The V Spot

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Holly Baxter of the Vagenda Magazine

On Page 3 and in-fighting in the feminist movement

The Sun's Page 3 is awful and outdated, and hating it doesn't mean that you hate sex, say Rhiannon and Holly of the Vagenda.

By Rhiannon and Holly Published 08 October 2012 10:01

Lovely pears. Photo: Flickr/Hankzby, used under a Creative Commons licence

Lovely. Photo: Flickr/Hankzby, used under a Creative Commons licence

The feminist movement has always been plagued by in-fighting. If you need any convincing of that, just take a look at Tanya Gold’s recent article in the Spectator, where she recounts several notable lady-scraps - the most vicious of which involves Camille Paglia allegedly calling Julie Burchill a ‘pig-fucking cunt’.

At its most negative, pigs aside, it has boiled down to factions from one side telling the other that they aren’t even ‘qualified’ or ‘allowed’ to call themselves feminists at all, whatever that means (an accusation that has been levied against us). And while the inability of feminists to just get along like the nice, polite, cuddly little sisterhood you’d surely expect a group of women to be has often been used as a stick with which to beat the movement, it shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Feminism is made no different from any other political movement merely by being mostly populated by women, and expecting it to be so is frankly ridiculous. While we’re not calling for a repeat of ‘pig-fucking-cunt-gate’, we’ll acknowledge that controversy in the ranks isn’t about to end - and, that settled, we might just stick our own oar, very briefly, into the murky waters of intra-feminist debate.

The New Statesman’s own Martin Robbins is up for our ire this week, with his decision to put forward an anti-anti Page 3 article. It showed a pro-nudity but not exactly pro-Page 3 stance that relied mostly upon a personal attack on the creator of an online petition. Rather than do what most people do when a petition they disagree with comes around (shrug and not sign it), Robbins levied an unnecessary tirade about the petition’s creator, Lucy Holmes, calling her supposed anti-nudity stance ‘sinister’ and arguing that the solution to the Page 3 conundrum would be to put more nudity in newspapers instead. Most of his article took issue with the fact that Holmes once apparently said sex should be ‘beautiful’, which he then extrapolated to mean that she probably wanted to ban all porn. Then he ended on the idea that we should keep Page 3, and ‘add some cocks in too’. Awesome.

At the time of writing, the No More Page 3 petition has 44,000 signatures, many of whom, if Robbins is to be believed, are puritans disgusted by the sight of a naked human body. This is one of the most problematic aspects of Robbins’ argument, because it assumes that everyone joins movements for the same reasons, when in fact the opposite is true. Any movement comprised of 44,000 people is going to be made up of varying points of view and insights and experiences. In this sense Lucy Holmes’ own (assumed) personal views on nudity cease to be of central importance. Enough people felt that boobs were not news to sign on the dotted line. Some will inevitably find nudity somewhat offensive – this is England, after all – but just as many will be signing because they don’t want their kids to grow up in a world in which they have to witness what one commenter described as ‘the normalised commodification of the female body'. As they pointed out, it’s the casualness, the ordinariness of that commodification which is disturbing, and which many object to. It perpetuates shitty ideas about women everywhere, not just those posing in their best French knickers on a printed page.

This is something many women know, and understand. They have spoken out about the effect that seeing Page 3 has on their confidence, their wellbeing, and the way they perceive their place in society – as sex objects, as the receptacles of men’s egos and gazes and penises, routinely ogled over buttered toast, normalised. Those women’s voices are important, and should be heard. We wouldn’t accuse Robbins of ‘mansplaining’ – a word used by some feminists to indicate a man preaching to women about the nature of their own oppression in a patronising manner – mainly because it isn’t a very good word, but we will tentatively tout the idea that he is speaking from a position of male privilege, and that those (varied, complex) feelings that women experience when they look at Page 3 are likely to be somewhat alien to him.

We welcome men as part of the feminist movement – we love men – but we need them to listen to us, to our histories and our ideas and our plans, and take these into account, and think about them before accusing us of being sinister or striving for sexual hegemony. The wonderful thing about this new wave of feminism is that many different groups are campaigning on different issues, and that people can take their pick of causes to support. We’re busy, and in-fighting just wastes our time and yours. In the time that we have taken writing this smackdown, we could have been doing something much more productive, like banning porn for ever (ha ha, got you there, didn’t we, Martin?)

The saddest thing about Robbins’ argument was that he pointed out all of the negative, misogynistic parts of Page 3 - ‘dehumanising acts of mockery’, in his own words, that ‘hilariously’ juxtapose complex political views next to scantily clad women, where the joke is that females with breasts might actually have something to say about the Higgs Boson - then dismissed the anti-Page 3 campaign as a ‘slut-shaming’ exercise that aims to force everyone into the same expression of sexuality. The anti-Page 3 campaign is actually wonderfully simple. Page 3 is awful and outdated, it’s regressive and disrespectful, and we urge you to sign the petition. Not because we hate tits or nudity or doggy-style sex with handcuffs on, but because the context of those tits is important, whether you like it or not.

This is something most feminists agree on, and with good, robust, valid (varied, complex) reasons. It’s good to have a concrete target (for once). So let’s make the most of it. The black feminists may be angry at the socialist feminists, and the socialist feminists may be angry at the radical feminists, and Paglia may hate Burchill, but at least they’re all angry at men, right?

Just joking. We’re angry at you, Martin. You and The Sun.

The photo used above is from Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence. You can find the original here.

Tags: feminism

More from Rhiannon and Holly

View the discussion thread.

17 comments

Mon, 2012-11-05 05:22 — David J Parry (not verified)

'it’s the casualness, the ordinariness of that commodification which is disturbing, and which many object to.'

What is it about Page 3 that makes it 'commodification' of the female body? Is it the fact that the women are being paid to partially undress themselves? In which case, I might point out that not all of them are paid and, in any case, you could raise the same objection against male strip shows. You could say that because men are being paid at clubs to strip down to their underwear for the amusement of women (and gay and bisexual men), this amounts to the commodification of the male body. Somehow, though, I find it implausible that you would.

Alternatively, is it the fact that people are paying for the images of topless women? In which case you could, on the same token, object to photographs of topless men in 'Love it!' or Cosmopolitan or, for that matter, magazines aimed at gay and bisexual men. Would you, though? I doubt it.

Or maybe it's both, in which case I put forth both aforementioned objections to your complaint.

'the effect that seeing Page 3 has on (women's) confidence, their wellbeing, and the way they perceive their place in society – as sex objects, as the receptacles of men’s egos and gazes and penises, routinely ogled over buttered toast, normalised.'

Once again, you could make an analogous complaint about photos of topless or near-naked men in Cosmopolitan, 'Love it!', or magazines aimed at gay and bisexual men. You could say that these photos turn the men featured in them into 'sex objects' or 'the receptacles of women's (and/or other men's) egos and gazes, women's vaginas and other men's penises, routinely ogled over buttered toast'. Would you, though? Again, I don't think so, somehow.

'we urge you to sign the petition.'

In the words of Thatcher: 'NO! NO! NO!'

P.S. 'This is something most feminists agree on'

Most feminists? Do you have statistics to support this assertion? I'm not holding my breath.

Sun, 2012-11-04 21:50 — Psychologist (not verified)

It seems to me that the nub of the matter is what kind of society do we want ourselves and others to live in?
Sound child development and adult mental health are based on secure, loving and respectful relationships. Where an individual's environment does not meet these needs sufficiently well negative consequences ensue e.g difficulty in making and sustaining secure relationships with others; seeking self soothing through addictions etc. Being a page 3 girl does not meet the criteria for maintaining sound mental health but rather
Helps to normalise a position where a women values herself and is valued for being an object and meeting a narrow band of physical criteria.
The negative consequences I have mentioned are at the extreme end of the continuum but there are a lot of walking wounded out there.
It is time the debate about nudity, pornography and sexuality was informed by research into not only the social but also the psychology behind the range of behaviour in British society today - positive and negative?

Fri, 2012-10-12 12:35 — Chris Tine (not verified)

If we consider that pro-choice, in the context of abortion laws, is accepting that a woman should have the freedom to do what she wants with her body, is it not also pro-choice to allow women to make the decision (because it is *their* decision) to pose topless and be paid for it?

Regardless of your feelings on Page 3, nudity, etc, wanting something censored is simply another way of saying that your opinions on a subject are more important than others. "Objectifying women" is a bogey word used by women who are of the opinion that these women are being... well, objectified. Does anyone ask the page 3 girls what they think? Why not ask some of them - there's enough on Twitter. In fact, a quick search and I've already found 3 - and, amusingly, they seem more than happy to post topless photos of themselves in their feed of their own accord.

So should these Twitter photos also be banned? I would assume most people would say no. Which raises the question - what's the issue? The nudity? The objectification? Giving out the "wrong signal" to men? Or simply than a corporation is profitting from said nudity?

Wed, 2012-10-10 00:58 — ilias (not verified)

I can't believe that there are still people who, for whatever reason (justified resentment of the Sun as a fascist rag, disappointment with the quality of English "news" reporting, an blanket assertion of equality, or ignobly, out of resentment of pretty girls and the attention they get), are willing to sign on to something whose primary message is that images of pretty girls, are demeaning and cloaks that message behind non sequiturs and absurdities like 'they aren't actually beautiful that way' or it 'objectifies them'.

The reason, most of all, that this is about white middle class uni graduate women to the aggressive detriment of all others, is that it is firstly, all about women as consumers of heternormative sex.
Straight middle class women, the assumption goes, aren't interested in looking at other naked women. They want naked men to hump.
So it excludes the lesbian gaze.
It excludes the bisexual gaze.
It excludes the gaze of the open minded woman.
It assumes that little girls (think of the children, because this argument doesn't hold up among the adult population, so let's get irrationally obsessed with child protection), seeing other people paying attention to women who are literally themselves, devoid of the social conformity and submission of clothing, will feel degraded.
Yes, every time a child sees an adult of their gender getting attention, they feel like they'll never amount to anything.

How exactly is it NOT a prude position, but a 'serious, political' position?

What it's saying is, there is ONE WAY to make a living, to be respectable, to be a social role model. And that one way is, be conservative and modest in physical appearance and behavior, and sit at a desk and use your mind. In other words, conform and mind your business and don't distract people from theirs.

Wed, 2012-10-10 01:08 — ilias (not verified)

Although the article pays faint and insincere lip service to the idea of tolerance in debate, with the pabulum that it is silly for one group of feminists to label their opponent group as unfit to wear the label,

why is it that EVERY TIME this issue comes up, nobody ever cares about the perspective of the women who are objectified?

They are dismissed, likened to tools of the oppressors who've sold out their sisters for a few pennies.

I've always wondered how it came to be in England that the left wing is puritanical about sex while the right wing is liberal about it.
Logically, it should be the other way round.

PS and the bit about paglia calling someone a 'cunt', is the usual accuracy in reporting that we've come to expect from british journalism. No source for a bit of really extreme characterization. It's practically libel and utterly out of character for Paglia to use such slight and unimaginative vocabulary, when mud slinging.

Tue, 2012-10-09 09:45 — A.J. Divisive (not verified)

I assume I am a terrible person (genuinely) but I still don't get it. This piece is rather rambling and doesn't really get to the point. The most explanation I can find for page 3 being a problem refer to objectification and commercialisation without further explanation.

My brain is a coalition of processors and processes. The bit that likes to see boobies is not particularly close to the bit that values my relationships with women. Being titilated has little to do with my broader interactions or "higher" feelings - though when the two coalesce the experience is far more satisfying.

Furthermore there are plenty of countries without page 3 that appear to have far worse records on treatment of and respect for women.

I am totally prepared to get on board but I want to understand. Is it about me (men) - and how we view women - in which case I'm not sure you fully understand men's relationships with images of naked ladies though it is worth further debate. Or is it about the way the images make women feel? In which case I'm not sure that the current arguements fully explain that. Or is it about the way women think that men think about these pictures....

Either way I think the people that want page 3 banned need to strip their arguements further back and spell out the issues slowly in very simple words. Because I at least am pretty dumb and a lot of my friends are even stupider.

Tue, 2012-10-09 10:00 — A.J. Divisive (not verified)

Incidentally Mr Robbins' article does make a lot of sense to me. His objections to the way page 3 is presented fit neatly in my brainspace.

Again, I have a feeling that I am very wrong, I just want you to spend a bit more time spelling out why for me.

Mon, 2012-10-08 16:35 — Des Demona (not verified)

Oddly enough, and though I see no justification for its inclusion, I think Page 3 is probably one of the least disgusting aspects of The Sun. But then, that's not saying much.

Mon, 2012-10-08 16:01 — NancyStCa (not verified)

I think this debate is certainly an important, and well needed one. And I'm happy to see bloggers from the Vagenda having their voice heard.

It is difficult to deny the voice of the 44,000 people who are signing the petition. Of course there are infinite reasons behind every individual's signature, it is essential for us to realise that that it is not only women who are signing it.

Images of bodies, whether they are in the form of photographs, paintings, films, have held a prevalent position in countless visual cultures, but I feel that Page 3 is outdated and unecessary in this day. It is not merely the singular image of a topless woman, but the fact that it is ironically placed next to some "news" which undeniably implies that the girl is a moron.

Came across a pretty relevant video on the Institute of Art & Idea's website which reminded me of the importance of contextualising the argument; I think we need to take a leaf out of the books of anthropologists and philosophers. We have to admit that The Sun is the best selling paper in the UK right now, is it due to its Page Three content or is it because it's cheap, or portrays the opinions of the majority of Britain's population? I'm unsure...

Mon, 2012-10-08 13:42 — Pavlova

I think what this boils down to is whether we want to censor media, including sexual media, that are off-message. We have to get to grips with whether censorship is valid in any circumstances and if it is, to take a more consistent approach to it.

It seems we have accepted censorship of racist and homophobic media, but are running aground on sexist media. While people demand relatively little proof of the harm done by racist material, they demand a higher burden of proof of harm for the sexist kind.

The reason being that sexist is so often sexual and men are very hostile to any attempts to censor the sexual, largely because they don't experience the disbenefits . The prudism charge is a bit of a side-issue, I think it's just a weapon of defence, you don't have to be a prude to find paid-for, consensual abuse, subjugation, commercialisation and objectification problematic.

Tue, 2012-10-09 14:35 — jankaas (not verified)

"It seems we have accepted censorship of racist and homophobic media, but are running aground on sexist media."

comparing apples with stones i think. unless you think it racist and/or homophobic to show a picture of a black and/or gay person with the caption "wow what a beauty!".

the real hard work has still not been done gathering evidence objectively proving we have a sexist media. perhaps you could start by providing a definition that applies to the media but would not allow application to art? i fear it as impossible as it is to define pornography, which is best defined by "i know it when i see it" type of subjective statements, which are of no practical use.

"The reason being that sexist is so often sexual and men are very hostile to any attempts to censor the sexual, largely because they don't experience the disbenefits ."
is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. i have a problem with censorship of for adults by definition. it has nothing to do with "disbenefits" or me feeling hostile or not. it is about consenting adults deciding for themselves what they wish to read and look at. we then decide for ourselves if we wish to read/see more of the same.

i have read and seen some material that i never need see again, and i count The Sun amongst these. though to repeat another posters words, page 3 is one of the least harmful aspects of The Sun.

"you don't have to be a prude to find paid-for, consensual abuse, subjugation, commercialisation and objectification problematic."
but it sure makes it easier than explaining oneself in an evidence based argument?

Mon, 2012-10-08 11:56 — Mamacook (not verified)

Irrespective of whether the article was a personal attack or not, it certainly failed to address the concerns of most of the people who have signed up to the petition and completely missed the point as far as I could tell.

Loved the above article, it put across a lot of my concerns really well.

I hate the fact that whenever there is a feminist argument some people (even who agree) start to say it's not "important enough" in comparison to another issue or that the women or men suggesting it are "anti sex". There is nothing anti sex or unimportant about this issue. I agree there are other things I also feel passionate about when it comes to feminism but I am capable of multitasking! This one deserves all of our attention.

Mon, 2012-10-08 11:39 — marykmac (not verified)

I don't think talking about Lucy-Anne Holmes's blogpost about "how to start a sexual revolution" is a personal attack. What Paglia called Burchill was quite definitely a personal attack, but disagreeing with the words someone has posted publicly under the title "A Manifesto..." seems like pretty fair game. I'm pro-debate within feminism and anti-infighting and personal attacks, and that definitely falls under the former.

I like Martin Robbins's work, but I'm not madly keen on the fact that the New Statesman asked a man to write a rebuttal of the No More Page 3 campaigns: there are some much better blogs by women, such as HunterNotTheHunted's.

I think HunterNotTheHunted's point about the fact that this is probably going to be a coup for the Sun rather than for feminism is important: I'm not interested in supporting a campaign that is going to further enshrine the view of feminism as something for mostly-middle-class mostly-white mostly-university-educated women, which is what the No More Page 3 campaign looks like to me (as a middle-class, white, university educated queer woman.) Deborah Orr's horrible piece about "Team Katie Price" ... "hobbled by their Lycra dresses and towering heels, so keen to be viewed as "empowered" that they can barely walk" also framed it as between "us feminists" - and "them" - and frankly, if you line up "feminists" on one side and working class women and sex-workers on the other side, I would rather align myself with "them". I've identified as a feminist for fifteen years, but I really don't want to be the kind of feminist that other women see as the enemy.

Mon, 2012-10-08 12:09 — Martin J Robbins (not verified)

"I'm not madly keen on the fact that the New Statesman asked a man to write a rebuttal of the No More Page 3 campaigns"

Glad you liked the piece, though I take your point it may have seemed better from a woman. Just to knock one thing on the head though - they didn't ask me. Actually I procrastinated for about two weeks thinking about writing something on this, and eventually I pinged Helen Lewis. She liked it, and published it. What I would say is that if you know of good bloggers who deserve more exposure (like HunterNotTheHunted) it's worth encouraging them to pitch, or pointing people like Helen in their direction.

Mon, 2012-10-08 16:44 — marykmac (not verified)

Ah, the old "who pitches" discussion! That's very interesting - thank you for adding that.

Mon, 2012-10-08 11:11 — Pavlova

Racist propaganda is relatively straightforward, the only pleasure to be had from it is the spiteful kind.

Sexist propaganda is more difficult because often the pleasure to be had is the tingly nice kind, even the orgasmic kind.

When it comes to the discrimination levelled at women, the sexism is usually smuggled in with sex. The trick is to untangle the two things.

It's perfectly possible to have a non-prudish, pluralistic attitude to sex without having a laissez-faire approach to the censorship of sexism and incitement. Just as it is to have a non-prudish, pluralistic attitude to the music hall, without having a laissez-faire approach to the censorship of racism and incitement. It just takes a recognition that orgasm isn't a mitigating factor.

Mon, 2012-10-08 10:54 — M.K. Hajdin (not verified)

"Most of his article took issue with the fact that Holmes once apparently said sex should be ‘beautiful’, which he then extrapolated to mean that she probably wanted to ban all porn."

Because banning the graphic represention of women's sexual subordination would be the most horrifying thing EVAR. Nobody in their right mind would ever object to that!

Don't worry, men. We adore you, no matter what indifference or contempt you show towards our safety or well-being, and we won't let our little cat-fighty feminist movements get in the way of eternally striving to please you. You are our first priority, always.