Although The Sun decided to bring back Page 3 for a one-off 'fuck you, feminists!' two days after they first stopped printing it, there haven't been any more since. The 'No More Page 3' campaign is taking a (temporary) break from Twitter - presumably to get off their tits on celebratory champers, 'scuse the pun! There's still a lot to be done in the quest to secure equality of representation for women across the media though, so I continue to support them. These were my feelings when Page 3 first disappeared from this particular family newspaper...
RIP: Rest In Peace? Or did I deliberately leave caps lock on? Page 3 is no more - at least in print form - so maybe I should say Rest In Pieces, Page 3....
For those outside the UK, or who haven't been paying attention to the news over the past couple of days, The Sun - a daily tabloid newspaper with a readership of around 2 million - has ceased publishing pictures of topless women on its third page. Page 3 first came about back in the 1970s. It is simply a photograph of a young, topless woman that covers almost the entire third page of the paper. The picture is often captioned by some (often vacuous) comments on current affairs attributed to the model featured. I don't honestly believe they are always a direct quote. The purpose of Page 3 is simple: titillation. It is (or rather, was) socially acceptable pornography. Pornography that could be viewed at the breakfast, lunch and dinner table, on the bus or train, in the waiting room. If people (alright, MEN) had tried reading 'Big Jugs' on the train, for example, I'm sure they would have been met with disapproval, even if that only amounted to their fellow commuters tutting at them in that delightfully passive-aggressive way British people tend to in order to voice their disapproval without inviting confrontation. If there were children on the train then they might say something, and rightly so.
The irony here is that it's likely millions of children have been seeing Page 3 almost every day - unlike 'normal' pornography it isn't age restricted, it's available anywhere that sells papers, it's frequently left on buses and trains by those who have finished reading it, it's kept on a low shelf. Anyone could just open the cover and see breasts, prominently displayed alongside some of the day's most important news.
I must point out here that there's nothing wrong with breasts, or people seeing them. Breasts are amazing. My own helped me attract a mate and then nourished and comforted my son in a way nothing else could for the first three years of his life. Feeding babies is their primary reason for existence. So, seeing a breast in the presence of a feeding baby is perfectly fine. Because public breastfeeding is OK. It's also OK that men find breasts sexually appealing. It's OK for women to choose as their career one in which they expose their breasts so men who feel this way can enjoy them. Such pictures just don't belong in a newspaper. Breasts aren't news. Except when the 'news' is that a woman has been mistreated by some ignorant arse who doesn't understand the laws in relation to public breastfeeding but I imagine that, had it not been for Page 3's daily depiction of breasts as solely sexual objects, people wouldn't react so negatively when they see them being used for their intended purpose and public breastfeeding wouldn't be such a big deal. It's not solely Page 3's fault - the sexualization of breasts is endemic across the media - but I can't think of many other ways in which children could be exposed to a sexualized image of a topless woman so easily, ensuring they grow up thinking it's somehow wrong to use them to feed babies....
Page 3 hasn't been consigned to history completely - The Sun have been quick to point readers to the Page 3 section of their website (1). People seem to be complaining about this. Curiously, both proponents of Page 3 and those who believe it doesn't need to have an online presence either. I believe that the seedy connotations of Internet pornography explain why its fans aren't happy - it's not as socially acceptable to look at images of topless women on the Internet as it was in the paper. This may now make it easier for the campaigners to get people to see why Page 3 wasn't acceptable content for a newspaper in the first place and, hopefully, get it removed from the newspaper's website as well.
I suspect some 'No More Page 3' campaigners took issue with Jeremy Renner's casual remark about Jennifer Lopez's breasts at the Golden Globe Awards but, as I explained (2), it's all about context - if he'd said it at the Children's Television Golden Globes (3) and she'd been wearing a turtleneck, that would've been wrong. But this was an evening show, aimed primarily at adults, and she was wearing a revealing dress. Like I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to show off her breasts, either in a sexual way by wearing revealing clothing or by posing topless, or when she needs to feed her baby - although I'd argue women who breastfeed aren't doing it to 'show off' their breasts. Most try to expose as little of themselves as possible, certainly not their whole breast. Accidents happen though - just as women risk a 'wardrobe malfunction' and exposing more than originally planned when they wear something revealing, a 'breastfeeding malfunction' is also a risk. Usually, even if the mother's whole breast is exposed, the baby's head hides most of it whilst they are actively feeding but, if she is distracted and doesn't notice when the baby drops off... whoops! A friend of mine told me she once answered the door to the postman and it was only then she realised she had forgotten to put her boob away after the last feed.
Several current and former (I suppose, technically, they're all former now) Page 3 'girls' have spoken out against The Sun's decision to drop the feature from their print edition. The main focus for their criticism seems to be the campaigners, many of whom are feminists. Here are a couple of quotes:
"It's only a matter of time before everything we do is dictated by comfy shoe wearing... No bra wearing... man haters" - Rhian Sugden (4)
Jodie Marsh signed off one tweet with "Women who slag off other women are just jealous & insecure..." (5) not long before posting one which read "Dear pretend feminists, I have reached a compromise re Page 3: If I stop shaving my armpits and don't wear any make up can I still do it?" (6) Jodie Marsh says she is a feminist (5). I don't dispute that. I'm sure plenty of feminists would say my lack of disapproval for Jeremy Renner's comments mean I can't possibly be one. Jodie's idea of feminism seems to be about women being empowered to do what they want with their bodies and I completely agree - there's absolutely nothing wrong if a woman wishes to pose naked for a living, I've already said that! I'm not sure these women understand the point of 'No More Page 3' - the official campaign page states quite clearly that they "love breasts! And have nothing against women who choose to show them," it's just the context of them appearing in a daily newspaper that irks them (7).
What irks me is this lumping of those feminists who are against the concept of Page 3 into an homogenous group of unattractive, unfeminine man-haters. One can be against the objectification of women and support their right to choose to appear in pornography, or enjoy flirtatious 'banter' with a man whilst not wishing to be cat-called whilst out jogging. These things aren't mutually exclusive - it's all about context.
Finally, Nicola McLean complained that the success of the campaign had "put so many young women out of jobs" (8). To me, that's like complaining that a campaign to close down a brothel next to a school puts women out of jobs - I'm not trying to draw comparisons between prostitutes and Page 3 models but surely she'd agree a brothel doesn't belong next to a school? Context! I can't remember where I saw it, but I saw one complaint that said something like 'feminists should be allowed to tell women they can't pose topless in a newspaper' - we aren't. We're telling a newspaper they shouldn't print pictures of topless women and very little else besides (7). These models can and will find work elsewhere - if they don't wish to work for top shelf magazines or Internet porn (I refuse to call it 'glamour', it's porn. Might be very, very soft porn to just pose topless in a miniskirt but still porn. Be proud that you work in porn. There's nothing wrong with porn (9)) The Daily Star (10) still has a Page 3. Obviously, the campaign will continue until that is also withdrawn. And I shall support it. Like underwiring supports my boobs. This feminist wears a bra. And she loves men (11). I do like a comfy shoe though....
Several current and former (I suppose, technically, they're all former now) Page 3 'girls' have spoken out against The Sun's decision to drop the feature from their print edition. The main focus for their criticism seems to be the campaigners, many of whom are feminists. Here are a couple of quotes:
"It's only a matter of time before everything we do is dictated by comfy shoe wearing... No bra wearing... man haters" - Rhian Sugden (4)
Jodie Marsh signed off one tweet with "Women who slag off other women are just jealous & insecure..." (5) not long before posting one which read "Dear pretend feminists, I have reached a compromise re Page 3: If I stop shaving my armpits and don't wear any make up can I still do it?" (6) Jodie Marsh says she is a feminist (5). I don't dispute that. I'm sure plenty of feminists would say my lack of disapproval for Jeremy Renner's comments mean I can't possibly be one. Jodie's idea of feminism seems to be about women being empowered to do what they want with their bodies and I completely agree - there's absolutely nothing wrong if a woman wishes to pose naked for a living, I've already said that! I'm not sure these women understand the point of 'No More Page 3' - the official campaign page states quite clearly that they "love breasts! And have nothing against women who choose to show them," it's just the context of them appearing in a daily newspaper that irks them (7).
What irks me is this lumping of those feminists who are against the concept of Page 3 into an homogenous group of unattractive, unfeminine man-haters. One can be against the objectification of women and support their right to choose to appear in pornography, or enjoy flirtatious 'banter' with a man whilst not wishing to be cat-called whilst out jogging. These things aren't mutually exclusive - it's all about context.
Finally, Nicola McLean complained that the success of the campaign had "put so many young women out of jobs" (8). To me, that's like complaining that a campaign to close down a brothel next to a school puts women out of jobs - I'm not trying to draw comparisons between prostitutes and Page 3 models but surely she'd agree a brothel doesn't belong next to a school? Context! I can't remember where I saw it, but I saw one complaint that said something like 'feminists should be allowed to tell women they can't pose topless in a newspaper' - we aren't. We're telling a newspaper they shouldn't print pictures of topless women and very little else besides (7). These models can and will find work elsewhere - if they don't wish to work for top shelf magazines or Internet porn (I refuse to call it 'glamour', it's porn. Might be very, very soft porn to just pose topless in a miniskirt but still porn. Be proud that you work in porn. There's nothing wrong with porn (9)) The Daily Star (10) still has a Page 3. Obviously, the campaign will continue until that is also withdrawn. And I shall support it. Like underwiring supports my boobs. This feminist wears a bra. And she loves men (11). I do like a comfy shoe though....
Footnotes:
(1) N.B. Other pornographic websites are available.
(2) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/feminist-frustrations-how-am-i-meant-to.html
(3) Yes, I know they aren't a thing but trying to make a point here and off the top of my head I can't think of any well-known children's award ceremonies....
(4) https://twitter.com/Rhianmarie/status/557455199695298560
(5) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/557462525391171584
(6) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/558011955529932800
(7) http://nomorepage3.org/
(8) http://i100.io/ClCJxKK
(9) http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html
(10) A somewhat less popular tabloid newspaper than The Sun. It's circulation was 476,448 in March 2014; it'll be interesting to see whether that increases - or whether The Sun's goes down - as a result of this campaign success.
(11) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/fangirling.html
(2) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/feminist-frustrations-how-am-i-meant-to.html
(3) Yes, I know they aren't a thing but trying to make a point here and off the top of my head I can't think of any well-known children's award ceremonies....
(4) https://twitter.com/Rhianmarie/status/557455199695298560
(5) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/557462525391171584
(6) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/558011955529932800
(7) http://nomorepage3.org/
(8) http://i100.io/ClCJxKK
(9) http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html
(10) A somewhat less popular tabloid newspaper than The Sun. It's circulation was 476,448 in March 2014; it'll be interesting to see whether that increases - or whether The Sun's goes down - as a result of this campaign success.
(11) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/fangirling.html
No comments:
Post a Comment