I wish I had seen this yesterday.
A brilliant response to the debate over Page 3.
The party has been doing this a few times with its error messages recently. It’s very amusing and it also directs people to relevant policy on the website.
Unfortunately, as we’ve all found out, the Sun was trolling us all along. Former presidential candidate and new member of the Diversity Engagement Group Daisy Cooper said this about the Sun’s behaviour on Facebook:
So, pretending to stop Page 3 was just a bit of fun. Raising expectations then crushing them in a humiliating way. Classic abusive behaviour.
Unfortunately for us, though, the Greens have used some very clever marketing ploys over the last couple of days. I hope Nick Clegg is rueing the day he followed the herd and posed with the Sun. I said at the time it was a shame because he’s streets ahead of Cameron and Farage on gender equality. In fact, he’s way ahead of Labour as well. Shared parental leave was his, shall we say, baby, all along. Why didn’t they do it in the 13 years they were in power?
Anyway, the Greens have exploited that situation to the max in a very clever way:
It wouldn’t make me join the authoritarian, illiberal, socialist Green party because I disagree with so many of their policies on areas such as the economy and scientific research, but you have to give credit where it’s due.
I have to say I have been deeply disappointed by the reactions of some, mostly men, in our party who seem to think that the rights of glamour models are sacrosanct and the harm caused to women in general as a result of the demeaning way in which they are portrayed in most of the tabloid press is irrelevant. They portray the No More Page 3 campaign as some authoritarian threat to freedom of expression when in fact it was politely asking the Sun’s editor to voluntarily withdraw the feature. If they object to a bit of effective campaigning which challenges orthodoxy, what on earth are they doing in a party which has spent decades doing that very successfully? It’s just a pity that people can’t have as much concern for the 60% of young women who, according to a survey published last month by Girlguiding UK, are experiencing sexual harassment at school or college.
Nick Clegg said on Call Clegg today that the editor of the Sun had a perfect right to publish what he wanted in his paper but that he personally thought that it wasn’t in keeping with how women should be portrayed. That, to me, is the right balance.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1360
Free clinics for families affected by dementia
The Women of Mumbles Head
Simon R
David Le Grice
Andy Daer
John Grout
Peter Martin
12 Comments
“Shared parental leave was his, shall we say, baby, all along”
In a column about how women deserve respect, giving Cleggy the credit for this AGAIN is a bit rich. It was Susan Kramer ran the consultation which this policy sprang from. I know, I was there. So was Susan Gasczack and Jo Crispy-Strips. Really, actually, very angry about how Clegg keeps being given the credit for this.
As for the Sun trolling us – is anybody really surprised?
And it wasn’t THAT great a victory anyway, surely? Instead of objectifying women with no top on we’re going to objectify them in a bikini instead! Adding body shaming to objectification makes it better in the eyes of NMP3 does it? Please.
To be fair, Jennie, Cleggy always has been pushing shared parental leave for as long as I’ve known him. He’s done much of the making the case for it in government and in public. That’s not to deny the work of others.
Both Jo and Lynne said that it wasn’t much of an improvement to have the models with their clothes on instead but it seemed for a short while that the Sun had realised that their feature had well outlived its sell-by date.
If we took all sexism and misogyny out of the tabloid press and “women”s” magazines there would be nothing left – but baby steps and all that.
“man has been taking credit for women’s work for AGES” makes it better? OK.
To be fair to Nick, he’s not taking the credit, I’m giving it to him – not exclusively to him, but it was in the context of him posing with that dreadful paper, to say that he has a better understanding of gender equality than the others.
“So, pretending to stop Page 3 was just a bit of fun. Raising expectations then crushing them in a humiliating way. Classic abusive behaviour.”
Overwrought guff like that doesn’t help the cause I fear.
Forget page 3 – Clegg should never have posed with The Sun because of Hillsborough!
I suspect it was some Murdochian news management designed to detract from the fact that verdicts were expected in the latest Sun corruption trial.
@caron
“I have to say I have been deeply disappointed by the reactions of some, mostly men, in our party who seem to think that the rights of glamour models are sacrosanct”
The rights of glamour models should be exactly the same as everybody else’s – shouldn’t they? One of them being, they should be allowed to earn a living in whatever way they see fit so long as they are not harming anybody else. Show me proof that they are causing harm, and I’d agree with you.
“They portray the No More Page 3 campaign as some authoritarian threat to freedom of expression when in fact it was politely asking the Sun’s editor to voluntarily withdraw the feature”
Though if you look at the NMP3 twitter feed, the most commonly used word is “fight”.
The recent social media-led trend for seeing sexism everywhere has become pretty insidious. It’s demonising a lot of harmless behaviour, for both men and women, putting more restraints on what women can do, and giving women and girls a heap more hang-ups about being female. Great.
You’ll never see a better example than the “social media storm” reportedly raging this morning over the tennis player Eugenie Bochard, who was asked by an Australian TV interviewer to “give us a twirl” in order to show off her undeniably fetching outfit. (The fact that said outfit was predominantly pink no doubt added to the imagined sexism on show.) The actual incident can be seen here :-
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/tramlines/-truly-sexist–tv-interview–twirl–row-escalates-as-eugenie-bouchard–billie-jean-king-add-views-065221420.html?vp=1
Note that Bochard herself found the whole thing enjoyable and has said since that she was not remotely offended. Note also that the people shown in the crowd – both men and women – found it immensely enjoyable too, judging by their beaming smiles.
Yet despite all concerned having a bit of harmless fun, those who see sexism everywhere have portrayed it as something sinister. Consequently, Bochard – who is an excellent player – has had what was a great victory for her ruined by having to field endless questions about whether she was the victim of sexism or not. Another victory for the feminists, who seem to measure success by the number of people (especially women) they can make miserable.
The reason this is such a good example is because it shows just how imaginary the “sexism” on display is. This sort of thing never happens to male tennis players, so the argument goes. But it’s rubbish – I’ve seen the likes of Andy Murray and Rafa Nadal shirtless and flexing their muscles many times, both on the court and on the covers of magazines, and I’m pretty sure I once saw Murray being invited to do so by Sue Barker. A quick Google image search turns up numerous such pictures :-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nadal+andy+murray+muscles&biw=1280&bih=929&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=NCbCVOqYHOOy7QbezIGoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
There is certainly sexism on show here, but it’s being practised by the feminists. Male players can parade around almost naked and nobody will criticise them; no interviewer will ever demand that they answer charges of demeaning their gender by participating in sexist behaviour; no victory on the court will ever be tarnished by phoney Twitter outrage over how much of their torso they showed. Whereas a female player who spins 360 degrees while fully clothed is instantly subjected to a storm of controversy. It’s high time the hashtag #imaginedsexism made an appearance.
>Nick Clegg said on Call Clegg today that the editor of the Sun had a
>perfect right to publish what he wanted in his paper but that he personally
>thought that it wasn’t in keeping with how women should be portrayed.
>That, to me, is the right balance.
That’s what most LDV posters seem to think, but you’ve continually denounced “men” for not agreeing with your authoritarian stance on this issue, even though you know liberals tend to think “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”. Somehow when Nick takes this position he’s completely in agreement with you. I assume now you’ve acknowledged the Sun editor has “a perfect right to publish” what he wants this is the end of the topic.
I keep on seeing statements here that the Greens are authoritarian and socialist. The first would worry me more than the second. But I haven’t seen any specific policies quoted or examples other than their mismanagement of Brighton. Examples, please?
@Simon
“I keep on seeing statements here that the Greens are authoritarian… Examples, please?”
The only one I know if is their support for “No More Page 3”.
@ Simon – lifted from the spectator:
Under Green plans, inheritance tax – “to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power by a privileged class” – will no longer just tax the dead. Under radical reforms, it will cover gifts made while the giver is still alive – raising the prospect of levies on cars, jewellery or furniture given by parents to their children.
The “overall volume” of advertising on TV and newspapers will be controlled and cut, as part of a war on the “materialist and consumption driven culture which is not sustainable”.
The England football, rugby and cricket teams would no longer play against countries where “normal, friendly, respectful or diplomatic relations are not possible.” Football clubs would be owned by co-operatives and not traded on the stock markets.
No more new airports or runways will be built, and existing ones nationalised. All new homes and businesses must by law provide bicycle parking. Helicopter travel would be regulated “more strictly”. The sale of alcohol on planes and airports will be tightly restricted to prevent air-rage, and the air on inbound flights tested for disease.
Advertising of holiday flights will be controlled by law to halt the “promotion of a high-carbon lifestyle”. New taxes would be imposed on carriers to reduce passenger numbers.
Political parties will be funded by the state, and the electoral system changed. The monarchy will be abolished.