Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

Discussion in 'Discussions on Language, History & Culture' started by Mangosteen, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

    I want one!!! But it's been forbidden :cry:
     
  2. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    you cant look at things in isolation.
    you cant look at one issue without the context of society
    you cant study cell pathways in isolation (damn biochemists dont understand physiology!)

    replacing topless women with sexy bikini women doesnt change the issue of how the images are used.

    this man is a winner!
    we wear tshirts of stuff we value and usually to make a statement of those values (rock tshirts, periodic table jokes etc). by wearing a tshirt or fashion you make a statement.
    matt taylor values womens bodies. i value womens bodies. but i wouldnt show that i value womens bodies at a scientific press meeting.

    there is a girl out there who's parents have to explain to their daughter that if they one day become a scientist and wants to become a serf in the PhD system under matt taylor, he truly does value them for their minds in an academic environment and not their bodies as displayed by his tshirt.

    the parents shouldnt have to explain that in an ideal world, starting an uproar is pushing us to that ideal world by making people aware.

    women are sexualised in everyway and [edit] not valued [valued] for their achievement but for their bodies:
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2015
  3. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

  4. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Is it bad I'd be absolutely fine with those ads?

    Everyone's effected by societal things, but when you're talking about specific things, in this example modelling, I do give more weight to the people involved. The discussion is about them and I feel their opinion is worth more than a relative spectator.
     
  5. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    You're lucky. I've seen much worse here.
     
  6. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I didn't say replace them. I don't think I did anyway. I was trying to say that replacing them is the exact opposite of what I think we should do.

    Wildlings isn't a man :p

    And given the conversations I agree it was out of place at the meeting. I don't think the t-shirt's wrong full stop though.

    Hopefully the parents are also saying that if you judge someone completely by something as trivial as that you're very silly. I'm fairly certain we've spent a great deal of time telling people not to judge others by what they wear. Women in particular as it happens.

    Interesting statement but I'll go with it. Does that study prove women have to be sexualized to be successful or that they believe they do? I would be more interested if they asked random people to pick the picture, not the athletes. Female athletes aren't as watched as male athletes because the skill level is perceived to be lower. Any sport I've ever seen people ask why they don't watch the female version is always answered with that, not because there's nothing to look at.
     
  7. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Yeah, things get crazy over here with advertising.

    Do you mean fine with the male versions of the ads or fine with the originals? Again, I don't think that any of them in isolation are a problem, but the fact is that it's omnipresent. It also works. For some reason this is a lever that can be pulled to make people buy things.

    Work conditions might be good at a fracking plant, that doesn't mean it's good for the environment or society at large.

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atl0K7YpbpM&spfreload=10"]KILLING US SOFTLY 3 - YouTube[/ame]

    Jean Kilbourne has done a good series on this.
     
  8. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    Anyone think that a pretty girl might just like to hear that she is pretty? Might just know what she does to men and might just get a kick out of teasing us poor fools?
    Shooting the victim springs to mind
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2015
  9. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Well, surprisingly I have some limited internet access here.

    Haha :p

    Believe it or not, despite my annoyance, I do have enough respect for you personally that I wasn't annoyed at you. My annoyance was aimed at the sentiment you were supporting (yeah, I know that's a really fuzzy line to take, but still). That and your initial lack of respect for the "idiot scientist".

    Like I said earlier on, the whole Matt Taylor shirt debacle is a prime example (IMO) of how to damage the reputation of a movement that should have enough credibility and support of people everywhere, certainly enough for virtually everyone to identify as "feminist".

    And yet, you only have to look at the poll YouGov.UK took to see the complete opposite. I can't remember the exact figures but I'm 100% sure that when asked if they were feminists, just 19% of people responded "yes" while the vast majority said no. When asked if women should have equal rights in every single way and equal treatment, I'm pretty sure 81% of people said "yes".

    Feminism, no matter how you choose to see it, does seem to be a nasty word with nasty connotations in mainstream society despite having perfectly reasonable ideals. And if I'm honest, ripping on a man because of his choice of clothing during a massive scientific breakthrough is a perfect example of how to lose support for the cause, regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong. Can you imagine the political backlash if Matt had in fact been a woman doing it and people had ripped on "her" for the choice of clothes she wore?

    Give me a moment, I think I can find the poll.

    EDIT: Here it is:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/
     
  10. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Gonna push my luck and try one more response, but after that I better stop tonight.

    You're right, I do and you're right, that's not how typically prejudice and "ism's" work.

    And yet despite that, the idea that women and girls who are genuinely thinking of a career in STEM are suddenly going to feel humiliated/degraded/similar because of a person wearing a shirt with caricatures of women on them to the point of questioning their credibility has been one of the central arguments being pushed in this thread.

    It's not how it works, but the question I put is entirely appropriate because it's the point that is being made, regardless of whether or not the shirt is the problem or part of the problem.

    Agreed. And for what it's worth, I'm not even going to suggest there isn't a problem with society or cultural expectations, norms and perceptions.

    Actually...that was a really good analogy. I get where you're going with it though and you're right.

    I think I know where my point of contention might be with your argument though. It's not about whether or not it was right to tell him off for an inappropriate shirt or anything similar. It's whether or not that shirt was in itself innately sexist.

    I don't think it is. Does it show women being subservient? Nope. Does it show women being dominated? Nope. Does it show women being weak? Nope. Does it show women only being good at one or two things because women "can't possibly do anything else"? Nope.

    The only way you can argue the shirt is sexist is to assume that by having caricatures of women that it is sexist. And to be perfectly frankly, it's a very weak argument. It is no different to saying that "glamour models/porn stars/pole dancers/dancers/lingerie models/fashion models/any body else who uses their body in their career for economic or psychological gains is part of the problem". Which is a stretch that frankly I don't think we should be taking because I genuinely don't believe consenting objectification and sexism and misogyny are the same thing.

    Example: There was a TV debate with Germaine Greer, Harriet Harmen (sp?) and Chloe Goodman (former Page 3 model) on TV a couple of days ago. The most poignant thing about it, for me, was the part where Harriet says "If people look back in 100 years to our society and see our papers with naked women in them, what are they going to think?". Chloe responded with "What do we think when we look back at naked pictures and sculptures of people from 1,000 years ago?" (all paraphrased). Ironically Germaine actually summed up Page 3 with the comment of her asking her odd job man why he liked it and him saying "it cheers him up" whilst describing Page 3 to essentially be tame and benign and not strictly a problem in itself.

    I have to say though, Chloe made a damn good point.

    Yeah. Honestly there is no excuse for it when it happens.

    I get ya. That wasn't my deliberate intention but I can see how it came across as that.

    Let me try and put it another way - if a person wanted to go to an MMA gym, saw a person wearing a caricature of MMA fighters posing and what-not and then doubted whether or not they'd be OK training in MMA and so decided they "wouldn't be taken seriously" because of their perception of it and decided against it, they would have the mickey taken out of them and probably told they really didn't care.

    I'm not saying women should just "get over it" or "ignore it". If people have a problem with it then they have every right to speak up as some have done. But I do think a lot of people are hopping on the "sexism band wagon" without taking the time to think.

    Lol, that is true. I was being flippant here and just pointing out that without the shirt, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Thus to say "it's not about the shirt" is not entirely true because the shirt was the thing that instigated the outcry.

    I can't remember that one off the top of my head but if he did say that, then that's not cool.
     
  11. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    When people are more interested in the adverts at the Superbowl than the game then I have to agree ;)



    Both.

    I'm in a break playing with a clan so I can't watch the video yet, but are working conditions the right analogy? Agreeing with fracking ethically seems closer.
     
  12. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    its a tshirt with a design that isnt offensive but isnt right in that context.

    aye but if someone wore a confederate flag (not a racist symbol) on a shirt it would be hard not to be weary if you were of a non-european ethnic group. we do judge and its hard not to judge when your subgroups very essence is being trivialised by a scientist at a press conference. if we're agreed that in the context it had, the tshirt was stupid on his part and offended people can totally kick off if they want.

    again dude. its not in isolation. we're talking about women involved in their sport. their belief is based off experience that people dont take note of female sport unless there is something sexy, regardless of skill level (there is no proof that women are any worse at sport than men, skill wise at least). heck, ive seen you share and like photos of attractive female athletes in sports that you probably arent interested in. ive done it too.

    women are underrepresented in media (so there is a problem with media) and dont getting as much funding (read into title 9)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_sports


    well we tend to judge off those who shout loudest and by the extremes.

    its why the black panthers sullied the civil rights movement, extremist muslims have made everyone freaked out by regular muslims, polygamous mormons make everyone think all mormons are evil and why a few people who exploit the benefit system makes everyone think that theres benefit fraud everywhere enough that politicians can cut disability benefits in a massive way.

    the thing is, those involved in any movement will push their agenda regardless of anyone else (e.g. page 3 bans pushed by feminists wanting to see equal representation of men and women and also by religious puritans who dont want to see boobs)
     
  13. rurounidragon

    rurounidragon Valued Member

    Well , I'm probably going to get a lot of shtick for this but in my eyes feminism went from an equel rights and liberation movement to a whine and annoy group. Example with this page 3 girl thing , if this woman wants to stand in the newspaper with her bare breasts , let her , she's not doing any harm .There are bigger problems in the world , if people only focus on the small stuff they don't see the big stuff.
    ps you don't need to be sexy to attain a good position on life this person is one of our most popular politicians in belgium
    http://www.xpats.com/state-secretary-asylum-maggie-de-block-has-highest-approval-rating
     
  14. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    The photos I like and share are from a website where people submit themselves to be liked and shared though :p
     
  15. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    True.

    And yet, arguing over the connotations of a shirt (for example) does nothing but hinder the cause.

    Wait, are you really suggesting the kinds of photos taken in Men's Fitness and similar mags...aren't objectifying those men as sexual objects?

    It's a fair point. It's also completely anecdotal. I can also say "I know if my daughter noticed the shirt and what was on it, she'd probably smile at the awesome colour scheme and leave it at that.". Does that make my point any less or more relevant than yours? It's just different.

    Frankly the whole argument about whether a shirt represents sexist connotations (an argument that can only be support by extrapolating it in a wider context and linked to other examples from completely different forums) is so divorced from reality that I'm genuinely surprised some people are arguing the point.

    And I genuinely challenge anyone who doesn't believe me to go through Twitter, hit the streets, check the media sources, collect information from comments all over the place to ascertain whether or not it is in fact sexist. I am genuinely willing to bet right now that not only will there be a vast majority of people who argue against it being sexist but that even the vast majority of women who comment also argue against it being sexist.

    Something to think about.

    (Paraphrased) "You can't take this (shirt/page 3/whatever) in isolation".

    Suggesting that you cannot look objectively at one particular thing at one particular time is simply wrong.

    To use a MA example, I can look at a video of Dillman's no touch crap and know that it is his example of "MA" that is wrong and I would never touch it. I can also argue that the fact people believe it is a poor representation of the man himself and his dishonesty. But I can also stop there and know that's one situation and one club.

    Saying you have to take it in a bigger context is akin to saying (again, using a MA example) "I can look at X's class and see that it looks fine. But because there's a bigger culture of MA frauds out there who go largely unchecked, he's obviously a part of the problem".

    I don't support sexism of misogyny. I do support equal rights and representation. I do believe there is a problem with culture at large. I hate the Sun and I really don't like Page 3. I'm even willing to admit Matt's shirt might not be totally appropriate.

    I'm sorry if my views offend some of you but the fact you're willing to behave in the same way that you would normally oppose in a slightly different context I find frankly appalling. If you genuinely believe in equality for the sexes, then start by accepting that Matt had the right to wear whatever damn shirt he wanted as long as it didn't contravene laws or contract regulations for his place of work. If you genuinely believe in free speech and representation, then just accept that the Sun might be a total rag and a waste of space with an awful advertising trick, but that it has the right to do what it wants unless it contravenes laws. You don't like it? Do what you've been doing anyway, boycott it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2015
  16. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

  17. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Although our culture associates nudity and sexuality, I don't think they're sexual. You may find them attractive (and there's certainly a degree of subjectivity in defining "sexualised"), but they're nowhere as suggestive as some poses you routinely see women in.


    But in this particular case it was a combination of the shirt and comments about the landing being similar to convincing a reluctant woman to have sex, put that in a context that's well known for a boys' club culture creating difficulties to women...

    Nobody would make such a statement unless they saw some signs that could suggest a fraud there too. Taking your analogy back to sexism, it would be like saying that as there's a bigger culture of maschilism, a man is sexist just because he's a man, which would be simply stupid.

    I may or may not agree with you here, but what if it was about Jews, homosexuals or black people instead of women? Would "just boycott it" still be the case? Where does freedom of expression end and start being discrimination?
    This can be seen as totally unrelated to your reply, but I think it's a core question about the issue - and one tricky as hell too...
     
  18. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Sorry, I know this is totally off topic, but remember how we were talking about spiders and ants? Well, it will blend…

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Does the first ant have one more pair of eyes on the back of the head or are they fake?
     
  20. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

    blending spiders and ants? Spants?
     

Share This Page