Following their written submissions to the inquiry, representatives from End Violence Against Women, OBJECT, Eaves, and Equality Now sat in front of Lord Justice Leveson on Tuesday to give evidence.
Amongst the demands of the four groups was a call for a consistent legislative approach to hyper-sexualised images of women in the media. Such images wouldn’t be shown on television past the 9pm watershed, it was argued, and so shouldn’t be left unchallenged in non age-restricted publications on the ‘news’stand.
The groups also accused some media outlets of perpetuating myths about rape, which they argued could prevent victims reporting the crime. The Daily Mail, for example, reported about six footballers being jailed after gang raping 12-year-old girls in a “midnight park orgy” and referred to the victims as “Lolitas”. Marai Larasi from End Violence Against Women, told the inquiry: “Put the word ‘orgy’ in something and what you immediately do is grab the attention, it’s becoming titillating. The focus stays on the woman and what she did or didn’t do.”
They also called for a tougher (than the PCC) regulatory body with some teeth to which individuals or organisations could complain to.
“The media creates, reflects and enforces attitudes in society. Those who work in the media should be conscious of this and should actively seek not to reproduce attitudes which condone violence against women or girls,” said Larasi . The Sun, the Daily Star and the Sunday Sport were criticised by OBJECT’s Anna Van Heeswijk for “relentlessly” objectifying women and portraying them “as a sum of sexualised body parts”.
This ‘objectification’ is part of a dehumanising process which ultimately makes it easier to commit, condone and ignore violence and discrimination against women.
Much of this line of argument is familiar to many who are concerned about the pornification of our culture. But what perhaps is a less obvious point that was clearly made at the hearing by Van Heeswijk, is the fact that the true power of the objectification of women and girls isn’t realised in a vacuum void of context, but in fact it is made all the more powerful when the ways in which men are represented in our media is also taken into account.
“We have to ask ourselves what kind of story does it tell to young people when men in newspapers wear suits, or sports gear, are shown as active participants, while women are sexualised objects who are essentially naked or nearly naked,” she said.
"City Bankers' 'Sex attack on office girl'"
It is true that the ubiquity of hyper-sexualised representations of women and girls “creates, reflects and enforces” the ideas that the value of women and girls is in their appearance or ‘sexual usefulness’, that they are always sexually available, and that their primary purpose is to fulfill the sexual fantasies of men. However, what should not be understated is the extra power and effectiveness that is bestowed upon this process by both the fact that there are so few images that present men in a similar way, and by the fact that there are so few images that present women in any other way.
A few years ago I was involved in a study that looked at the portrayal of women in various magazines and newspapers. It found that in the Daily Sport, one of the papers cited at the inquiry hearing, around 85% of all the images of women in the paper were sexualised (naked/wearing only underwear and adopting a sexually provocative pose), and this doesn’t even include the 18 pages of sex industry adverts that were average for each issue of the paper.
Up and down the country are households in which a daily newspaper shows men on the front in suits representing business or government, men on the back engaging in sport as active subjects, and women on page 3 (or more) presented as sexual objects. Anna hits the nail on the head by asking what kind of story this tells to young people, but also what story it tells about our culture.
I remember a distant relative of mine who having recently entered into fatherhood expressed to me how he felt his eyes had been opened to the sexism entrenched in our media as a result of having a baby daughter and reflecting on the world in which she would soon find herself. At only a couple of years old her parents had encouraged participation in outdoor activities and made considerable effort to make her aware of successful sportswomen and the like.
While their task has largely been about finding positive examples of publicly active women to counter those we already have of men, it has also involved an effort to limit the extent to which our media in almost all its forms can push the idea of women as passive sex objects on their children. The playing field is helped towards being level with regards to television by the watershed, but not so with the newspapers in so many households throughout the country. If Leveson is to conduct a full and proper examination of the culture and ethics of our media a consistent playing field is, at the very least, a reasonable demand to make.
Related posts:
You know in reality, porn is all over american televitison-men walk around with their shirts off all the time. God made coats for both adam and eve, not just eve. men need to cover their breasts too.
But sexualised breasts are more ‘acceptable’ to society than breastfeeding. Umm.. That’s what they are for! I’m cool with that in public, but not porn.
You are so right Christina. Breast are for feeding babys, and thats it. Why some are offended by a mother breast feeding is beyond me. Most women I have seen, including my own daughter feeding her baby, Cover with a light blanket, ……just in case.
AND we have to put up with images, such as above and worse everyday, when going about our everyday business. Our children think it is the norm!
As a matter of interest. Why have you ended up with the picture to the link on my Facebook page? I could choose to follow the link or not but I wasn’t given a choice about having this picture appear on my Facebook page. I believe it is degrading to women and men to find this picture adorning the Anti PORN MEN PROJECT.
Robin: I’m of the opinion that you can’t oppose what you can’t see. However, if it’s really bugging you then hover over the arrow to the right of the link and click “Hide story”.
The Daily Sport should be banned. It objectifies women and is far too accessible. It to in the view for children and send the wrong message on sexuality. The women choose to be in them but at what cost? Most of them have to modify their bodies and are conditioned to want fame and fortune. We need to start educating people so a) the demand for such material is reduced and b) the demand to want to work in such an industry is reduced
Seriously guys are these images relevant to display to the topic being discussed!!? we all know what they look like, you do not need to display them with your articles on a day to day basis! someone needs to be having a word with your editor with regards to your article choices and images of late!
With regards to the articles, I think links to both pro- and anti porn articles as it is a reflection of discussions in contemporary culture surrounding pornography. The “other side” cannot just be ignored on a page that is against pornography, but in my view also wants to allow people to discuss different ideas regarding pornography and help us learn how we are perceived by our opposition and help us formulate arguments against their (mis)conceptions.
I was actually grateful for one of the articles that attracted a lot of criticism called Curing Pornophobia. I decided to read the whole lot despite my misgivings. I have to admit that the majority of the articles and its suggestions such as “Pornography does not make its consumers sexually aggressive or foster sexism” or “In fact, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes” were utter nonsense! Nonetheless I could relate to the story of Scott, a man who was described as using therapy to confronting his sexuality, sense of inadequacy and ideas regarding sexuality, (gendered) power and equal relationships. I felt recognition when I read the 2nd page of the article and thought it actually showed quite some insight. To me it showed that porn is not a necessity and that if we confront ourselves with our motivations behind our porn use we can grow as a person, stop needing it and grow to be emotionally secure people able to have equal relationships. To me these are also reflections of my own therapeutic development at the moment.
With the inclusion of the picture with this post, I think there are a number of separate issues at stake here. The first one is that obviously not all of us visit this site or are a member of the Facebook group for the same reasons. Between us we may want to get an anti-porn angle on pornography, be interested in what is going on in culture surrounding discussions about pornography, look for help, support, ventilation or acknowledgement of our feelings. What we are looking for and what we feel is right / appropriate will overall be mostly compatible, but sometimes it will not and that’s difficult as we identify with each other as standing for the same things.
I was admittedly quite annoyed when I read a comment stating “And I do wonder why a guy who works at a ‘sex club’ is commenting here. Where is this project going?”. To me anyone is welcome to the Facebook group or this page as long as they are not disruptive or trolling. Who knows what motivates them to come here. I don’t think there is a non-discussion policy here and discussions on this subject can include anyone – including (like it or not) priests and sex workers.
When and how one uses objectifying imagery in communicating about pornography, is obviously an important issue bearing in mind the commotion caused by this picture. There are definitely communications in which the use of such images is more common than in others – like in an Anti Porn slideshow. Not only are there very explicit images there, but possibly more importantly they include warnings and don’t make it onto your social networking site. There are lots of things to consider here…
Obviously the more women you have in the media the more sensitive they’re going to be towards women being portrayed as sex objects but I also think that the older someone gets the more likely they are to be anti-porn. As a young woman in college back in the early 1980s, I used to read Playgirl magazine all the time and now I I consider myself an anti-porn crusader … something which 30 years ago I would have never predicted.
Thanks Rowena. I did read the article. I do most of them. Rather, like Tracy, I object to the picture on the blog. I thought the point of this group was to resist the spread of such images and so…. Shouldn’t we refrain from copying and posting such images?
I just wanted to say that I used the picture for this post to demonstrate the kind of trivialisation of sexual assault that goes on in papers like The Sport. I choose the vast majority of pics that accompany the posts on the website and looking through the other posts it is clearly unusual for us to have any kind of pornographic image. The “articles on a day to day basis” that Tracy mentions are links we post on Facebook, not our website. Such links are supposed to be a way to share things that we think followers of the Project would find interesting. Including a link to a page is not endorsement of the content on that page.
Not everybody knows what The Sport is like with regards to its trivialisation of sexual assault and so I felt that the picture added something important/useful to the post.
Just wanted to say that I used the picture for this post to demonstrate the kind of trivialisation of sexual assault that goes on in papers like The Sport. I choose the vast majority of pics that accompany the posts on the website and looking through the other posts it is clearly unusual for us to have any kind of pornographic image. The “articles on a day to day basis” that Tracy mentions are links we post on Facebook, not our website. Such links are supposed to be a way to share things that we think followers of the Project would find interesting. Including a link to a page is not endorsement of the content on that page.
Not everybody knows what The Sport is like with regards to its trivialisation of sexual assault and so I felt that the picture added something important/useful to the post.
Dear Matt,
Further to our discussion about the photo from the Sport displayed on this page [See below] and with respect – I think you made a mistake. The debate, to a degree, is about choice. I want to preserve my choice about whether I view pornographic images. I find such images unhelpful, I find them offensive in their portrayal of women [I am married with two daughters] and I organise my Facebook page so I do not subscribe to sites that have such images. I thought it would be safe to follow an Anti-Porn site. Frequent I choose to follow the links. I am very appreciative of the work you are doing and fined the articles you highlight very useful.
I also follow two feminist sites and they often warn their readers that the links they provide might ‘Trigger’ unhappy memories. May I suggest you follow a similar protocol. Without showing an offensive image on your main page, note simply, ‘This link contains pornographic images.’ I believe that would be best for a site like this which seeks to turn the tide against the encroachment of pornographic images into all areas of our lives.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that a ‘trigger warning’-style note would have been appropriate in this circumstance. We do attach trigger warnings to posts that feature particularly violent or otherwise graphic language, but as we so rarely include any kind of pornographic image in the posts this is not something we have had to consider before with regards to pictures.
Personally, I don’t buy tabloid newspapers (not wishing to provide them with any support) and only recently learned of the Sport’s existence. Without projects like APM I would be in near-total ignorance of the damaging views they perpetuate, and I am very grateful to them for their work.
@Daniel. The issue is regulation preventing exposure to children to such material. Outright banning of it is something else. It becomes a slippery slope, how far do we go? Banning all such images? We’re does the line get drawn?
Anyway….
“naked/wearing only underwear and adopting a sexually provocative pose!
The trouble is one doesn’t have to go far to find pictures of women either naked or only wearing underwear adopting sexually provactive poses. Niether can such images only be found in red top newspapers or other such publications like lads mags.
You can see pictures of women in their underwear or in some form of scantily clad clothing in women’s wear catologues. Or naked women in educational text books.
If we are arguing that such images are harmful or have the potential to be harmful than the banning axe would have to fall over a helluva lot of things. Like such images in catalogues or text books.
Object argued in their submission to the Leveson enquiry that the issue here is about nudity. They have no problem with pictures of nude women used for educational purposes or in pre-watershed dramas where the nudity is non objectifying and not degrading. So it seems they are fine with images of nude women unless such images are produced with the purpose of sexually arousing a male audience.
But regardless of context all images of nude women can be used by men to sexually arouse. For example a teenage boy looking at pictures of naked women in an educational school text book.
If it the belief that the sexual arousal of men by pictures of nude women is harmful then the censor axe would be cast very far indeed.