Big Question: Does Page 3 degrade women?
Amber McNaught writes:
Page Three, eh? It's a British institution, like black cabs, red post boxes and Cilla Black. Unlike the black cabs and red post boxes, though - but a little bit like "our" Cilla, come to think of it - Page Three is more than a little bit embarrassing, isn't it? Why should we have a tradition of placing a big pair of naked boobs on the first right-hand page of our tabloids, after all? Isn't that just slightly weird? Won't someone please think of the children?
On the other hand, never mind the children, what about the women themselves - the ones who appear on the glamour pages, pouting suggestively as they thrust forward their mammaries for our curious inspection? Aren't they being demeaned, reduced to nothing more than eye candy? Or are they just astute businesswomen, exploiting two of their best assets and getting paid more for it than they'd get for a week's "normal" (clothed) work? It's this week's Big Question, folks. And the answer?
Well, I think the fact that the Page 3 girl appears only in a certain type of tabloid newspaper is a pretty big clue, don't you? This is the type of "news" paper that's written to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A paper in which such "news" as there is needs to be accompanied by the image of a pair of super-sized boobs in order to persuade people to read it. It represents not just the objectification of women, but the dumbing down of society in general. And for this reason? It sucks.
It's a dumbing down that's been going on for a long time, too. Topless models first started appearing in The Sun in 1970. The Sun is very proud of this fact, as indeed, most of its models are proud to appear there. They speak of how it makes them feel "empowered" and "liberated". Wow! If only those early feminists had known all they had to do was whip off their shirts...
Then again, in a time when kidney transplants are seen as valid forms of entertainment and the world in general appears to be going to hell in a hand basket, does it really matter what handful of women choose to do to earn a crust? And at least they are out there earning - like any other "businesswoman" they're simply supplying a commodity there's clearly a demand for - themselves. Or rather, their bodies. Rather than being exploited, they're the ones doing the exploiting - or so they say, anyway.
It's this argument that has turned Page Three - and the idea of posing nude for money in general - from the slightly grubby embarrassment it was back in 1970, to the valid career choice for women it's seen as today. Thanks to the likes of Katie Price/Jordan, there's a whole generation of kids out there for whom the question "What do you want to be when you grow up?" is just as likely to be answered with "A topless model, please!" as anything else. A topless photo shoot for the News of the World is the natural next step for exiting Big Brother contestants. Page three has lost much of its stigma - but should it have? That, my friends, is the Big Question. It's up to you to answer it...
Amber McNaught is a freelance writer and regular Shiny Contributor. She only ever reads The Sun for research purposes, honest...
The problem is, it's quite evidently exploitation because their decisions are only informed by a very small and depressing life experience wherein flashing your tits is no longer a degrading, embarrassing choice, but the normal way to get attention and a measure of warped respect. But, of course, if you pointed that out to them, you'd be accused of arrogance for not respecting their "choice".
Posted by: Alex | May 31, 2007 5:50 PM