I can't believe;
a) that it is the year 2012 and in UK a concept like Page 3 still exists
b) people are still not only defending Page 3's existence, but actually arguing in favour of it!
SHOCK - I feel like I've been teleported back to some parallel 1970's universe without the aid of hallucinogenic drugs.
I kind of figured that everyone had just forgotten that page 3 was so obviously wrong in a modern society and once it was pointed out again everyone would go on mass;
'Opps - shit, sorry yes we all forgot about page 3 - yes let's get rid of it asap'.
No it seems you have to get a petition together to try to get anybody in government or the media to even take the request seriously!!
What's more by supporting Lucy's campaign on Facebook and in the press, I've been observing the furious responses and comments the campaign has generated. They've really surprised me, here's a summary of arguments against No More Page 3.
#1 - If you don't like it, don't buy it!
How does this argument make any sense?
It's so pathetically simplistic to say that by not buying a copy of The Sun it will stop me from seeing it or being affected by it's existence. I don't buy arm's on the Iranian black market in either, but that doesn't stop me living in a world being impacted by the scary people who do.
I have in fact NEVER bought The Sun, so by that logic explain to me how dear sirs, I have been exposed to it since I was a child, and still see it everyday as an adult, on the train or left on canteen tables? I see that as being forced to look at it by you, the people who do buy The Sun! Which is akin to forcing a vegetarian to eat a pork scratching!
A primary teacher of twenty years recalled to me how they would ask children to bring in old newspapers to cover tables when the children were painting. Of course she'd have to go around and remove all the Page 3 pages, or as the 8 year olds kids apparently called it "The tits page, Miss".
In some households the only paper they will have is The Sun and kids don't buy news papers, but they still see it, so how does the 'don't buy it' argument apply to children?
I also remember trying to explain the concept of page 3 to my Scandinavian husband, he was disgusted that such a thing could still exists in a modern society - in a national news paper - in the 21st Century.
His immediate comment was "So children in the UK see it everyday? It made me ashamed that we as a nation don't do more protect our children.
#2 - Stopping Page 3 is against freedom of speech
There are many other countries in the world with long esbatilshed infrastructures and laws championing freedom of speech, but they just don't see fit to have semi-naked women on the third page of their national daily news papers. The rest of Europe in fact, and the USA who pride freedom of speech as a founding constitutional pillar of their society, they don't have page 3.
I mean clam down boys, no-one is saying you can't ever look at boobs again in a print medium!
The campaign is just saying Page 3 has no place in a national daily news paper in a supposedly modern and progressive society.
I've noticed there seems a certain type of man who uses this argument and who is outraged by the suggestion of getting rid of page 3. He gets incredibly protective over his divine right to access porn (an issue worth more examination in itself).
The cretinous Liam Mullone who would likely sell his grandma for a cheap gag is of this ilk, stating in his Huff post blog about No More Page 3.
"Plumbers have a right to their stiffies, and Danni has a right to supply them.Therefore, he views any smight against page 3 as the first nail in the coffin towards potentially restricting his human right, as he see's it, as a 'red blooded male' to view porn.
His definition of freedom of speech, means defending his right to pop into the corner shop and get the latest copy of 'Fisting Weekly', neatly positioned next to the 10p mixes and the cola cubes.
#3 - There are worse things going on in the world - get a life or support 'real' eqaulity issues.
In the same article Liam Mullon also sites #3 as his key closing argument.
" I mean, for fuck's sake, we live in a world where women get TRAFFICKED for sex, in their thousands. Which is one of a million things more worthy of anger than this exhausted white-collar flannel about Page Three."
Again a juvenile, over simplistic argument. I don't get how people can even make that argument in the case of No More Page 3 and not apply it to every second news story as well.
There are awful things going on in the word everyday, many of which have campaigns.
Just because I support one thing, it doesn't follow that I automatically don't support other seemingly 'bigger' issues.
Besides, I don't actually think Page 3 is a small issue anyway, as it's relative to one's context and beliefs.
For example, Premiership footballers wage packets is a small issue the way I see it. However, I can't expect the majority of the football supporting public to hold the same view. Many people feel very strongly about this issue which is why they debate it in the media, on forums and on facebook.
So how does the "There are worse things going on in the world - get a life or can't you support 'real' issue" argument apply to that context?!
By the same token haven't all those people got better things to care about in the world than footballers pay? Shouldn't they all be campaigning against the atrocities in Syria instead?
Statements like these that attempt to trivialise a campaign like No More Page 3 are nothing more than pure, old fashioned sexism.
The author of the new book Super Man is an Arab - Jomanna Haddad's highlights this same attitude below, as she gets much criticism for her feminist views in her native Lebanon.
"Some men ask me why I complain so much," she says. "They say to me: 'Well, at least Lebanon isn't Saudi Arabia.' But why say that? Why compare ourselves to worse countries? Why not feel inspired by countries that have gone farther in the fight for women's rights?"I support many things some big, some small, some medium sized, No More Page 3 is one of them.
#4 - The page 3 girls who make money from it aren't complaining so why are you?
Again the very premise of this argument is flawed, lets try applying the same principle to other scenario's where people get some monetary benefit from an action.
For example - Why ban drugs? Drug addicts and drug dealers aren't complaining!
No usually it's other people that their decisions have devastating impact on, people who get mugged to pay for a junkies crack, families torn apart by a members battle with addiction. But what's the big deal the junkies and dealers aren't complaining are they!
Why stop bankers bonuses or MP expenses - they aren't complaining about their big fat bonuses or getting their city flat funded by the tax payer!"
Just because a person who financially benefits from an action isn't complaining, doesn't mean the thing they are doing is somehow right or ok for other people, now does it.
My point is that just because some women choose to do something as individuals doesn't then mean that all women should automatically agree with the action and that no other women are negatively impacted by their choice.
In addition, the issue of why women feel compelled to want to be Page 3 girls is a whole separate subject and something I touch on briefly in previous posts about Katie Price and about women in sports .
# 5 - Page 3 is the least offensive thing about The Sun
This annoys me because it's an absolutely pointless argument made by people who actually say they don't like The Sun for other reasons anyway?!
So why bother drawing that distinction between different shite things The Sun stands for? Who benefits from that view? No-one.
Why can't they agree and say "Yes - yet another reason why The Sun is utter rubbish". Then why don't they start a 'Shut Down The Sun' petition and I'll happily sign it.
However, if you're to lazy to start your own campaign don't piss on someone else's.
What I draw from observing responses to the No More Page 3 campaign is the over whelming sentiment still exists;
"What are you all whining about. We 'let' you have some equality now shut up, case closed!"What concern's me the most is these responses aren't from some pre - historic cave man generation, this is not my granddad and his mates in the pub.
This is modern supposed liberal minded, educated men and women, whom I'm likely to be sitting in the pub with and it scares the shit out of me that they still think this way!
