If I woke up tomorrow to find that The Sun newspaper had decided to scrap Page 3, would I be upset? No In fact I'd probably be glad to hear it So do I support the No More Page 3 campaign? Well, that's a slightly tricky question. But I think the answer is no.
When the campaign was first launched I was all for it. The idea that straight men are entitled to objectify women as part of their morning routine is not a pleasant one. But I've found my views shifting, thanks in large part to frustration with the campaign and its advocates.
When the campaign was first launched I was all for it. The idea that straight men are entitled to objectify women as part of their morning routine is not a pleasant one. But I've found my views shifting, thanks in large part to frustration with the campaign and its advocates.
I'm not a fan of arguments that say you can't focus on one problem unless you look at all of them. Or that there's no point focusing on the smaller stuff. But when there is such a massive gap, I would at least like acknowledgement that there is a wider argument to be made. I often jokingly say that I worry less about people who buy the Sun purely for the boobs than anyone who reads it because they agree with the articles, but it's not really a joke. Because here's the thing: the No More Page 3 campaign focuses exclusively on those breasts, possibly with greater intensity than many who look at the page. The petition is all about how unsuitable it is to feature breasts in a family newspaper; how you wouldn't see them elsewhere. And I just can't get behind the idea that nudity is inherently offensive.
| News in Briefs, the small box that accompanies the picture of the smiling topless woman on Page 3 of The Sun is often highlighted as being the most sexist thing on the page – the joke that an attractive and topless woman couldn't possibly have opinions about the actual news. Is this mentioned by the campaign? No. | I just don't think tits, or pictures of tits, are sexist. The context? The surrounding culture? Yes. |
What about the sexism on display elsewhere in the paper? Last month, a copy of The Sun managed to out a sex worker and call for a ban on women wearing the veil within a couple of pages. There is a very narrow definition of how women are 'allowed' to behave being policed here, and page 3 is very much a part of that: having a topless photograph taken to appear in The Sun? Acceptable. Supporting yourself by doing sex work? Shameful. Choosing to cover your face? Despicable.
But when I questioned on Twitter why the No More Page 3 campaign doesn't make these links, I was told to stop criticising it and 'start your own campaign'. It certainly doesn't feel like NMP3 is focused on misogyny in the media at this point - it's just about the tits. And to repeat myself, I just don't think tits, or pictures of tits, are sexist. The context? The surrounding culture? Yes. But how do we make that argument if we won't make the links, if we focus solely on nipples being around where children can see them. If anything, I say more nudity, and of greater variety.
And this failure to make the connections is everywhere. I like Caroline Lucas. I was thrilled when she was elected, and she spends more time meeting people and campaigning most months than a lot of her contemporaries manage in a year. Or ever. That doesn't mean that I always agree with her, but it's rare to see a politician with convictions and a strong work ethic. So while she's talking about Page 3 in Parliament, I wish she would talk about the ways in which women are shut out of the media, dismissed for getting too old or not hired for being too ugly, even when they are otherwise qualified.
What about women's magazines that support NMP3 while pushing diets and the idea that you have to be attractive to be successful?
There's a whole mess of misogyny and hatred running through most of the media, and we need to shout about it But we need to shout about all of it - we can't lance Page 3 like a boil and pretend that that will make the rest of the media, or even just The Sun, healthy.
Squeamish Louise
But when I questioned on Twitter why the No More Page 3 campaign doesn't make these links, I was told to stop criticising it and 'start your own campaign'. It certainly doesn't feel like NMP3 is focused on misogyny in the media at this point - it's just about the tits. And to repeat myself, I just don't think tits, or pictures of tits, are sexist. The context? The surrounding culture? Yes. But how do we make that argument if we won't make the links, if we focus solely on nipples being around where children can see them. If anything, I say more nudity, and of greater variety.
And this failure to make the connections is everywhere. I like Caroline Lucas. I was thrilled when she was elected, and she spends more time meeting people and campaigning most months than a lot of her contemporaries manage in a year. Or ever. That doesn't mean that I always agree with her, but it's rare to see a politician with convictions and a strong work ethic. So while she's talking about Page 3 in Parliament, I wish she would talk about the ways in which women are shut out of the media, dismissed for getting too old or not hired for being too ugly, even when they are otherwise qualified.
What about women's magazines that support NMP3 while pushing diets and the idea that you have to be attractive to be successful?
There's a whole mess of misogyny and hatred running through most of the media, and we need to shout about it But we need to shout about all of it - we can't lance Page 3 like a boil and pretend that that will make the rest of the media, or even just The Sun, healthy.
Squeamish Louise
RSS Feed