Last week the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the press turned to the issue of sexism in the media. Suvi Ramo of OBJECT argues that the objectification and sexualisation of women in British tabloid press is rife, and that this has a huge impact on societal attitudes. Greater regulation of print media is now needed in order to make it consistent with the regulation that already exists for other forms of medi

Ramo, Suvi

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/02/02/sexual-objectification-page-3/Greater action must be taken in combating the sexualobjectification of women in the print mediaFeb 2 2012Last week the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the press turned to the issue ofsexism in the media. Suvi Ramo of OBJECT argues that the objectification andsexualisation of women in British tabloid press is rife, and that this has a huge impacton societal attitudes. Greater regulation of print media is now needed in order to makeit consistent with the regulation that already exists for other forms of media.  On the morning of 24 January, the Leveson Inquiry, set up by David Cameron, the primeminister to investigate the culture, ethics and practices of the press, heard from fourleading UK and international women’s organisations about sexism in the media. Our organization,OBJECT, and Eaves Housing, End Violence Against Women Coalition and Equality Now, were calledto present evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice with regards to media bias against women. Weurged Lord Justice Leveson to make strong recommendations on media reporting and portrayal ofwomen. The submissions highlighted, for example, the inaccurate and misleading news reporting oncrimes of violence against women and the normalisation of stories and images which persistentlyobjectify and demean women.OBJECT is an award-winning human rights organisation which challenges the sexual objectification ofwomen and girls in media and popular culture. We presented written and oral evidence that specificallyfocused on the way women are consistently portrayed as sex objects in the Page 3 tabloid press. Oursubmission emphasises the interconnection between ‘sex object culture’ and discrimination andviolence against women. This has been acknowledged at the international level by the UN Conventionto Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW has repeatedly called upon states,including the UK, to tackle the objectification of women in the media because of the attitudes andbehaviours that ‘sex object culture’ promotes. Considering that we live in a society in which one in threewomen will experience male violence in her lifetime and that women are still a long way away fromenjoying equality with men, the issues raised by us at the inquiry are of grave concern.Our submission provided the inquiry with a snapshot of ‘A Week in the Life of The Sun, The Daily Starand The Sport’. The purpose of the evidence, collected in November 2011, was to draw attention to theextent to which women are sexualised and objectified in the UK Page 3 tabloid press. The evidencehighlights the numerous ways in which women and crimes against women – such as rape and assault –are consistently trivialised and hyper-sexualised in the press. The examples presented ranged fromThe Sport’s “nipple count” feature and “up-skirt” front page images to The Star’s lecherous andpredatory reporting on 15-year-old Charlotte Church being a “big girl now” and looking “chest swell”.Notably, this type of treatment of women as mere sexual objects and sexualised body parts has noparallel for men, thus illustrating the double standard and clear evidence of sexism verging on misogynyin the tabloid press.The witness statement provided by Anna van Heeswijk, Campaigns Manager at OBJECT, raisesconcern about the normalisation of portraying women as sex objects and the consequent effects on thetreatment of women and girls. As a society, we generally agree that this form of hyper-sexualised andobjectifying imagery has, at the very least, the potential to be harmful. This is why we do not allow it inthe workplace, in schools or on the television before 9pm. Yet, in spite of the common concern aboutthe sexual objectification of women and the sexualisation of children, the Page 3-type tabloids arepresent in the mainstream.Furthermore, it is important to note that Page 3 imagery is already prohibited in the workplace undersexual harassment legislation. Therefore, if sexually objectifying imagery is already restricted in theworkplace and on television pre-watershed, it is logical that it should not be displayed in freelyavailable, openly displayed and unrestricted newspapers that are often left lying around. Ourrecommendations do not, therefore, call for censorship or a radical alteration of policies regarding themedia, but rather for common-sense and consistent application of media regulation. We alsorecommend that the category of ‘groups’ be included as a basis for complaint in the Press ComplaintsCommission’s complaints procedure. This would allow greater voice for the readers in regards to theculture and ethics of the press. Importantly, gender equality and issues related to sex-baseddiscrimination should be distinct components of any new codes of practice for the print media. To thisend, we also recommend the introduction of an independent regulatory body with teeth.Ultimately, our testimony challenges the inquiry to consider the story that is told to girls and boys whenmainstream newspapers depict men for what they do and women for what they look like. What effect isthis likely to have on their aspirations and body image and in perpetuating stereotypes? As ProfessorRosalind Gill points out when addressing the “increasingly narrow and sexualized roles” with whichwomen are portrayed in the media: “young women are being sent the clear message that sexualattractiveness is more important than anything else about them.”The concerns that we have raised are not questions of taste, censorship, nudity or sex. They relate tothe story that the portrayal of women in the tabloid press tells about how we value women. They call forapplying the same guidelines that already exist for broadcast material to print media so as to achievegreater consistency with regards to curbing harmful stereotypes. This would not restrict coverage of sexand sexuality – the Sex Education show airs before 9pm on television – but it would restrict gratuitousportrayal of women as mere sex objects. As Professor Gill adds; “we are seeing a resurgence ofsexism in recent years as part of a ‘culture of cruelty’ that is played out disproportionately over women’sbodies”. In light of this, we must consider the impact that the relentless and increasingly narrowdepictions of women as sex objects has in contributing to a culture of  sexism, a culture of “post-‘political correctness’” where objections to sexist imagery is labelled “humourless whingeing”. Theeffects this has on how women view themselves and how they are treated is of particular concern inrelation to young girls and boys who are shaping their identities and forming their perspectives.In our conclusion presented to the inquiry, we remind that newspapers communicate, shape and reflectthe ideas and values of the society we live in. The portrayal of women in the Page 3 tabloid press isone-dimensional and stereotyped, offering a serious misrepresentation of women to the readers of themainstream press. The first question is: why are these newspapers printing such degradingmisrepresentations? This is a question which should be addressed to the newspaper editors andowners themselves. The question that follows is: why are they allowed to get away with it?Considering that the inquiry itself felt it necessary to censor the examples that we provided whencirculating it, one must ask how it is justifiable to sell the same imagery to anyone with 50 pence. Weare ultimately calling for a print-based media that is socially responsible, responsive to the publicinterest and which adheres to common principles of equality and social justice. At the end of theinquiry’s hearing, Anna van Heeswijk said: “This Inquiry presents a golden opportunity to tackle thePage 3 portrayal of women in the press. We presented the evidence; we suggested the solutions, nowwe keep up the pressure until Leveson, and ultimately the Government, take the action.”Please read our comments policy before posting_______________________________________About the authorSuvi Ramo – OBJECTSuvi Ramo is a current intern and administrator at the campaigns group Object. For her postgraduatestudies, she was awarded the Laurel Brake Prize for outstanding performance in MA/MSc GenderStudies and is currently editing her final thesis for journal publication. Suvi has gained experience in thewomen’s sector by volunteering for the women’s group at Amnesty International in Finland and actingas the Fundraising Assistant for Object in 2011.You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. Taming the feral beasts of the media requires greater transparency from government, but canDowning Street ever be honest?2. Will the UK media ever grow up in how they cover women in politics? The case of EkaterinaZatuliveter shows that sexist attitudes remain pervasive3. Spending cuts will increase inequalities between women and men and may seriously harm thehuman rights of some women4. Downplaying the public acknowledgement of the achievements of women in sport is rather likesaying everyone should have a government but only men can vote for it.

Greater action must be taken in combating the sexual objectification of women in the print media

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online