Search

Wednesday 21 January 2015

Tits Out for the Lads

The reaction to the retirement of The Sun's Page 3 has been notable for the complete absence of wank. By which I mean, no one has mentioned the role of masturbation. Some commentators have suggested that soft-porn in a daily newspaper lost its value once the Internet opened the firehose of hardcore, but this misses the point that online porn elbowed out top-shelf mags, not tabloid newspapers. Nobody bought The Sun instead of Men Only. Some men did buy the paper to provide material they could both safely leave around the workplace and tuck under an arm as they wandered off to a toilet stall for a mid-morning hand shandy (it was less obvious than unhooking the Pirelli calendar). Presumably their needs will now be catered for by The Daily Star.


I'm not suggesting that the disappearance of Page 3 is due solely to a decline in workplace wanking, but it is worth noting the impact of two developments. Joan Smith amusingly suggested a positive role for the Internet: "What made the difference was the internet, which allowed a new generation of women to articulate their opposition to Page 3 and support each other in the face of a backlash". In fact, the key technological change was not the Web or Twitter, but the appearance after 2010 of cheap smartphones supporting video streaming. The key social change has not been the rise of third or fourth-wave feminism but tighter workplace monitoring, with some employers now docking pay or requiring formal requests for loo-breaks. In such a closely inspected environment, the five knuckle shuffle either becomes an unaffordable luxury or necessitates the "quick hit" of a two minute video.

Rupert Murdoch's decision is widely seen as epochal, but I was pleased to see that the paper had not lost its sense of proportion when it said that "Page 3 of The Sun is where it’s always been, between pages 2 and 4", suggesting they might have momentarily considered retiring it, like a football club ostentatiously reserving the squad number of a celebrated player. One thing that Murdoch and his critics had in common was the claim that Page 3 was "old-fashioned", but this is as redundant as saying that Eastenders and Coronation Street are old-fashioned. The question is, what sort of old-fashioned? Rent-a-rant defenders have tried to put it in the tradition of British bawdy, but a better clue was provided by one critic, Stella Creasy, saying "we didn’t need boobs with our breakfast tables", as if most people still got a paper delivered and had time to read it over their boiled egg and soldiers before setting off for work. Surely they have convenience stores and coffee shops in Walthamstow? And do they really still say "boobs"?

While many have associated Page 3 with Benny Hill, a man who literally ran away from adult women, a more troubling spectre has been Jimmy Savile, with many pointing out that The Sun only stopped using 16-year old models in 2003 and was happy once upon a time to dress them in school uniforms. Famously, the paper ran a countdown in advance of Sam Fox's 16th birthday, having featured her previously but without exposed nipples. Paul Gadd (aka Gary Glitter) is currently appearing at Southwark Crown Court (and on a double page spread of The Sun, no doubt). But I think it is wrong to imagine, as Joan Smith does, that "The sexual revolution made Page 3 possible", not least because it was more Health & Efficiency than Forum. This was a cultural artefact of the 70s and 80s, rather than the 60s, and one that looked quaint by the 90s with the arrival of "lads' mags" and their recuperation of Robin Askwith and all his works. Page 3 was of its time, and therefore inescapably Thatcherite, and you wouldn't explain her away as an opportunistic byproduct of second-wave feminism.

Another critique of Page 3's failing powers centres on the increasing use of candid shots of nude or partially-clothed slebs across the media. Some of these will be as staged as the traditional model photos while others are on the border of an invasion of privacy. In contrast, Page 3 was highly formulaic, from its fetishistic staging to the language and tone of the caption. In other words, it was looking increasingly tired up against MailOnline's human zoo, the 'sidebar of shame', which appears to have cornered the mass-market in both self-righteous prurience and borderline lewd since the demise of The News of the World. One common assumption is that MailOnline appeals mainly to women, just like the print version, hence the obsession with physical imperfection and diets, however it appears to do equally well among men, and quite possibly the same "lads" who used to buy Loaded in the 90s and are now fascinated by Kim Kardashian's arse.

Why did Page 3 last for 44 years? It wasn't Murdoch's stubbornness in the face of feminists, nor his commitment to free speech (announcing its demise in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings has predictably stimulated the usual suspects into concerns over self-censorship). I think the clue is that it has almost covered the entire working life of the core Thatcher generation. Someone born in the mid-50s would have been a teenager when Page 3 appeared, and will now be approaching retirement. Up to the 70s, women tended to vote more for the Conservatives than Labour. The Thatcher breakthrough owed much to the initial maintenance of that advantage augmented by a swing to the right by male voters. From the 80s onwards, women have shifted left, coincident with their growing presence in the labour market. Though there is much talk at election time of targeting women, in reality it is male voters who have been more likely to "swing", particularly those in their 20s and 30s. Blair's embrace of "Cool Britannia" was a psephological calculation, not just starfucking.

I think the chief reason that Page 3 has been retired is that the target demographic has been dispersed due to economic and social change. The primary sector and manufacturing continue to decline. Transport and warehouse workers have ended up on short-term contracts or been obliged to become self-employed, so downtime means you're not earning. Workers generally are up against the clock. Offices have become increasingly sensitive to overt sexism as women have advanced, so not only are the topless calendars disappearing, so too are magazines as both sexes (and particularly the young) retreat to the Internet on phones and tablets. The Sun even appears to have gone out of fashion as a token of laddishness and ironic class contempt on City trading floors, where a ruffled copy open at page 3 (seriously "manhandled") was a way of marking territory in open-plan offices. In London, it is now unusual to see a paper being read on the Tube other than the free Evening Standard.

Page 3 was a serious work of ideology, and specifically performative gender, not just in its portrayal of women as fluffy-headed, antiseptic pleasure bots, but in its implicit portrayal of the working class male as more-cock-than-brain yet as sexually sophisticated as a sausage roll. We should celebrate its demise as the last weak fart of Thatcher's mouldering corpse, but we should also recognise that it represents a kind of proletarian defeat.

14 comments:

  1. I think the reaction to Page 3's 'demise' is evidence of its 'fetishisation' as a symbol rather than any real change in societal attitudes, and represents something of a hollow victory for feminists. After all, the Breakfast News item on Page 3 the other day showed that it had been filled by a photo of bikini-clad women instead, something which still objectifies women. As you suggest in your post, Page 3's role has been superseded and extended by non-posed topless or revealing pictures that spread across the whole of the newspaper (and not just the Sun). It's just modernising sexism and moving out of the Benny Hill era.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Herbie Kills Children21 January 2015 at 18:46

    I think the disappearance of the workplace nude calendar is due to management perceptions that women would be offended by them. We should be aware that not all women were but the ones who were had the casting vote. They who shout loudest! In this case maybe the silent majority tacitly agreed.

    But I also think with sex people are reserved, are afraid to admit their sexual urges etc. Less than 10% of people have taken up BT parental controls, which I think indicates that people are not only happy to watch internet porn but don't much mind if their kids do! The problem is when someone actually asks you the question directly, do you think porn should be banned. Because we are shy of sex we may give not an exactly honest answer, so those people who want to next ban porn can win the battle by simply exploiting peoples reserved attitudes when it comes to sex.

    I see that as a kind of victory for tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, BT parental controls is an appallingly bad piece of code. Even allowing for the fact that all such programs are hit-and-miss, due to the difficulty of accurate site classification, it stands out as crapware. I suspect the low takeup is as much to do with a wholly understandable aversion to having your PC screwed as a relaxed attitude to porn.

      Delete
    2. So are you trying to say that getting rid of nude calendars in the workplace is some kind of infringement of human rights? I'm not surprised that some women found it offensive, and I think if that's the worst imposition from management then you're in a pretty good workplace.

      Comparing workplace calendars with the Sun is not comparing like with like either. A calendar is displayed to anyone in the office, while if you choose to read the Sun then you're clearly happy with all the rubbish found within. I suspect that the majority of people are perfectly tolerant of porn as a matter for people to partake in privately.

      Delete
    3. Herbie Kills Children22 January 2015 at 17:24

      I wasn't saying that getting rid of nude calendars in the workplace is some kind of infringement of human rights, but thinking about it, why couldn't it be described in that way (maybe sometimes denying human rights is a good thing)? I actually said that I believe the silent majority probably thought getting rid of the calendars was a good thing!

      My point is that when it comes to sex private thoughts can be different from public thoughts and those who wish to censor can use this fact to push through censorship, so in my opinion a form of tyranny, or the danger thereof.

      I think people have pretty much said no thanks to the parental controls, I don't think they got as far as testing the thing. But whatever, it was given a big thumbs down. I suspect the morality police will find new ways to keep us on their path to purity!

      Delete
  3. I think you are the only person in my feedly feed covering the decline in workplace masturbation. You should be proud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'l try and not let it go to my head.

      Delete
    2. 👏😊
      Have been receiving lessons on the interweb from a (relatively) young person.

      Delete
  4. One aspect of the coverage of the page 3 demise is it seems to represent some kind of media rehabilitation of Rupert Murdoch. Listening to Steve Hewlett analyse the great Murdoch's tweets respectfully for meaning on Newsnight, seemed to signal the end of any pressure he was under at the height of the phone hacking affair.

    One thing some of your younger readers may not realise is the routine workplace (working class) sexism in the 1970's when page 3 started. In those days of high Unionism and limited Globalisation it might not be uncommon for a female worker in a male dominated environment to be asked to "get your tits out". For her to get a routine work task accomplished she may have had to bare her breasts. Sanctions against a male worker would have been minimal.

    Page 3 both reflected this environment and encouraged it. The rise of Thacthcherism put pressure on the working class. As one group is dominated and put under pressure perhaps it seeks to put a another weaker group under pressure as a reaction. Perhaps the 80s Ladish culture is the male working class trying to supress women in reaction to being repressed by Thatchersim, at least for a time.

    The demise of page 3 is a relief. There has been a proletarian defeat but as a by product male working class sexism has had at least a partial defeat. There is still middle class sexism of course, but it is unlikely any female QC failed to make high court judge because she wouldn't get her tits out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do find some of the criticism of page 3 snobbish, which can lead to the gibberish we see in the comment from anonymous, which tries to create a pathological story out of people’s ordinary lives. It creates motives where none exist and encourages pseudo psychology. It sees an abusive nature in working class relationships. It is a criticism of people from above and from the outside, like a god looking down on the little people. It also tries to create victims out of people who never felt themselves victims and makes monsters of those who were simply trying to get by.

      I am not denying there was sexism in the workplace but I find the whole idea of the male working class looking to supress women as some reaction to Thatcherism, frankly barmy. I also find the narrative of supressed women utterly ridiculous in 21st century Britain, if anything I would say men are now an suppressed group, if we can say any of the sexes are suppressed. The fact that people feel they can peddle the laughable idea that women are oppressed in 21st century Britain indicates to me that it is men who are the ones under attack.

      Of course, due to historical, cultural and dare I say biological reasons, men and women have come to be viewed in a certain way, have certain assumptions made about them and tend to fulfil certain roles. Some of these are open to struggle, but I think liberation is a project for humanity and not just one of the sexes.

      I also find it rather unhealthy that men and women are often portrayed as being at war with each other. I remember the 70’s and the 80’s and to be honest this war of the sexes has been over hyped, it certainly doesn’t chime with my experience.

      I do accept that people tend to rebel against the roles given to them now and again, but a man who is the ‘bread winner’ rebelled just as much as the women who was the ‘domestic servant’, just the female story has been given more prominence and more worth.

      Delete
    2. UK Population 2011 Census Total 63.2 million Female 32.2 million Female 51%

      UK Cabinet Ministers Total 22 Female 5 Female 23%

      Total Attending UK Cabinet Total 33 Female 8 Female 24%

      UK MPs Total 650 Female 148 Female 23%

      UK High Court Judges Total 108 Female 21 Female 19%

      UK QCs (2010 figures) Total 1397 Female 152 Female 11%

      FTSE 100 CEOs Total 100 Female 5 Female 5%

      .
      .
      .
      .

      Delete
    3. None of those stats really apply to the working class life do they and the gibberish that you were claiming?

      I do not think any of those stats really point to women being suppressed, anymore than someone from a working class background is suppressed from reaching top office in politics, business, judiciary.

      Moreover, female under representation in high office is something that is always in the media and there are now mechanisms in place to address the situation. The same cannot be said for improving working class representation in high office, that will have to wait for the revolution I guess.

      So a bigger issue the under representation of working class men and women in high office. I very much doubt banning page 3 will address this issue!

      Where the issue that affects working class people has been felt is in reducing pay inequality between men and women. Now some people think women are paid less than men for doing the same work. But this is not so, at least when we are talking about working class jobs. It is more true to say that there is the belief that some male work was seen as higher skilled and more physically exhausting than female work, so cleaners would be paid less than refuse collectors for example. While it is obviously correct to address these imbalances the bosses reaction has not been to increase the wages of cleaners but reduce the pay of refuse collectors, which is why we saw recent strikes by refuse collectors around this issue.

      But all you want to talk about is CEO's and Judges - go figure!

      Delete
    4. Dean. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. A lot of the stuff I come out with is certainly barmy gibberish. You are right female under representation is always in the media and there are various schemes to address it. The numbers I put up show that progress, at least at the top, is still very slow. It's easy to count how many female MPs there are it is not so easy to count how many working class MPs there are. I am in no doubt that under representation of working class men and women in high office is as serious an issue and maybe a more serious issue than female under representation. I picked that list politicians, judges top business people becuase I think these are the most powerfull people in the UK. Somebody made the decision to reduce the pay of refuse collectors and not raise the pay of the cleaners. It was either a businessman a politician or a lawyer of some kind.

      I think everyone in the UK whatever class they think they belong to should be interested in who the powerful people are, how they got there and what they are doing. I don't want to ban the Sun. I don't like it, but its still a free country. If you have found any of my comments snobbish or offensive in any way I apologise it was not my intention.

      Delete
  5. Too right. Once Rebekah Brooks got off, Murdoch was in the clear. Once Emily Thornberry was sacked, you knew press regulation was dead. The decision to drop page 3, plus the respectful attention and the subsequent teasing, is Murdoch once more displaying his power to set the agenda. Miliband will have got the message.

    I'd add one nuance to your picture of the 70s. Many older male workers were actually less than happy with the crass sexism of the era, preferring the traditional sexism in which a woman knew her place and the working environment was exclusively male. The appearance of page 3 was part of the faux-liberalism of the time, which encouraged young working class men to reject unionism and solidarity as old-fashioned.

    What was interesting (in retrospect) was the way that sexism quickly became a litmus test for wider political attitudes, as much because of the positive impact of Greenham Common and the womens support groups in the miners' strike as the negative impact of page 3 and the "Lady Di" phenomenon. For a lot of young men who were politicised in the 80s, feminism was far more significant that the contemporary media allowed, with all their shite about dungaree-wearing, man-hating lesbians.

    ReplyDelete