Gemma Welsh
In case you have been living in a blissful, Page 3-less bubble, for the last 44 years the third page of The Sun been reserved solely for showcasing a half-naked woman - its largest photo of a female in the entire publication.
For me, it is important to make this issue crystal-clear.
For me, it is important to make this issue crystal-clear.
The issue with Page 3 is not about pornography, nor being “prudish” about women’s bodies, or taking away women’s sovereignty over their bodies. It is not about hating breasts, hating men, or hating The Sun, although as it stands I’m not the biggest fan.
It is not even about the women who feature on it who, many argue in justification of the page, may choose that career and be treated well.
The reason why it is so imperative that we rid the world of Page 3 is, actually, about freedom, and about context.
- The context in which the images are presented: a “family” NEWSpaper, and the message that sends.
- And the freedom of people to choose whether or not they see these images in public places.
To quote the campaign, NEWS not BOOBS
In 2014, women should be represented with respect - in the same way that (ahem, the disproportionately represented) men are. |
| No More Page 3 |
The selling of these images in a NEWSpaper, sends the unrelenting daily message to the readers, and to the many who unwittingly see it littered about their daily lives, that regardless of all of the progress made in the last 44 years, the primary contribution of women in today’s society is to strip off, force their chest out, and pout coquettishly for the gratification of men.
On the day that Jessica Ennis-Hill won her Olympic gold medal for Great Britain, she earned an image which could, with a large stretch of the imagination, be generously termed half the size of the woman on Page 3.
If you’re not a white, conventionally “beautiful”, size ten, with perfect, D-cup breasts, on average aged 22 ½, you merit virtually no consideration by The Sun. The average woman is represented in the paper (I use the term extremely loosely) by no woman, with a picture even ⅕ of the size of the image on Page 3. Even those who are all of those things, are rewarded by the declaration of their value as the sum total of those attributes, and nothing more.Oh and, by the way, of the 22% we’ve managed to wangle into Parliament in the past 97 years, the chances of any of them, or - god-forbid - their policies, being discussed in The Sun (besides critiquing their clothing and physique) is second to none.
Freedom of choice
It is the consumer’s choice to view pornography or not, just as, yes, it is the consumer’s choice whether to buy The Sun or not.
But the issue of Page 3 is not just about the message presented to readers of The Sun. This is as much, if not more, about the countless women, men, and children who do not choose to view it.
The many people every day who are forced to watch the man next to them on the train linger on Stacey, 21, from Newcastle’s breasts, and see her submissively contorted, nude, strewn across café tables.
I very much doubt that the vast majority of people would feel it acceptable to whip out a copy of Playboy or Nuts on the way to work, or stream a snippet of a porn video on their tablet on the train. The key difference he being that virtually the same content is miraculously deemed acceptable to view, and force others to view, precisely because it is in newspaper.
A family newspaper
I vividly remember the awkward nervousness of delivering The Sun on my paper round, aged 13, to the “pervy” man who answered the door every Saturday in a string vest to receive his copy of The Sun.
Aged 13 I had no idea of feminism, of gender issues, or of the message that the images sent. But despite not knowing any of that, walking hurriedly away from the flat, I felt uncomfortable. Vulnerable, even. And that is not the way that children, or anyone, should be made to feel.
To ask the question, “Mummy, why is the girl on Daddy’s paper naked?”. How would you answer that? “Because Daddy likes to look at young, pretty ladies naked while he catches up on current affairs, darling.”?!
If this wasn’t enough there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from an enormous range of sources which attest the negative impact that exposure to this kind of content can have on mental health and all aspects of life for girls, boys, women and men; the link for which is below.
A recent survey by the Girlguiding (The Guide Association) found that 70% of girls aged 13-18 have been sexually harassed in school, 62% (and 76% of young women aged 16-21) have been shouted at in the street.
The real message behind Page 3
Whether the comment is “Smile, it might never happen.” “You’d get it.” a minimalistic, “Alright, love.” or, a particularly pertinent “Get your tits out.”, cat-calling, as just one form of the barrage of sexualisation women and girls are confronted with, is not limited to whether a woman fits, even, the archetype which Page 3 says they should.
It is hurled at any female, based on the primitive principle which underpins Page 3: they are women, therefore it is somehow acceptable/expected/their role to be considered solely as a sex object for others’ gratification.
Sexual objectification
Page 3 reminds people, and women themselves, of a woman’s “place”.
You only have to look at a handful of the horrendously, explicitly threatening tweets received by Caroline Criado-Perez. Her crime? Simply raising the view that, when choosing a new British figure to be celebrated on banknotes for their achievements, it might be nice to have one (of the four) notes celebrating a woman for something she’d achieved in the few centuries we’ve been kicking around.
A massive proportion of the tweets threatened sexual violence - misleadingly termed, as it is nothing to do with sexual gratification or enjoyment. Rape is a tool of control, intended to disempower, to terrorise, and to oppress.
While we still live in a society where a woman who “dares” to use her voice is threatened in this, or any other, way we have to ask ourselves why that is.
Why bother?
So while some may say, “Why does it matter? There are bigger issues to be fighting against.” Yes, there is an enormous array of inequities today which directly impair women’s lives, perhaps in a more "obvious" way. But Page 3 is a remnant and a reminder of the views of 1970 which continue to plague society, albeit in a more insidious way than they may have done then.
If nothing above has persuaded you of the danger of Page 3 and the morals in our society that it represents, consider why it is that in the same Girlguiding survey 87% of girls said that they believe women are judged more on their appearance than by their merit. Or ask Jessica Ennis-Hill.
Finally, then - if you haven’t already - please sign the petition to David Dinsmore, winner of the ‘Sexist of the Year, 2014’ Award, and editor of The Sun, to help end Page 3.
Better 44 years late than never.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you’re still not convinced, or would like to find out more, here are some great links, for all occasions:I highly doubt that:
Page 3 makes people feel uncomfortable on a daily basis. Why would it?!
- see the 200,000+ people who have signed the petition
- To delve into a hearty collection of evidence from experts, the European Parliament, government-commissioned reports, and non-governmental organisations which reveal the ways in which exposure to sexualised content affects both men and women of all ages, in terms of self-confidence, mental wellbeing, aspirations, social skills and in many other ways.
- www.everydaysexism.com, a fantastic website, set up by Laura Bates, which has provided women with a forum to share a downright demoralising but incredibly useful archive of the harassment which goes on every day.
- Under supporters, here’s a (pretty mahoosive) list of all of the organisations who have said, “yanno what NMP3? You’re just a teensy bit right.”
No comments:
Post a Comment