Home Politics & Debate

No to Page 3

2456710

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are an idiot
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    You are an idiot

    And your rebuttals are shit.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    And your rebuttals are shit.
    I'm sorry but I have to agree. I'm very open to persuation but you'd need to demonstrate where I'm wrong.

    I've changed my mind on a shitload of issues over the years, and it was never because someone called me an idiot.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    The word "object" isn't a clue there?

    Men objectify women sexually. Always have, always will. Hard wired for it I'm afraid.

    If I see a beautiful woman walking down the street in tight clothing I think about sex with her, not discussing current affairs. That doesn't make me sexist.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To put it another way - go through the Sun and find examples of women in it other than as sex objects.

    If it was balanced then I might be willing to concede that it's less of an issue, but in my limited exposure to the publication, it's not.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    To put it another way - go through the Sun and find examples of women in it other than as sex objects.

    If it was balanced then I might be willing to concede that it's less of an issue, but in my limited exposure to the publication, it's not.
    Why focus on one page then? It seems like the problem is all through the publication.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sorry but I have to agree. I'm very open to persuation but you'd need to demonstrate where I'm wrong.

    You've done nothing but forward your arguments in a measured and calm way. It's clear you're open to having your mind changed. I've no idea why Fiend_85 has decided to be a prick about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How does it show the "nothing but" part? One doesn't exclude the other.

    In my mind, it does. They're not displaying rounded portraits of these women with their interests and a detailed commentary on the current economic crisis, are they? And even if they were, as long as that rounded portrait included naked boobs that's all anyone would see.
    Sexy photos, on their own, don't mean that someone is only there for sex any more than a photo of a cook means they're only there for cooking.

    I disagree, but I think it also depends on what the sexy photos depict. Sometimes I think someone is hot at the same time as listening to them sing a beautiful song, or make an important political point. If music or politics is what's being focussed on then, whatever, it's hormones and everyone fancies people. It's when the focus is on the boobs.

    The problem is all through the publication, true, and all over the media, but we have to start somewhere. Page 3 is the most extreme and visible example.

    The link Ballerina posted is probably the best comment I've seen so far.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, so the opposing view is that there's nothing wrong with tits on pg 3. Why isn't it on page 1 then? Ans. Because it's not family appropriate. None of those of you taking up the opposing view have offered advice to AR on how to answer his 3 yr old girl. So it appears you are similarly uncomfortable with the concept. Moving on, why are pg three models 18 - 21 female and skinny? Why aren't they older? Why aren't they fatter? Why aren't they male? Why are they photo shopped? Ans. Because pg3 has one purpose. To please men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I'm frustrated and annoyed because today, this actual day I've had to makea complaint about a sexist comment in the office. And at the same time none of you men are even trying to understand what it's like to be considered less of a person because of your gender.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why focus on one page then? It seems like the problem is all through the publication.

    I'm pretty sure I answered that in my reply to G last night.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We're exploring the issue. You're calling a person who clearly isn't strident, and is clearly feeling out the issue, an "idiot".
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    piccolo wrote: »
    In my mind, it does. They're not displaying rounded portraits of these women with their interests and a detailed commentary on the current economic crisis, are they? And even if they were, as long as that rounded portrait included naked boobs that's all anyone would see.
    Is that only limited to sexy images? If it was an article about the excellent cook in a restaurant, would it have to include information irrelevant to their cooking?
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Ok, so the opposing view is that there's nothing wrong with tits on pg 3. Why isn't it on page 1 then? Ans. Because it's not family appropriate. None of those of you taking up the opposing view have offered advice to AR on how to answer his 3 yr old girl. So it appears you are similarly uncomfortable with the concept. Moving on, why are pg three models 18 - 21 female and skinny? Why aren't they older? Why aren't they fatter? Why aren't they male? Why are they photo shopped? Ans. Because pg3 has one purpose. To please men.
    I was expecting AR to reply to the question about what he did say before replying. I don't know how I'd phrase it (or how much a 3-year-old can understand) but I'd want her to understand, by the time she's an adult, that nudity doesn't equal sex and that they've chosen to do this as their career, like others choose to be cooks or astronauts.
    Of course the page is there "to please men" (btw, are you saying that gay women are not interested at all? no idea how the dynamics work -entirely different topic though). But the problem isn't when men think "That woman's hot" or "Nice boobs" or whatever, it's when they think "That woman is worthless aside from being hot and having nice boobs".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not you. Indrid. But what difference does it make when men are "hard wired" and so won't change. When the pervasive attitude to women is that being upset is hormonal, rape is about what you wore and how much you drank, and working when you have children is abandoning them. "This will never change. " is what a woman in my office said when I told her what happened to me. sexism is inside women's heads now. Men don't need to do anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is that only limited to sexy images? If it was an article about the excellent cook in a restaurant, would it have to include information irrelevant to their cooking?

    I think this is an interesting parallel to draw. If you bought a magazine about restaurants and they had a This Week's Top Chef article, with a picture of the chef and a quote, this by its nature presents a one dimensional view of that person. I'm not sure the comparison is exact, but it's food for thought: one person spends time perfecting their cooking skills and is paid for the work they produce, the other diets and exercises and keeps up their appearance and gets paid because people enjoy the fruits of their labour. I can look at the picture of the women and think "she's hot" without then applying the non sequitur "and that's all she is" in the same way I can taste the chef's food and think "that's lovely" without thinking "I bet that's all he's good at".

    I think I'm stretching the comparison a bit and am happy to be told (without ad hominem) where the fallacies in it lie.
    I was expecting AR to reply to the question about what he did say before replying.

    I am also interested to hear his response to his daughter.

    ETA: genuinely interested, I've tried to imagine playing the scenario in my head and I think it's a conversation needs handling with intelligence and compassion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the Sun portrayed itself in the same category as Nuts/FHM I wouldn't mind. It it skipped having topless pictures that are just there to be oogled I wouldn't mind. But it tries to pass itself off as a standard newspaper - with topless pictures as standard item. If page 2 had an equivalent male image I'd be less irritated, but it feels very much like it's a 'here you guy, here's your daily dose of eye candy to drool over'.

    Drool over them type pictures in my opinion don't have a place in a general news publication.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think this is an interesting parallel to draw. If you bought a magazine about restaurants and they had a This Week's Top Chef article, with a picture of the chef and a quote, this by its nature presents a one dimensional view of that person. I'm not sure the comparison is exact, but it's food for thought: one person spends time perfecting their cooking skills and is paid for the work they produce, the other diets and exercises and keeps up their appearance and gets paid because people enjoy the fruits of their labour. I can look at the picture of the women and think "she's hot" without then applying the non sequitur "and that's all she is" in the same way I can taste the chef's food and think "that's lovely" without thinking "I bet that's all he's good at".

    I think I'm stretching the comparison a bit and am happy to be told (without ad hominem) where the fallacies in it lie.



    I am also interested to hear his response to his daughter.

    I think the issue with the chef comparison is that you're comparing a talent/skill with physical attributes. If you want to go down those lines then you'd still need the picture to be accompanied by an article on how the model has achieved and maintains her attributes - or how the air brushing techniques have been applied.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the issue with the chef comparison is that you're comparing a talent/skill with physical attributes. If you want to go down those lines then you'd still need the picture to be accompanied by an article on how the model has achieved and maintains her attributes - or how the air brushing techniques have been applied.

    :yes: That's what I would say. I will never look like Angelina Jolie, unless I had some kind of miracle working surgeon, but I could learn to cook like Gordon Ramsay if I were taught long enough. And I'd like to receive compliments on that.

    One-dimensional isn't bad, especially in a journalistic context where wordcount is limited. Focus on body image one-dimensionally is usually problematic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure I completely agree. The attainment and maintenance of her physical attributes have required discipline and dedication and sacrifice - the same way the chef has acquired their skills.

    I agree there's an argument that photoshopped images should be marked as such.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, but generally when you get a picture of a chef - you get a picture of a chef and some back story on the skills, details of what they are. Am pretty sure on pg 3 you just get Name, age, where from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The attainment and maintenance of her physical attributes have required discipline and dedication and sacrifice - the same way the chef has acquired their skills.

    I disagree. Many of the most attractive women I know do not use "discipline and dedication and sacrifice" to maintain they're good looks. As for "attainment", I think I missed the self-DNA-splicing class
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, but generally when you get a picture of a chef - you get a picture of a chef and some back story on the skills, details of what they are. Am pretty sure on pg 3 you just get Name, age, where from.

    You're probably right, but you can imagine a scenario where that wasn't the case - just a picture of the chef and a quote about accepting the award.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're probably right, but you can imagine a scenario where that wasn't the case - just a picture of the chef and a quote about accepting the award.

    Sure, but the award is the thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're probably right, but you can imagine a scenario where that wasn't the case - just a picture of the chef and a quote about accepting the award.

    And it's unusual rather than the norm - which I think means you're probably starting to actually pick out the differences yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    I disagree. Many of the most attractive women I know do not use "discipline and dedication and sacrifice" to maintain they're good looks. As for "attainment", I think I missed the self-DNA-splicing class

    Maybe we've different sample sets - and I can only go anecdotally, of course - but of the people I know who could conceivably appear on page three of The Sun, they all take diet and exercise seriously. It's a solid point that a genetic roll of the dice is in play also, but I think that's broadly the same for many jobs - if it's not a physical attribute (piano player's hands, Michael Phelp's body shape) it could be mental wiring (a predisposition for understanding maths or physics or computing).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And it's unusual rather than the norm - which I think means you're probably starting to actually pick out the differences yourself.

    So given a reasonable write-up of the work the Page 3 model has put into looking the way they do, with any caveats about Photoshop, you'd be fairly accepting of it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    Sure, but the award is the thing.

    Yes, sure. The award and recognition is the reward the chef's hard work; her body shape and the appearance fee and possibly the appreciation of the readers are hers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So given a reasonable write-up of the work the Page 3 model has put into looking the way they do, with any caveats about Photoshop, you'd be fairly accepting of it?

    Women's magazines frequently do that. But I'd still be unhappy about it as a regular feature in a publication that calls itself news.

    The problem with the chef/model analogy is the potential for women to be seriously damaged trying to "achieve" the body of a page 3 model (or a catwalk model for that matter).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So given a reasonable write-up of the work the Page 3 model has put into looking the way they do, with any caveats about Photoshop, you'd be fairly accepting of it?

    I'd be far more accepting of it than I am at the moment. It would still fail at being news, and would be better placed in an publication that focuses more on such things.

    Think we both know that the article would be completely ignored by all, because it's not newsworthy in the slightest, which to me pretty much makes the point as to why it shouldn't be there.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I do think the modelling industry (which, as far as I've seen, includes many things in "women's magazines" -and that makes it worse) is causing a lot of damage with their body types. But that's irrelevant to what they're wearing.

    Interesting question: If this page 3 included women of different ages and body types, would the people who are against it now be against it still? If yes, then it's not about who is in the photos. If not, I misunderstood the subject to begin with.
    (I imagine there's other people who'd be against it if that happened, for very different reasons)
Sign In or Register to comment.