BEWARE! – No More Page 3 is pro-porn!

This past year I’ve been really excited about the No More Page 3 campaign.  Even though I’m not British the very idea of a page 3 in a newspaper just sends intense waves of anger into my body.  When I was in London this past summer I got to see it several times being leered at by men on the tube.  Definitely making for an uncomfortable environment for female passengers.

So while I’ve been very supportive for awhile and have signed my name to the petition, I can no longer support this campaign.

This song “No More Page 3” by the campaign’s own chorus ends by encouraging men who enjoy objectifying women in their newspapers to stick to using online pornography.  When questioned by a woman that I follow on twitter their response was pretty upsetting.

Image

I can’t support this kind of thinking.  There is no objectification of women that is acceptable.  There is no context in which it is appropriate for men to access pornography.  Essentially what we’re asking from men then is this: Don’t shove your degradation of women in my face, do it behind my back.

I think we can and should be campaigning for a bit more than that.  I also reject the use of “pro-choice” to be used in the context of pornography use.  At no point in history has men’s abuse and consumption of prostituted women been untolerated whereas the traditional use of “pro-choice” refers to women being granted basic access to healthcare.  A right which has been consistently attacked by many of the same men who read the Sun as well as consume pornography and rape prostituted women.

 

Advertisements

5 responses to “BEWARE! – No More Page 3 is pro-porn!

  1. I’m disappointed and surprised. A campaign against Page 3, in the absence of an anti-porn position, sounds like the stance that objectification, exploitation, mistreatment and appropriation of women’s bodies are fine so long as it’s not occurring in a ‘family-friendly’ context.

    i.e., there is no feminist-based opposition to it, but simply the concern that it not occur somewhere where parents might need to explain it to their children. This is a right-wing approach to the subject, where the treatment of certain women is considered fine so long as not everyone has to look at it. Ultimately, this harms all women and girls.

  2. Sigh yet again another organisation has been infiltrated and hijacked by individuals who believe women aren’t human but merely mens’ disposable sexual service stations. The claims made by this pro pornstitution group are diametrically opposite to their claims they wish to eliminate ‘page 3.’

    Why do these individuals believe ‘page 3′ is male sexual objectification of women but that males have the sacrosanct right of viewing/accessing same images provided they are only shown on the internet? This isn’t about holding men to account for their sacrosanct pseudo right to view degrading images of women in national newspapers but about supposedly protecting children (as if children aren’t sexed individuals) from mens’ degrading images of women being printed in mens’ newspapers.

    Where do adult men learn the misogynistic lie that women and girls aren’t human but merely mens’ disposable/interchangeable sexualised service stations? Why from mens’ powerful tool the malestream media of course. Children are sexed which means boys and girls learn that only boys are human and hence boys and males have right to view/treat women and girls as males’ dehumanised sexualised objects. Girls learn they aren’t human but merely exist to serve male needs and male demands, including pseudo male right of sexual access to their bodies. But this fact is conveniently ignored by those pro-pornography activists. Page 3 is pornography but this fact too has to be ignored because the only real issue is protecting children (sic) from male created porn published in a malestream pseudo newspaper.

    The organisers of this pseudo campaign conveniently forget mens’ images depicting women as dehumanised sexualised commodities are common within malestream advertising and this advertising is in public view on huge posters and bus stops. Do children walk down public streets wearing blinkers?

    The organisation No More page 3 must re-name itself as ‘No more porn in newspapers but more porn on the internet.’

    Women do not have ‘choice’ because it is not women who created mens’ porn and Page 3 but men. It is men driving demand for more mens’ malestream pornography and yet representative from No More Page 3 naively believes women have a choice whether or not to access/view pornography! If that is the case then women too have the choice of accessing/viewing The Sun so why have a campaign telling The Sun to remove its page 3 images?

    Women have the choice of whether or not to view/access The Sun so no need for a campaign calling for The Sun to abolish its decades of misogynistic dehumanisation of women.

  3. They’re afraid of running afoul of The Menz if they oppose porn. Porn is a juggernaut these days. So they just want to move the porn to a different “context”.
    I found out a while back that Lucy-Anne Holmes, who started this campaign, thinks there’s such a thing as “feminist porn” and has been flogging it on her website, calling it a “new sexual revolution” or somesuch. I quit the NMP3 campaign at that point and told her why. I even offered to send back my t-shirt.

    The campaign wasn’t “infiltrated”. Holmes was a porn-loving liberal “feminist” from the get-go.

  4. This is so f*cking depressing.

  5. Their twitter response almost made my eyes roll out of my head.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s