I was one of the many people who signed petitions to get 'Page 3' removed and I never thought I'd see the day that the little people beat Murdoch, I dreamed hard about it, but to finally hear those words was incredible!
Now I know many people are reacting differently to this news, but this is my blog and therefore my personal opinion, you're entitled to yours & I'm entitled to mine.
I have always hated page 3 and the topless models in there.. 'Charlotte from Birmingham likes watching TV in her slippers' - or whatever. I never understood why it was ok for these young women to be viewed topless in a morning paper.
It's their body & their choice, the female form is beautiful, men who like it aren't sexual predators - that is not my issue with page 3.. My issue is time, place and circumstance.
If these consenting women of legal age want to appear naked in any form, that is their choice as an adult. But there is a platform for this, lads mags, the Internet, porn etc.. Somewhere where adults can choose to view this content.
However when it's in a morning paper which I have personally seen left open on trains, at children's eye level in a news agents and being read next to me on a bus, I think it's utterly unnecessary.
In a newspaper which the majority of people I know, understand is pure garbage already, for no reason there on the 3rd page is a topless woman.
If my goddaughter one day asked me, 'why does that woman have her top off?' I honestly don't know how to explain it to her, because it's pointlessly in there.
In a world where at the moment nursing mothers are told to cover up and not nurse in public, whilst doing the best thing they can for their babies & using their breasts for their INTENDED purpose - our society shuns them & feels offended by breasts.
BUT it's acceptable for women to be topless in a day time newspaper. This is too much of an ignorant hypocritical gap for me to bear.
What this implies to me is that breasts are only acceptable in our society if they are there for sexual purposes (and not even for art like some people keep clinging to).. I mean even facebook removes even remotely sexual images and that's the fricking internet!
This is where it proves to me that Murdoch just wanted to put in as much crap to sell newspapers (who can blame the grease ball) but in no way was he trying to 'empower women' (so don't start) and neither was he just giving lovely models a wonderful job.. and don't think it's totally innocent & doesn't affect our culture.
With its placement it is complicit in promoting the notion that women are only useful when attractive (I'm not searching for a deeper meaning for feminist propaganda, it's just the facts of society - what we are faced with shapes the public) the whole pile of shit should be scrapped, but it is music to my ears to know that at least in this very easily viewable medium it will:
1. No longer be easily accessible to minors.
2. It will no longer assist with the overtly sexual propaganda women need to face every day from every medium.
3. Rupert Murdoch lost
I know that this is an issue that men & women stood together against & that the public aren't all stupid enough to see a topless woman and think less of all women, but from now on if you want to see titties just search for it somewhere else (you're an intelligent adult, I'm sure you can find them..) and those models clearly have other jobs they can go on to. I don't think we need to lose any sleep over that 😋
Love xx
Good post, well written.
ReplyDelete