Doctor Who IS She

Dear Sylvester McCoy,

You weren't my 'First Doctor', but it is of your tenure as the Gallifreyan in the Big Blue Box that I have the clearest childhood memories. My friends and I would ritually discuss your latest adventures on the bus to swimming lessons, and playing 'Dalek Dodge' in the creepy outside toilet block was a playground favourite. Those memories were fond, and we were sad when Doctor Who came to an end in 1989. I was unimpressed with the 1996 attempt at revival, and mourned the wobbly sets, rubber-faced aliens and dodgy special effects, and bemoaned the attempt to cast a 'sexy' actor in the role (all due apologies to Mr McGann; he just doesn't do it for me).

When the show was again revived in 2005, I approached it with as much caution as excitement, but I'm a big fan of Christopher Eccleston's work so I was always going to give it a chance. And it was incredible stuff. I loved it every bit as much as I'd loved watching you as a child - perhaps more. Then the delectable David Tennant took over and the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion suddenly became very different to what it had been when I was a child. Rose fancied the Doctor (so did I, having had a long-standing crush on Mr Tennant since my early teenage years). She fell in love with him. And he with her. Despite their separation, this shift in the dynamic of the relationship between Doctor and companion to be a romantic one continued, although Martha's love was unrequited. Donna had a more 'traditional' platonic relationship with the Doctor, but suffered the most upsetting, tragic fate ever: becoming the best person she could be, bettering the Doctor, then being forced to forget everything. David Tennant was undoubtedly a sex symbol and I don't complain about the relationship his Doctor had with Rose, or Martha, or Donna, but I hoped things might take a different turn when Matt Smith replaced him. They did, for a while, but only because Amy's heart belonged to another. Clara fell hard, and the Doctor did too. But it's simply not appropriate for an ancient alien to settle down with a twenty-something human now is it? I'm sure that's not the sort of dynamic you're so keen to protect. Step forward, Peter Capaldi.

Now, although I think it somewhat unfair to Mr Capaldi to suggest that his casting was the reason for the cessation of any romance between Clara and her Doctor, but the number of women who grumbled on social media that the Doctor was suddenly "an ugly old bloke" go some way to support the theory. The dialogue between Clara and Vastra in his very first episode, 'Deep Breath', confirms it. Clara fancied Matt Smith's Doctor. She doesn't fancy Capaldi's. And I'm glad. Series 8 marked a turning point when 'new' Doctor Who started being more like it had been when I'd first started watching it. The Doctor, no longer a young, attractive man (sorry, Peter!) was back to being a mentor rather than a mancrush.

When Peter Capaldi initially assumed the role of The Doctor, his concern that Clara was only with him because she fancied him was evident. Throughout his first series, she learns (finally!) how The Doctor was always so much more than that and she starts to appreciate him in new ways. Capaldi's Doctor reminds me so much of yours. It's one of the reasons I've enjoyed the most recent series so much.

One question I've always pondered, ever since my childhood, however is this: why is The Doctor always a man? Female Time Lords exist. Steven Moffat has, through the casting of Michelle Gomez as Missy - The Master or, rather, The Mistress, The Doctor's greatest foe - confirmed that it's possible for a male Time Lord to regenerate into a female form. A female Doctor is something he's seen as being on the cards for some time and he's been very open about it. Why are you so against the idea?

"It would ruin the dynamics between The Doctor and the assistant," you said. Did the dynamics between The Mistress and The Doctor change that much? At all? Missy is every bit the Machiavellian sociopath that Roger Delgado was. She and The Doctor have the same love/hate relationship they've always had. The dynamics between The Doctor and his 'assistants' have already changed since you played the role. It's somewhat ironic that yours paved the way for those who followed (1), given your remarks. What sort of dynamic did your Doctor have with Ace? The Doctor - your Doctor - was manipulative. Though she was by far the most realistic companion The Doctor had ever had up to that point, the first to work things out for herself rather than merely ask questions, the first to fight to protect The Doctor rather than scream helplessly for him to save her... but she was merely a pawn in one of his long games with an ancient enemy. The Doctor can't half be a bastard sometimes.

In some ways, many of The Doctor's modern companions have much in common with the 'sacrificial lamb' Bond Girl - the woman who falls hopelessly in love with Bond (usually the one already in a relationship with the bad guy) who ends up dying as a direct result of her encounter with Bond. Ace's fate depends on which version you prefer. Rose ended up trapped in a parallel universe, Martha risk her life in almost every episode. Jack was forgotten, left behind. Repeatedly. Donna saved everybody and was forced to live in a world where she was the only one who could never know about it. Amy was shot back through time. River died. People might forget that, since her last meeting with The Doctor was the first for both him and us viewers. But he showed every single one of them how to become better people. And they him. And it's here that I stop using gendered pronouns to refer to The Doctor. Because the qualities The Doctor possesses that allow that to happen aren't exclusively male.

As a long time fan of Doctor Who, the relationship between The Doctor and his (oh OK, one more time) companions has always intrigued me. It's possibly because I appreciate the insignificance of humans in the vastness of space. The idea that there is more out there beyond the solar system that we know, and the potential that we are therefore not alone. That this was not and is not the only planet capable of sustaining life. What might those other lifeforms be like? Would they wish to harm us? Despite The Doctor's tendency to be highly manipulative of them, he (last one, promise!) has a particular fondness for them. The Doctor wants to protect Earth (before it's inevitable death) and the continued existence of the human race. The Doctor's companions aren't naive, but they consistently arrive with a complete lack of awareness of their significance. Rose was a shop assistant, bored with her mundane existence. Martha didn't believe she was good enough. Donna knew she wasn't. The Doctor helped them all realise their own worth. Is that something only a man is capable of?

You describe yourself as supporting feminism but you believe that only a man is able to teach a woman (for The Doctor's companions are mainly female) her true value? Feminism challenges the very fact that men have been defining the value of women for millennia. We don't need men telling us how we can be better. This isn't to say that women can't be inspired by men, can't learn anything from men, just a plea for you to recognise that the role of teacher, mentor is not a solely male one. Perhaps your concern is harm to the romantic dynamic between Doctor and Companion? Is it the possibility that a female Doctor might form a romantic relationship with a female companion that concerns you? Or is it that you're uncomfortable with the idea of a young man forming a romantic attachment to a much older woman? Does the prospect of The Doctor being portrayed by a young, attractive by patriarchal standards woman bother you more than the role being filled by an older one? Or one not deemed attractive?

This isn't about a "cultural need" for a female Doctor, whom you compare to James Bond. You'll note that I don't say there are no comparisons between the two but I completely disagree that the characteristics of either character are exclusively male - the difference is how such characteristics are perceived in women. In the case of Bond, substance abuse, having multiple sexual partners, disobedience etc are seen as negative behaviours in women but Bond is lauded as a hero and such things are encouraged in men who wish to assert their 'maleness'. The Doctor's personality changes with each regeneration but remains broadly that of an individual in a highly privileged position who fights to protect the oppressed. As someone who claims to support feminism, you should realise that it is the fight of women against oppression and, whilst I personally welcome the support of male allies who can help break down the system of patriarchy from within, it is women's fight and we don't need (indeed many feminists do not want) men to help us. Since The Doctor's ultimate aim is to fight oppression, I wonder why you are so adamant this is something a woman couldn't do.

Steven Moffat said that "you cast a person, you don't cast the gender". That's why women have been playing Hamlet for centuries (2). What personality traits is it that you see in The Doctor that couldn't be portrayed by a women, bearing in mind that The Doctor's fundamental reason for existence is entirely unrelated to gender? Bearing in mind that The Doctor's personality is prone to change with each subsequent regeneration in any event? Peter Capaldi, who has been a fan of Doctor Who since - ooh - forever, sees a female Doctor as a possibility. Why can't you? Perhaps you share the same concerns that I do, that a female Doctor would be stereotypically female. Take The Doctor's costume, for example. Each has adapted it to fit their personality. To reflect the fact the producers wished to present the character as more enigmatic, yours wore a jumper emblazoned with question marks and carried an umbrella with one for a handle. Initially a light, casual outfit that reflected the Seventh Doctor's whimsical nature, it became darker in colour as the darker aspects of The Doctor's personality were revealed. On that evidence I don't baulk at the possibility a female Doctor might go through regular costume changes but then there's no reason why another male Doctor couldn't do this. Would a female Doctor pick a highly impractical designer frock and a pair of Jimmy Choo's as her preferred garment? Or would things take a comic turn, where someone whose entire lived existence as a man would result in series of clueless attempts to dress a body with hips and boobs? Would she rummage through The Doctor's absolutely enormous wardrobe of clothes or - horror! - make the TARDIS' first stop the nearest branch of New Look? As a woman who wears whatever the fuck she likes, I'd like to see a female Doctor who dressed a bit like me. Jeans and a t-shirt with biker boots one day, a patterned blouse and trousers with trainers the next, a vintage dress and Doctor Marten's the one after that. Heck, there are even days when I wear Converse with a massive, stripy knitted scarf and a trilby (like the Tenth, Fourth and Third Doctor's respectively). We can dress for the occasion or we can dress to suit our mood or we can do both - who says women have to wear dresses to weddings? Oh yes, men.

Doctor is a title that has no gender. Despite having been played by a man since it began, Doctor Who is not bound by the rules of gender, only the personality of the person playing the role and the imagination of the writers. The Doctor would not fundamentally change, only people's perceptions of the The Doctor. Your belief that The Doctor "is a male character" says more about your attitude than your claim to "support feminism". I note that comment was followed by the word "but". It seems all to common that anyone claiming to support anything then saying "but" doesn't really support it at all - rather like people saying they support breastfeeding "but not in public", or "but only if the mother covers up", which isn't supportive at all. It's not difficult to draw parallels between this and what you said.

I might draw a similar parallel between your argument and that against a black James Bond but at least Rush Limbaugh had the good sense to realise that he was being racist to suggest that was a bad idea. To argue that The Doctor is a "male character" is sexist. Plain and simple. You acknowledge the existence of the "glass ceilings" for women but then speak of "drawing the line" - where is the line for men? Men played Shakespeare's female roles because women were forbidden to act. Suggesting that there is ought now to be a limit on the roles women play simply because they are women is archaic and downright offensive.

You aren't the only person who seems to believe that the casting of a female Doctor would be solely to serve the interests of "political correctness" - that seems to be the feeling of a large number of people if the surveys I've seen at the end of various articles regarding your comments are anything to go by. I refer back to Steven Moffat's comment, "you cast the person, you don't cast the gender." Comments like yours, like all those who pooh-pooh the idea of a female Doctor citing "political correctness", show you don't see women as people, but just as women, with all of the associated gendered limitations. Feminism seeks to free women from those limitations. Saying The Doctor shouldn't ever be female is imposing a limitation on women. So please don't keep saying you support us, because those comments show that you don't.

Do I want you to apologise? Say you would back the casting of a female Doctor? No. You don't have to do that. If you believe it's a bad idea, then you believe that, for whatever reason and it doesn't matter if I or anyone else disagrees with you. Just don't try to defend your sexist comments by claiming to support feminism. Be Rush Limbaugh and own your prejudice.

Helen Mirren said she could name "at least ten wonderful British actresses who would absolutely kill" as The Doctor. I doubt Ms Mirren would be so self-important to include herself on that list but she'd certainly be on mine. Maxine Peake would be brilliant. Olivia Colman would too - and continue the newly established tradition of casting actors who have previously appeared in smaller roles like Freema Agyeman, Karen Gillan and Peter Capaldi (the latter two in the same episode. How awesome is that?!) Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here, typing away with the notion that the next Doctor should or must be female. I'm just not discounting it is a possibility like you are. Eddie Izzard would be an amazing Doctor. Phil Davis is fabulous (and he also appeared in 'The Fires of Pompeii' alongside Gillen & Capaldi, which would make for some spookily spectacular casting). But it isn't up to me to influence the process any more than it is you. I suspect Steven Moffat has an idea of where he wants The Doctor to go and he will cast the right person to take The Doctor there. That person may well be a woman. So be it. Line crossed, glass ceiling shattered. And I'll still watch Doctor Who because the nature of the relationship between Doctor and companion doesn't have to be based on the Doctor's ownership of a penis (3).

So we disagree. And that's OK. You don't have to change your opinion just to suit me. But that does mean you're not a feminist (4). So please don't say that you are or that you support us again unless you are prepared to revise your opinion. Just one final thought... what if the next Doctor is ginger? A ridiculous question, you might say. But arguing against a ginger Doctor makes about as much sense as your argument against a female one in my opinion, i.e. none at all.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Reilly (age 36)

(1) http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/33496/doctor-who-how-ace-set-the-template-for-modern-companions

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2014/sep/26/female-hamlets-sarah-bernhardt-maxine-peake-in-pictures

(3) Or penises. Two hearts... anything else he's got two of?

(4) If men do behave in ways and express views that are supportive of feminism, I don't personally take issue with them describing themselves as 'feminist', although 'feminist ally' is preferable, I understand there are circumstances when it's easier not to. Like when your Tweet is four characters too long ;)

Feminist Frustrations: "Sexism vs Chivalry vs Manners" and "Why 'Compliments' - (Consent + Context) = Harassment"

A couple of things on Twitter sparked my interest in the past week or so. The first was this excerpt from a conversation Glamour magazine had with Gillian Anderson:

Glamour: What do you get riled up about in a feminist context? 

Gillian: A lot. I have feminist bones and when I hear things or see people react to women in certain ways I have very little tolerance. 

Glamour: But don't you feel sorry for modern men? Not knowing whether they should help us with our bags and open doors for us or whether we'll see it as an affront? 

Gillian: No. I don't feel sorry for men.

I don't feel sorry for them either. Helping someone who is clearly struggling is merely being nice, holding a door open for someone is just basic manners. I could rant at great length about how fucked off I get with people who don't bother to hold the door when someone is coming through immediately behind them, or who don't acknowledge someone who has. It's got nothing to do with gender. And I'll give you a tip: a lot of people are too shy, or sometimes too proud, to ask for help when they need it. It's okay - it's actually quite nice - to offer them help. If a man sees a woman struggling, it's not sexist to offer her help. It is sexist to see a woman not struggling with her bags and take them from her with the assumption that she might and you're actually doing her a favour. Things like this aren't that difficult to work out, surely?

It strikes me as odd that men might be struggling to know whether or not they should hold a door open for women for fear of being considered sexist when they seem very willing to yell sexual comments towards women in the street. This is sexual harassment, not 'freedom of speech' as some have tried to claim. When I wrote about this issue, I stressed the importance of context - essentially, if a man yells 'nice tits!' at me when I'm walking down the street wearing a polo neck, that's harassment; if he tells me 'nice tits!' when we're stood at a bar when I'm wearing a low cut dress and a push-up bra, that's a compliment I'm actually glad to receive. You can read the full post here.

Another way to look at this is to consider the comment in terms of consent. It could certainly be argued that my choice to wear a revealing outfit gives consent for people to comment on the part of my body it enhances and/ or exposes. When I've deliberately chosen an outfit that aims to disguise or hide them though, and I'm just trying to go about my daily business, I struggle to see how the same consent could be inferred by anyone.

Abi Wilkinson wrote an interesting examination of the consent issue, referencing the feelings of a rape survivor who experiences traumatic flashbacks when she receives unwanted attention and those of Paris Lees, who revels in it. Her point is that the man making the unsolicited comment towards a woman in the street doesn't know which one she is, whether she will feel flattered by it or fearful. The rape survivor told Wilkinson that she used to enjoy "burlesque pin-up style" but now worries she might be perceived as "having 'asked for it'" if she wears certain clothes. There's an implication here that rape completely destroys a woman's sexual confidence but I don't think that's what Wilkinson is trying to say - she's merely illustrating that it's possible to experience both angles. She describes her own position:

"I've received uninvited sexual attention that I've found incredibly upsetting and intimidating. Other times - I'm slightly ashamed to admit - crude, sexualised comments from strangers have given me a bit of an ego boost. Often, it's a weird combination of the two."

If you read my first post, you'll know that's pretty much my position on it too.

Wilkinson isn't critical of Lees' enjoyment of receiving such attention - she is critical of those who have told Lees that she isn't "a 'real' feminist" and is "betraying other women" by doing so. What she does criticise is the stance that, because some women do enjoy this attention, those who do not "should 'loosen up' and stop complaining." What? Like a rape survivor who is too afraid to leave her home because such attention causes her to have flashbacks? This is where the 'freedom of speech' issue comes into play - is the right for everyone to make uninvited sexual comments more important than the right of some people who are affected by them to be protected from them? The first thought that entered my head when Wilkinson posed this question was 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' (1) - sometimes I am unconscionably nerdy - but I cannot possibly argue that there's a need for people to be able to make sexual comments towards anyone, whereas there is certainly a need for people to feel able to go out in public without jeopardising their mental stability. So I agree with Wilkinson's conclusions. Spock's claim is illogical anyway. And he contradicts himself later on (2).

Naturally I then went on to read Paris Lees' original article, where she asks "I Love Wolf Whistles and Catcalls; Am I a Bad Feminist?" As Wilkinson pointed out, the answer is no, and it's wrong for anyone to suggest so. Lees' article is an interesting read and I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of it because she too recognises that it's the context a sexual comment is made in that distinguishes an ego-boosting compliment from harassment. She quotes The Independent's social media editor Felicity Morse:

"If I'm dressed up in a sexy little something... sashaying down the street... I find a catcall rather appreciative. But if I'm out jogging or running to the bus stop, huddling past a building site in the rain, I find it intrusive."

Lees describes how she loves "catcalls... car toots... random men shouting 'Hello, beautiful!'" but makes a clear statement to men to stop doing things like saying "'I'd like to fuck you up the ass' as you drive past her in the street," because the latter is clearly harassment. Whilst some women - not necessarily only rape survivors - might sometimes feel that what Lees considers "harmless fun" is frightening, I wouldn't call to ban catcalling. Lees poses the question:

"If I smile next time a man wolf-whistles at me, does that make me a bad person? What if the next person he wolf-whistles at is a woman who's been raped? What if he ruins her day?"

Lees spoke to Ellie Mae O'Hagen of The Guardian about where catcalling fits in to the broader picture of sexual violence against women in a patriarchal society. Lees struggles with the idea that there's a connection between catcalling and rape and although I'd agree it's a terrible misnomer to postulate that 'street hecklers' or the 'readers of lads' mags' I do acknowledge it as a piece of that bigger picture that we shouldn't ignore.

Lees' conclusion is that catcalling and harassment are different things but says "I don't want to make other women feel pathetic if they don't enjoy street attention." She states she is a feminist because she doesn't like "men telling me how to think or behave or experience the world, and I don't like women doing it, either." There's a suggestion in her article - from another person, I must add - that how women feel when they are catcalled is a choice. It's a suggestion I have difficulty with. Whilst I'm all for owning your feelings and not seeking to blame others when you've fucked up and feel bad about it, the line between being controversial - which might be seen as offensive by some - and being downright deliberately offensive is often a very fine one indeed.

My own conclusion is this: some women - like Paris Lees - consistently revel in this sort of attention. Others - like Abi Wilkinson, Felicity Morse and me - like it sometimes and not others. Some detest it. Even that which the rest of us might consider relatively harmless might ruin their day. Ruin their life. I think it's important to remember that that's OK. However you feel about - I like Lees' term - "street attention", that's OK. As long as you remember that not everyone feels the same. I think that men who like to catcall need to look at the women they target more closely (yes, I am actually suggesting this). They'd soon see the difference between a woman who is "sashaying", who will probably not mind and might even enjoy such attention and one who is "huddling" and will not.

That said, there is a limit. Whilst a woman might choose to wear a revealing outfit with the purpose of (or not minding) inviting attention. It doesn't give people permission to do anything more than pay her a compliment, even if that comes in the form of a catcall she enjoys. You can look, but you may not touch without permission, not without consent. Women who dress provocatively might be asking for attention but they are not asking for 'it' - that's sexual assault at best, at worst it's rape.


One thing that pisses me off whenever women start talking about things like this is those men (and women) who bring up the 'not all men' issue (3). Yes, WE KNOW. It's often difficult to tell whether those who #notallmen are men who really just mean 'not me' and support feminism or whether they're men who think you're one of 'those feminists' and are the cause of the problem. It's like when anyone brings up domestic abuse - the victims of which are overwhelmingly women - and reminds us that it happens to men too. Yes it does, but the focus on female victims doesn't mean those of us who campaign on the issue are ignorant or dismissive of its male victims... fuck. I'm about to quote Spock again and then remind you that it's not actually a logical argument and comes entirely down to fucking context again....

I have a great deal of respect for the men who do 'get it'. Those who are aware of their male privilege and support feminism. I remember the emotional response I had when I first saw Daniel Craig - who then represented the ultimate symbol of male privilege and misogyny: James Bond - appear in drag in a video created to mark International Women's Day as Judi Dench's voice over reminded us that, even after decades of feminism, women are still very much second-class citizens. That two of them die every every week at the hands of a current or former partner. That's why Domestic Abuse campaigns focus on women; because two women die every week. It is still a very powerful piece:

I like to think that Daniel Craig's participated in this because he's one of those men, as I like to think the men who tweeted the link to that catcalling video are too. In the above film, Judi Dench says to Bond "I wonder if you've ever considered what it might be like to be [a woman]?" Here's another video that shows a man being given the same (albeit uninvited) opportunity and, given that the latter part of this post is about sexual harassment, it seems particularly appropriate to share it here:

I came across this quite by accident when I was doing background research for another post and I find it quite uncomfortable to watch. I mean, I love those arms too but shit, ladies - you ask first (4)! If this were a man grabbing a woman there'd be an outcry, but this sort of thing goes unchallenged. There might well be a twelve-foot high picture of the arms the women admire so in the background but this guy has turned up wearing a long-sleeved shirt. He's not inviting that attention. Arguably, the circumstances of this being an interview which will inevitably raise the subject (although... would it, if they hadn't put that picture in the background?) means I feel it's OK to ask the question. Hell, I'd even accept one of the women seeking permission to dispute his claim that that muscle definition is the result of "a lot of make-up" but they don't. Instead, two of them decide to cut him off mid-sentence and pounce on him like a couple of rabid dogs. Women who behave like this make it really difficult for women like me to speak out against street harassment. There are men who perpetrate it who use this sort of behaviour as justification for what they do - frequently under the #notallmen banner.

At this point, it sort of feels like I'm derailing my own argument by bringing this up, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just women who need to speak out about such things. Men do too - and not just to point out that they aren't all perpetrators of harassment or are also victims of it. Those men with good old-fashioned manners - those kind, generous men who are willing to offer help to an evidently needy stranger who might be too shy or too proud to ask for it when they want it - need to remind other men not to worry about how they're going to be perceived. Just as Paris Lees has never come across a woman who appreciated a man describing what sexual acts he'd like to do to her from his moving car, I've never come across anyone who appreciated someone leaving a door to swing back and smack them in the face. Those Men who recognise the difference between a sexually confident woman who actively chooses to display her ample bosom to all and might like you to tell her that you appreciate it, and a woman who dresses and moves in such a way as to draw as little attention as possible to hers, who spends every moment she's out in public praying that you won't say anything. Even - or perhaps especially - if she's the same woman. Those men need to remind other men that they do need to think about how a woman might perceive those actions. It's all about context. I appreciate perhaps this isn't that straightforward, given women's differing attitudes towards and experiences of street attention, or the outdated concept of chivalry becoming confused with what amount to basic manners, but many men do seem to understand this and many of the other issues important to feminism. Does that mean I feel sorry for the men who struggle with it? Hell no!




Footnotes:

(1) Is there seriously anyone reading this who doesn't know that's from Star Trek??

(2) https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

(3) Here is an excellent explanation of 'not all men' and what it actually means which explains why it's appearance in online dialogue is often confusing for feminists: http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

(4) What happens here reminds me a bit of the uninvited bump-touching that pregnant women face. Their growing bump is the equivalent of that twelve-foot high picture, it's presence means it will be noticed, commented on, but touching a woman's bump without permission is also assault. You can buy maternity t-shirts bearing the slogan 'hands off the bump' as a means of preventing this unwanted touching. Maybe someone should start making 'hands off the biceps' t-shirts....

RIP Page 3... or not

EDITED: 13:45 13/02/2015

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....

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

Feminist Frustrations: How am I meant to feel when a gorgeous guy makes a gaffe at the Golden Globes?

I know I'm probably rather late to the party on this one but it's bothering me so I feel the need to blog about it.

At the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, the presenters of the award for Best Actor in A Drama Series were Jennifer Lopez and Jeremy Renner. Now, I have to confess I have a wee crush on the latter. It's significant.

Now, I know that there's a script they have to follow and everything but it seems there's a moment of their pre-envelope opening spiel that wasn't on the autocue and it's gotten Mr Renner into a bit of hot water. And I'm not sure he deserves it.

Remember a few months back when that 'catcall' video was doing the rounds? If you didn't see it, here it is:

I've experienced this, and it's creepy. When I'm just walking around, just going about my day, just dressed in jeans and a t-shirt - nothing that tight, nothing that low cut, nothing that noteworthy, it fucking creeps me out when men comment at me. I say "at" because that's what it is - they're not saying it to you. It's a comment about your ass or your boobs as you walk past them. Even a "hey" or "hello" is a bit creepy when it's not said to your face but your rear as you pass by. Especially when it's accompanied by a "baby" or a "girl" - I'm thirty-six for fucks sake. I've HAD a baby and I haven't been a girl for a looong time. When you're getting comments like this all the fucking time it becomes harassment - it's not a compliment, we don't feel better for you saying it, it's NOT OK.

But what if I'm walking around in a dress with a low-cut neckline that shows off my boobs? What if I'm out at night, just walking to the bar or club? STILL NOT OK. What if I pass by you in a bar or club? STILL NOT OK. If you come up to me and say to my face what you find attractive about me? That's OK. Because you're telling me. You're not announcing it to everyone within earshot, you're not calling after me, you've told me, to my face, that you find me attractive. And I'm going to like that.

So I'm Jennifer Lopez. I'm wearing a dress that's so low cut you could see my c-section scar if it were any lower. And my boobs look fucking awesome. I'm a confident woman and I know I look good in this. I'm proud of my body. I know men find me attractive. I don't mind showing that off.

In case you haven't seen the clip, let me describe what happens next: Jennifer and Jeremy take to the stage and start to read the script from the autocue and list the nominees. She offers to open the envelope because she's "got the nails". Jeremy can't stop himself staring at her impressive cleavage and quips "you've got the globes too." And apparently, it was at this point that Twitter did a collective "ooh, NOOOOO! That's NOT OK!" and proceeded to say stuff like "and the award for Best Supporting Creep goes to Jeremy Renner" and call him a sexist misogynist pig and suchlike.

Now, I'm sure some women who think they're better feminists than me will tell me I'm wrong here but, if I'm wearing a dress that shows off that much of my body, I kinda want people to tell me I look good! If I was just walking down the street, minding my business then, yes, a comment like that would be creepy but I've chosen to wear this on a global stage. I'm not sure it's right to expect nobody to comment on it, and I'd sure as hell prefer to hear positive comments rather than negative ones. The man standing next to me might not have intended to say it out loud - I definitely get that impression. I've watched this clip a few times now and there's a hint of a rabbit caught in the headlights about his expression to camera immediately afterwards. It's a "Shit! Did I just say that out loud?!" sort of face - but he did, and I laugh. I laughed when I saw this clip. I was thinking the exact same thing...

What we have to remember is that this happened at the Golden Globe Awards. I'd bet that every year since their inception there's been a boob-related quip about some actresses choice of dress in relation to how revealing it is. Perhaps this explains why I'm not so bothered by Jeremy's comment as the rest of Twitter seems to be - have I been desensitised? Do I expect it? Usually such comments are seen in the press the following day, I'm not sure anyone has ever said it at the actual ceremony before.

I have to accept that my opinion of this has perhaps been coloured by my opinion of the man who made the comment. I have a crush on him. Though I can't honestly say that's automatically going to make me more forgiving - after all, I call out my husband for making inappropriate comments! I do have to admit, however, that there's a part of me that wishes this man was standing next to me, telling me my boobs look good (aside: what bra is she wearing, I need one of those!) so I know I'm not being totally impartial here. But then I might as well say I can't be impartial because I'm a woman. But then I'd also say no man could be impartial because he's a man...

A lot of people who've already commented on this have mentioned 'the objectification of women'. I know this is part of a much bigger picture. I know that if it's seen as OK to pass comments like this about women wearing dresses like that it eventually results in a situation where men feel free to pass comments about women regardless of what they are wearing. It results in situations like that depicted in the video above. But the key difference here is that the comment was kind of said to the woman in question. And she appears to have appreciated it. If that's the case, they why the fuck is anyone else getting so upset about it? Even between us women we don't seem to be able to decide where the line is, what is and isn't acceptable for men to say, or under what circumstances. I've already explained what I think isn't OK. This is OK by me. Even if it wasn't, I certainly wouldn't approve of the vilification Jeremy Renner has since been subjected to by the Twitterati. Say you don't think it was OK. Say why you don't think it was OK. But don't be abusive - that's not OK.

There's even more to this, I've found. It seems he's recently split up with his wife and the divorce papers she's filed... basically the rumour is that he's in the closet. I really couldn't give a shit and I'm not going to post any links to any articles about this because a) I don't have any, b) I don't want to search for any because c) I believe I've already said I couldn't give a shit? It has no relevance. It's gossip. I will still have a crush on him. Besides, I know a number of gay men who love boobs. When my gay male friends have told me I look good I've felt every bit as complimented as when straight men I had a crush on did. We can't deny it's feels really good when we hear a compliment. Especially when its about a part of ourselves we've chosen to flaunt. If you flaunt yourself and people say nasty things about you, or to you, that's disheartening. Even confident, strong people will get disheartened if they hear bad things about the few things they like about themselves.

Jeremy hit back at his critics by saying they should "lighten up". And I agree. I think his comment came from an innocent place, it wasn't meant with malice. He wouldn't have said this to a woman walking down the street in a t-shirt... at least I hope not. If he thinks that's OK then I'd gladly... let someone else explain why it's not. I'd try but I'd seriously struggle. I have a crush on the guy, remember! I suppose that a lot of men who do make such comments would say then don't mean it maliciously either, but then... why not say them to us? Why at us as we walk past you? Whilst I would admittedly be a little shocked if a random man came up to me on the street and said "excuse me, but I just had to tell you I think you're beautiful/ have a really nice ass/ have fantastic boobs" I'd appreciate it a whole lot more than him yelling "nice tits, love" as I walk past.

So... if I ever become famous, and I get to present a Golden Globe award with Jeremy Renner, I hope he tells me I've got the globes too.