If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't want my daughter learning that she is reduced to the value of her norks and that they are something to be laughed about in a newspaper.
Indrid, I note you've chosen not to addressy last post. I wonder why that may be. The damage done by page three goes beyond the nudity, as I explained before.
Page 3 is far more insidious than a nipple.
About the rest of the post, in the beginning I did think that people who complained did it because "nudity == evil". It became apparent after a while that this wasn't the case so I moved on.
Basically, nothing there for me to disagree with.
Yes, there are plenty of other issues, and plenty of other publications that are sub optimal - but the combination of factors in page 3 doesn't really fit with a modern attitude.
And I also still think there are things much more damaging (such as the entire -clothed- modelling industry) that I don't see such an outcry about.
The outcry over the modelling industry comes around reasonably frequently - and there have been changes as a result of some of the rounds. It's a long way from perfect - but that's a whole other debate.
Pretty much this.
"But x is just as bad/worse!" isn't a reason to not change something.
That's not insignificant in my book.
Nothing that would reduce the kind of attitude that that content thrives on is insignificant.
Particularly if it snowballs. Start small, aim big.
Again, though, apparently there's some problem with my logic that no one is willing (or able) to explain. If that's true, then fixing it would change something, so go ahead.
Actually I think it's both. It perpetuates the attitude that fuels it.
"Men like to ogle women's bodies so let's put naked boobies in our paper so more men think of women as nothing but something to ogle!"
See what I'm saying?
As I see it, the cause is a mindset in society. Short of a totalitarian brain washing regime, I'm slightly stumped for ways to fix the mindset of society directly.
What I can see a way of doing however, is to put pressure on the outward symptoms of that mindset - to try prompt society to question itself.
It's cyclical. Gawping is normal, therefore there are pictures to gawp at in a daily newspaper, there are pictures to gawp at in a daily newspaper, therefore gawping is normal. Remove the pictures and you have a shot at breaking at least that particular aspect of that circle. It won't fix everything overnight, but bit by bit you start to make a change.
No, but maybe it would prompt the question of 'that page has gone, maybe it's not OK to leer at every passing woman and make comment - there's a pretty strong feeling out there that it's not ok to gawp'.
I'm still not sure if that effect will be significant in any way, though. Do you think that simply because it's not in a "newspaper" people will think it's less normal, even if it remains in other magazines?
At the same time, I don't think gawping is a problem. Gawping at people who don't want to be gawped is a problem (or, better said: at people who haven't made it clear they want to be gawped). Do you disagree with that? The women in those photos, whether they're in the Sun or Nuts, obviously agreed to it, so it's ok. Someone on the street didn't, so it's not. The question isn't how to stop people gawping, it's how to stop people thinking that either a) everyone wants to be gawped or b) it doesn't matter who wants to be gawped.
Yup.
And given that Pg 3 is a well known, long running feature - can't help but think that it's demise would pass unnoticed, and that in that process, a bit of a point might be made that gawping isn't universally acceptable. Gawping at people who willingly pose for those shots might be considered by some to be, and so it's not a straight forward point - but I believe that it would plant some pretty hefty seeds of doubt.
That's going to be a long process that is going to take several years I think. To be fair I think you have to start with the next generation. I'm not sure what they teach in schools now but I think lessons/workshops/activities on respect, gender equality, self worth and so on should be in the curriculum from an early age. People need to understand how horrible unwanted attention can be, it's still harassment and it's not ok. It's surprising how early it starts, I was experiencing it when I was still at primary school and boys would line up to watch me change my top after p.e. I had to start wearing 2 shirts or just leave my top on because we didn't have changing rooms. The media need to be tackled too, but that's a whole other monster in itself.
On topic, what I was saying is that removing the page seems like it's addressing a different problem, sort of like trying to prevent rape by saying "Don't have sex", if you see what I mean. Scary addresses that above but I need to think a bit about how much I agree.
If it helps, it's like trying to prevent rape by removing a reference to it in mainstream society that implies it's ok.
On my way to work I might enjoy the sight of a number of women. On the way around the large office I'm in I enjoy the sight of some of the girls in my office. When I'm checking out Rosie in accounts, someone I don't know personally, I'm not thinking about her inner life, I'm thinking "you're looking hot today". I'm yet to catcall or dismiss a women's opinion because she's a women.