I sat down today with the intention of writing the next instalment of my favourite albums of 2014 countdown but hadn't the heart to after coming across the media storm surrounding The Sun's judgement to continue to publish its page three feature of topless, bare-chested young female glamour models. This was after persistent speculation that it was to be dropped.
The public have been equally spilt with this issue and there has been all sorts of absurd, senseless arguments in favour of the publication. Crazy accusations that banning the feature will cause avoidable unemployment to these models, that it is 'feminism' gone too far, how it is a blow to free speech or that it is just seeking to control women. There's been the fair argument that it's a case of choice, these models choose this career, it's each individual's choice to buy the newspaper or not.
There was an article I read that deemed the debate sheer prudery and an act of snobbery towards The Sun's readers, claiming that they can very well distinguish reality from fantasy and to stop trying to cheapen their readership.
There's been the argument that the dispute is full of double standards, suggesting that the Calvin Klein ads featuring men in their underpants should also be reviewed, that the David Beckham H&M adverts are equally tasteless and that if the movement simply addressed equality then all of this should be discussed. Clearly, an objectified image of a person, male or female in a newspaper isn't right but this issue is about more than equality, if that makes sense.
The reality is the page three feature demeans women and shouldn't be appearing in such a generally circulated national newspaper. It is soft core pornography, that is inappropriate for publication in something readily available to children. It contributes to a culture that portrays young women as sexual objects, it negatively affects female body image and it adds to an attitude tolerating sexual violence against young women.
I understand that if you switch on MTV more than likely you will see half-naked female singers and dancers, at the click of a mouse there is no shortage of explicit images readily available worse than what The Sun is offering but it's the context here that's being criticised. The point being you have to go look for it, search for it on your own accord. For a child to see a topless women demeaning herself in a newspaper that his or her father, mother, grandparents buy allows them to think this sort of behaviour is accepted and it normalises an attitude that women should be perceived as sex objects. There's no censorship here, at least with lads' magazines, pornography sites there is some degree of control and restriction.
On 10 October 2014 Malala Yousafzai, a seventeen year old Pakistani activist known for her strong activism towards female education was announced as being the youngest ever Noble Peace Prize recipient, yet the most prominent pictured woman in that newspaper that day would have been an image of a young girl in her underwear. This is only one of many achievements by women in the last forty years since page three's establishment. What sort of message is that sending out?
What's really made me sick about the whole thing is The Sun has done nothing but gain from this controversy. This debate generated more exposure than any of their marketing campaigns possibly could ever have, and when people assumed they were turning their attitude they didn't do a lot to silence the rumours. This could have all been a publicity stunt for all we know, it brought them to the forefront of the public eye and if that's the case they really have hit a new low.
It is time for our society to grow up and behave responsibly to its children. Of course if this campaign was successful it wasn't going to change decades of culturally engrained stereotypes but it would have been a huge step in the right direction. No doubt it will sadly continue to cause offence to both women and men.
Don't buy the newspaper? We are still impacted by things we cannot see.
0 comments:
Post a Comment