(Photo by mjtmail)
After more than two years of campaigning, many of the No More Page 3 crew seem pretty delighted. Which is understandable – getting the best selling and most powerful newspaper in the UK to end a tradition after four-and-a-half decades is no mean feat. They deserve hearty congratulations. But I have to confess, I'm not sure that the new situation is much better than the old one.There are at least two reasons to object to bare breasts in a national newspaper. The first is the one I started with. For a long time, Page 3 has been one of the most prominent symbol in the UK of the fact that we still live in a society in which women are judged, more than men, by their physical appearance. As Lucy said, it "conditions readers to view women as sex objects". This is a real problem. As a man living in modern Britain, I can attest to the extent to which I've been encouraged by society to see women as sex objects first, and humans second; to judge them for their bodies rather than their minds. Any blow against that is excellent news for women and men.But the second reason some people object to Page 3 is prudishness. They don't like nudity in general, and see Page 3 as the ultimate expression of the unclothedness to which they object: replace Caroline Lucas with Ann Widdicombe and you begin to get an impression of who I'm talking about. These sorts of people don't tend to hang around with the excellent feminist activists at No More Page 3 Towers. But, unlike those who ran the campaign, they are more likely to read the Sun.
Advertisement