My thoughts on 'No More Page 3'

You may or may not be aware of the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign that has taken the UK media by storm over the last few months. If you’re not, you can read all about it here, but it’s fairly self-explanatory. Page 3 girls have been a part of Britain’s most educated (hint of sarcasm here) newspaper for decades but now people have finally decided to take a stand against it.

Unsurprisingly, the page first appeared in the 1970s (November 17th 1970), an era in which everything was sexualised. This was demonstrated quite clearly when I visited the vintage magazine shop in London. Car magazines had scantily clad women spread across the bonnet of a vehicle:

1970 Edition

2000 Edition

Nowadays, however, people have shifted away from this perverted approach to marketing.  Yes, much of 21st Century society is still highly sexualised (for example music) but not so openly as it once was. This brings me back to the issue at hand. There are many issues why page 3 is considered as wrong.

The main gripe I find, personally, is that The Sun advertises itself as a newspaper. Key word there: NEWS! Since when have large breasted women with their bodies on show for all to judge (and let’s face it, anyone who looks at the photos will judge. Sexually charged men will no doubt give her a mental rating out of 10, whilst women will compare themselves to her), been considered news?

This is what is concerning, and why so many people have signed the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign already. Not only do airbrushed images of naked women cause insecurity within adult females, the paper is available to children, too! Films with nudity in them have legal certificate ratings which mean that they are not allowed to be purchased or watched by anybody under a ccertain age. So how is, what can only be described as ‘soft porn’ allowed to be available next to the likes of The Independent and The Times? If anything, it must be a bit of a slap in the face to ‘real’ newspapers who are actually concerned in relaying the news, knowing that they can even be categorized as the same genre.

But I digress, if children (both male and female) are to see these, how does one expect them not to be influenced by this? Girl Guiding has now more or less fore fronted the campaign, and for a very good reason, too. I would certainly not want any of my Brownies exposed to things like this. Page 3 not only risks exposing children to pornographic imagery at too young an age, but in the same way adults are going to feel insecure, in comparison, are girls going to grow up and think this is how they should act? I think it is already possible to see the impact Page 3 has had:

From The Sun

If girls are already aspiring to be glamour models at the age of thirteen, there must be something considerably wrong with the world.

I don’t want to say that we should all revert completely back to the past, but I would be intrigued to know at what point women became appreciated for whipping their boobs out for news’ sake. This is a somewhat paradoxical subject, as this will not come across as very feminist, but surely there is not much of a line between prostitution and glamour modelling? They are selling their naked bodies for all to see – that’s basically prostitution, isn’t it? Many will argue with me; I have seen several people who have suggested that the very notion of a woman choosing to become a glamour model is empowering. I saw one person argue that ‘the only sexist thing I can see is dictation what is and isn’t an acceptable way for a woman to earn a living’. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and, if anything, I actually like the idea that person’s comment. Feminist theorists such as Laura Mulvey would consider The Sun as presenting ‘The Gaze’. For those who don’t know, ‘The Gaze’ is a term given to describe the ‘act of looking’. In fact some of the issues involved in discussing ‘The Gaze’ parallel the issues raised in the campaign:

-          Objectification of women

-          Commonality of female nudity

-          Internalization of the gaze – changes woman’s perceptions of themselves and makes them think of themselves as objects

-          Shift to objectification as a source of pleasure (both for the looker and the looked at)

The final point made above brings me onto the amount attitudes must change. Along with the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign, another campaign has been sparked. ‘Everyday Sexism’ is designed to make people appreciate the extent to which sexism is present in our 21^st century society.  I think the problem with our world nowadays is that the line between sexism and normal behaviour has become so blurred that people aren’t aware of when their actions can be construed as offensive. This is highlighted through some of the comments that people have posted in response to the everyday sexism page. I have just chosen a couple which I struggle to see as sexist:

Much of this so called ‘sexism’ may well just be a simple misunderstanding, and I think this is a frequent issue. Men will often ‘play it safe’ because they don’t want to treat women too differently for fear of being considered sexist, so they probably just avoid reaching that situation in the first place by ignoring them. As for the agent, I’ll leave you lot to think that one over, but I know myself that sometimes if you’re in a busy profession you don’t always read emails accurately.

The key issue when it comes to people’s attitudes, however, is the way women are treated, especially on a night out somewhere. Now before people jump down my throat, I don’t want this next bit to be construed as me supporting the likes of Brother Dean, because I’m not. Women are regularly treated badly on a night out, and I freely admit this, but to what extent is it women’s fault? Not that particular woman, necessarily, but let me give an example: when I went to my local club, there was a woman who was on her hen night and flirting (severely so…i.e. serious grinding going on there) with any man in the club. No wonder the drunken men felt it was acceptable to make a move on other women – after all, a woman who is clearly committed is allowed to act like that! Why are all the others so against the attention? Unfortunately it is not the first time I have experienced anything like this and, therefore, it can be suggested that it is a select few sexually promiscuous women who make the equally sexually promiscuous men think that their behaviour is perfectly alright.

Surely beyond page 3, we can examine how we all behave within society and control what we do? Be you male or female, I think that so long as people fail to act in the same way or with the same standards in mind, there is always going to be a clash in what people perceive to be sexist behaviour. Of course, I know I’m living in a somewhat fantastical world if I believe a set divide between what constitutes sexism and non-sexism could ever exist; it will never happen, because what makes us human is our nature to differ with one another, but wouldn’t it be fantastic? 

Well, that’s just a little topical thought for the week; apologies for the slightly longer post that intended!

Until next time humble reader,

N.B. For more on Laura Mulvey's theories, click here: http://virtual.clemson.edu/caah/women/flc436/mulvey.html