Varsity’s Page 3 Shame (June 2009)

Varsity should be embarrassed by its participation in sex object culture

I have rarely been more disgusted with student journalism than when I opened the “Tabloid” insert in Varsity earlier this term. I found myself confronted by a “Page 3” photograph that was almost indistinguishable from what I would have found in the Sun. The key difference is that Varsity is a student publication delivered to every college. Students look at Varsity to find out how their sports teams are doing, what plays are worth seeing (if one trusts the critics) and what debates are raging in student politics. A student publication has no role to play in reproducing and perpetuating attitudes which objectify women.

We live in a sexed up culture. Women’s bodies are used to sell everything from cars to toothpaste to music. I may not be able to always avoid adverts for weight loss pills, but I should be confident that degrading material will not be in student newspapers. Is this because of a puritanical opposition to sexuality? Certainly not. I simply oppose exploitative and degrading portrayals of women’s bodies as sex objects because objectification of women reflects and reinforces the pernicious inequalities between men and women in our society. I object to images of and attitudes towards women which create a deeply conservative culture of viewing women primarily in terms of their sex-value, rather than their human value. I fully support a woman’s right to dress in whatever way she wants, and to consent to be photographed, as the student in Varsity did. Yet the choice to publish such a photograph in a Page 3 format was irresponsible and offensive. This is because objectification isn’t something that women do to themselves; it is something which is done to women through degrading attitudes and culture, reinforced through the media.

The fact that such images are ubiquitous makes Varsity’s choice to publish a Page 3 photo thoroughly orthodox and conservative. Varsity’s failure to critique cultures of objectification undermines their feeble claims of irony and parody. Even when faced with expressions of dissent from within the editorial team, the issue’s editors held up their hands and cried “satire”, much like the unimaginative pupil will rely on the time-old excuse of “the dog ate my homework”. Yet whereas the claim of irony might have given the issue’s editors the excuse they wanted to go ahead with such pseudo-journalistic drivel, it does nothing to redress the harm done to women through the constant objectification of women in the media.

The next line of defence after the construction of “irony” crumbles is accusations of censorship. Few seem to notice the inconsistency of using the right to free speech as a tactic to silence dissent. When I, alongside many other students, voiced my outrage at Varsity’s choice to publish a Page 3 photo, we were roundly accused of attempting to censor the student press. Yet it cannot be more glaringly obvious that the freedom of the press automatically necessitates a freedom of response. When I utilise this freedom of response, I am simply exercising my own freedom of speech. This freedom is more than a right; it is also a responsibility. The press must remain accountable to the public, and that requires a forum in which dissent is voiced and addressed. Debate and controversy can be healthy for a dynamic and conscious student press. Let us not forget that debate extends to the opposition to controversial choices.

This isn’t simply an academic debate about an abstract concept. Objectification of women has very real consequences for women and girls in our society. The United Nations Convention to End Violence Against Women cites sex object culture, and the media’s portrayal of women, as underlying the violence against women which is endemic in our society. The insecurities and crippling self scrutiny which are tragically widespread among young women link back to the images with which we are surrounded from the moment we turn on the television, step onto the street or open a magazine. This is why groups like Object! campaign against sex object culture as it is produced and reproduced by the media, lads mags or lap dancing clubs.

If we want a society in which women are sexually empowered, we need a society in which women are in control of their sexuality. Tabloid newspapers and Page 3 photographs exemplify fundamentally disempowering portrayals of women, where women are denied agency and individuality. The fact that a student newspaper did not find it repulsive to buy into this culture of objectification is deeply embarrassing and troubling. We can only hope that such a serious editorial misjudgement will not repeat itself, and that future editorial teams will exercise more rigorous judgement. Meanwhile, I am prepared to exercise my right to object to degrading attitudes towards women whenever necessary.

You’ll hear more from me soon, but for now, I’m going to figure out how this blog works…