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.

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...

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.

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?