The Sun’s Zoe McConnell thought differently as she took on her opposers at The Oxford Union – the world’s most prestigious debating society – to discuss whether Page 3 has any place in modern Britain.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1093672.ece
In her article, Zoe McConnell boasts of ‘taking on the eggheads of Oxford University and beating them at their own game of debating’ and of ‘bringing the house crashing down’. Debates here can be frivolous, which this one clearly was, but I would like to pick apart some of Zoe’s arguments anyway.
Speaker: “I’d like to introduce you to Zoe McConnell”. Zoe bows. (Rapturous round of applause)
“Hello everybody, I’m delighted to be here, thank you for having me. I don’t have anything written down, I don’t have a speech prepared, all I can tell you is, I’m Zoe McConnell, I’ve been a Page 3 girl for The Sun for 9 years – and very proudly so. I also now am a photographer for Page 3, so, you know, I’m looking at it from all angles and it’s all quite enjoyable (laughs and claps from the audience) and basically I’m here to answer any of your questions, you know, anyone that feels that Page 3 girls are being exploited or, you know, whatever you think, I’m here, you know, you can ask me whether I feel exploited, you can ask me anything you like. Does anybody have a question? Or I could do a dance for you? (Zoe does a dance to cheers and claps) Come on, points of information, come on.”
Question 1. What do you think about research that suggests that the institution of Page 3 encourages sexual harassment in the work place?
“Umm … now I don’t know any of those statistics, but I personally, I would find that a little bit sort of not true. (The house loudly claps and laughs but I’m not sure why this is funny?) And I mean you have to look at, you know, from mine, the things that I do know about sort of anyone, sexual harassment and any sort of sexual assault and all the rest of it, usually seems to carried out by people that are actually, sort of, kept away from any sort of, sexual, you know, anything at all. And they’re actually sort of quite … God this isn’t easy, is it this? (To which she gets a laugh) … Why am I doing this? (To bigger laughs) Erm … my answer is no”! (Laughs and rapturous applause again)
Firstly, why does she get clapped for this response?!
Ok, so Zoe is very nervous and you gotta hand it to the woman for standing up on her own and debating her argument at the Oxford University, however, I feel that if you are going to have a debate defending Page 3, surely you should really be aware of some of the statistics which surround the sexual harassment of women in society – let alone in the workplace – before you could even begin to make an informed judgment? Just to say “I think it’s sort of not true” and finish by saying “no” is not good enough.
Had you done your homework, Zoe, you may have learnt that sexual harassment in the workplace affects approximately 15,000 women each year and they are cases which are officially brought to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). How many unreported cases are there? Other statistics suggest it’s as much as 1 in 2 women who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.
In her follow up report in The Sun Zoe says what she was trying to say was that she personally has never been disrespected or harassed. Well, lucky for her, however, these statistics suggest not everyone is quite so fortunate.
Let’s start with a simple analogy. This may or may not be a valid analogy but it’s one that I feel touches on common sense when explaining how sexual harassment might be connected with the saturation and normalisation of pornography in our society because of the effect it could have on men. It was a letter submitted for Clare Short’s book ‘How Women Feel About Page 3’ and it read: “food is advertised with mouth-watering pics to make people hungry so they go out and buy their food. Do men really get sexually stimulated then go out & forget about it?” Well, do they?
If men are exposed to (and bombarded with in the UK’s case) pornographic images of women 24/7, do we think this may make any sort of impression on their minds about what a woman’s worth is? Pornography is inherently degrading because it generally shows women in a submissive, subordinate role. It portrays women as objects that exist purely for men’s sexual gratification. Maybe, just maybe, at the very least, men might think we’re all ‘up for it’ which might in turn make them think they can comment on us or touch us because we enjoy it as that is what pornography teaches them.
N.B. definition of pornography: sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Do you think there is a distinction between full frontal and Page 3?
“I definitely do. I never myself have ever done full frontal and, you know, I’ve made that decision not to do that and I do genuinely believe that Page 3 – otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it – is harmless fun and I don’t feel like I’m, you know, sort of doing myself any disservice by doing it. You know, if anything it’s actually just a novelty”.
What is the difference between full frontal and baring your breasts in the context of pornography? How much flesh or whatever organs you’re displaying is irrelevant; selling sex is selling sex. It reminds me of something I read before about how women in the sex industry sometimes justify their position to themselves by saying “well, I may bare my breasts but I wouldn’t do full frontal”, and the full frontal model will say “well I may do full frontal but I wouldn’t do pornos”, and the woman in a porno says “well, I may do pornos but I wouldn’t do lap dancing”, and the lap dancer will say, “well I may be a lap dancer but I wouldn’t do prostitution” but the fact is, it is ALL prostitution. You are making an exchange of money purposely for the sexual gratification of men.
So, Zoe goes on to say it’s all ‘harmless fun’. Where does she get her proof that this is just harmless fun? The whole point to my campaign is to question whether or not this is the case and to debate it but if you’re going to categorically proclaim it is just harmless fun then present your proof.
You may not be doing a disservice to yourself here, Zoe, but if Page 3 does fuel any form of violence against the female population, what disservice could you be doing to thousands of girls and women out there who are victims of such abuse?
N.B. Definition of prostitution: a person who engages in sexual activity for payment.
N.B. Definition of novelty: a new or unfamiliar thing.
Do you think full frontal is harmful?
“No, I don’t think it’s harmful but I think as soon as you move into kind of that whole area, (to which she gets a laugh and she makes a joke of ‘moving into the area’ to which she gets a bigger laugh) you know, then it can just be taken in a different way, and it’s not something The Sun would ever do and as a Page 3 girl it’s also considered not the best thing to do coz, you know, it’s all meant to be a bit wholesome and girl next door and girl next door isn’t meant to you know, flash those bits”.
What ‘different way’ do you talk of, Zoe? Let’s say a man is more inclined to want to have sex with you if you’re photographed showing your vagina; if you’re showing just your breasts could he be more inclined to want to touch them? Or at least comment on them? Commenting on them is a form of harassment.
What do you think of a young child picking up The Sun on the tube and just opening up Page 3?
“Humm … I personally wouldn’t, I don’t have a child, but if I did, I wouldn’t mind my child looking at a Page 3 picture. Erm, you know, I just don’t think that it’s offensive, I think, you know, if you take your child to the beach they will see some boobs lying around and you know, “Mummy what are they?” and I can’t help but think it would be the same question if a child gets on the tube and it’s something that we all see and learn about eventually”.
Zoe, if you take your child to the beach he or she will see a variety of females from a variety of races with their chests/breasts out ranging from babies to OAP’s. Does Page 3 EVER have any girls over the age of 25, let alone 30, 35, 40, 75? Does Page 3 ever really have anyone other than a white girl pictured as well? So, Page 3 isn’t really anything like going to a beach at all is it? And normally on a beach there isn’t an exchange of money going on either between the male sunbathers/spectators and the females who dare to relax on a beach without their top half covered i.e. enjoying the same privileges as a man. This is not a valid argument. The most exasperating thing, however, is that this is an argument bandied around by politicians. This is what we’re up against.
And that is exactly the problem that children are ‘seeing and learning’ from pornographic images because a) porn is inherently degrading and b) porn tells lies. In pornography women generally only exist as a masturbatory tool for men – which is exactly what Page 3 exists for. Pornography rarely is about a woman’s pleasure. Porn.Tells.Lies. It tells lies about women’s (and men’s) bodies, their desires, their relationships, their emotions. The fact that they will ‘see and learn’ from Page 3 is the damaging and dangerous thing, Zoe. Wake up.
Do you think a male equivalent would be as successful?
“They tried it and it didn’t seem to be. The whole point is, obviously, is that everyone is different but men are, it’s a simple fact that men are visually stimulated more than most women. Not all women – but most women and it proves, you know, we had the Page 7 fella for a while and it didn’t up the ratings, you know, people weren’t bothered but what I do have to say, (looks to Carol McGiffin) Carol Mcgiffin, I bet if Danny Dyer was in the paper topless every day you’d buy it? (Few laughs) You know it just doesn’t seem to sell as much, you know”.
Can you prove this ‘simple fact’ that men are more visually stimulated than women or is that an argument that patriarchy enforces to keep pornography alive and kicking in society and in turn keep women oppressed? Let’s say that men are more visually stimulated? Why should that mean they have to have pornographic imagery thrust in their face on a daily basis? They don’t.
You say that the Page 7 fella didn’t ‘up the ratings’. Well, why should it have upped the ratings? Surely it should exist for the 50% of women who ALREADY read The Sun? Surely, that would be fair? I think the important question here is – did the Page 7 fella lower the ratings? That would be an interesting fact, wouldn’t it? If it lowered the ratings that would be telling because it would mean that the male readership didn’t like seeing degrading images of boys and men in the newspaper. Well, why should women put up with degrading images of girls and women?
If you ever do have a child, would you show them your Page 3 pictures with pride?
“Definitely. Yeah, you know, if I ever do have a child, I’m sure by the time, I won’t be one of those girls anymore that can go without a bra, you know, and I’m completely, you know, if I was ever ashamed of what I do then I wouldn’t be doing it and that includes showing it to my child and anybody else’s child”. (Big claps from the house)
Maybe Zoe could read up on the NFRN (National Federation of Retail Newsagents) regulations which encourage newsagents to keep this imagery out of a child’s eye-line before rushing to show her topless pictures to her child or anyone else’s. There are reasons for these regulations, like there are reasons pornographic films are certified 18.
There is another question here about Zoe’s boobs but I can’t work it out, nor can I understand her response. Again, the next question is not very clear however, I think this is basically what she’s saying:
The president introduced you as Zoe and you’re really only known as Zoe and even though you’re a professional photographer you’re still just seen as Zoe. Does it bug you that you’re just addressed as Zoe rather than her full name? (Round of applause)
“It’s a fair point, it’s a fair point. It’s a fair point and my name, my surname does get used a lot of the time, you know, in lots of my, in my work and stuff but, you know, I appear, I’m here sort of talking on behalf of Page 3 of The Sun and in The Sun I appear as Zoe and that is how sort of any fans of mine know me, God, help them, (laughs from Zoe & the house) but I don’t, honestly, whether my surname mentioned today doesn’t sort of point out the fact that I’m being exploited and, you know, indeed I’m quite happy just to be Zoe coz my surname’s too long anyway”.
The speaker expresses a point of information that “Madonna is known as Madonna”, Zoe is known as Zoe”, to which everyone claps. She then goes on to say “I’m Zoe, 25 from London and I’ve been 25 for the last 10 years so it’s all good. It’s all good”.
I don’t really have anything to say about any of the above apart from the speaker comparing Zoe to Madonna; one is, arguably, the master of her sexuality, the other a slave.
On the point of exploitation, the photographer from Page 3 may be a woman but do you accept that Page 3 is there for men?
“Erm, it is predominately there for men I would say yes, obviously, men are the ones that like looking at boobies and things, but at the same time, you know, I know lots of women that also enjoy looking at Page 3 and, you know, whether it’s for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, you know, everyone has an opinion on it. You know, everyone likes to compare themselves … did you see that girl in the paper? Oh yeah I saw her, oh I could do that job, you know that whole thing, to me it’s no different than picking up Heat magazine and looking at celebrities on the beach and going, you know, oh look, she’s got flab there and, oh look her boobs aren’t very big, to me it’s the same thing and I know lots, I get recognised regularly by women and when I do it’s a really nice thing as well, you know, coz it’s not just sort of men on building sites, you know, it’s all sort of, yeah there’s a bit of that, you know, it’s also women and I get a lot of respect from all of them most of the time, so …”
Let’s not kid ourselves here, Zoe, Page 3 is solely for men and I think we could all live without looking at ‘boobies’, whether for the ‘right or wrong reasons’, don’t you?
So, Zoe says everyone likes to compare themselves to Page 3 girls? Well, I don’t (I’d have to read The Sun in the first place, I guess) and I don’t know any of my friends that do either but what is apparent is that Zoe seems to believe that this is a positive thing to do; to be comparing yourself (or in this case, your assets) to other girls. Zoe, this is a major problem for females. This is the reason breast enlargement operations increase 150% every year. This is the reason 2/3rd’s of teenagers want breast implants. This is the reason girls are having them for their 16th birthday when their bodies aren’t even fully developed. This is the reason why girls and women have such a lack of self-esteem because we are constantly bombarded with and comparing ourselves to these air-brushed (thus unobtainable), unrealistic ideals you see in these photos. Do you see that comments like those which you make in your article such as “some breasts are like bollards – it’s the other ones that are sexy” is fuelling this? It’s a vicious cycle. You see Heat magazine as a valid reference however, research has proven that around 70% of adolescent girls say that images in these sorts of magazines influence their self-image and make them want to diet. Young women’s self esteem drops dramatically after only a few minutes of reading these magazines and pornography has exactly the same effects on girls and women (and boys and men) – if not worse. It’s no coincidence that as pornography becomes increasingly more mainstream so do breast implants. That Zoe talks about this as if it’s so normal, or a positive thing, really shows you how blissfully oblivious she is to the war on women in society. This might explain her long standing position at The Sun and thus, the reason she stands at the Oxford University today arguing in favour of Page 3.
The debate ends and Zoe looks incredibly relieved!
And so despite Zoe’s arguments having little or no substance the house still voted 230 to 129 in favour of Page 3. Thankfully, these kind of debates at the Oxford university aren’t meant to be taken too seriously and Zoe probably won because of popularity rather than winning the dubious minds of students, however, sadly enough, in the not so light-hearted political arena this vote would probably still reflect that of parliament and that is why the Turn Your Back On Page 3 campaign is so important because I, for one, do believe that Page 3 is unacceptable in the 21st century.