But what happens when someone, a public figure, says something that so largely contradicts everything you thought they stood for?
If you don’t know who Germaine Greer is, you’ve either never really been that into feminism, never studied ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ or have just generally been under a rock for the past few decades. Writer of ‘The Female Eunuch’, Germaine Greer is one of the world’s ‘super feminists’. So when she wrote back in 2010 that Page 3 of The Sun wasn’t all that harmful, you couldn’t help but feel that a mother of the feminist movement had kicked you in the proverbial balls.
Last Tuesday, 4th February 2014, at ‘An Audience with Germaine Greer’, 16 year old Kathryn (who hasn’t even taken her GCSEs) sat and listened to a lecture Greer was giving on breast cancer, cosmetic surgery and image issues faced by women. At the end of the lecture, Greer opened the room up to questions, and a journalist asked Greer if she had heard of NMP3 and what her thoughts were on it. Greer (the swine) replied that she thought Page 3 was totally innocent and that it was only bought by old men (lies, I think Greer lives in some sort of bubble, anyway…) and that it was nothing in comparison to the porn that’s available online anyway.
Firstly, Ms Greer, I think you’re a traitor to the cause here. I studied you at 16 after reading Atwood and thought you were this fabulous voice of reason and now, now I just think you’re a hypocrite.
And it would appear that I’m not alone. Following Greer’s response, Kathryn got given the mic, stood up and quite calmly stated,
'I am a full supporter of no more page 3. Page three is part of mainstream culture and sexualises and objectifies women shamelessly, and is essentially a gate way into hardcore pornography. If this 'soft porn' is openly available in mainstream culture, then it makes it seem like looking at the more hardcore porn is acceptable. How can you not support a campaign that is trying to shut that down, and how can you call it innocent?'
The whole room applauded.
And it says a lot.
SHE IS 16! 16!
A 16 year old girl stood up in front of Germaine BLOODY Greer and a room full of A2 Sociology students (I repeat, she hasn’t even sat her GCSEs yet) and spoke her mind. Not only did she speak her mind, but she said the words on the lips of thousands of young women up and down this country and across the world who are BORED of being objectified on a day to day basis and being told it’s all ‘harmless’.
I wish I’d been that brave at 16. I wish I’d had the guts to stand up and shout back when told that I was over reacting about the boys who branded my friends ‘sluts’ because they’d kissed someone at a party… Hell, I wish I’d had that much courage 9 months ago when I was bartending and customers felt it perfectly ok to comment on my chest when making their cocktails as if I wasn’t even there at all.
Germaine Greer is meant to be a feminist figure head. She should be at the forefront of a campaign that is trying to end the daily objectification of young women. Porn and Page 3, simply cannot be compared in my books. You go looking for porn, you know what you are doing, you’ve made the conscious decision to watch it. Same goes for when you buy a ‘lad mag’. You know what you’re looking at. People buy The Sun because it is a newspaper, Ms Greer, they buy it because, presumably, they want to know what is going in the world. Therefore, please, please, PLEASE tell me how this image of a young woman, boobs akimbo, on the third page of a NEWSPAPER is in anyway innocent, because I’m obviously missing the point here.
I mean, Page 3 has become so damn normalised that even one of the world’s leading feminists thinks it’s ok!
We live in a society where, when the lights get dimmed and music goes up, it is ok to see women as objects. Where girls are taught that if they go out alone in the dark they risk being attacked and where the media has no issues using the bodies of women to sell whatever product the latest big cooperation has invented.
We need more Kathryn’s. We need more young women (and men) who see the things that need to changed and aren’t afraid to challenge those who stand in their way.
Young girls are starting to find their voices. The idea that Page 3 out dated is no longer the fight of middle aged, middle class women with little more to do. We’re finding our voices, and we’re using them.
So society should be prepared that we won’t be silenced until it’s an equal playing field out there…
Greer, I’m talking to you.
Well said. I'm afraid Greer is a bit of a has been and is no longer relevant in today's society. She should move over and give some space to women like Kathryn.
ReplyDeleteWow, huge respect to Kathryn and thank you Haley for writing this up. I think perhaps this reflects a difference in age and status. Greer as an older, powerful, autonomous woman is almost certainly unaffected day to day by page 3. But how sad that she has forgotten what casual but rampant sexism and objectification is like for young women today.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about Greer - she loves the spotlight too much and by her own admission, she and her cohorts kicked off reality TV as we know it - ugh! I think she needs to re-examine her throw-away remark and 'woman up' to today's world issues affecting women or risk becoming completely out of touch.
ReplyDeleteActually, Germaine Greer was an icon of hippie counter-culture in the sixties, embracing the sexual revolution, and she famously posed nude for a magazine of the time. So whatever you might think of Page 3 and Greer's views about it, I think the accusation of hypocrisy or sell-out is wide of the mark. And as for the person quoted as saying Page 3 is a gateway to hardcore pornography; that's just nonsense. Page 3 is no more a gateway to hardcore porn than pot is a gateway drug for heroin. I'm certainly not a fan of Page 3 but I'd rather arguments against it are rooted in reality than fantasy.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Well put. I didn't know Greer took that view. That is disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the commenter above and with what you said about pornography. It's a separate issue. I don't think there's anything wrong with pornography, per se - it just needs to come from a better place. Page 3 could never come from a better place.
Keep writing.
I know that Greer posed nude, and no point has this campaign been set against the nudity of women. Its just the idea that this women who stood for female liberation is ok with a largely male boardroom deciding that a half naked young girl should be a focal point of a newspaper!
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading and commenting though x
You make yourself sound 16 when you don't have the courtesy to call her Ms or Germaine Greer . Also haven't you noticed that male models get draped over goods to sell them ?
ReplyDeleteAll right, so Kathryn is 16. This doesn't make her right or rational. NMP3 supporters should explain - objectively, please - exactly what "objectification" means. Failing this, they should expect to be thought of as prudes masquerading as feminists and fakes who cynically take advantage of feminism. One wonders whether Ms. Greer is the real traitor here.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is your friend: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/07/02/sexual-objectification-part-1-what-is-it/
DeleteWas that too difficult for you?
If you do not understand what a word means you should really try and find out, or ask politely rather than demanding that people explain it to you (in a rather aggressive manner I might add).
Absolutely: her being right and rational is entirely unconnected to her age. It's the height of solipsism to assume bad faith because you lack awareness of a huge part of the debate. Why should the campaigners expect to be taken for "fakes" because you don't understand the issue?
DeleteThe page three debate has been going on for such a long time, and I definitely see your well executed point of view. I don’t think page three can be called ‘innocent’ its aimed at a target audience as with magazines such as FHM, Nuts – or whatever they’re called nowadays. Having studied Sociology and read varying schools of thought regarding feminism – much of what they stand for is contradictory. If I get on my soapbox, I will start to digress from the point – so I will leave my soapbox in its cupboard.
ReplyDeleteI applaud your standpoint regarding page three; images of both men and women are projected at us daily – but there is no getting away from it ‘sex sells’ – always has done. Obviously, there are different levels of images – but we are talking about page three. Is it a gateway to porn? – I do not know – I have not stood at that gateway. My opinion is the internet is far more dangerous than page three, I dread to think of what images you can search. Ms Greer has her opinion – we can disagree – an image could be thought innocent, but in the wrong hands, it is a danger. Feminism encourages women’s emancipation – maybe to some this means being free from the shackles of ones clothing?
Claire Short said that these papers that have page three often have stories about ‘rape’ on the front page, then you turn to page three and there she is the big breasted beauty ready to be ogled by whoever. Not good, . . . talk about sending mixed messages . . .
My humble opinion are these papers are ‘tasteless’ full of tattle and therefore I don’t buy them. We do have a choice – page three is not in every paper – when a person goes into a shop they make their choice of what to buy.
I don’t agree with page three in newspapers, but where would Sam Fox and Jordan be without page three? H’mmmmm tough debate here . . .
I'm saddened to hear that Dr Greer said this, I agree that she was wide of the mark in this instance. I do think however that she may well think, like others I’ve spoken with, that Page 3 is simply small fry in a world where so much “sick” porn is freely available. But I agree with you that it is an important starting point and don’t think the campaign goes far enough. I should like to point out two things if I may. One is that the picture (if it’s the one I believe you are referring to) that Dr Greer posed for was actually a picture she took of herself and was meant to be an ironic, beyond the pale image to show up how ludicrous the objectification of women is. It was meant to be part of a collage and her magazine colleagues used it on its own as a front page and she has, I believe, always regretted it and always felt betrayed. Saying she posed for a nude shot gives a very different meaning. Secondly, it might be wise not to rush to proclaim Dr Greer to be a “swine,” since whatever her opinions now and however dated or out of current streams of thinking you may consider her to be, she has been an important trailblazer and intellectual stalwart for our cause and as such she deserves our respect and gratitude. Her earlier works remain absolutely vital. Infighting helps no-one. Keep your young voices shouting out, it’s wonderful to hear them. Just don’t forget whose shoulders you’re standing on.
ReplyDeleteI have utmost respect for Germaine Greer and the women before (and after) her who have paved the way for voices like mine to be heard. I also agree that when she posed nude, she intended those images to be something she had control over. That's the issue with Page 3, for me, because the models have so little say in it, 'news in brief' and the fact that The Sun states that you can 'take the girls for a spin' if you log on to the online version of Page 3, support that.
ReplyDeleteI think that's why myself and others feel let down by her, and the way she's just sort of swept the issue under the carpet, so to speak. It seems hypocritical that someone who wrote about the female form was being belittled is able to ignore Page 3.
Nice article. I completely agree that P3 should be a thing of the past - why support a product in a newspaper that on page 1 scorns all sick under-age related activity and then you turn the page and it says "hey, meet ms X - she turned 16 today!!!" - disgusting and hypocritical to say the least.
ReplyDeleteHowever, its not just women. Men are increasingly being subjected to the same materials and feeling more and more that they need to live up to standards set by fitness magazines, TV advertising, brand association etc. I suggest the (quite correct) opinions subjected by this article would be better served if it were less focussed on one aspect of exploitation (for lack of a better term) and in fact the role that advertisers and newspapers play on all of our lives at the emotional level. Then again, we don't have a male counterpart for Greer - so at least you do have her (and many like her) in your corner.
Keep writing!
I am in complete agreement here, Now I'm a guy, and a fairly manly one at that, but i am completely totally and utterly disgusted that page 3 exists. Just thought i'd pop by and let you know that there are guys out there who hate it as much as you ladies do.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant piece. The NMP3 campaign is amazing and I only wish it started back when I was a teenager (in the 80s) and wet t-shirt competitions were fashionable. Our then MP actually judged the one at our local hospital fete. Can you believe it? Greer's sexual revolution seemed to be mainly about women being able to control their own fertility and for the first time being able to have sex without fear of getting pregnant. then being told they were frigid if they didn't want to. My Mum and her friends lived through it and that was what it was like according to them. It wasn't much of a sexual revolution if unmarried women were still sent off in disgrace to have their babies and then the babies taken away for adoption. You can't have free sex unless having children outside of marriage becomes acceptable which it didn't for at least another 20 years. The sexual revolution was about men having their cake and eating it. Page 3 is about men pretending to read the news but really leering over some young half naked girl. Miss Greer needs to stop trying to be one of the men and actually stand up for her own sex.
ReplyDeleteShame on Gernaine Greer. She's giving old age a bad name! She used to have a good brain - what's happened?
ReplyDelete