Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

The "they" in this case is the newspaper owners/editors trying to read public opinion in order to sell more newspapers.

This video explains it pretty well.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow"]Do Women Earn Less than Men? - YouTube[/ame]

 

You know what? I had a nosey through The Sun again today while I was in town.

I'm all for free speech and freedom of press.

But as for The Sun...burn it. Burn them all. Collect all the ashes of the remains of The Sun, salt the earth, bury it under toxic waste and blow the small chunk of the planets' crust that contains that crap into space.

It's for the best.

 

That's not an argument in favour of page three but an argument in favour of you being an idiot (I know your point is hypothetical and hope you don't actually browse porn in public so you aren't actually an idiot).
How about we live in a world where kids don't see your scat porn predilections on a bus AND don't see page three either? We could try that world?
Much like that idiot wearing a sexist shirt to present one of our great scientific achievements lately. The problem isn't the shirt but what the shirt represents.
The problem with page three isn't the boobs. My kids see boobs (one set in particular). The problem is general cultural sexism that brings everyone down, a feature of which is casual "light hearted it's only boobs" sexism.

For me adding sexualised images of men is a really poor kind of equality. It's lowest common denominator equality.
It used to be that it was mainly men that got drunk and then shouted and leered at people in the street. Now women do that too! Equality has been achieved! Personally I'd rather it went the other way and brought people up to a better level rather than lowering ourselves.
Being equally bad isn't good.
You don't solve the gender pay gap by paying men less. You pay women more.

 

To be honest, the Daily Mail is worse.

 

True, but the treatment plan for that is a whole different level of severity .

 

Nah it's a good example. Women can be stupid too.

 

1) "That idiot with the sexist shirt" has a name. Dr Matt Taylor.

2) No it's really, really not a good example. At all. What it is, however, is a fantastic example of how modern feminists can blow up something that most people simply don't care about and make a massive deal over it whilst simultaneously ruining any credibility the feminist movement should have and further enhancing its' toxic reputation (I think it was Emma Watson who described it as that recently).

If you want to attack sexism, attack the crap that comes out like "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age" and that women are "better at finding mustard in the pantry" than driving a car (a la Godfrey Bloom).

Re. Page 3: As far as I'm concerned it's the woman's choice to put her body on display if she so chooses, just as it's our right as consumers to boycott the paper if we don't like it. Funnily enough, there are actually women out there who enjoy being on display in such a fashion because it makes them feel empowered. Hell I think even Jodie Marsh came out with comments along those lines lately.

 

see the thing is, even i thought matt taylor was an eejit.
on the day of his greatest accomplishment, he wears a shirt that sexualises women, alienating females (especially young girls) from the already female lacking STEM population.
you'd think on the biggest accomplishment of your life you'd actually dress up better than a leary old ex-mafia boss on holiday in florida.

sexism (like feminism) is on a spectrum and takes many forms, from overt (guy who wont hire women of chid bearing age) to subvert (newspapers having a regular feature of only sexualised women to appeal to male readership while still attempting to report "serious" news). we, as a progressive society, need to attack sexism on all fronts.

jodie marsh and other glamour models said they enjoy modelling - well thats not the issue, its not exploiting them and nobody argues that it is (except certain groups of feminists and religious conservatives) but the issue is that it sends an unbalanced perception on the roles on women. (see belows response to south paw)

Southpaw: but the sun, with page 3, is still a regular feature in that persons life. its a piece of news that is super unbalanced in the portrayal of women in an already unbalanced world. as i said in my OP, if they had page 4 men in the same context as page 3 girls and showed articles about women in power (not just "BENEFIT SCROUNGER MUM GETS BOOB JOB!!!") then the page 3 wouldnt be an issue.

 

Seeing as (I think?) you chipped in on my set-to with Master Betty on facebook over this I think you know I know the guys name. Just chose not to use it.
What I'm pointing out is that "some women don't have an issue with this" is just a very weak argument. You can find all sorts of people with all sorts of views on all sorts of topics. You can find women that support FGM or women that agree a man should physically hit a woman to punish her. Do we give their views credence too?
Clearly some women didn't have a problem with page three because they were in it! They are merely many voices amongst many. They aren't the final arbiters of what is societally acceptable much like the woman that made Matt Taylor's shirt isn't the final judge of what is acceptable to wear when presenting major scientific achievements to the public.

How about we attack sexism wherever it is? Or people be free to choose what they personally find objectionable and voice it without other people deciding for them what is a worthy target?
What you're describing there is horribly akin to "women in other countries get killed and raped so western women shouldn't complain about boobs in newspapers". Look into the embarassing "Dear Muslima" debacle from Richard Dawkins for that writ large. There are many issues in the world and we are all free to pick our poison.
The Godfrey Bloom type of sexism might be an easier or more worthy target but it's also far less pernicious and ingrained than the casual sexism page 3 embodies.

Absolutely. I bet much more women read the Daily Fail's "sidebar of shame" than men. I'm pretty sure it's women that buy the contradictory "Uurgh cellulite/uuurgh she's too skinny" shame mags that are on sale too.

Now don't get me wrong...I loves me some boobs.
Just, as you mentioned, context is important.

 

bold is the bingo.
like you said, most issues are about context. i would have no issue with the sexualisation of women on page 3 as long as there was equal sexualisation of men and equal coverage of men and women in various roles.

honestly, i think when much of the old guard die out, a lot of disagreements will go with them. most people our age think its weird to have nude photos of girls in a newspaper or find it unacceptable to say things like "chinky" or even to offend people with charlie hebdo style stuff.

in context, nude girls on page 3 are an issue because of unequal media representation, "chinky" will never be acceptable for a politician to say or defend (why UKIP doesnt have many young supporters) and charlie hebdo cartoons of mohammed alienate an already alienated part of the french population (north african, mostly muslim, migrant workers that provided france a much needed economic boost in the 70s and were shoved int suburban ghettos).

i defend peoples rights to do all those things (except the racist one), but they are all in bad taste and lack empathy. lacking empathy seems something very strong with the old guard.

 

Exactly right. It's a dialogue in order to gain some sort of consensus that helps everyone and improves things for as many people as possible.
You have to look at the substance of the views and judge them against the substance of other views.
IMHO the anti-shirt brigade (and it wasn't just women) articulated exactly why it was the wrong thing to be wearing on a major science presentation. How it was indicative of more deep seated problems (within society as well as STEM industries) and how it wasn't just an argument about a bad shirt.
Whereas the substance on the other side seemed to be "this isn't that bad", "I like the shirt", "a woman made that shirt so it's OK", the dismissive "it's just a shirt" etc.

 

I don't think that anyone can say for sure which images of women shape our perception the most. But for men, i wouldn't be at al suprised if it was the naked ones.

It may just be one small part of the bigger picture, but it is still a part. And a very widely-circulated one. This is the UK's biggest selling papre (sadly.)

 

I know you know the name but I still consider it disrespectful to not actually use his name.

It's as weak an argument as saying that "some women do have a problem with this".

I'm not saying its' everyone's cup of tea or that everyone should accept it. Everyone has their own tastes and that's entirely up to them after all. Which is why I also said that as consumers we have the right to boycott the publication altogether. If you don't like it, show your distaste for it by not buying it.

There's a massive minefield in itself. Are you referring to (for example) a consenting relationship where two people may have agreed to use corporal punishment within a consenting domestic discipline based relationship? Or are you talking about (for example) a drunk guy coming home and hitting his wife because she burned some porridge?

Also, what does FGM stand for?

Are you suggesting those are the only women that didn't have a problem with it?

Neither are the so called "feminists" and "feminazis" who chose to ignore the revelations and progress that the scientific community made in favour of pushing an agenda and denigrating a man for a choice of shirt he wore which some people have read into as being sexist.

And yes, you can throw me in the camp of people that are willing to say "that people would have no problem with if it was a bunch of guys in the same poses and styles of clothing".

And no, I don't believe that just because some scientific breakthrough happened that we should neglect the respect and equal treatment that all people deserve before you go there.

How about we respect the rights of people who actually choose a particular legal and consenting career or job because it's their choice, regardless of whether or not we as individuals like it?

How about we attack things that are actually sexist?

I'm not choosing what people find personally objectionable or even suggesting that such a thing could be considered reasonable.

I also have no problems with people expressing their opinion over something they don't like, that's their choice, people have every right under law to express their opinions.

What I don't believe in is a freedom from consequence of that choice of speech. Why should "feminists" be allowed to ridicule a publication or choice of shirt and not in turn be criticised if others don't agree with their opinion and vice versa?

Wow, there's a serious strawman. Frankly I'm a little insulted that you automatically seem to have likened what I had said previously to that kind of ridiculous sentiment in the slightest.

I haven't heard of that. I'll have to Google it before I can really comment on it.

True.

To be fair, I did pick Godfrey Bloom because his comments were those that I don't think any reasonable person could argue were fair or reasonable.

As for the pictures, I see it as being in no way, shape or form more sexist than anything that publishes men or women in varying levels of undress in potentially sexy/tempting/whatever choice of term you want poses. Do I personally like it? No.

 

Sexualising women, fair enough. It did.

As for alienating females from STEM - I'm going to say it, much as I'm sure I'll get some flak for it. If you are so alienated by one man wearing a dodgy shirt that you don't choose to go into STEM or are put off the idea of it in general, you have much bigger problems than the fact there are more men than women in STEM. Think about it, preferably without the ensuing knee jerk reaction I'm sure it'll draw.

HAHAHAHA!

To be fair, even I frowned at his choice of clothing. He could have taken a moment to dress a bit more smartly, certainly.

I know I'll get the response "It's still not good enough/Someone should have said something", but I do think that in this case he probably had bigger things to think about than what he threw on his torso that morning. Especially when it was a present from a female colleague.

A good point and one I won't argue.

Subversive sexism or playing to your primary demographic?

How is it any different, in its' basic essence, to some subway branches not selling bacon any more because of the Muslim population in that area?

You know, except for beeeewwwbs.

It's not the issue that the gender that is considered "inferior" by certain ridiculous minorities and individuals also supports it by signing up for it?

Oh ok, I get where you're coming from.

I stand by my later comment that you make your opinion known by not buying it though.