Murdoch may stop Page 3

Apparently Rupert Murdoch has tweeted today that he is considering replacing the naked girls of Page 3 of the Sun with "attractive fashionistas".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/11/rupert-murdoch-page-3-axe

I loved John Prescott's immediate response.

"Whilst you're at it Rupert, you could get rid of pages 1-2 and 4-76".

A corrupt industry offers money to young women with few alternatives to pose naked in a so-called "family newspaper" and you regard their desperation being sufficient to want to do that as "empowerment". Yeah, right.

It looks optional to you. It doesn't to many of them.

As for the topic of this thread, I don't really see how Page 3 benefits society. So it's not really bad to cut it out of a "news" paper.

It's quite Orwellian to abuse the word empowerment in that way, using it to try to con people into believing that the porn industry is some kind of social good is a standard trick of that industry, a line which some people appear to have swallowed in its entirety.

"Empowerment" and Page 3? You live on which planet exactly?

Do you think the money might have anything to do with it?

Apart from the brainwashing effect of the blizzard of pornification directed at teenage girls, no self-respecting woman would freely choose to do this. It is the result of profit-seeking in News Corp that serves a certain group of men.

A corrupt industry offers money to young women with few alternatives to pose naked in a so-called "family newspaper" and you regard their desperation being sufficient to want to do that as "empowerment". Yeah, right.

It's wrong because it gives millions of people an incorrect view of what is normal, decent and acceptable in society. Placing it in the most popular newspaper (the two are connected - the Sun has a heavy preponderance of male readers) legitimises porn. Page Three is like the softening-up bombardment before the heavy duty porn corps goes into battle.

It's quite Orwellian to abuse the word empowerment in that way, using it to try to con people into believing that the porn industry is some kind of social good is a standard trick of that industry, a line which some people appear to have swallowed in its entirety.

haha, irony.

You're empowered luv, now get yer tits out.

Empowerment is education and political and legal equality, not being lunchtime ogling material.

It might be some other things too, but it definitely is an extra way for people to choose to earn money just because they're women.

That's exactly what it is, a gem of doublespeak. It's good marketing though isn't it? Someone's laughing all the way to the bank....

So, it’s not empowering to get double the average wage of say a woman who works in an office?

And anyway, why shouldn’t they do something if they enjoy doing it? Just because some women think it ‘demeans’ the female image doesn’t mean you shouldn’t not do it.

And in my experience with people who argue that page 3 is bad, as I have already mentioned to Fullofsuprises, more than half the time the women who’ve advocated its removal tend to be insecure with their own appearance, thus the only conclusion to be drawn is jealously.

Apparently Rupert Murdoch has tweeted today that he is considering replacing the naked girls of Page 3 of the Sun with "attractive fashionistas".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/11/rupert-murdoch-page-3-axe

I loved John Prescott's immediate response.

"Whilst you're at it Rupert, you could get rid of pages 1-2 and 4-76".

No, t's just business. They get paid to strip so that stakeholders make bigger profits. It has nothing to do with "empowerment", which only really makes sense in the context of a collective, not an individual. The only way it "empowers" women is by demonstrating that they can make money from their sexuality.


Sure they should do it if they want, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with "empowerment". It's a consequence of liberalism, doesn't mean it's actually helps anyone other than those making money out of it. Just because you're allowed to do something, it doesn't mean it's a good ting to do.


How do you know?

Do you not think that it is exactly that lack of freedom that leads to the negative connotations with the hard/soft porn industries. Why exactly is having sex on camera, degrading anymore so than kissing on camera? Why is a girl posing topless for vogue somehow less degrading than a glamour model doing so? These are not limits people place on their own sexuality, they are social standards of what is acceptable. Social standards defined by who?

Why is someone who is using the body and sexuality to earn their money more degrading than someone using the voice and creativity. Its only because you attach you attach certain connotations, which largely were put in place by religious groups generally to control people, on one and not the other.

Empowerment is about taking control a certain aspect of your life. The negative connotations attached to nudity and sex are just remnants, many things we consider normal now were once considered degrading, of the control we still place in the hands of others.

That's not to say all the people working in the industry are empowered, plenty are exploited, but that what happens when something is pushed to the fringes of society. Its not an innate quality of the industry.

Planet Earth, same as you.



Sorry, but I think you’re ignoring the money aspect entirely. If they’re gaining good money from it, money which they can use for their own leisure, who are you to disagree that it isn’t empowering? They show their knockers – so what? Plenty of people do a lot worse for money and a lot less money at that so you’re in no position to complain.

And above all generalisations in your posts, who says that only men find page 3 girls attractive?




So if they definitely want to do this as a career then they shouldn’t? You’re ignoring the choice aspect of pornography, as well as being highly ignorant of the fact that pornography applies to not only women but men. At the root of your argument is the concept of ‘an improper feminine image’, which I think is frankly bull****. And you seem to be perpetuating the idea that there exists a ‘perfect image’ of a woman in insinuating that there is something to be demeaned. But above all things it implies you’re only insecure of your own self-image that you have to try to block out any women who’s secure with theirs, in this case page 3 girls. And if you’re going to argue that any pornographic image is wrong then we might as well slap on our chastity belts and go back to the middle ages.



Actually, the only people who seem to demean women are people like you as you are perpetuating the idea that a woman is being demeaned in the situation at hand, on top of trying to enforce and impose the notion of a ‘perfect’ woman; that demeans women far more than any picture of someone’s genitals by restricting their individual freedoms.



That is an incredible oxymoron – you talk of ‘Orwellian’ as if you know what the concept means yet advocate censorship and disallowing women to choose a certain career which earns them money: that is Orwellian.

To conclude, I’d say the only one who is demeaned in this situation is you since you’re the one making a big deal of it, and the only one demeaning women appears to be you; the majority of your argument screams jealousy. You’re missing the point of both the money as a tool of empowerment, you’re completely ignoring the woman’s choice in the matter as well as her right to enjoy the career she chooses, you’re generalising the logistics of the porn industry and failing to recognise that one subscribes to the superficial reality of pornography which is a false portrayal of BOTH genders and not just women. But perhaps most flawed is that you seem to be under the impression that a ‘perfect female form’ exists, which is of course not true – if you truly adhered to feminist ethos you’d take into account the foundational core of any argument they advocate, choice, but since that is not the case then I think you misunderstand feminism.



So, it’s not empowering to get double the average wage of say a woman who works in an office? I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of empowerment, it doesn’t just apply to someone with a decent education. And anyway, why shouldn’t they do something if they enjoy doing it? Just because some women think it ‘demeans’ the female image doesn’t mean you shouldn’t not do it. And in my experience with people who argue that page 3 is bad, as I have already mentioned to Fullofsuprises, more than half the time the women who’ve advocated its removal tend to be insecure with their own appearance, thus the only conclusion to be drawn is jealously.




Exactly.

"Women, you can't strip for money, even if you want to"
"Women, you can strip for money, if you want to"

Whilst not on the scale of suffrage, we all know which of the above two statements is empowering, and which is restrictive.

No, t's just business. They get paid to strip so that stakeholders make bigger profits. It has nothing to do with "empowerment", which only really makes sense in the context of a collective, not an individual. The only way it "empowers" women is by demonstrating that they can make money from their sexuality.

Sure they should do it if they want, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with "empowerment". It's a consequence of liberalism, doesn't mean it's actually helps anyone other than those making money out of it. Just because you're allowed to do something, it doesn't mean it's a good ting to do.

How do you know?

No, what you're looking for is

"Women, I own a tabloid and I'll pay you to go topless in it".

That's the subject of this thread, not legal or social freedoms, which is what you allude to in your second sentence.

And whether the first sentence has merit or not depends entirely on who says it. If it's the state, it infringes upon freedoms that people should have. If it's private enterprise, it's perfectly fine. After all, none of the broadsheets offer women money to go naked and I don't see anyone calling the Guardian restrictive.

Even if you were to argue that it's not degrading, that's not the same as saying it's empowering. The only way these industries empower women is that they make clear that its possible to make money selling your sexuality.

If it's only about money then why are you complaining?
.

So what are you arguing here? Do you want the government to get involved to clamp it down, or is it all fine and up to the parties involved, just that you won't be part of it? I had assumed the former, but if it's the latter then there's not much to discuss really, each to their own.

I'm complaining about it being presented as anything more than a money-making exercise. It's not. It certainly doesn't do anything to improve the status of women. It doesn't benefit or enrich any women except those making money off it.