Page three

Two consecutive contributions but on different subjects. I do not buy newspapers with naked women in but that doesnt mean that it is possible to avoid facing up to the sexualisation of women in the print media. My husband always insists that if you read a paper you agree with you should also read one you disagree with to remind you what other people think. This is why we buy the Daily Mail (and Independent).

Today the Daily Mail has an article about women in senior executive roles turning themselves into 'subservient' wives at home. Getting the dinner on time, making sure they always look beautiful and provide sex on demand in order to stop their husband's straying and always accepting all his decisions for them. Frankly it made me feel ill. These well educated successful women have been so brainwashed that they are prepared to subjugate themselves and become Stepford wives to be what men want them to be rather than be themselves. Its Page 3 but with a bit more class.

Last week a judge was removed from the Bench after a conviction for attacking and injuring his wife. His wife was a successful barrister but she still tried to cover up for her husband by saying she had struck herself in frustration after a row with her husband because the evening meal had been late or some such trivial event.

A number of women journalists have recently talked openly about the hate mail they get when they write a column that some readers disagree with. The hate mail is almost entirely based, not on their views but the right to have these views when in the opinion of the (male) hatemailer they are unattractive, ugly, fat etc etc and much of the mail contains explicit descriptions of the sexual humiliation the hate mailer would like to subject then too.

Page 3 may be the 'acceptable' end of the subjection of women in papers we (of course) dont read but it is in most the papers one way or another and is used as a weapon to demean women journalists who dare to have opinions that some male readers dont agree with

As a newsaholic I find the internet is a very poor substitute for a newspaper. The internet is fine for news headlines and the top dozen topics but it is woefully short of considered opinion and long detailed reports unless you want to spend hours googling between all sorts of different sites. When I pick up my paper it will have at least half a dozen news events on every page. I will read about events it would never occur to look for on the internet or even sibjects that I wouldnt expect to interest me but somehow do when I am presented with them. It will have considered editorials and opinion columns that pick up and discuss news events from a range of different viewpoints. It will have book reviews, theatre reviews etc etc.

Given my daily paper in half an hour I will have absorbed 20 times as much information and news than I could have possibly obtained from the internet in same time.

Ditto GA and Gally..... Priceless!

GA, bravo.

Justjackie

"what a fuss about a page in a News Paper, and who reads them any way"

I confess, it's me; I'M MAKING A FUSS!! And I shall continue making a fuss as long as children are being sexualized by the content of newspapers. As a social worker specialising in child sexual abuse for a great part of my career I DO know what I'm talking about. Many people don't realise (and why should they?) that 'Page 3' photo's are used to normalize sexualized behaviour by paedophiles as part of the grooming of young children.

Having said that, you are of course correct in thinking that people now make more use of the internet than paper media - but in my view that simply increases the problem. This is a serious subject that requires people to engage with the issues of media freedoms and of child protection.
thefrontpagecampaign.org.uk/Home.aspx
www.safermedia.org.uk/welcome.htm

The Sun started to put bare breasts on Page 3 in the early 70's. It was thought to be quite racy at the time, but now, with the knowledge and understanding of what women rightly expect from the world, it's perhaps considered to be more pathetic and seedy. Women's Rights were just coming to the forefront of things then, though it hardly makes sense that young girls showing their bare boobs off equated with Women's Rights! As my lovely neighbour who is a very forward thinking Minister of the Kirk says, "Rupert Murdoch and his like will reign as long as there are t.ts on Page 3"

Elegran
Justjackie you are so saucie!

JustJackie dear, if you don't like to hear what we grans really think of the bimbos on page three, then you can follow your own advice and not look.

I have only been here acouple of times and I ALREADY THINK i dont belong here, what a fuss about a page in a News Paper, and who reads them any way, if you dont like it dont buy it , or at least buy a paper that doesn't have a page 3, so to speak. Papers are out dated now with so many other sauces of news. This reminds me of Mary whitehouse , a lady who saw something to disapproove of in, well most things, and had a very dirty mind,

what is it and men and socks do they think their dignity is still in place if they keep their socks on

Oh Hattie64 Don't even mention it. Men look so silly without their clothes – and, besides, the models would keep their socks on.

Clearly a case of glass house's syndrom there GA

I once was visiting a new, breastfeeding mum when her husband arrived home from work with the Sun newspaper tucked under his arm. Seeing his wife breastfeeding in front of me caused him to express his shock and horror at her 'unwomanly' behaviour. As our American friends would say; 'Go figure!'

Can you imagine the comments from the male fraternity, if the Sun or whatever printed pictures of naked men on page 3.

gracesmum If you told one of these blokes who ogle the page three pics that they were clearly retarded to the age of about 2 maximum (boobs being intended for feeding infants) ........ would they feel insulted or would they rush off to buy nappies?

While it's not something that falls within the definition of porn, it still portrays women in a degrading light. It presents them as commodities to delight and titillate men. I don't regard this as harmless.

Am I being a snob if I say I would not take one of those papers if it was free? We no longer even have a village shop so I don't ever see them on the shelves either!
And actually, what is it about boobs anyway? They are only anatomy - nobody gets excited by fat knees or thighs do they? Or cellulite?

You don't have to by the paper effblinder

You can get many of the newspapers on-line for free

effblinder I think most of these so called newspapers which have these pictures in are not real newspapers , if we want to know whats going on in the world we need to buy " grownup newspapers " . I am going to sound such a snob here but some newspapers print mostly celebrity news and those are the ones with the topless women in !!
I dont have a problem with the pictures in the papers as long as it is IN the paper not on the front page like one certain paper, better not say the papers name but i am sure we all know who I mean (hint) they come out at night
If the women are happy with what they are doing and getting a fair wage for it good for them. What do the grandads out there think, is it when have seen one pair of boobs ...... ?

Hear Hear!!! effblinder