"It's a
newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell," or so said
Wilbur F. Storey of the goals of the Chicago Times in 1861. Most
British newspapers do not fit this romantic fantasy of plucky
reporters digging up facts, uncovering corruption and exposing the
wrong doings of those in power. Newspapers are a product as much as
anything else and one that exists in a very competitive market place.
Beyond this they are part of our public psyche and form a key part of
how we view the world. Most of us still get our news from newspapers,
it may be in the form of articles published online, or downloaded
onto smart phones but still newspapers are powerful players in the
news market. They decide what is news or not news but deeper than
that they decide what is normal or not normal.
When headlines
denouncing 'Booze Britain' and the dangers of binge drinking were
splashed across front pages, they reinforced the idea that most
people drink excessively on a regular basis. Through the foggy lens
of journalism we look at ourselves as a nation and we find out how we
behave and what our hopes and fears are - mainly our fears. When
newspapers are outraged at politician’s expenses or light penalties
for sex offenders, so are we as a nation. As such it follows that
when newspapers are casually sexist, we become a bit more casually
sexist as a nation.
Sexism is rife in
newspapers - especially tabloids. Women are constantly assaulted for
being ugly, fat, having too much power, crying wolf in rape
accusations, not breast feeding their children enough, having bad
taste in clothes, for speaking out of line, for breast feeding their
children too much, causing cancer and making house prices fall.
However, one aspect
of all the misogynistic rubbish printed in tabloid papers stands out
above the rest: The Sun's Page 3. Since 1969 The Sun (Britain's most
popular and least trusted newspapers) has printed a picture of a
glamour model on its third page. Initially clothed and later topless,
these photographs show a misogynistic image of women as young, good
looking, sexually available and silent.
Recently an online
petition on the website change.org, No More Page 3, has sought the
removal of Page 3 from the Sun. At the time of posting this campaign
has picked up 46 thousand signatures, as well as press coverage in The
Guardian, The New Statesman and on News Night. Social media is
buzzing with the very real possibility that this No More Page 3 could
be a success. The campaign is well managed, has picked up support
from several public figures, including MPs and is targeting The Sun's
advertisers such as Lego, Tesco and Sainsbury’s in an attempt to
put added pressure on the tabloid. This campaign has attracted
criticism from those who go out of their way to defend casual sexism.
Unsurprising as this is, I wanted to take a moment to address a few
of the misconceptions shaping the arguments in favour of Page 3.
The first strand of
criticism mainly comes from a position of middle-class broadsheet
superiority. Some argue that Page 3 does not really matter, as the
Sun is not a newspaper but a news comic. It is difficult to argue
that the Sun is not taken seriously as a newspaper. Certainly it's
the main source of news for the ### million people who pay to read it
daily. Its power to affect the opinions and actions of the general
public was evidenced in the infamous 1992 election day front page,
which allowed John Major to narrowly secure a majority. The Sun is
clearly a newspaper and what it prints – both news and otherwise –
clearly has an effect on its readership.
The problems caused
by Page 3 go beyond those who read the Sun, as any newspaper so
widely read sets a standard. Page 3 is often the largest picture of a
woman in the newspaper. Those other images of women in The Sun are
used to shame women for their failings in either being ugly,
overweight or having an opinion differ from The Sun's right wing
agenda. Page 3 sets a standard of how women are treated, i.e. either
ogled or mocked.
The campaign simply
seeks the abolition of Page 3 and invites people to support for it
for their own personal reasons. People of many different ideological
backgrounds have signed the petition. My own objection to Page 3 does
not come from any perceived negative psychological damage caused by
looking at naked women. Nor does it stem from a puritan desire to
cover up women’s flesh. It comes from a desire to liberate women
from the casual sexism in our society that Page 3 epitomises. I feel
my goals are very much in line with petition’s creator who has
demonstrated a desire to bring society to a place where casual sexism
of the Page 3 variety is no longer acceptable.
Reading a daily
paper is a very normal, very British thing to do and putting casual
sexism in a daily paper clocks the misogyny in normality. It
reinforces the idea that a sexist attitude to women is the normal way
of behaving. It also fixes in the general psyche the view that women
exist only to appear sexually desirable to men and when they do not
fit into this neat bracket they are worthless. This the normality of
of female objectification and the views it support hold back women
across the world from gender equality. The campaign wishes to end the
normality of female objectification in part through abolishing Page 3
and the way it normalises sexist attitudes.
Another argument
used in favour of Page 3 is that it is a harmless hangover from a
bygone area, much like Benny Hill or Naughty Nuns postcards. In some
ways this is true. Page 3 is from the past, it would not be started
today; it would be considered crass and sexist - which it is. The
fact that Page 3 would not be started today indicates that it does
not reflect the values of our modern society. It is worthy of note
that the Daily Mirror used to have Page 3 photographs but stopped the
practice in the 1980s because it was seen as demeaning to women.
Some wish to protect
Page 3 because they naively yearn for a mostly fictional past age
that was free from political correctness. An age where sexism was
rife, traditional gender roles were strongly enforced, and any
deviation was met with social exclusion. Although most people who
look back to the past with fondness will acknowledge that it was
sexist, they argue that sexism has been abolished from our modern
society. To them, Page 3 is a harmless relic of the past to be
preserved so that we do not lose all contact with tradition.
This argument holds
little weight as sexism has clearly not been abolished from our
society. In place of Benny Hill, Family Guy is making weekly rape
jokes. Women have made social and economic progress since the 1970s
but the playing field is still not level. Women are poorly
represented among heads of state or chief executives of large
companies. Where women have risen they have had to endure the
ridicule and low esteem in which they are held. This is mainly a
result of the institutionalised sexism that Page 3 normalises.
Page 3 reveals how
deeply ingrained sexism is in our society. The fact that some wish to
defend it is sexist in itself. It shows there is still work to be
done in rooting it out misogyny. So long as Page 3 continues the
objectification of women will be normal and natural. This in turn
maintains the uneven playing field on which women compete for jobs
and political power. In the past individual's racist behaviour went
unchallenged because broader racist attitudes in society appeared
normal. As the idea of racism being the normal state was challenged
it allowed individual's be challenged for their racist behaviour. The
same is true for sexist. The standard bearers for sexism need to be
brought down before sexism can be challenged on an individual level.
In the battle for gender equality Page 3 is Tank, ploughing its way
across the field, shielding sexism from oncoming fire with the armour
of normality.
Page 3 is complexly
unacceptable in today's modern news market place and I
cannot imagine the writing of Woodward and Bernstein next to the
image of a topless woman. Tabloid newspapers use their power to
create a culture that publicly shames women. The above example of the
public outcry against binge drinking is a perfect example of this as
the criticism falls more heavily on women who drink excessively than
men. This sexist tabloid culture cannot be stopped until Page 3 and
other examples of ingrained sexism are abolished. When the Chicago
Times were doing their duty in printing the
news and raising hell, I doubt they thought the quality of their work
would be increased by daily images of topless women.
No comments:
Post a Comment