Reader’s Response: “Page 3 isn’t the problem”

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s a feminist, my reaction to the (brief) removal of Page 3 caught me off-guard. I anticipated that I would welcome the news. However, I felt the opposite.

Fundamentally, I believe in the right to do as we please with our own bodies. If a woman wishes to take her top off, that is her prerogative. For Katie Price, it was “empowering”. It gives women financial independence and a career – why should we judge what that career entails? Isn’t the freedom to make our own choices the true meaning of equality?

The No More Page 3 (NMP3) campaign implies that we, male or female, are incapable of separating physical appearance from substance.

Nobody lambasts Heat’s Torso of the Week for objectifying men. Call me an idealist, but surely we are able to comprehend women, like men, are more than their physique?

NMP3 suggests breasts should not be public. Are breasts something we can only expose with a baby attached? Nigel Farage’s discomfort outraged us and rightly so – breasts should not be offensive. Yet many argue against Page 3 on these grounds.

The NMP3 argument that I can comprehend is that of context – it’s ‘inappropriate in a family newspaper.’ Yet, the Sun realistically can’t be one because of Page 3 itself. In terms of not exposing young children to semi-naked images, it is parental (and newsagents’) discretion that is crucial.

Focusing on Page 3 distracts us from the real issue of equal media representation. It simplifies tackling sexism to removing a picture which can easily be found elsewhere. The NMP3 campaign risks telling girls breasts are shameful. We need to teach our boys to see a woman, breasts and all, as more than her appearance.

No rational person buys the argument that a short skirt is responsible for rape; it is lazy to accept that a woman baring her breasts is responsible for the discrimination and harassment women face. The perpetrators, not the picture, are the problem.