I’m not going to add too much to what’s already been said about the 40th anniversary of the Sun (I was going to put newspaper at the end there, but, well, it’s not one really is it, so I won’t). Suffice to say, I don’t think 40 years of Page 3 sexist demeaning shite is anything worth celebrating or even acknowledging unless it’s in a head in hands “OMFG have we really not moved on from this crap yet!” kind of way. However, I was interested to see Tim Ireland’s take on the issue of Page 3 ‘girls’, and I think his post warrants some attention in the feminist blogosphere rather than just passing us by unnoticed in the more male dominated so-called political blogosphere, or blokosphere. (And a note to whoever’s responsible for the Wikio blog categorisations – feminism is politics, so please please please stop putting feminist blogs under the “general” blog heading)
Anyway, click here to watch Tim’s video, or alternatively you can see it by clicking on my shiny new vodpod widget in the side bar.
And here’s the text of the A4 insert Tim and others would like to see left inside copies of the Scum:
FREE TITS
Since 2003, the Page 3 feature in The Sun has carried an item called ‘News in Briefs’ instead of the usual pun-filled caption of days of yore.
Even the title itself is a lie; this ‘news’ item rarely carries news, and instead carries an editorial/opinion (an important distinction to make, especially when dealing with media owner Rupert Murdoch, the father of FOX News).
We are not saying that a young woman with her tits out is not allowed to have an opinion; far from it. We are instead asking, if Page 3 is as ’empowering’ as some people claim, then why aren’t these women allowed to choose which issue(s) they discuss and/or express their own opinion about that when appearing on Page 3?
At present, they are clearly often (if not always) compelled to echo/repeat the opinions of Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Wade, Dominic Mohan, Graham Dudman, or whoever else is calling the shots that day. This is not empowerment; rather, it is exploitation.
We challenge The Sun to allow Page 3 girls to use their paid appearance(s) in that tabloid as a personal/political platform, just as they do for columnists such as Jeremy Clarkson, Jon Gaunt, Lorraine Kelly and Jane Moore.
If there is to be editorial content on Page 3, then it should be clearly labelled as opinion (not news) and it should always be the heartfelt, unprompted opinion of the woman whose name, face and tits are being used to sell the idea. End of.
Any standard less than this exploits these women and cheats the readers.
Now obviously I don’t entirely agree with the approach Tim’s taken, in that personally, as a feminist, I’d prefer to see Page 3 ‘girls’ consigned to history, or failing that, as per the request of this Number 10 petition, I’d like to see the Sun and the Sport, along with Lads Mags like Nuts and Zoo, regulated and put on the top shelves in newsagents along with all the other porn. But just because Tim’s isn’t exactly what I’d regard as being a particularly feminist approach to a now 40 year old problem, that doesn’t mean I also think it’s one that’s entirely without merit, or that I think it should be dismissed out of hand because of its lack of feminist analysis.
Because while Tim obviously omits to mention or even find issue with the sexual exploitation and objectification of women that the Sun and others help to perpetuate, sometimes I think it’s well worth having more than one type of weapon in your arsenal. And that’s exactly what Mr Bloggerheads has come up with here. In the video in particular he’s also raised a very interesting and in my view entirely valid point about the subtle use of pornography (or women’s tits as he prefers to call it), as a tool for propaganda.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes, and if our way isn’t working, or hasn’t got enough popular support to make it entirely effective, then shouldn’t we also be welcoming of other approaches? By which I don’t mean to suggest that feminist activists should abandon our arguments and adopt Tim’s instead, but more that perhaps we should seriously think about using those arguments as well as our own and collaborating more closely with those advocating alternative strategies. If the end result is that the Sun is forced to abandon the Page 3 ‘model’, then surely it’s job well done and congratulations all round?
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Interesting post… and interesting idea for a Sun pullout, still I think Tim’s complaining about a subbing issue (opinion in briefs vs. news in briefs) than a feminist issue.
I can understand why some feminists have an issue with p3 of the sun, because it is blatant objectification, but as a feminist myself I don’t really have a problem with it per se. I’d be more inclined to take issue with their coverage of Hillsborough – I see p3 in a wider context of societal objectification of women (and I know there is a cause-effect argument but I’d see p3 as an effect rather than cause of over-sexualisation of females within society) and I’ve yet to hear an argument which really makes me re-think my opinions on it.
Also, page 3 has only been running for 39 years – was introduced on the Sun’s first birthday.
There is a real problem though if theoretically feminists were to incorporate other arguments which are primarily right-wing religious fundamentalist or else are only concerned with ‘public morals.’ The issue of our male-dominated media’s obession with consistently only representing women and increasingly girls as either men’s sexualised commodities or else as ‘good little women who bravely support their husbands in adversities,’ reinforces a very narrow perspective on women wherein our role is to be either men’s sexualised commodities or else men’s helpmates!
The issue of porn rag Sun is not about morals it is about how women are now commonly portrayed as ‘men’s sexualised commodities. Even if a woman is successful in whatever field she always has to be represented as ‘men’s sexualised commodities.’ This in itself reinforces view that the only important criteria for all women is to rigidly adhere to being ‘a dehumanised sexualised commodity.’
News flash to Tim Ireland women’s breasts are not ‘tits’ because this term is derogatory. But of course such sexist language is so commonplace it has become invisible. Would Mr. Ireland be gratified I wonder if I were to refer to male genitalia as ‘d…….’ or p……..’ Of course not but of course women’s bodies unlike men’s bodies are not protected which is why we commonly hear/read misogynistic and sexually insulting language when men refer to women’s bodies.
We must not forget the still repeated claims by the sex industry and pro-pornographers that feminists who oppose pornography and the sexual exploitation of women are all supposedly working hand-in-glove with right-wing religious moralists. These are lies but they unfortunately very effective lies.
One of the reasons why feminists who oppose the sexual exploitation and commodification of women has been so hard to challenge is because social and economic power continues to be retained by white power men. Many of these men are media moguls who own national newspapers – such as Rupert Murdoch, but we must not forget challenging pseudo male right of viewing pornography albeit supposedly in a ‘newspaper’ goes right to the heart of male power and pseuod male sex rights to women.
This is why it has been so difficult because the powerful white men will not cede any ground unless they are forced to by legislation or a widespread societal change of viewpoint.
No one said feminism would be easy and herstory has innumerable evidence of this – so we must continue to challenge pornography because it is about women’s rights not to be reduced to dehumanised sexualised commodities. Racism was until recently widely viewed as ‘trivial’ because non-white groups protesting were seen as complaining about something which since it was presumed to be ‘natural’ was unchanging.
But of course one difference between racism and the sexual commodification of women is that racism affects men too whereas sexual commodification of women does not incorporate men’s bodies being reduced to dehumanised sexualised commodities.
The Sun did attempt to portray men alongside the obligatory page 3 but guess what? The images of the male models were shown wearing their underpants and so claims were made that women were not interested in viewing naked men’s bodies. Another example of how men’s bodies continue to be protected and subjected to censorship but women’s bodies must and have to be totally naked; preferably with only their nipples airbrushed out.
The long, long struggle against women’s dehumisation continues.
We challenge The Sun to allow Page 3 girls to use their paid appearance(s) in that tabloid as a personal/political platform, just as they do for columnists such as Jeremy Clarkson, Jon Gaunt, Lorraine Kelly and Jane Moore.
They could try referring to them as ‘women’ as well. Or even more entertainingly, get Clarkson to accompany his column with a nudie pic!
(nb joke).
So Dina, are you saying you don’t think page 3 has any effect on how men think about women?
Page3 *is *an effect of male domination and sexualisation of females, in the sense that there is a market for it, but to claim that it isn’t also a *cause* of such attitudes rather beggars belief. Do you not realise that because media output is seen as reflecting reality, that also enables it to some extent to dictate reality? Do you not *know* how the media works? What about propaganda?
If you’ve yet to see an argument that challenges your view, it seems to me that you can’t have looked very far.
To use the cause-and-effect argument as a reason not to challenge page3, that’s just sheer laziness. And it is possible to object to both the Hillsborough coverage *and* to page 3. One could argue that the latter was more pressing, in view of the scale and nature of the effects that perpetuating page3-type attitudes has on half the population (most gendered crimes against woman simply couldn’t happen without those attitudes), but in any case, a person can object to more than one thing.
“perpetuating page3-type attitudes has on half the population”
Dan – I would say all the population would be more accurate.
polly – you are evil and I now have to wash my eyes out with milton to get rid of that horrible image 😉
earwicga
I wasn’t saying that the attitudes don’t have an effect on men. I was referring to the specific effects that they have on (mostly) women (via gendered violence), is all.
To me, those effects by themselves are equally as pressing as the Hillsborough coverage. Factor in the brutality that brutalising attitudes to women do to men, and it’s a no-brainer.
i just asked my local newsagent whether he wouldn’t mind displaying “the sport” in a way that it can’t be easily seen.
he said that he’d speak with his boss.
what are the chances he’ll act on my suggestion?