I should just clarify, my mother is the strongest woman I have ever known, largely due to the fact that she mostly has no idea of just how much strength she holds and, like many women from a generation who’s mantra seems to have been “oh just get on with it!”, she quickly forgets the endurance she has shown in moving past a life time of experiences which would leave most of us Millennials shaking in our hi-tops.
Back to the point; I mentioned to her about the NoMorePage3 initiative which I am in unfaltering support of and to whose tireless efforts to try and make a sometimes terrifyingly overwhelming tide of sexism seem a little less scary, I am very grateful. My mother said she didn’t mind Page 3 and that there were bigger problems in the world.
Yes, I am aware that there are quite possibly worse things happening to the women of the world than having to see bare breasts in a national, family newspaper, but do we really need to choose what we should find offensive and which social problems we should speak up about? Is it not reason enough that something which is seen by half of the population as “a cheeky bit of fun”, is conversely perceived by the other half as an archaic, offensive, damaging tribute to a time of rampant sexism and mockery of women?
“In a society where so many women a day are sexually assaulted, perpetuating a belief that women are there for men’s sexual pleasure doesn’t seem sensible to me.”
The No More Page 3 campaign started in the summer of 2012 when founder Lucy Holmes found she was left unable to stop thinking about the fact that the largest female image in The Sun newspaper was that of a young woman showing her breasts for men, even though Jessica Ennis had just won her gold Olympic medal and had become the pride of Britain. She wrote this letter to the editor, Dominic Mohan:
Just to clarify, last year:
- 1.2 million women suffered domestic abuse.
- Over 400,000 women were sexually assaulted.
- 60,000 women were raped and thousands more were stalked.
Perhaps my mother’s generation, a generation that saw a world reacting to the second wave of feminism, have understandably learned to pick their battles? To only speak out when utterly necessary? I couldn’t be more grateful that their bravery and the experiences that they endured have paved the way for women like me and women like Lucy Holmes to use their freedom to be honest about the things that offend them and to not have to defend their feminist ideals until they are blue in the face.
In no way do my opinions about mass media misogyny air unopposed but thanks to women like my mother, even if Page 3 wasn’t as damaging as I know it to be, I still have the freedom to say: I want it gone, because I don’t like it, I don’t want to see it and I know it doesn’t contribute to the civilised society that I am trying to be a part of!
I am tired of enduring the increasingly weak and tedious “it’s her choice, women should have choices!” excuse. In a society where images of women are made into icons and objects in a way that penetrates us on all levels, where the ultimate goal is to be attractive and anything else is merely a “good for her moment”, has the choice ever really been hers? Or is it that of the men in suits with briefcases and financial projections who formulate our media diet?
In his surprisingly uninformed recent article for the usually journalistically sound Guardian, Paul Connew argues that the only thing that is truly offensive about Page 3 is that it is outdated. He urges the No More Page 3 campaign to calm its “overreaction” and declares that, in all of his ex-Red Top editing wisdom, that “she'll vanish within a year or so anyway”. In an overly simplistic bait-and-switch suggestion, Connew attempts to guide our outrage towards something which he deems more worthy of our efforts; like something that he might find marginally offensive, such as the idea that his children are able to source hard core pornography on the new smart phones he’s given them.
Last week, it was made vividly clear just how seriously our government takes the offence continuously caused by Page 3, with David Cameron rejecting Green Party MP Caroline Lucas’ appeals for the Sun newspaper to be banned from sale Parliament until the photos of topless women on page three had been ommited. I see this as an entirely reasonable request. In fact, I don’t understand why the issue of such rampant sexism being distributed within the walls of the very house where our country’s laws are defined is even still under debate.
In no way do my opinions about mass media misogyny air unopposed but thanks to women like my mother, even if Page 3 wasn’t as damaging as I know it to be, I still have the freedom to say: I want it gone, because I don’t like it, I don’t want to see it and I know it doesn’t contribute to the civilised society that I am trying to be a part of!
I am tired of enduring the increasingly weak and tedious “it’s her choice, women should have choices!” excuse. In a society where images of women are made into icons and objects in a way that penetrates us on all levels, where the ultimate goal is to be attractive and anything else is merely a “good for her moment”, has the choice ever really been hers? Or is it that of the men in suits with briefcases and financial projections who formulate our media diet?
In his surprisingly uninformed recent article for the usually journalistically sound Guardian, Paul Connew argues that the only thing that is truly offensive about Page 3 is that it is outdated. He urges the No More Page 3 campaign to calm its “overreaction” and declares that, in all of his ex-Red Top editing wisdom, that “she'll vanish within a year or so anyway”. In an overly simplistic bait-and-switch suggestion, Connew attempts to guide our outrage towards something which he deems more worthy of our efforts; like something that he might find marginally offensive, such as the idea that his children are able to source hard core pornography on the new smart phones he’s given them.
Last week, it was made vividly clear just how seriously our government takes the offence continuously caused by Page 3, with David Cameron rejecting Green Party MP Caroline Lucas’ appeals for the Sun newspaper to be banned from sale Parliament until the photos of topless women on page three had been ommited. I see this as an entirely reasonable request. In fact, I don’t understand why the issue of such rampant sexism being distributed within the walls of the very house where our country’s laws are defined is even still under debate.
But I still dream of the domino effect that may one day be set in motion by finally getting rid of Page 3. For instance, an 11 year old girl looks at her family’s copy of The Sun newspaper (just one of the 7.5million copies read in Britain each day) and on the third page of the publication she sees a pornographic image of a woman, complete with obligatory mocking blurb, unsubtly hinting to an intelligence beyond the reach of this mere topless woman.
Putting aside the instant confusion inherent in the context of the feature, there is the undeniable notion that this person had been displayed in this way to the entire country, in a context that some might almost see as an elevated state of power. This image of an overtly sexualised woman, held up on a national pedestal as something to aspire to, may change the trajectory of this young girl’s life. She may now reach for this very specific idea of what it means so be a successful female and one day become one of the women who has made the “choice” to spend their fleeting youth in the pursuit of becoming this week’s Page 3 girl.
But what if a future generation of impressionable girls were to turn to the third page of their family’s daily newspaper and see a woman, respected for her intellect, achievements and passion, hailed as successful by the exact same measures which define the successful male. What then: an entire generation of women who aspire to an entirely different idea of what it means to be a woman?
If you can quite honestly say that Page 3 really doesn’t offend you in the slightest, well then that’s just lovely for you. Alternatively, it will only take a moment to sign the No More Page 3 petition and no one will judge you, call you a kill joy, man hater or an angry feminist. If something offends you on any level then, plain and simple, that means that it is offensive, and you have the right to speak up about it! So please, please do.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
Putting aside the instant confusion inherent in the context of the feature, there is the undeniable notion that this person had been displayed in this way to the entire country, in a context that some might almost see as an elevated state of power. This image of an overtly sexualised woman, held up on a national pedestal as something to aspire to, may change the trajectory of this young girl’s life. She may now reach for this very specific idea of what it means so be a successful female and one day become one of the women who has made the “choice” to spend their fleeting youth in the pursuit of becoming this week’s Page 3 girl.
But what if a future generation of impressionable girls were to turn to the third page of their family’s daily newspaper and see a woman, respected for her intellect, achievements and passion, hailed as successful by the exact same measures which define the successful male. What then: an entire generation of women who aspire to an entirely different idea of what it means to be a woman?
If you can quite honestly say that Page 3 really doesn’t offend you in the slightest, well then that’s just lovely for you. Alternatively, it will only take a moment to sign the No More Page 3 petition and no one will judge you, call you a kill joy, man hater or an angry feminist. If something offends you on any level then, plain and simple, that means that it is offensive, and you have the right to speak up about it! So please, please do.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
Oh and also, you’ve just gotta love being able to shop for new clothes whilst supporting a cause. Cut them up, style them up, whatever, but these t-shirts are a fantastic way to show that every day women are not afraid to show that wide scale objectification in our media is not acceptable.
When, yes I’m that sure, WHEN Page 3 is discredited from being the “saucy national institution” which Dominic Mohan claims it to be and is given the gravity is deserves as an undeniable cause and symptom of a society whose passion for reducing the female form to the level of an object is compromising the safety of half of our population in a very real way, I’d like to see the hard work and bravery of those who have spoken out to be well and truly recognised.
I don’t entirely agree with Caroline Lucas’ statement that the Sun should be in the ‘rubbish bin where it belongs”; granted it will never be my news source of choice but I do feel as if it has a place in our media landscape, I just want to see it be a bit better, for all of us and I’d like it to more fairly represent our national voice, one which speaks for women, just as loudly as it does for men!
No comments:
Post a Comment