Why Page 3 is more sexist than hard-core porn.

It sounds like a GCSE English question: Discuss the rights and wrongs of Page 3, from the differing points of view of a) the Editor of the Sun and b) Germaine Greer. Odd then, to hear the former (Dominic Mohan, the paper’s current editor) extensively quoting the latter (the High Priestess of Feminism) at the Leveson Enquiry into Press Ethics earlier this month, on the subject of why featuring half-naked women centre stage in a national newspaper is something to be celebrated. “It cheers my odd job man up!” says Greer. It’s a British Institution!” proclaims Mohan.

I’m always suspicious of anything generally described as a ‘British Institution.’ It’s a phrase normally used either to exonerate the morally murky; like black and white minstrel shows, or hanging; or to elevate the tedious, like  Gregg’s sausage rolls or Jeremy Clarkson. Page 3 is somewhere in that mix- its daily parade of glassy-eyed lovelies have become so commonplace and innocuous you hardly even notice they’re there. I’ve never met Greer’s odd job man, but I’d bet money he barely even glances at all those Brandi’s and Staci’s in their pouting, hip-jutting ‘glamour’ poses as he flicks through his morning paper. Admitting to getting a genuine sexual thrill out of Page 3 is like admitting you masturbate over the Argos catalogue- frankly embarrassing.

Mohan was extremely lucky that Germaine Greer jumped the shark back in 2010 and wrote a glowing editorial for the Sun to mark the 40th anniversary of Page 3, and that he was able to quote it at Leveson.   In her piece, Greer vigorously defended the institution, with the main thrust of her argument being that in an age of increasing sexual explicitness in pornography, by comparison, Page 3 is tame:

“nowadays, all of us with a digital TV run a daily risk of beaming adult channels into our homes by pressing the wrong button. What we would then see and hear would make Page 3 look like a toothpaste ad. That is the truly extraordinary thing about Page 3. It is no more explicit, no more revealing than it was in 1970.”

Her argument reminds me of the man who denies cheating on his wife because there was no penetration involved in his tryst with his secretary, only oral sex. In suggesting that the level of explicitness of an image somehow denotes the level of sexism, Greer has missed the point. After all, a woman’s body only has so many private parts. We can’t just allocate them each a score and then add up the total at the end. The line between treating women as equals and objectifying them is not a line drawn between boobs and fanny. It’s about context.

With ‘real’ pornography, at least everyone knows what they’re getting. If (and I know this is a big ‘if’) everyone involved has consented, and their working conditions are fair, the buying and selling of sex is a reasonable transaction. Sex, in and of itself, is not sexist. But Page 3 places sexual imagery where it doesn’t belong, creating a landscape of objectification so deeply ingrained that we have almost ceased to notice it.

In my personal hierarchy of sexism, I’d place Page 3 higher than the channels Greer refers to. Adult channels are generally clearly marked as such, and cater to a market looking for sex.  Remote control mishaps notwithstanding, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to subscribe. In contrast, Page 3 appears in the most widely read, and arguably most influential newspaper in the UK, alongside articles about the collapse of the European economy or Andrew Lansley’s health bill.   It is a public forum that has absolutely nothing to do with sex, yet screams the message that women are sex objects.

It continues to be a long hard fight for women to advance and be taken seriously in public life.  Articles in the paper about politics, or business will feature few women in significant roles, and on any given day, the Page 3 girl is likely to be the most prominent woman in the paper.  Her daily naked existence sends a powerful message that women are not equal partners in areas that matter.

If you want to pay for sex, pay for sex. Just keep it out of the papers.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. I did not realise that Germain Greer had jumped ship in 2010. I am straight off to google to track down more information. Another cracker of a post and what can I say except definitely do NOT calm down, I am getting hooked on this blog. RSS feed here I come.

  2. feminism: the act of debasing women and shaming them for embracing their sexuality and beauty by claiming that it is all a plot by evil men to control them.

    you say the page 3 thing is horrible, worse than porn, because it objectifies women. I say that it is a good thing, because it makes the beauty and power of women something to be seen and embraced in every day life. Something that we can all become comfortable with, and not ashamed of. You say it shames women, but I say it glorifies them, and gives praise to the Goddesses, it is not a thing of exploitation, but a thing of respect.

    Though I suppose then that by your logic, all that artwork of nude men and women is not in fact artwork, but rather the sexual exploitation of women and men. Perhaps then, we should destroy all such art and forbid its creation. Let us remove the Venus De Milo, the Statue of David, and all other such things from this world. For there is no glory to be found in the human form, only shame, sexism, and exploitation. Let us hide our bodies, deny our sexuality, be ashamed of them once again. Let women wear burkas and men wear robes, so that we never have to worry about us finding each other sexy, sensual, or desirable, and let us hide away these things, rather than making them commonplace, glorified, and part of the everyday world.

    1. Wow! I think Lucius, you seriously missed the point here. The artworks you describe above are studies by an artist of the human form & appreciated as such. They are also cast from marble or granite & thus have no bearing on real people.

      The people who read the sun are definitely not thinking the way you are. They are also not admiring Keeley or Crystal & thinking ‘what a Goddess I hope she is valued as highly as me in the work place’ or, ‘I do hope that all she talks to listen to what she has to say and not stare and her undeniably fake and large chest’.

      How did you even find this blog and what possessed you to read it when clearly from the outset you were going to disagree with it. Did you input page 3 and come out with this?

      Wonders never cease.

      Frank.

      1. Speaking of wonders, one wonders why someone would respond to a comment five months after it was posted. Lucky for you wordpress updates us, or you’d look like a guy trying to get the last word and look all noble to someone who was way past responding.

        The medium of the art doesn’t matter. If the ancients had had pictures, you can bet they’d have used them. The only thing that makes those statues any different, really, is that they have been around longer. And I’m pretty sure more people have perved off the ancient artworks than have perved on any page 3 girl.

        Also, perception doesn’t change action. The page 3 girl pics are about glorifying the sensual female form. The fact that someone is perving off of them doesn’t change the glorification. Who cares if the people who read the Sun think as I do. That is not a prerequisite for anything.

  3. I wish I could like this several more times! Hopefully it 10 years we’ll look back on this with the same raised eyebrows and shocked humour that we do on the sexist ads of the 50s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s