No More Page 3

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is anybody here (in Britain) on board with the No More Page 3 campaign?

We are trying to get The Sun removed from our campus shop at the moment, solidarity would be welcomed!

[Clarion]

Nah, this kind of thing isn't realy productive.

[Quail]

Nah, this kind of thing isn't realy productive.
Care to explain why?

I'm not active in any campaigns like this myself, but I'm not a fan of page 3 (or the Sun in general). I don't have a problem with topless pictures in theory, but I think we have to look at the context. In newspapers it's already relatively rare that women are written about favourably in serious articles (i.e. that focus on actual achievements as opposed to a woman's looks, diet, relationship, etc.) and having a big image of a topless woman with a little quote about what she thinks about some issue of the day just reinforces that women are first and foremost sexual objects and aren't to be taken seriously.

People argue that it's kind of a tradition, but it's outdated and promotes outdated views of women. People also argue that the women are paid (not sure how much though) and choose to do it out of their own free will, but just because a woman chooses to do something it doesn't automatically make it a pro-feminist thing to do or mean that it's not harmful to the way wider society looks at women.

[Clarion]

I'm not suggesting that page 3 isn't a bad thing, but that campaigns of this type in universities tend to generate a lot of hostility for very little pay off.

I've always felt it's best to let things like this die off naturally as they offer a good indicator of the attitudes in society.

Further and at the risk of sounding a bit elitist, I'm of the view that anybody recieving a university education who actually buys The Sun isn't worth my time.

[Narcissus]

Make it required that each day they alternate between topless girls and topless guys.

[Red Commissar]

I've read about this practice in UK paper before, it was kind of weird from an American standpoint because we don't get this in our papers at all, except with some magazines like the swimsuit issue in Sports Illustrated.

It does seem really stupid honestly since it's obviously a crass thing, another reason why I can hate The Sun.

[hatzel]

Further and at the risk of sounding a bit elitist, I'm of the view that anybody recieving a university education who actually buys The Sun isn't worth my time.

More than a bit elitist, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Sun the most widely read paper in the country, with a very heavy slanting towards the great unwashed I mean working class? I don't see why critising the Sun and/or its policies (which tends to be a legitimate endeavour) in any way justifies slagging off Sun-readers for not being sophisticated enough to read the Guardian or whatever it is champagne socialists are expected to read to distance themselves from the hoi polloi. Not least because it's very thinly-veiled classism...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not suggesting that page 3 isn't a bad thing, but that campaigns of this type in universities tend to generate a lot of hostility for very little pay off.

I've always felt it's best to let things like this die off naturally as they offer a good indicator of the attitudes in society.

Further and at the risk of sounding a bit elitist, I'm of the view that anybody recieving a university education who actually buys The Sun isn't worth my time.

Yeah that's pretty shitty. That's quite an anti-worker position, actually, and not one to promulgate in public if you really want to win the propaganda war.

Getting rid of page 3 might be a small step, and it might not sound as politically stimulating as cries of 'revolution' to some on here, but it does mean that the issue of sexism and political misogyny gets in the news on campuses around Britain, gets talked about, and if the banning is successful, then shows that student bodies are finally standing up to this shit, at they should do.

I don't think people should sneer at this sort of necessary political work. It's like 'coalface' sort of stuff - the necessary sort of crap needed to build momentum towards issues that some might deem 'grander' or 'bigger picture'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've read about this practice in UK paper before, it was kind of weird from an American standpoint because we don't get this in our papers at all, except with some magazines like the swimsuit issue in Sports Illustrated.

Yeah, it is pretty strange from a murikan point of view. I remember being over in the UK, reading a paper and just being like "huh, this is pretty random."

[Lord Hargreaves]

There's a daily page 3 girl in the Daily Star too, are you boycotting that?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, I think the national 'No More Page 3' campaign is focused on The Sun, generally because it's a simple and achievable aim.

It's not groundbreaking, but it's symbolic and would at least get a discussion started on sexism within campuses around the country and of course be a blow to the Murdoch Empire!

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Pull an RAF-Bild style stunt, that would get people talking.

[Revenant]

Jeez page 3 is about all the working class have to look forward everyday, let them at least have one small amount of pleasure :)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think that would be particularly practical or useful.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Britain has topless women in their newspapers? I thought ya'll were a lot stricter with your censorship.

[Futility Personified]

Don't want to be a party pooper but Murdoch has sounded that he's considering replacing page 3 at some point already. What he'll replace it with is still not going to be great, but it's worth noting. And at the risk of going off topic, popular culture is capitalist culture, thus disseminated for the viewing of the working class. Just because they are trying to make it working class culture doesn't mean it legitimately is. Thinly veiled racism, rants against "benefit cheats", papparazi drivel about celebrities, making young women hate their own bodies, making young men think all there is in life is poon and football, well, sorry, but that is just a load of sweaty bollocks to my ears, and just because everyone else likes it, just because the working class like it, doesn't mean it's good. Of course in such a widely circulated paper, you can't generalise all people who read it, but mail reader and express comparisons would likely go unlooked.

[Prometeo liberado]

I do like that old Lambrettas song about page 3 though.:grin:

[Per Levy]

Getting rid of page 3 might be a small step, and it might not sound as politically stimulating as cries of 'revolution' to some on here, but it does mean that the issue of sexism and political misogyny gets in the news on campuses around Britain, gets talked about, and if the banning is successful, then shows that student bodies are finally standing up to this shit, at they should do.

so the sun is only bad because of the paige 3 girl? i mean what if they remove it, wich would be a nice pr stunt on their part wouldnt it? what then? would you still protest it? would it then be ok for the students to read that shitty paper? the major issue, for me at least, isnt the paige 3 girl but the sexism in the articles of the sun, the racism in the articles, the nationalism in the articles and so on. all that wouldnt be gone if they remove paige 3 nudity.


It's not groundbreaking, but it's symbolic and would at least get a discussion started on sexism within campuses around the country and of course be a blow to the Murdoch Empire!

really, does the campaing has that much steam, popularity and numbers behind it that it can hurt murdochs empire? id love to hear about if that is the case.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Jeez page 3 is about all the working class have to look forward everyday, let them at least have one small amount of pleasure :)

Page 3 long pre-dates "lad culture" mags such as Loaded and Nuts, which will still exist and are pretty much geared to the same audience, so its not like the good ol' working class will no longer have stuff to read. I don't think we really need big naked titties in national newspapers, as much as I love big naked titties.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm sure many of the individuals involved in this campaign would have no qualms about the state regulating - or even outright banning - The Sun.

Socialists do, so choose your political allies carefully.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'm sure many of the individuals involved in this campaign would have no qualms about the state regulating - or even outright banning - The Sun.

Socialists do, so choose your political allies carefully.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally that, a dictatorship.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be dissent, indeed dissent should increase fivefold during a time of class struggle. However during this period actions and speech that oppress sections of the working class simply can't be tolerated.

[Vanguard1917]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally that, a dictatorship.

I was referring to the state that currently exists.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I was referring to the capitalist state.

Admittedly you make a point here. We shouldn't trust the capitalists to enforce "our" dictatorship for us. However I do believe that banning oppressive speech (note, that doesn't necessarily include pro-capitalist speech since advocating capitalism isn't inherently oppressive.) does benefit many people who face discrimination such as Transfolk, females, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities.

[Tim Cornelis]

Such campaigns aren't productive because these papers exist because there is a demand for it, so all you do is fight symptoms.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally that, a dictatorship.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be dissent, indeed dissent should increase fivefold during a time of class struggle. However during this period actions and speech that oppress sections of the working class simply can't be tolerated.

Since when is speech oppressive? Sounds mighty Orwellian.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I highly doubt the bourgeois state would intervene in this case - but the demand for intervention should be put forward, in order to demonstrate vividly the inability of the bourgeois order to suppress misogyny.


Since when is speech oppressive? Sounds mighty Orwellian.

I take it you have never been a victim of racist or homophobic bullying. This bourgeois obsession with the sacred right to free speech is just a fig leaf barely covering the backwardness of the present bourgeoisie.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Admittedly you make a point here. We shouldn't trust the capitalists to enforce "our" dictatorship for us. However I do believe that banning oppressive speech (note, that doesn't necessarily include pro-capitalist speech since advocating capitalism isn't inherently oppressive.) does benefit many people who face discrimination such as Transfolk, females, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities.

Banning something has never changed anyone's attitude, in relation to speech. It's just a ridiculous notion that almost always backfires.

And Vanguard is right, one of the problem's student politics of this kind faces is that some people invariably want to just get the banhammer out and ban anything that doesn't conform to their liberal notion of the world, which is something i've been trying very hard to fight against, though admittedly that can be difficult!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

so the sun is only bad because of the paige 3 girl? i mean what if they remove it, wich would be a nice pr stunt on their part wouldnt it? what then? would you still protest it? would it then be ok for the students to read that shitty paper? the major issue, for me at least, isnt the paige 3 girl but the sexism in the articles of the sun, the racism in the articles, the nationalism in the articles and so on. all that wouldnt be gone if they remove paige 3 nudity.

Well no, we all know that The Sun is a terrible paper for a multitude of reasons, but the issue here is that as a campaign we need something simple that we can get across to a student body of many thousands of people.

I totally agree with you politically on this, but the issue is that some campuses (such as mine) simply aren't yet progressive enough for a small minority to be able to initiate a discussion on every issue as relates to Capitalism. And on our campus, sexism and misogyny are huge problems, so personally I feel it'd be a great step to have the student body vote to get rid of The Sun as a result of page 3.


really, does the campaing has that much steam, popularity and numbers behind it that it can hurt murdochs empire? id love to hear about if that is the case.

The Sun has already been banned at a handful of universities around the country including LSE, Sheffield and a couple of the Oxford colleges. The No More Page 3 petition has over 80,000 signatures and a lot of real-life support around campuses across the country.

And yeah, it may not be waving the red flag for revolution, but it's important that women and men alike stand up for feminism every day; it doesn't always have to be a life-changing stand, but we have to keep the problem of sexism on the agenda and this is a very good way of doing it.

[Clarion]

More than a bit elitist, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Sun the most widely read paper in the country, with a very heavy slanting towards the great unwashed I mean working class?

The Sun has a slant towards Murdoch and whatever his agenda this week happens to be. It is read by some members of the working class and not read, and treated as a total joke by the rest of it.


I don't see why critising the Sun and/or its policies (which tends to be a legitimate endeavour) in any way justifies slagging off Sun-readers

Give Sun reader some credit, I mean really the implication here is quite insulting. The newspapers people read are a perfectly legitimate target for jibes and ridicule, as you just did with the Guardian.


for not being sophisticated enough to read the Guardian or whatever it is champagne socialists are expected to read to distance themselves from the hoi polloi.

Do I detect a hint of self hating middle class leftism here?

As a matter of fact I don't read the Guardian, it's full of pompous, middle class identity politics and assembly line political correctness. Statements not unlike this one:


Not least because it's very thinly-veiled classism...




Yeah that's pretty shitty. That's quite an anti-worker position

Nope, sorry. Sun readers aren't the working class. Most of them are part of it, but that's besides the point. The issue is the remedial character of their choice of "newspaper." Insulting people for reading The Sun isn't anti-working class.


actually, and not one to promulgate in public if you really want to win the propaganda war.

Good thing I'm not fighting a propaganda war then, it frees me up to speak honestly.


Getting rid of page 3 might be a small step, and it might not sound as politically stimulating as cries of 'revolution' to some on here, but it does mean that the issue of sexism and political misogyny gets in the news on campuses around Britain, gets talked about, and if the banning is successful, then shows that student bodies are finally standing up to this shit, at they should do.

How is what I wrote anti-worker and this crap not? The Sun readers are the ones who want to buy that content, any "sexism" and "misogyny" is theirs. Not only do you insult Sun readers in such a way, you're suggestion they need students to come along and tell them what they can and can't read!


I don't think people should sneer at this sort of necessary political work. It's like 'coalface' sort of stuff - the necessary sort of crap needed to build momentum towards issues that some might deem 'grander' or 'bigger picture'.

It's not necessary and it doesn't lead to grander issues, it's a distraction for student politicians who don't want to face the fact that their impotent on the actual issues.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Banning something has never changed anyone's attitude, in relation to speech. It's just a ridiculous notion that almost always backfires.

It prevents the attitude from spreading; and I'm not talking about a thought police, just regulation of the media. It's the least we can do.

And of course, the point isn't to change their opinion, the point is to isolate said opinion and to prevent the speech from being oppressive.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Clarion;2591373]
Nope, sorry. Sun readers aren't the working class. Most of them are part of it, but that's besides the point. The issue is the remedial character of their choice of "newspaper." Insulting people for reading The Sun isn't anti-working class.

Insulting The Sun as a poorly written paper isn't anti-worker, but insulting the people who read it is, since most people who do read it are working class.


How is what I wrote anti-worker and this crap not? The Sun readers are the ones who want to buy that content, any "sexism" and "misogyny" is theirs. Not only do you insult Sun readers in such a way, you're suggestion they need students to come along and tell them what they can and can't read!

Most people on campus (on ours anyway) who promulgate sexism are middle class men, and use rags like The Sun not as readers but to further their 'lad' culture.


It's not necessary and it doesn't lead to grander issues, it's a distraction for student politicians who don't want to face the fact that their impotent on the actual issues.

This is bollocks. Sure, some student politician types will always tag on to these things when they become issues on campus, but the overwhelming majority of people i've come into contact with who are campaigning on this are, like me, not interested in being a student politician, or an adult politician, or any type of future war-voting, slippery Labour/Lib Dem MP.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It prevents the attitude from spreading; and I'm not talking about a thought police, just regulation of the media. It's the least we can do.

And of course, the point isn't to change their opinion, the point is to isolate said opinion and to prevent the speech from being oppressive.

Regulating the media if something illegal is done, yes.

But you can't just ban something outside the law because you don't like it. The least you have to do with such things is put them to a vote. You can't just arbitrarily ban things you don't like, because invariably with these things there will always be some sort of grey area and, if the law isn't on your side, then your position isn't gonna be strong.

Popular expressions of public will, will always be stronger than a tiny minority forcing through a ban through bureaucratic process.

[Revenant]

Anyone who's worked on a building site here?
No?

The people you will be hitting are the average working man who spends 30p a day for a nice pair of tits on page three, a bit of sport and dear deardrie, as if they need any more motivation to ideologically favour reactionary, right wing manifestations of class consciousness.

It just seems to me to be ammo for anti-left propagandists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anyone who's worked on a building site here?
No?

The people you will be hitting are the average working man who spends 30p a day for a nice pair of tits on page three, a bit of sport and dear deardrie, as if they need any more motivation to ideologically favour reactionary, right wing manifestations of class consciousness.

It just seems to me to be ammo for anti-left propagandists.

You're right, having been a worker for many years i'm totally unqualified to talk about working class issues because i've never worked on a building site, which you are seemingly stereotyping as a bastion of working class reactionary sentiment.

:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

[RedAnarchist]

Anyone who's worked on a building site here?
No?

The people you will be hitting are the average working man who spends 30p a day for a nice pair of tits on page three, a bit of sport and dear deardrie, as if they need any more motivation to ideologically favour reactionary, right wing manifestations of class consciousness.

It just seems to me to be ammo for anti-left propagandists.

You're assuming that no women or gay men work on building sites.

It's nothing to be concerned about if shitty newspapers like the Sun and Daily Sport are banned, it's not like they actually have anything of any importance inside.

[Luís Henrique]

Objecting to the page 3 in the Sun does seem a lot like looking at a pile of shit and finding some detail objectionable over the fact that it is a pile of shit.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Objecting to the page 3 in the Sun does seem a lot like looking at a pile of shit and finding some detail objectionable over the fact that it is a pile of shit.

Luís Henrique

But if finding that detail is the best way to get rid of the pile of shit, then it's a battle worth fighting, right?

[Luís Henrique]

But if finding that detail is the best way to get rid of the pile of shit, then it's a battle worth fighting, right?

If...

But I certainly fail to see the logical connection.

Luís Henrique