I was reading Glamour UK yesterday, and I’ve just discovered that Lucy Holmes launched a petition, asking The Sun to remove its famous Page 3.
The idea, at very first sight, can be inspiring: the page 3 represents women as objects, it’s a fact. I could agree with this point: there’s no comment behind that, it’s just boobs for boobs.
But the #nomorepage3 confuses me, as a male and as a proactive male-feminist: is it a movement to shape a new sort of journalism? After all, “boobs aren’t news” is one of the core message of the campaign. And then, once you read the diverse letters and editorials, signed by Lucy Holmes in Glamour, there’s a misleading twist which is promoted. Her argument is to say that there’s a connection between Page 3 bare boobs and sexual assaults in UK. Even if Lucy Holmes’ own story is such a sadly demonstration of how men behave in an intolerable way towards women sometimes, I think that the campaign misses at least 3 things:
- first, I don’t think that avoiding sex / glamourous pictures in media is going to change the rate of rapes. To be provocative, a lot of countries who banned “offensive” pictures have a very poor consideration for their women; implementing conservative laws without educating people is a just a waste of time
- in the communication of Lucy Holmes, it’s all about men and how men are supposed to be stupid. I see a picture = I’m going to rape you is such a wrong path. If you want to change the world, you cannot always tackle men because they are men. You need to embrace us in your cause; we’ll fight against assaults because we’ll be together, not separated groups
- the communication of this specific campaign only works because it’s a ready-to-think campaign. But out of communication, what’s beyond that? What does Lucy want to change? And even for media who “use” Lucy Holmes, what’s next? Another buzz, another talk-show where we’ll react to a sad intimate story, not to a greater engaging movement…
Pussy Riots, Femen, are probably challenging this Nore More Page 3 roots. By showing female power and engaging broader audiences, not by imposing a conservative rule.
What do you think?