Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Page 3 model challenges Germaine Greer and Harriet Harman in live interview Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Independent)
    Chloe Goodman, a topless model, last night criticised Harriet Harman's anti-Page 3 stance, saying women shouldn't "tell each other what jobs to take".

    Goodman, who was recently evicted from the Celebrity Big Brother house, was outspoken in her support for The Sun's reportedly defunct topless page last night.

    She argued that models weren't exploited, telling host Jon Snow that women "are given lots of choices with career options, many of [them] do choose to do Page 3 because it’s something they wish to do."

    Goodman added: "Why should feminist women then tell other women how to live their lives? Women fought together to get the vote and so on and so forth, so why should women now be fighting each other, and tell each other what job roles to now take within the industry?"

    While she might not have had the vocabulary of her opponents, Goodman managed to slightly flummox Harman.

    The Labour MP had said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country… and you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women’s role in society?”

    But Goodman countered: "What do we think of women and men 1,000 years ago, when we see statues [of them] nude?" She added: "All over the world there are [depictions of] bodies in the nude, so I don’t understand why it’s just Page 3 that’s being targeted."

    Greer argued that Page 3 was "meek" and said she didn't oppose the tabloid institution. She argued that, in any newspaper women are most prominent in advertising, and said that "senior women" were "virtually invisible" and "ridiculed with impunity". She added: "Page 3 would have been fine if we had anything else".


    Source

    Quite an interesting live debate where Chloe Goodman challenges the feminism of Germaine Greer and Harriet Harman. Harman came off looking very poor, in my opinion. Well worth a watch!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Chloe had good points. It's very hypocritical of feminists to complain about restrictions on women in the work force but then say women shouldn't model nude and 'objectify' themselves in a tabloid. Aren't all models, female and male, clothed or unclothed, objectifying themselves anyway? I've never seen a Tommy Hilfiger model and thought to myself "I wonder what kind of person he is." That's not his job.

    As for the "what does it say about women in society when there are pictures of them nude in newspapers" argument, there are women in suits in tabloids too, and there are also men in their underwear. There's literally a big picture of a dude in his briefs for a Calvin Klein ad my local paper today. I also liked Goodman's antiquity point -- nude bodies were appreciated then and now and it doesn't paint a degrading picture of women.

    I think most of us know why those sour old women are on this tirade, and it probably has a lot to do with their own insecurities. Just sayin'.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    well what if we think of women and men one thousand years ago when you see

    statues written all over the walls love men and women news are well that's a good thought a thousand years ago they were in the nude.
    Poor thing.

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    As for the "what does it say about women in society when there are pictures of them nude in newspapers" argument, there are women in suits in tabloids too, and there are also men in their underwear.
    We are talking about the sun?
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    There's literally a big picture of a dude in his briefs for a Calvin Klein ad my local paper today.
    Yeh, but he's actually modelling a product, marketed towards his fellow man. Page 3 models are marketing themselves and only themselves as an object to the opposite sex.
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I also liked Goodman's antiquity point -- nude bodies were appreciated then and now and it doesn't paint a degrading picture of women.
    And what was the role of woman in society, centuries ago when those paintings and sculptures were commissioned?..
    Unless there is a page 4 in The Sun, featuring naked male models, you don't really have a leg to stand on, my friend.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)

    Yeh, but he's actually modelling a product, marketed towards his fellow man. Page 3 models are marketing themselves and only themselves as an object to the opposite sex.
    In both cases, the human body is being used as purely aesthetic means to commercial ends.

    The only relevant difference between the two is that one image is supposed to cater toward the opposite sex, while the other is supposed to cater toward the same sex. Guys are being sold an aesthetic aspiration by Calvin Klein. Not only does that objectify the male models, it sells the message to guys that you need to look this way, and should aspire to be this way - you should view yourself as an object.

    You can't pretend that that kind of thing isn't objectification.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    In both cases, the human body is being used as purely aesthetic means to commercial ends.
    I never denied this. I am arguing that there are some circumstances where it is inappropriate to sell sex, in such a way. I don't see how it's inappropriate to use a human body to model and sell underwear, they are obviously half naked to show the underwear. Whereas for The Sun, what is your excuse?
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    The only relevant difference between the two is that one image is supposed to cater toward the opposite sex, while the other is supposed to cater toward the same sex.
    Another relevant point to acknowledge is that there isn't a page in the Sun devoted to naked men.
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Guys are being sold an aesthetic aspiration by Calvin Klein. Not only does that objectify the male models, it sells the message to guys that you need to look this way, and should aspire to be this way
    Sure. I agree. Men are also besetted by unrealistic body expectations (although to a lessor extent compared to women). However I believe that the more prominent rhetoric of CK marketing is not "You need to look this way" but "If you bought these pants, you could look like this". And who wouldn't want to look like a CK model? I don't see anything wrong with exploiting that. And at least their ads are done in a tasteful way, (imho). Like Germain Greer said, "context is everything"
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    - you should view yourself as an object.
    Absolutely not! Reaching for the stars with that one.



    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    We are talking about the sun?
    Any tabloid, really.

    (Original post by Truths)
    Yeh, but he's actually modelling a product, marketed towards his fellow man. Page 3 models are marketing themselves and only themselves as an object to the opposite sex.
    Have you read a freaking women's magazine in your life? And it doesn't matter - in both instances the models are being objectified, and there's nothing wrong with it. See TurboCretin's response. (Although I would argue that nobody wants to have sex with an object, but I digress...).

    (Original post by Truths)
    And what was the role of woman in society, centuries ago when those paintings and sculptures were commissioned?..
    Unless there is a page 4 in The Sun, featuring naked male models, you don't really have a leg to stand on, my friend.
    How they were depicted had little to do with their role in society (as it is today). Both women and men have been depicted nude for centuries out of appreciation and admiration of the human form and human sexuality. We like to see each other naked - it's as simple as that.

    A woman should have the right to pose naked for pay, as should a man. And publishers should have the right to display this to consumers. There's nothing wrong with this.


    [ANNOYING, SNARKY GIF]
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Poor thing.

    Top condescending there truths.


    (Original post by Truths)
    We are talking about the sun?

    Yeh, but he's actually modelling a product, marketed towards his fellow man. Page 3 models are marketing themselves and only themselves as an object to the opposite sex.

    And what was the role of woman in society, centuries ago when those paintings and sculptures were commissioned?..
    Unless there is a page 4 in The Sun, featuring naked male models, you don't really have a leg to stand on, my friend.

    There was. It was the page 7 hunk, but wasn't popular with enough readers so was dropped.


    Here we see Greer and Harman, a couple of middle class white university educated women that really need to check their privilege.
    As usual feminists are all about giving other women the choice , as long that is, as they choose the same as the feminists want.
    I'm no great fan of page3 but good on Chloe Goodman for speaking out and taking them on.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Have you read a freaking women's magazine in your life?
    Is The Sun a mens magazine?
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    And it doesn't matter - in both instances the models are being objectified, and there's nothing wrong with it. See TurboCretin's response. (Although I would argue that nobody wants to have sex with an object, but I digress...).
    The context does matter. If you are selling underwear, It's pretty necessary that someone to be modelling it. And for you to the underwear that person can not be dressed. The same justification can not be applied to Page 3.
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    How they were depicted had little to do with their role in society (as it is today). Both women and men have been depicted nude for centuries out of appreciation and admiration of the human form and human sexuality. We like to see each other naked - it's as simple as that.
    Tut tut tut. You can't divorce an art from its historical and social context. Nude sculptures, male and female have generally come out from the era of Ancient Greece. A time period nudity was far more casual and less implicative as it is now. Pretty much everyone was a nudist, and it didn't have anything to do with sexuality. Within the past 3 centuries there have barely been any notable nude sculptures. Why? Because society has changed along with our connotations to nudity. Just because it was acceptable and a norm then, does not make it a norm now.
    As for nude paintings. They weren't published and mass produced where they? At the time, they were either painted for personal reasons, or they were commissioned by another small party. It's not like it had potential to contribute to the devaluing of women in society.
    Additionally, I don't get the impression that most of those paintings intend to present their women as sexual objects. Nor do they promote unrealistic body expectations. Birth of Venus comes to mind. You tried it tho!
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    A woman should have the right to pose naked for pay, as should a man. And publishers should have the right to display this to consumers. There's nothing wrong with this.
    And they still have those freedoms. It's not an issue of "rights", it's an issue of modern principles. They were not forced to do anything. It was an editorial decision and I suppose they wanted to bring their paper into the 21st Century. So more power to them!

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    I never denied this. I am arguing that there are some circumstances where it is inappropriate to sell sex, in such a way. I don't see how it's inappropriate to use a human body to model and sell underwear, they are obviously half naked to show the underwear. Whereas for The Sun, what is your excuse?
    Another relevant point to acknowledge is that there isn't a page in the Sun devoted to naked men.

    Sure. I agree. Men are also besetted by unrealistic body expectations (although to a lessor extent compared to women). However I believe that the more prominent rhetoric of CK marketing is not "You need to look this way" but "If you bought these pants, you could look like this". And who wouldn't want to look like a CK model? I don't see anything wrong with exploiting that. And at least their ads are done in a tasteful way, (imho). Like Germain Greer said, "context is everything"

    Absolutely not! Reaching for the stars with that one.
    You don't need to have a body like David Gandy to wear underwear, so with respect I am sceptical about your first point. Why is it that male underwear models - without fail - have unsustainably low body fat and rippling muscles? To enhance the appearance of the underwear? Well it doesn't achieve that. What it does is to sell guys an image. When you buy into that image, it's tacit expression of an aspiration toward the ideal you're presented with (you seem to agree that CK trades on this aspiration).

    You say that CK stops there, and doesn't tell guys how they ought to look - it merely facilitates their dreams of looking like David Gandy. That's all well and dandy, but if you find it ludicrous to say that Calvin Klein is telling guys how they ought to look, presumably you find the suggestion that the fashion industry is responsible for self-image issues among women to be similarly absurd.

    I don't see the point of your comment about there being no page in the Sun dedicated to naked men. The poster you originally quoted used underwear adverts as an example of objectification of men. If you accept that underwear adverts objectify men (and you do seem to acknowledge this) then what is the pertinence of your complaint about the lack of p.7 hunks?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be quite ashamed and embarrassed to know someone who was a Page 3 model. It's not something you're going to write on your CV is it. Glad the topless models have gone.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Is The Sun a mens magazine?
    It has a very sizable male readership.

    (Original post by Truths)
    The context does matter. If you are selling underwear, It's pretty necessary that someone to be modelling it. And for you to the underwear that person can not be dressed. The same justification can not be applied to Page 3.
    But do they need to be super sexy? It's still selling sex, just not as directly.

    (Original post by Truths)
    Tut tut tut. You can't divorce an art from its historical and social context. Nude sculptures, male and female have generally come out from the era of Ancient Greece. A time period nudity was far more casual and less implicative as it is now. Pretty much everyone was a nudist, and it didn't have anything to do with sexuality.

    Greek women (outside of Sparta) covered themselves almost head to toe.

    (Original post by Truths)
    Within the past 3 centuries there have barely been any notable nude sculptures. Why? Because society has changed along with our connotations to nudity. Just because it was acceptable and a norm then, does not make it a norm now.
    Christianity was largely respnsible for that. It wasn't until the sexual liberation in the 1960s that feminists fought for that this stuff become acceptable again.

    (Original post by Truths)
    As for nude paintings. They weren't published and mass produced where they? At the time, they were either painted for personal reasons, or they were commissioned by another small party. It's not like it had potential to contribute to the devaluing of women in society.
    Additionally, I don't get the impression that most of those paintings intend to present their women as sexual objects. Nor do they promote unrealistic body expectations. Birth of Venus comes to mind. You tried it tho!
    Standards of beauty were a little different. She was supposed to be the 'ideal woman' in that painting (but I think she's still fairly hot). And there was plenty of 'smut' in those days and beforehand (it just didn't exactly make its way into art galleries and museums, for obvious reasons). The Romans were particularly notorious (again, in depictions of women and men). Why? People like sex and nudity! That's not a crime.

    (Original post by Truths)
    [CENTER]And they still have those freedoms. It's not an issue of "rights", it's an issue of modern principles. They were not forced to do anything. It was an editorial decision and I suppose they wanted to bring their paper into the 21st Century. So more power to them!
    No; they're pandering.

    And I'll repeat myself: next time you wanna have go on some one-sided moralistic tirade about the 'sexual objectification' of women in magazines and how 'degrading' and 'harmful' to women it is, open a freakin' women's magazine - men are portrayed in the same way. Why? Sex sells; people like to look at hot women/men, and there's nothing morally wrong with that. Does this stuff even exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Somalia where women are actually degraded and treated as objects? No; it happens in counties where women are happy and liberated. Go figure.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    You don't need to have a body like David Gandy to wear underwear, so with respect I am sceptical about your first point. Why is it that male underwear models - without fail - have unsustainably low body fat and rippling muscles? To enhance the appearance of the underwear? Well it doesn't achieve that. What it does is to sell guys an image. When you buy into that image, it's tacit expression of an aspiration toward the ideal you're presented with (you seem to agree that CK trades on this aspiration).
    Um. I don't know what we arguing here. I'm already agreed that men do have unrealistic body expectations pushed on them, just not to the same extent as women.

    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I don't see the point of your comment about there being no page in the Sun dedicated to naked men. The poster you originally quoted used underwear adverts as an example of objectification of men. If you accept that underwear adverts objectify men (and you do seem to acknowledge this) then what is the pertinence of your complaint about the lack of p.7 hunks?
    They use naked women to sell their newspaper but they don't use naked men, to put it simply.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It has a very sizable male readership.
    So no then.
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    But do they need to be super sexy? It's still selling sex, just not as directly.
    Well similar to lingerie lines, I believe that CKs brand is sex. And I don't think that's super inappropriate for marketing underwear tbh. Seeing as it's a fashion statement, presumably bought with the intention that someone would see you undressed and find you attractive/sexy. So why not model it on a sexy/attractive person? It's only fitting.[/CENTER]
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Greek women (outside of Sparta) covered themselves almost head to toe.
    Which would explain why the vast majority of nude statues were male...
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Christianity was largely respnsible for that. It wasn't until the sexual liberation in the 1960s that feminists fought for that this stuff become acceptable again.
    And it is acceptable for the most part. Just not in news publications. We are finally finding the balance! (Btw, modesty existed long before Christianity lol).
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Standards of beauty were a little different. She was supposed to be the 'ideal woman' in that painting (but I think she's still fairly hot). And there was plenty of 'smut' in those days and beforehand (it just didn't exactly make its way into art galleries and museums, for obvious reasons). The Romans were particularly notorious (again, in depictions of women and men). Why? People like sex and nudity! That's not a crime.
    That's great. And they kept their porn and news separate! And now that we have, even better. I'm sure you'll live!
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    No; they're pandering.
    Are they not pandering to horny men, with Page 3?
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    And I'll repeat myself: next time you wanna have go on some one-sided moralistic tirade about the 'sexual objectification' of women in magazines and how 'degrading' and 'harmful' to women it is, open a freakin' women's magazine
    Context. The Sun is not a lads mag!
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    men are portrayed in the same way
    I beg to differ! Modelling underwear to same sex =/= Porn
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Does this stuff even exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Somalia where women are actually degraded and treated as objects? No; it happens in counties where women are happy and liberated. Go figure.
    False cause!

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    I'll be quite ashamed and embarrassed to know someone who was a Page 3 model. It's not something you're going to write on your CV is it. Glad the topless models have gone.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ck-page-3.html
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What's Goodman talking about when she refers to 1000 year old statues of naked women and men? They didn't tend to come from gender equal societies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    We are talking about the sun?

    Yeh, but he's actually modelling a product, marketed towards his fellow man. Page 3 models are marketing themselves and only themselves as an object to the opposite sex.

    And what was the role of woman in society, centuries ago when those paintings and sculptures were commissioned?..
    Unless there is a page 4 in The Sun, featuring naked male models, you don't really have a leg to stand on, my friend.

    :crossedf::congrats: best troll on this forum
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I'm sadly aware. We talk about being in the twenty first century but still backwards in terms of media coverage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lol'd at Harriet Harman backtracking when her argument was blown apart by Chloe. Harriet says nothing credible during the whole debate.

    All I see this as is Bossy, sex negative, puritan feminists being buttmad, complaining and eventually succeeding in oppressing other women who are sexually empowered. Oh wait, turns out they didn't succeed. Good on you The Sun even if you are a **** newspaper.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.