No More Page 3!
Basically guys, we have the power to make change. There are thousands of us on here (many too young to vote) who, in solidarity, can achieve a lot.
Page 3 was first introduced in 1970, a time when casual racism was normal, homosexual acts between two men OVER THE AGE OF 21 IN PRIVATE had only just been decriminalised and transsexuals weren't allowed to get married. Looking back now, it seems like we've come a long way since then, and we have, in many respects.
But not with regards to Page 3. Many people that I've encountered don't see the harm in Page 3 (most of them male) but true equality can never be achieved if 'for the last 44 years in The Sun newspaper the largest female image has been of a young woman showing her breasts for men, sending out a powerful message that whatever else a woman achieves, her primary role is to serve men sexually.'
Visit the No More Page 3 website in order to see a whole list of reasons why it needs to go (and there is a LOT), including the detrimental effect soft porn in a family newspaper has on children and girl's body image, but, most importantly, please get behind this campaign.
I want my children (daughters in particular) to grow up in a world free from Page 3. But not only that, I want it now. We've waited 45 years. If every single one of you that reads this signs the petition (I'll put a link) and helps spread the word then we can help achieve this a whole lot faster.
What's more, we're the digital generation. If you want to be a part of this, then don't just stop at signing the petition. Tweet Rupert Murdoch, the guy on top of all this, and ask him to call David Dinsmore and say 'Hi Dave, I think we've had enough of this now. Time to actually put news in a family newspaper'. Or tweet David Dinsmore himself. If enough people get behind this then he can't help but listen. Don't like it, don't buy it, just doesn't work.
Don't let Page 3 still be here this time next year. I don't want it to still be here next week. So join the campaign, and help make change, and lets get a discussion going - post below when you have signed!
Thanks guys.
P.S If any of you are still unsure whether getting rid of Page 3 is really necessary then please visit their website, it explains things better than I probably have
Page 3 was first introduced in 1970, a time when casual racism was normal, homosexual acts between two men OVER THE AGE OF 21 IN PRIVATE had only just been decriminalised and transsexuals weren't allowed to get married. Looking back now, it seems like we've come a long way since then, and we have, in many respects.
But not with regards to Page 3. Many people that I've encountered don't see the harm in Page 3 (most of them male) but true equality can never be achieved if 'for the last 44 years in The Sun newspaper the largest female image has been of a young woman showing her breasts for men, sending out a powerful message that whatever else a woman achieves, her primary role is to serve men sexually.'
Visit the No More Page 3 website in order to see a whole list of reasons why it needs to go (and there is a LOT), including the detrimental effect soft porn in a family newspaper has on children and girl's body image, but, most importantly, please get behind this campaign.
I want my children (daughters in particular) to grow up in a world free from Page 3. But not only that, I want it now. We've waited 45 years. If every single one of you that reads this signs the petition (I'll put a link) and helps spread the word then we can help achieve this a whole lot faster.
What's more, we're the digital generation. If you want to be a part of this, then don't just stop at signing the petition. Tweet Rupert Murdoch, the guy on top of all this, and ask him to call David Dinsmore and say 'Hi Dave, I think we've had enough of this now. Time to actually put news in a family newspaper'. Or tweet David Dinsmore himself. If enough people get behind this then he can't help but listen. Don't like it, don't buy it, just doesn't work.
Don't let Page 3 still be here this time next year. I don't want it to still be here next week. So join the campaign, and help make change, and lets get a discussion going - post below when you have signed!
Thanks guys.
P.S If any of you are still unsure whether getting rid of Page 3 is really necessary then please visit their website, it explains things better than I probably have
Scroll to see replies
Feminists:
Subscribe to our way of thinking or you're sexist and muh patriarchy
Posted from TSR Mobile
Subscribe to our way of thinking or you're sexist and muh patriarchy
Posted from TSR Mobile
Feminists:
People who believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
People who believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Original post by AimeeOlivia
Feminists:
People who believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
People who believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Tell me why no feminists are complaining at Chris Hemsworth getting shirtless for his movies.
But as soon as a woman makes the consious decision to get paid to do a similar thing, feminists are screaming it's not allowed. (so essentially, you are take away the rights of women here)
Posted from TSR Mobile
I could've sworn it hasn't been there for a few weeks already
Lol a womans role is to serve men sexually. That and cooking/cleaning, of course. Don't hate the truth OP.
why don't you just not look at page 3?
Original post by Kolasinac138
I could've sworn it hasn't been there for a few weeks already
The Sun made a very big PR stunt out of this, they removed the topless girl for four days. At the end the final decision is Mr murdoch's
Original post by ChickenMadness
why don't you just not look at page 3?
It's pretty difficult not to see it, I always hated it and wondered why it was there. I don't consider myself a feminist but I don't see why they have to stick a half naked girl on the one of the first pages you see. I personally find it insulting that the first thing people want to see is that, it is one of the most blatant forms of sexism. Treating women as sexually objects, I'm not okay with it and the fact it's on the first pages is even more of an insult. If you want that then go buy a playboy magazine or something.
Original post by Lkathryn08
It's pretty difficult not to see it, I always hated it and wondered why it was there. I don't consider myself a feminist but I don't see why they have to stick a half naked girl on the one of the first pages you see. I personally find it insulting that the first thing people want to see is that, it is one of the most blatant forms of sexism. Treating women as sexually objects, I'm not okay with it and the fact it's on the first pages is even more of an insult. If you want that then go buy a playboy magazine or something.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11395576/Men-are-now-objectified-more-than-women.html
But you're okay with men being objectified. Yeah cool.
Also if it's okay to have it in a playboy magazine why not the sun?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by reallydontknow
Tell me why no feminists are complaining at Chris Hemsworth getting shirtless for his movies.
But as soon as a woman makes the consious decision to get paid to do a similar thing, feminists are screaming it's not allowed. (so essentially, you are take away the rights of women here)
Posted from TSR Mobile
But as soon as a woman makes the consious decision to get paid to do a similar thing, feminists are screaming it's not allowed. (so essentially, you are take away the rights of women here)
Posted from TSR Mobile
A man getting topless is not the same as a woman getting topless. If Chris Hemsworth and other men were photographed with their penises out every day for Page 3 in a family newspaper then people would complain. The biggest picture of a woman in any paper most days is one of a very young woman in just her pants. In a newspaper this appears next to lots of pictures with news of men in suits or sports clothes doing things. The page 3 picture isn’t about any news story and the model doesn’t speak at all.This picture is just inside the front cover of the biggest selling newspaper. The front pages is where all the most important news gets put. By putting a picture here of a woman in just her pants the newspaper is telling its readers that what is really most important about women is the way they look and their sexual allure. It doesn’t care what they have to say, what their achievements or talents are.
In a country where we want men and women to be treated equally. Having pictures like this in our biggest selling papers makes it much more difficult for women to be taken seriously and when young boys or girls see this what does it teach them about women’s place in society?
Original post by reallydontknow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11395576/Men-are-now-objectified-more-than-women.html
But you're okay with men being objectified. Yeah cool.
Also if it's okay to have it in a playboy magazine why not the sun?
Posted from TSR Mobile
But you're okay with men being objectified. Yeah cool.
Also if it's okay to have it in a playboy magazine why not the sun?
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's a lot harder for children to get their hands on a playboy magazine than it is The Sun, a family newspaper
Original post by AimeeOlivia
A man getting topless is not the same as a woman getting topless. If Chris Hemsworth and other men were photographed with their penises out every day for Page 3 in a family newspaper then people would complain. The biggest picture of a woman in any paper most days is one of a very young woman in just her pants. In a newspaper this appears next to lots of pictures with news of men in suits or sports clothes doing things. The page 3 picture isn’t about any news story and the model doesn’t speak at all.This picture is just inside the front cover of the biggest selling newspaper. The front pages is where all the most important news gets put. By putting a picture here of a woman in just her pants the newspaper is telling its readers that what is really most important about women is the way they look and their sexual allure. It doesn’t care what they have to say, what their achievements or talents are.
In a country where we want men and women to be treated equally. Having pictures like this in our biggest selling papers makes it much more difficult for women to be taken seriously and when young boys or girls see this what does it teach them about women’s place in society?
In a country where we want men and women to be treated equally. Having pictures like this in our biggest selling papers makes it much more difficult for women to be taken seriously and when young boys or girls see this what does it teach them about women’s place in society?
So are you saying men and women aren't equal?
You know there are feminists fighting for the right of women to be able to walk around topless like men. Since a man being topless is not the same perhaps they're wrong yes?
And no, a man getting topless is the same thing as a woman. Just because you have some bags of fat that odour milk doesn't make it any more or less acceptable.
A man getting his penis out is the same as a woman taking off her trousers and underwear. Both of which are illegal in public. And the women here are not doing this.
As always, the feminist response to male sexualisation "it's not the same *hissy fit*"
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AimeeOlivia
It's a lot harder for children to get their hands on a playboy magazine than it is The Sun, a family newspaper
Its the parents fault. I knew as a child not to go near any sexual material and I didn't. If your child does not it is your fault.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by reallydontknow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11395576/Men-are-now-objectified-more-than-women.html
But you're okay with men being objectified. Yeah cool.
Also if it's okay to have it in a playboy magazine why not the sun?
Posted from TSR Mobile
But you're okay with men being objectified. Yeah cool.
Also if it's okay to have it in a playboy magazine why not the sun?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I didn't say that at all. When did I say anything at men be objectified? They're not on one of the first pages you see on a national newspaper so it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't care about what people do in their own time, it's fine by me if you want a playboy magazine and some tissues. But what I'm saying that it should be something that you don't have see if you don't want to. I personally don't want to see that and I'm sure others don't. You can objectify women and their body some place else where I don't have to see it. It's just something I feel that should be part of the past as it is basically saying to everyone that women should be objectified and are inferior to men. While you may disagree with that you have understand that it's not the content I wanted to see in a newspaper and if you want that content then get it but it should be separated from a national newspaper.
Original post by Lkathryn08
It's pretty difficult not to see it, I always hated it and wondered why it was there. I don't consider myself a feminist but I don't see why they have to stick a half naked girl on the one of the first pages you see. I personally find it insulting that the first thing people want to see is that, it is one of the most blatant forms of sexism. Treating women as sexually objects, I'm not okay with it and the fact it's on the first pages is even more of an insult. If you want that then go buy a playboy magazine or something.
what about treating men as sexual objects? Also thats women's livelihoods you're trying to take away. No more page 3 = all the page 3 girls out of work.
Original post by Lkathryn08
I didn't say that at all. When did I say anything at men be objectified? They're not on one of the first pages you see on a national newspaper so it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't care about what people do in their own time, it's fine by me if you want a playboy magazine and some tissues. But what I'm saying that it should be something that you don't have see if you don't want to. I personally don't want to see that and I'm sure others don't. You can objectify women and their body some place else where I don't have to see it. It's just something I feel that should be part of the past as it is basically saying to everyone that women should be objectified and are inferior to men. While you may disagree with that you have understand that it's not the content I wanted to see in a newspaper and if you want that content then get it but it should be separated from a national newspaper.
So how about family movies on it men getting topless?
How about all the adverts on TV with males getting topless (you don't see any/many TV ads with topless females do you?)
If its not the content you want then don't buy it. Simple. The Sun is a crappy newspaper anyway, you can buy a magazine for the same news that you care so much about.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Lkathryn08
I didn't say that at all. When did I say anything at men be objectified? They're not on one of the first pages you see on a national newspaper so it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't care about what people do in their own time, it's fine by me if you want a playboy magazine and some tissues. But what I'm saying that it should be something that you don't have see if you don't want to. I personally don't want to see that and I'm sure others don't. You can objectify women and their body some place else where I don't have to see it. It's just something I feel that should be part of the past as it is basically saying to everyone that women should be objectified and are inferior to men. While you may disagree with that you have understand that it's not the content I wanted to see in a newspaper and if you want that content then get it but it should be separated from a national newspaper.
I've not seen page 3 of the sun since 6th form 3 years ago when I was sitting next to my friend who was reading it lmao. I don't see how you find it difficult not to buy a newspaper and read it if it contains stuff you don't like.
Original post by ChickenMadness
what about treating men as sexual objects? Also thats women's livelihoods you're trying to take away. No more page 3 = all the page 3 girls out of work.
I see your point but what I'm saying if you want to objectify men and woman it should be done in a way where it's equal. You don't see men on page 3 and I don't think in places such as national newspapers it's not as explicit as it is with women. If it someone choice to look at women or men in that way then it should be in a format where you have to choose to see that content and it not be displayed on national newspapers.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- how to structure the 10 page bartlett architecture portfolio?
- how much should i write for coursework for child development ocr?
- health and social coursework
- Page hanging (unresponsive to swiping)
- Title bar scrolling/hiding
- GCSE English Language paper 1
- How many words/pages should a BTEC engineering project be around?
- CV school leaver
- 2000 word academic report on language?
- geography alevel
- Nominate the February Winner: Favourite A-level/ Level 3 Blog!
- HISTORY GCSEs..
- CSM online interview tips?
- What units do I need for Edexcel IAL or IAS Further Maths
- AQA - Can I write below the answer lines?
- How long does it take you to read a book?
- Accounting
- GCSE Chemistry
- ocr computer science project
- DSA2 help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
