Turning of the Tide

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.

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.