Imagine, if you will, that you’re sat down one evening getting ready to watch the News on Channel 4. The main headline comes on and it’s a very serious topic of recession, and the threat of double-dip, and the cuts – then Jon Snow gets his balls out. With no warning at all, he just pulls out his scrotum, pulls a provocative pose with them, tells you that in his spare time he likes ‘partying and horse riding’, before popping them away and getting right back to the news. He’s still Jon Snow, still an intelligent man with very insightful opinions, but now you’ve just seen his fun-bags. Would you, in all honesty, still be able to take him seriously? Would his opinions even matter anymore?
No they wouldn’t, because you would still be thinking about his package.
|Just picture this man’s balls – PICTURE IT!
And let’s just imagine that it wasn’t just a one off thing. Let’s imagine that everyday Jon Snow, and other male members of the news team, just starting displaying their junk at the start of every News program. And that over time, the men became younger and younger, and their opinions mattered less and less while the size of their balls mattered more and more. The men would care less and less about the news, and instead of using their money on education, they would splash their cash on ball implants, thinking that the bigger their testicles the more successful they would be. Why, pretty soon you couldn’t have a man on the News team because no one would take them seriously. The real news would be left to the women, while men in the media would only be employed for the size of their sacks and how well they pouted on camera.
Now when you picture this, doesn’t it sound absurd? No way would we let the British media get into such a state. But the fact is, it’s already like this. But surprise, surprise, because its female fun bags on show it’s considered perfectly natural. Hell, so natural that it can even happen in a family orientated newspaper.
I am of course, referring to The Sun’s Page 3.
Recently the campaign ‘No More Page 3’ has been gaining increasing momentum. On twitter, in blogs (hey, I’m part of a social movement), and with online petitions, the movement has been growing. But with publicity, comes criticism. Most people seem to justify Page 3 with the excuse ‘it wouldn’t be there if it didn’t sell, it’s not The Sun’s fault that men want to look at boobs. Stopping men looking at boobs is unstoppable.’
And while I agree getting a member of the male sex to stop staring at tits is a problem, it doesn’t necessary validate the pro-page 3 argument. For a start, why do men think it’s acceptable to look at women, young girls really, in this manner? Could it be, that by putting these overly sexualised pictures of young girls in a mainstream newspaper that it standardises this way of thinking? ‘Hey, young girls have tits what else can you do but objectify them, everyone else is!”
|Just by typing the word ‘girls’ into google, this is what I got.
Similarly, why do young women freely pose for Page 3 or any other magazine that objectifies women? Because Page 3 is telling them that their worth lies in their breasts, not their head. Who cares what women are writing, we want to know what’s under their shirt! If all women see in the paper is that their body, not their opinion, is valued, then of course they’re going to want to join the band wagon. Similarly, if men mirror this idea back at them, by wolf whistling at any old knockers in the street (not because he’s a bad person, but because from the age of 12 he’s been looking at page 3, and the idea that women LOVE having their bodies judged is just a natural idea to him now) then the women who are subjected to this objectification START BELIEVEING IT!
So if your choices that you make freely, are determined by factors out of your control, are these decisions even your own? Can we accept the girl on Page 3’s decision for exposing herself as HER decision, when she’s been conditioned into it?
‘I hear you, but to play devils advocate, objectification happens across the board, in all elements of society, why ban Page 3 and not porn, lap dancing, sex in advertising etc. I’d like to think that educated adults recognise that the Page 3 ‘ideal’ is not the only form of beauty but a cartoon like stereotype and take it/ignore it for what it is.’
Now there’s no denying that Katy has a point. Page 3 isn’t the only factor in the modern day standard of female objectification. Many factors lend themselves to the state of society. But does that mean it should be an all or nothing situation? If we can’t ban them all, should we ban none of them?
Because even if we can’t get rid of porn, or close down the lap dancing clubs, or remove sex from advertising, by getting rid of Page 3 we at least take a stand and say: ‘Yes objectification happens in many mediums but this is us taking a stand against it, this is us saying we don’t want things to be this way anymore.’ And the louder we shout this message, the more stones we throw in the pond, the bigger the ripples and results will be. With no more Page 3, maybe advertisers will recognize we value more than just sex in our society. And many without Page 3, 10 year old boys won’t start oogling women at an early age, which means later in life, maybe he won’t go spending his money in a lap dancing club.
So if you would like to have a newspaper that values the news and not the size of some 18-year-old’s nipples. And if you would like women to have more worth in the media than just their cup size. Please start the change today and sign the ‘No More Page 3’ petition, because I wouldn’t want to stare at Jon Snow’s testicles…