. She goes on to explain how thoroughly they investigate both sides of any allegation. Far from downplaying the seriousness of rape we finish our article by publishing the phone numbers of advice lines for people who believe they may have been the victim of rape or domestic violence.
On the day this story was broadcast we received a big response from our young audience, and we openly invited feedback on this challenging topic. Whilst some people did say our reporting of false accusations was damaging to real rape victims, on our Social Networking sites false accusations were described as “disgusting”, and one young man told us that he felt the bigger problem was that these claims make life harder for real rape victims to be taken seriously. On Twitter another young male listener told us "Allegations of rape not only waste police time but wreck the lives of those accused! And another wrote... "My 23 year old nephew was recently accused of rape. He then killed himself. The girl did it again to another guy."
Our view is that all aspects of this story merit coverage and debate and we will continue to do so."
Thank you again for taking the trouble to get in touch with us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Not impressed quite frankly...
Tuesday 12 March 2013
No More Page 3 Campaign from strength to strength
Life in No More Page 3 HQ is a roller coaster of emotions. From the highs of passing another milestone on the signature count (at time of writing 86 117) to the sadness and horror of hearing one woman's story of being sexually assaulted surrounded by images like page 3. From the frustration of fielding diatribes of misogynistic trolling to the inevitable silliness of tit jokes that we share when letting off a little steam.
The place is a hive of ideas, activity and humour from a team of truly inspired and extraordinary women. I say women, at the time of writing we are excited about expanding our team to include two more amazing supporters including our first male.
New members are entering the campaign on a real high following our most successful move yet, hitting the Sun where it hurts, in the pocket. So upset was one supporter, with the promotion LEGO were running in the Sun for the 5th time (a promotion aimed at children collecting tokens to redeem for toys) that he started a petition to draw the toy manufacturer's attention to the inappropriate nature of pointing children towards a publication containing objectifying, soft pornographic images. The petition attracted 12 000 signatures and after that and 100's of tweets and emails LEGO announced that no further promotions would follow. Yay!!
This is an important victory and we now look to other Sun advertisers and stockists to consider the image of their brand and whether the sexist and degrading dinosaur that is The Sun with page 3 truly fits that image. When the revolution comes will they want to be left looking silly for not having acted sooner?
Yes people, the revolution is coming! The revolution tackling media sexism in the UK starts here.
Things are going well....really well...imagine something going well, well it's better than that!
We are forging on with signatures, our Facebook likes are over 8000, Twitter followers at over 13 000. NUS women's conference backed us 100% and so to add to the 6 universities currently boycotting the Sun in support of NMP3 numerous others are now pushing for the same including Nottingham and Derby.
Labour women's group are on board. The Sun has dropped page 3 4 times so far this year, (more times than in the whole of 2012). Murdoch has mumbled something incoherent about fashionistas which nobody really understood but which earned us over 20 000 extra signatories.
We have so many exciting developments I'm struggling to hold my bladder let alone my tongue and I am over the moon to be a part of this.
I am working with an amazing team and doing sometimes quite bonkers things I had never dreamt of but more than that, I am standing with over 86 000 others and saying -
For pity's sake it is 2013! It's time we saw more women in the press that we can aspire to be, women being the amazing, funny, talented and beautiful 51% of the population that we know we are, in all of our clothes, standing up straight, without a pout, making news.
The place is a hive of ideas, activity and humour from a team of truly inspired and extraordinary women. I say women, at the time of writing we are excited about expanding our team to include two more amazing supporters including our first male.
New members are entering the campaign on a real high following our most successful move yet, hitting the Sun where it hurts, in the pocket. So upset was one supporter, with the promotion LEGO were running in the Sun for the 5th time (a promotion aimed at children collecting tokens to redeem for toys) that he started a petition to draw the toy manufacturer's attention to the inappropriate nature of pointing children towards a publication containing objectifying, soft pornographic images. The petition attracted 12 000 signatures and after that and 100's of tweets and emails LEGO announced that no further promotions would follow. Yay!!
This is an important victory and we now look to other Sun advertisers and stockists to consider the image of their brand and whether the sexist and degrading dinosaur that is The Sun with page 3 truly fits that image. When the revolution comes will they want to be left looking silly for not having acted sooner?
Yes people, the revolution is coming! The revolution tackling media sexism in the UK starts here.
Things are going well....really well...imagine something going well, well it's better than that!
We are forging on with signatures, our Facebook likes are over 8000, Twitter followers at over 13 000. NUS women's conference backed us 100% and so to add to the 6 universities currently boycotting the Sun in support of NMP3 numerous others are now pushing for the same including Nottingham and Derby.
Labour women's group are on board. The Sun has dropped page 3 4 times so far this year, (more times than in the whole of 2012). Murdoch has mumbled something incoherent about fashionistas which nobody really understood but which earned us over 20 000 extra signatories.
We have so many exciting developments I'm struggling to hold my bladder let alone my tongue and I am over the moon to be a part of this.
I am working with an amazing team and doing sometimes quite bonkers things I had never dreamt of but more than that, I am standing with over 86 000 others and saying -
For pity's sake it is 2013! It's time we saw more women in the press that we can aspire to be, women being the amazing, funny, talented and beautiful 51% of the population that we know we are, in all of our clothes, standing up straight, without a pout, making news.
Proud PC Crew
So following his infamous tweet appearing to suggest his disquiet with the pornographic content of his newspaper a few short weeks ago the PR wheel rolled on and Mr Murdoch tried to calm things a little by suggesting its all an overreaction by the PC crew?
Hmmm... Interesting choice of words. PC...politically correct. A term so often banded about as a negative, reactionary thing but just a little bit of analysis is required to break that down...analysis and maybe a little historical knowledge.
So when Page 3 first came out in 1970 the moral zeitgeist was such that married women generally stayed at home and bought up the children whilst men went out to work.
Many of the Oxford colleges were not open to women, the stock exchange was not open to women. Women who were in the workplace were not well protected. Harassment and in particular sexual harassment were not covered by legislation and there were no safeguards in place if a boss or co-worker "felt you up" (or sexually assaulted you) up against the coffee machine or work bench. There was no come back if you were asked what colour your knickers were that day and if you were "on the rag" as you were in such a narky mood and it's not hard to believe that any woman who did try to speak up against these remarks would be seen as over sensitive or ridiculous as "what did she expect" in a male orientated work place. Here in 2013 things are different. Whilst we know (thanks to the Everyday Sexism campaign) that sexual harassment still happens in work places it is now covered under employment law and women can seek redress in court.
When Page 3 first came out in 1970 women within a marriage were still effectively the property of their husbands. Some banks still insisted on a husband or father's signature before a woman could open an account and a man could, if he chose force sex upon his wife at any time because there was no such thing as rape within marriage. We now have laws which reflect what we now know about rape being used as a weapon against women in domestic abuse and we would never dream of suggesting that a woman who was raped by her husband was not raped BECAUSE it was her husband or that she not have her own independent financial means.
As a child in the 1970's I remember watching comedians such as Jim Davidson making jokes of black stereotypes and thinking nothing of it. That type of humour is now deplorable. It was the 1970's which allowed a prolific child abuser open access to young girls in TV studios and thought nothing of scenes openly sexualising young school girls in sit-coms and films.
I could go on all day but my point is this.....
Without people standing up and pointing out how things were wrong, pointing out how people were being hurt or damaged and showing us all that we each have a responsibility to protect each other, particularly victims of abuse or harassment, repression or bigotry. Without the "PC" people we would have made no progress whatsoever.
Times move on and things move on but not on there own. It is people that make this happen.
It is clear that within 4 decades our understanding of the media and its effects on society are far greater. With that knowledge comes responsiblity. Responsibility to not just mirror society with a media that reflects back to it what it already is, or gives it or what it wants but provides it with a potential rallying point and allows change of those values through education. We know the Sun already accepts this responsiblity, running many valient campaigns including support for British military personnel in action, campaigns against domestic violence and protecting children from sexual abuse.
So Mr Murdoch... I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the PC crew as you so nicely put it, because it is the PC crew that has given society the progress it has made and stands with you in the good works of the Sun and what I ask you is the alternative?
Looking at the "Keep page 3 " petiton started a few weeks ago seemingly by the page 3 models themselves and directed at Rupert provides some insightful answers about the current status quo.
The status quo is a situation where "supporters" of page 3 girls show their "supportive" reason's for signing largely with combinations of the words tits, boobs and wanking material. There are also occassional references to crazy feminists and suggestions that people should leave this country the f*** alone and get rid of immigrants too. The alternative presented here is a status quo which supports young women not surprisingly concerned about losing their percieved platform and spring board into a better life by speaking of them sometimes as beautiful, but at least as often in a derogatory fashion as wanking material and as nothing more than a sum of their body parts. If these supporters refer to their beloved page 3 girls this way how I wonder do they refer to the other women in thier lives?
Truth be told I am also a little bemused as to the premise of this petition in the first place. The wording suggests that these women would have to lose their charity work and their visits to troops? Why? Why would that have to stop? As one twitter supporter put it - these girls do their best work with their clothes on. I find it hard to understand why they couldn't continue this simply because they were unable to get their assets out in a family newspaper? Has The Sun lead them to believe that if they stop the soft pornography they will also have to stop the charity work? If the constant presentation of young women in their pants day in day out stops but their other work is supported to continue perhaps, over time, the respect for and the language used in connection with these people would improve and indeed in turn perhaps that for the rest of the female gender that these supporters meet on a daily basis.
My suggestion therefore Mr Murdoch, were I ever asked, would be to continue the charity work theme and indeed extend it. Open up the opportunity to talented young people, of both sexes actors, comedians, artists, musicans. Allow them to showcase their works in your Newspaper and take them abroad to entertain the troops, but perthaps, just perhaps, you could stop encouraging them undress for the privilage? Just a thought, but hey.....maybe I'm just too PC?
Hmmm... Interesting choice of words. PC...politically correct. A term so often banded about as a negative, reactionary thing but just a little bit of analysis is required to break that down...analysis and maybe a little historical knowledge.
So when Page 3 first came out in 1970 the moral zeitgeist was such that married women generally stayed at home and bought up the children whilst men went out to work.
Many of the Oxford colleges were not open to women, the stock exchange was not open to women. Women who were in the workplace were not well protected. Harassment and in particular sexual harassment were not covered by legislation and there were no safeguards in place if a boss or co-worker "felt you up" (or sexually assaulted you) up against the coffee machine or work bench. There was no come back if you were asked what colour your knickers were that day and if you were "on the rag" as you were in such a narky mood and it's not hard to believe that any woman who did try to speak up against these remarks would be seen as over sensitive or ridiculous as "what did she expect" in a male orientated work place. Here in 2013 things are different. Whilst we know (thanks to the Everyday Sexism campaign) that sexual harassment still happens in work places it is now covered under employment law and women can seek redress in court.
When Page 3 first came out in 1970 women within a marriage were still effectively the property of their husbands. Some banks still insisted on a husband or father's signature before a woman could open an account and a man could, if he chose force sex upon his wife at any time because there was no such thing as rape within marriage. We now have laws which reflect what we now know about rape being used as a weapon against women in domestic abuse and we would never dream of suggesting that a woman who was raped by her husband was not raped BECAUSE it was her husband or that she not have her own independent financial means.
As a child in the 1970's I remember watching comedians such as Jim Davidson making jokes of black stereotypes and thinking nothing of it. That type of humour is now deplorable. It was the 1970's which allowed a prolific child abuser open access to young girls in TV studios and thought nothing of scenes openly sexualising young school girls in sit-coms and films.
I could go on all day but my point is this.....
Without people standing up and pointing out how things were wrong, pointing out how people were being hurt or damaged and showing us all that we each have a responsibility to protect each other, particularly victims of abuse or harassment, repression or bigotry. Without the "PC" people we would have made no progress whatsoever.
Times move on and things move on but not on there own. It is people that make this happen.
It is clear that within 4 decades our understanding of the media and its effects on society are far greater. With that knowledge comes responsiblity. Responsibility to not just mirror society with a media that reflects back to it what it already is, or gives it or what it wants but provides it with a potential rallying point and allows change of those values through education. We know the Sun already accepts this responsiblity, running many valient campaigns including support for British military personnel in action, campaigns against domestic violence and protecting children from sexual abuse.
So Mr Murdoch... I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the PC crew as you so nicely put it, because it is the PC crew that has given society the progress it has made and stands with you in the good works of the Sun and what I ask you is the alternative?
Looking at the "Keep page 3 " petiton started a few weeks ago seemingly by the page 3 models themselves and directed at Rupert provides some insightful answers about the current status quo.
The status quo is a situation where "supporters" of page 3 girls show their "supportive" reason's for signing largely with combinations of the words tits, boobs and wanking material. There are also occassional references to crazy feminists and suggestions that people should leave this country the f*** alone and get rid of immigrants too. The alternative presented here is a status quo which supports young women not surprisingly concerned about losing their percieved platform and spring board into a better life by speaking of them sometimes as beautiful, but at least as often in a derogatory fashion as wanking material and as nothing more than a sum of their body parts. If these supporters refer to their beloved page 3 girls this way how I wonder do they refer to the other women in thier lives?
Truth be told I am also a little bemused as to the premise of this petition in the first place. The wording suggests that these women would have to lose their charity work and their visits to troops? Why? Why would that have to stop? As one twitter supporter put it - these girls do their best work with their clothes on. I find it hard to understand why they couldn't continue this simply because they were unable to get their assets out in a family newspaper? Has The Sun lead them to believe that if they stop the soft pornography they will also have to stop the charity work? If the constant presentation of young women in their pants day in day out stops but their other work is supported to continue perhaps, over time, the respect for and the language used in connection with these people would improve and indeed in turn perhaps that for the rest of the female gender that these supporters meet on a daily basis.
My suggestion therefore Mr Murdoch, were I ever asked, would be to continue the charity work theme and indeed extend it. Open up the opportunity to talented young people, of both sexes actors, comedians, artists, musicans. Allow them to showcase their works in your Newspaper and take them abroad to entertain the troops, but perthaps, just perhaps, you could stop encouraging them undress for the privilage? Just a thought, but hey.....maybe I'm just too PC?
Thursday 21 February 2013
No More Page 3: The Inside Story
Wow! Quite a lot has happened since I last wrote a blog about the No More Page 3 campaign for Beestonia. At that time I was involved on the outskirts, with quiet determination, trying to draw support and signatures to a campaign that , for reasons I didn't completely understand had captured my heart.
I ran two local demo's that were both well received. Then over Christmas things went quiet. I thought nothing of it at first when the usually buzzing facebook group seemed less busy and put it down to the distractions of the season, but well into new year there still seemed to be little sign of life and I all but thought the campaign may be about to fold. Then something amazing happened. The fabulous, bubbly, determined young woman Lucy Holmes who founded the campaign and who I had only seen in her comical online videos about it sent me an email, a long and heartfelt email explaining that she had put quite literally everything of herself into this campaign and was spent. She was reaching out to a small group of us that she had spotted through the networks for help and she seemed less than confident of a positive response. My goodness did she get one! We were all excited, thrilled and flattered to have been picked out and there are now 8 of us on the No More Page 3 team or NMP3HQ as we call ourselves. Most of us have never met and the whole thing is co-ordinated online through social networks. We are all busy people with jobs, often young children and lots of other things going on but we have this amazing determination in common - to improve the representation of women in the UK media starting by removing the sexist 1970's dinosaur that is Page 3.
Within 24 hours of the new group forming our private site was alive with ideas - involving more students, universities, schools, going after The Sun's advertisers, drawing more popular support. Amongst the ideas that Lucy had noted down was tweeting Rupert Murdoch himself and we started to do this straight away, giving him an occasional update. Then after a day of Men against Page 3 was really well received across Facebook and Twitter we decided to run the following Sunday with a "Tweet Rupert Murdoch day". He must have received 100s of tweets but responded to just 1. A supporter named Karen who simply suggested page 3 was "So last century". The rest is a bit of history now that was splashed across national media for much of the following week whilst we at NMP3HQ attempted to deal with press interview after interview. Interestingly we have done a hell of a lot of international TV and newspaper interviews with most of Europe seemingly fascinated by this story and all utterly perplexed at the "strange Brits" having something like Page 3 still around. They, without exception see it as bizarre. It was all a bit of a whirlwind of activity but with us never quite making it onto our own TV screens owing to the pope who decided to retire the next day. Most inconvenient timing.
So this just about brings us up to speed, with the issue now constantly ticking away in the media and the pro-page 3 mob clearly very rattled. Presumably not helped by the fact that, despite the awful coverage of Reeva Steenkamps tragic death/murder, page 3 has been absent from The Sun 3-4 times already this year which, we have on good authority is unusual. It seems the end may be in sight, except we all know it isn't an end....
Yesterday I was interviewed (little old me *snort) by a Times journalist who quotes me in an article saying “The Sun, as the top-selling paper, has a brilliant opportunity to change things for women in this country, and to present them in an equal, non-objectified way,..But unfortunately, it chooses not to accept that opportunity. Page 3 is part of that, but it’s certainly not the whole picture.” I was over the moon to have the opportunity to say that and it should have been a really good day. Sadly two other things happened yesterday -The Sun ran again with no traditional page 3 but instead photographs from a playboy bunny beach shoot (the model wore a bikini top! Whoop de doo) and a petition was started, seemingly by page 3 girls who were up in arms that they may no longer be able to pose topless as they want to in the newspaper and would no longer therefore be able to continue their important charity work and their morale building visits to troops in Afghanistan etc.
I have had a sleepless night (again) trying to marry this reality with the world that I like to think I'm living in.
You see....in the world I would like to be in there are newspapers with news, current affairs and features. These papers may at times focus on sex or sexual issues, they may also focus on glamour but they do it proportionately and equally. They ensure that nobody of any particular gender, race or creed is singled out for exploitation or public undressing. These newspapers make sure that at the very least when a woman is brutally beaten or murdered by her partner the murder/rape/assault is treated as that. As a crime against a woman who is worthy of respect by a man who allegedly has behaved in a deplorable fashion.
The world I would like to be in has newspapers and media that showcase young people's talent. Sometimes that may be their looks but it may also be their hard work and ability. The media support these extraordinary young people in carrying out charity work. They take amazing young musicians/artists to Afghanistan to entertain the male and female troops there. They may even take a model sometimes, female or male.
The world I would like to live in would stop putting pictures of young women in a national newspaper for men's titillation (there are other publications for that which don't make it onto family dining tables and into family restaurants) and start treating all women, regardless of their allure with respect. It would certainly not however immediately stop supporting the models it has encouraged to pose topless all this time but would continue it's fabulous charity work and indeed expand the opportunity to give all young people a chance to be a part of that. It wouldn't in a million years consider only supporting, in this charity and overseas work, a certain demographic of young, mostly white women of say, below size 14 dress size and it would surely to goodness not only take the ones who are willing to undress for the privilege? Surely not!
Sadly when I wake up it seems this is not the world I am living in, not yet anyway. So until then on with the fight...
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)