The Unfortunate Reality of Women in Sport

The White Ribbon Campaign record a 40% rise in domestic violence in the event of England losing a game.

The White Ribbon Campaign record a 40% rise in domestic violence in the event of England losing a game.

According to the White Ribbon Campaign, a charity which seeks to ‘speak out about male violence against women’, a loss from the English football team during the world cup leads to a rise of almost 40% in rates of domestic abuse. Whether this is an increase in which it is specifically women that are the victims is not addressed, however even if this isn’t the case, and male victims are also counted within the statistic, it will proportionately be women who are the most affected, with summaries of Home Office and NSPCC statistics discovering that overall, 85% of those who suffer from domestic abuse are women. Worryingly, this information may seem unsurprising to many, especially considering the environment which it arises from; football, (and sport in general), has traditionally been – and currently continues to be – a male dominated industry. It is in these patriarchal and androcentric environments that attitudes which reflect little or no respect for women are allowed to thrive, and there are countless examples of this within the world of sport. January 2011 saw the dismissal of Sky Sports presenters Richard Keys and Alan Gray following sexist comments made about assistant referee Sian Massey, John Inversdale caused controversy last year through remarks he made on BBC radio regarding Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli, and the restricted-to-males membership of the Muirfield Golf Club, (the site of the 2013 gold open championships), generated widespread criticism for what is seen by many to be a sexist policy.

Given these both unchanging and alarming attitudes towards sportswomen within our society, it’s easy to see the motivation behind contemptible and misogynistic opinions such as those which would see such a rise in abuse rates. In an industry which focuses unfairly and consistently on only the male gender, there is little regard for females and any value they have within society.

And it’s the prevalence of these attitudes that explain why the Olympics, described by journalist Sarah Laskow earlier this year as ‘one of the few times, ever, that the media pays attention to female athletes ‘, are vital regarding the position of women within sports. In the London 2012 Olympics, British women alone acquired a total of 50 medals, (17 gold, 12 silver, and 21 bronze), the majority of the US’ medals were won by females, and women’s football brought in record-breaking crowds. Essentially, the sportswomen of the world worked together to demonstrate that – given the chance to prove it- males and females could be equally successful within sport.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of these attitudes also explains why these excellent female Olympians were disallowed from enjoying even a small portion of celebration for their successes before casual misogynists descended upon them.

When medal winning gymnast Beth Tweddle took part in an online Q&A session this January, what had originally been an attempt to bring essential attention to inspirational women in sport became what Claire Cohen describes as ‘a torrent of vile insults and misogyny’, with Tweddle being hatefully branded with abuse like ‘slut’, ‘bitch’, and ‘pig ugly’.

Rebecca Addlington has also publicly commented on the sexism she suffers from through gender expectations regarding appearance. Whilst appearing on reality TV show I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, the Olympic swimmer stated, “For me, I was an athlete, I wasn’t trying to be a model, but pretty much every single week on Twitter I get somebody commenting on the way I look”.

Furthermore, this trend of placing a higher value on women’s appearances – as opposed to their contributions to sport- is continued massively throughout the internet, with a Facebook page recently coming to my attention through several male friends ‘liking’ it; a fanpage for… wait for it… Jessica Ennis’ bum. The page has around 125 thousand likes, and with a mass of predictable, and ever-so-eloquent comments from users regarding this particular aspect of her physique, there is little suggestion that perhaps Mrs Ennis-Hill should be respected for her position as the current heptathlon champion, as opposed to being belittled into nothing but a representation of male sexual arousal.

Conclusively, we as a society must begin to recognise the severe extent to which sexism exists within sport. But we cannot afford to simply accept that this is the case, and resign, however bitterly, to remain faceless bystanders, cheering on the boys. We must, armed with the information that sportswomen are under-represented, (with 95% of sports media coverage being devoted to males), begin to make a stand for our female athletes. We must do this not only to gain recognition for these incredible and admirable sporting women, but also for those who exist outside of sport. We must do this for those women who will potentially be spending the next few weeks with black eyes and broken ribs simply because of an over hyped game of malestream, patriarchal, kickabout.


The Menstruation Myth

More Bloody Taxes

Dysmenorrhoea. Period pain. It’s not pleasant, but it’s common. The Virtual Medical Centre, Australia’s leading medical information website, reported in 2005 that between 40-70% of women of reproductive age suffer from the condition, and of these women, 10% report their symptoms, (which can be as mildly irritating as a dull ache, or as immobilizing as severe cramping), as being especially intense. However, other studies from around the same era, such as that by Feminax, found that over 80% of a group of 600 females suffered from period pains, and that what’s more, 10% of the group found the pains so debilitating that, on a monthly basis, they were forced to take time off work. Despite the commonly portrayed ideas of what women like to get up to on their periods, for a lot of women the main desires really aren’t roller-skating, jogging, horse-riding, or anything that doesn’t involve being laid in bed and assuming the foetal position; menstruation is definitely no walk, (or skate), in the park.

And that’s just the bodily side of things. Socially, it can be even more difficult to be a woman on your period. Maybe, it’s down to the fact that we exist in a society where women are so extensively sexualised that the thought of a vagina being used for anything more than accommodating penises that people are so repulsed by menstruation,(Because of course, all of us women essentially plead to mother nature for our body to strip itself apart). Or perhaps it has something to due with many people’s first encounter with periods – in an awkward primary school sex education classroom, surrounded by peers who have already branched off into gender-dependant groups, and as such find anything to do with the opposite sex gross. One thing, however, is definitely for certain. Periods are taboo.

There are many examples of this. As Colin Schultz suggested early this year, one of the most obvious indications that there is a taboo surrounding periods is the use of blue, and not red, liquids within many advertisements demonstrating the capability of feminine hygiene products. This tradition was only broken in 2011, and is essentially just a somewhat evolved version of the ‘urgh! Blood!’ reaction that appears around the same time as the aforementioned sex ed. Class, and just serves to reinforce the idea that a period is disgusting, dirty, and something to be hidden away. In an article by Hannah Betts last year, Betts gave the example of Uta Pippig, and the controversey the runner caused when she ran, (and won!), the Boston marathon in 1996 – with visible menstrual blood. Betts describes how ‘Commentators were rendered speechless, referring to “physical problems”, “stomach pain” and “diarrhoea”. In 2000, Karen Houppert also found herself exploring the taboo within her work, coming to the conclusion that periods are not just a forbidden subject, but also a confusing one; as females, we’re taught from a young age that they are natural, but from then on, the majority of the advice we’re given only covers how to hide them. And what’s more, Houppert notes that even menopause, which signifies the end of this apparent stain, (forgive the pun), on our lives, is a subject strictly forbidden to talk about. However, perhaps one of the most notable ways in which the nature of menstruation taboo is exhibited is by the gloriously pink-haired youtuber Albinwonderland, who, in reaction to the launching of a ‘resealable tampon’, commented on the fact that the concept of these tampons is yet another demonstration of society’s refusal to accept the reality of periods. It’s a way of hiding the bloody actuality that accompanies the female reproductive system by making use of ‘easy and discreet disposal'; instead of putting a used tampon, (rubbish), in the bin, (with other rubbish), the apparent expectation is to place the tampon back in it’s packet, and carry it around with you until you are able to find a more suitable place to dispose of the evidence, thus continuing the taboo.

Subsequently, with all of society’s hullabaloo and anxiety surrounding the topic, you’d think that it would be made easy for us to ensure that our natural, seven million year old, not hurting anyone, process would be easier to hide, considering the probable reaction if we were to venture out, ‘riding the crimson tide’, without some form of sanitary product. You’d assume, generally, that considering the mounting evidence that society really doesn’t want to hear about your bodily fluids, they’d consider the sanitation of your bodily fluids, and as such the prevention of trips to the hospital to deal with consequent fairly unpleasant health problems, or even just the discretion of your bodily fluids, ‘essential’, would you not?

Well, apparently, when it comes to Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, this is not the case! No no; Mr Osborne believes female sanitary products are ‘unessential’, and that as such, they are in need of a 5% tax rate.

This is a somewhat bemusing decision at face value, given the implication that Mr Osborne is quite literally taxing individuals based on their gender, and doing so whilst they’re in potentially both a physically, and socially uncomfortable situation. Fundamentally, women are expected to not only hobble our way to whatever shop is closest, clutching our cramping stomachs, and casting awkward glances behind us to make sure nobody has noticed that we are part of the female gender, (and as such our body reflects this), but we are then expected to pay excessive amounts of money in order to maintain our hygiene during this ridiculously challenging monthly occasion. However, what’s even more bemusing about this decision is that, if we were so inclined, we could theoretically hobble our way to whatever shop is closest, clutching our cramping stomachs, and casting awkward glances behind us us to make sure nobody has noticed that we are part of the female gender, (and as such our body reflects this), and then purchase – tax-free – men’s razors, cake decorations, alcoholic dessert jellies, and… wait for it… crocodile steaks.

Evidently, Mr Osborne is fairly confused as to exactly what essential is defined at. I for one, having only ever come in contact with one item from that list, (cake decorations), can confirm that I’m really quite okay; even without the benefit of alcoholic jelly, exotic meat, or a man’s razor.

On the other hand, I’m certain that I would not be okay without the benefit of feminine hygiene products. I’m quite certain that if I didn’t make use of them, not only would I be severely criticised within our society, (which as I’ve already suggested, is fairly against the idea of periods, and as such probably wouldn’t want me bleeding here, there, and everywhere), or be forced into perpetually buying new sets of underwear to replace those that wouldn’t look out of place a slasher film prop, but that also, (as the name of the products suggests), I would face a lack of hygiene. What’s more, I’m not alone in this thought, with the ‘Stop taxing periods. Period.’ petition having been set up by the lovely Laura Coryton last month. The 34,000 signature strong movement, aims to convince Mr Osborne to ‘recognise the essentiality’ of the products which he deems un-needed, (Though no doubt this wouldn’t be the case were he to suddenly wake up and find that not only did he have a vagina, but that having gone to sleep on white sheets, he’d woken up on the Japanese flag), and, quite rightly, advises him that ‘failure to acknowledge this, especially in comparison with other menial products, is an insult to men and women alike, and should be reversed. ‘

So come on Mr Osborne. Stop taxing periods.



I’m a Mother and I Had An Abortion – Cosmopolitan

I’m a Mother and I Had An Abortion – Cosmopolitan

There are not “women who have abortions” on one side and “women who are mothers” on another. 

Justin Bieber, We Don’t Accept Your Apology | NOISEY

Top Gear: It’s a man’s world.

Fifty four year old television personality Jeremy Clarkson, best known for his role as a presenter on BBC’s Top Gear, is no stranger to controversy. His lengthy career – which isn’t strictly limited to television, but also includes regular columns for both The Sunday Times and The Sun, (Though anyone who reads this regularly enough have hopefully recognised that I’d hardly class the latter as journalism; No More Page 3!) – has been almost defined by his ability to generate dispute and cause offense. Be it the claim of South Korean motor company Hyundai in 1998 that Clarkson was ‘bigoted and racist’, the 500 complaints generated in 2008 by jokes he made surrounding the murder of prostitutes by lorry drivers, or even the 21,335 complaints that the BBC received in November 2011 following his suggestion that the striking public sector should be ‘executed in front of their families’, it’s almost unarguable that his continued success as a celebrity persona is reliant upon the amount of shock he is able to create through his ‘humour’. But this time, it seems that his ability to produce scandal has landed him in near-scalding, dangerously hot water.

Clarkson’s most recent disgrace would in fact seem to support those claims of Hyundai almost twenty years ago, with polemic caused by his apparent use of racial slurs on two separate occasions; one a pejoratively derogatory term for Asian persons, and another, the dreaded ‘n word’, relentlessly offensive to any Black individuals. And it appears, (Hurrah!), that the enraged backlash from these carelessly racist comments has finally got through to the otherwise obliviously offensive presenter, with a humble and apologetic video released, and an admission within The Sun that should he be the in the centre of any further outrages, he will inevitably lose his job.

But why is it this incident which has generated so much media attention? Had I myself not heard about it through near-constant coverage from newspapers and news stations alike, I doubtlessly wouldn’t be writing about it right now. Without question, what Clarkson did is horrendously wrong on all fronts, and this is the case for all of the casual racism which exists within our media, perpetrating and perpetuating a culture in which racism is still, (Unbelievably, given the time that we live in), very much present. Nobody is arguing against that, and by no means am I trying to lessen the gravity of the situation and the severity with which punishment should be dealt out. But what about his casual sexism?

No doubt, the world of Top Gear is very much a man’s world. More than half of those who watch the show are male, and the BBC themselves specify that the core audience is ‘males 18-35’, or ‘dads and lads’. But why does this, that is a mainly male target audience, nearly always go hand in hand with the kind of casual sexism that can be just as detrimental to our communities as casual racism, but for some reason, receives far less coverage? It is quite right that Clarkson’s racial slurs have received such negative exposure from the media, but what’s not quite right is that equally offensive gender-based comments and actions have consistently been dubbed as harmless, protected by the “It’s just banter” excuse that casual sexism always seems to fall under.

When the trailer for the latest series of the show aired last year it was met with hefty criticism from quite a few irritated individuals, and was accused of supporting and furthering the sort of gender stereotypes which upholds the climate within our culture that sexism is able to thrive in; whilst the boys drove cars, got muddy, and generally had a lot of fun, us women, (Bless our hearts), well, we did nothing really, just sewed their clothes back up and tutted about their shenanigans. And what were those quite justifiable irritated people met with when they tried to criticise this? Well, in the case of Lorraine Candy, they were met with comments which almost exclusively damned feminism, feminists, and women in general; as one eloquent supporter of the show put it, and received 144 positive ratings in the process, ‘get a life you stupid woman’.

In my own experience, even, it seems that Top Gear, and indeed any other show which tries to cast out that laddish, one of the boys aura, is somehow exempt from any criticism regarding sexism, or at least any criticism which is taken seriously. In a recent saddening experience I commented to my thirteen year old sister, who was watching the show, (Who, having grown up with two older Feminist siblings, is no stranger to recognising misogyny in our media), that the seemingly irrelevant presence of a bikini-clad woman within one of their episodes was un-needed, and would potentially only serve to alienate their less than half female audience further; it taught them that as females, they didn’t really belong inside the car, but more outside of it, perhaps within some sort of merge between a wet t-shirt competition and a charity carwash. Her reply, “It’s Top Gear. What do you expect?”, simply served to illustrate that this alienation of over half of the population was so common that it was to be expected, and that I should either not watch the show or simply put up with it… if you don’t like, don’t look. As such, the television show holds some sort of authority in which, rather than being held accountable to sexism, and changing its ways to suit a world in which men and women really shouldn’t have to put up with such patriarchal, savile-era problems, the audience are left to change instead.

What’s more, worryingly, it appears that this casual sexism mentality is not only present within Top Gear itself, but that its presenters were also prepared to defend this within other aspects of the media, extending their male-stream, gender-blind influence to all reaches of our society. When fellow presenters Richard Keys and Andy Gray, of Sky Sports, were criticised for off-air sexist comments surrounding Sian Massey, a female assistant referee, Clarkson came to their defence. The hero he is, he defended all of our rights to believe in out-of-date notions such as ‘women can’t drive’, and claimed that the dismissal of Gray as a result of the scandal was ‘terrifying’. Perhaps somebody should have let him know that he’d really nothing to be scared of; when it comes to sexist whistleblowing, the mainstream media still doesn’t really care.

Man who posted video online having sex with sleeping woman is cleared of rape

Woman Files Sexual Harassment Complaint, Is Suspended From Work For Five Days

Freckled Feminist:

A sad story. Perhaps an inappropriate comment, but in no way whatsoever condones the response.

Originally posted on The Belle Jar:

Trigger warning for talk of sexual assault

If a woman is sexually harassed or assaulted in the workplace, then she must have done something to cause it.

At least, that’s the message being put forth by the Toronto’s parks and recreation department, where late last month a woman was suspended from work for five days after accusing a male co-worker of unzipping his pants and rubbing his penis against her in the lunchroom.

Susan Rose was responding to a comment made by her colleague John Maynard with, “I will punch you in the dick.” Maynard then became, in her words, “aggressive,” saying, “Do you want to punch me in the dick?” while unzipping his pants and walking towards her. Rose turned away from him and grabbed onto another colleague’s arm, but felt Maynard pressing his body up against hers. She then heard a third colleague tell Maynard to wash his…

View original 876 more words

The Sun: Saving the lives of women one manipulative, self-interested campaign at a time.

Before allowing myself to indulge in any of the disgusted, distressed, and downright irate language that has been ricocheting off the walls of my mind since Tuesday, (Or as I should perhaps now be referring to it, “Check ‘Em Tuesday”), I would like to begin this post with an admittance from the start. Unlike some of  the incredibly unfortunate, but amazingly brave individuals who have recently been writing articles on this subject, I am not a breast cancer survivor. I’ve never, (touch wood), been luckless enough to experience such a horrendous disease, and that is something that I am extremely thankful for, as should be all of those who fall into the same category. That being said, it is a disease present in my family history, with my great-grandmother sadly being one of its many victims and my brilliant grandmother being a survivor; my grandmother on my father’s side tragically is also another victim of cancer, though not of the breast. As such, I’d like to acknowledge how utterly aware I am that none of the following words will carry as much impact, knowledge, and significance as those who have so courageously fought off such a monster of an illness. However, partly as an additional homage to all of those awesome individuals who have, I’d like to say my piece.

If it had not already become clear, the subject of this blog post is the deeply disrespectful decision of Britain’s most widely read, favourite ‘family newspaper’, The Sun, who recently announced their involvement with the CoppaFeel breast cancer charity. Now when I first heard about this, I was thrilled; at last, The Sun, through raising awareness of breast cancer, had decided to do something which would actually benefit women as opposed to belittling and objectifying them! And then, with a sinking heart that had perhaps been too hopeful from the offset, I found out how The Sun had decided to exhibit this story… Rosie, aged 22, from Middlesex.

To say the least, the decision to have Rosie almost-naked on the front cover of the tabloid, and then even more scantily-clad as part of the daily ‘page 3’ feature, feels like a deliberate one-fingered gesture to all of those hard-working, passionate individuals involved with the No More Page 3 campaign. Almost a very childish, symbolic gesture; “What do you have to say about our sexist decision to debase women now? You can hardly say we don’t support women, can you?”. And admittedly, that’s something I myself struggled and grappled with for a while. Then, I decided that actually, yes, myself and others can and will acknowledge that this was a bad move on The Sun’s part; it’s possible to agree with the sentiment without agreeing with the way in which the sentiment was expressed.

One of the most obvious issues surrounding the way in which T.S presented their involvement is the fact that however rare, (less than 1 in every 100 cases), men can also suffer from breast cancer, with 350 being diagnosed with the disease every year. Does this smaller figure lessen the importance and significance of these individuals? Well, given that I can see no Jim to accompany Rosie, this appears to be the case for David Dinsmore and The Sun. This means that breast cancer in males, already somewhat unknown amidst the vast, (and rightly so) amount of attention that breast cancer in females receives, has missed a chance to gain recognition, despite the majority of the newspaper’s readers being male; is this the first in a long line of hints to perhaps suggest that the health of their readers wasn’t The Sun’s main priority in releasing the story, but more just another excuse to reduce a young woman to the status of ‘sex object’?

A second worry surrounding the campaign is excellently and eloquently summed up by Sarah Ditum of The New Statesmen, who posed the questions, “I wonder how much thought Sun editor David Dinsmore gave to those women’s feelings when he was signing off the front page. Did he realise that The Sun’s breast fixation might be an insult to these survivors?”. Both are significant questions to ask of Dinsmore, given that the homogenous parade of women who grace page 3 on a daily basis are most definitely not breast cancer survivors, presumably because they don’t fit the unrealistic expectations that the publication requires of all of its models. Two charities, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Care, have already publicly voiced concerns surrounding the campaign, with a speaker for the latter referring to its ’insensitivity’ in regards to victims and their relatives. Additionally, a young woman from Brighton, Jessica Dean, whose mother is a breast cancer survivor, recently started a campaign here on urging The Sun to issue an apology for their ‘crassness and insensitivity’ surrounding the issue, publish Breast Cancer Care’s recent advertisement image featuring a breast cancer survivor (Which actually seems to fit the newspaper’s usual branding of ‘empowering’  women, for a change), and donate the daily profits of that day to breast cancer charities. This begs the question that if at least some of those who suffered/are suffering from breast cancer are not happy with the way in which The Sun are raising awareness, what right have the rest of us to be?

The sexualisation of breast cancer should not be taken lightly, particularly given The Sun’s apparent lack of coverage for other forms of cancer; those which don’t allow them to somehow attempt to justify their stuck-in-the-70s representation of women, or encourage women to send The Sun photos of their breasts. One can’t help but feel dismayed at the total ignorance and insensitivity displayed by the publication, which, if it’s possible, is definitely worsened by the close proximity to International Women’s Day. Essentially, and I can’t be alone in thinking this, given that approximately 14,000, (And rising) have signed the No More Page 3 petition since Tuesday, the campaign not only leaves you with a bitter taste in your mouth, and harsh words on your tongue, but an unshakable impression that, despite CoppaFeel’s amazing intentions, The Sun’s main primacy throughout all of this is to ensure that we “check ‘em” not for our health, but to ensure a steady stock of breasts are available on demand for misogynistic consumption.


Explaining the invalidity of the “Don’t like, don’t look” argument.

As I hope would be evident from the majority of the content on my blog, I am a passionate supporter of the No More Page 3 campaign, which aims to encourage the most widely read newspaper in Britain, The Sun, to voluntarily revoke its ‘page 3’ feature, which displays almost-naked, (Generally only in pants), barely-legal, young women on a daily basis. Through my long withstanding support of the cause, I’ve come to learn that when you identify yourself as a supporter, you’re pretty much, (Unfortunately), setting yourself up for the number one generic comeback, “If you don’t like page 3, just don’t look at it. Just don’t buy the sun”. And though that may at first glance seem a logical response to the issue, those who use this in support of page 3’s continuance evidently haven’t looked at just how far the repercussions of the feature travel, and how, consequently, this isn’t the simplistic solution that everybody seems to think it is.

Primarily, to argue against this apparent resolution for those who recognise the offensive nature of page 3, it is worth noting that The Sun is not some sacred specimen of literacy that is kept, bubble-wrapped, in a secret government warehouse somewhere in the country, but is actually widely available, and is not even something that you always have to pay for. The Sun and page 3 are available for community access on public transport, in libraries, cafés, a menagerie of other various unrelated places, and as I recently, rather horrendously discovered… in schools. Not only have I come across the tabloid whilst carrying out my work placement in a secondary school, with young eyes definitely able to scrutinise, and to socialise from, an identity-less, potentially young enough to be in their sixth form, almost naked young girl, but also in my current educational facility- college. It’s difficult to maintain respect for somebody, no matter their age, or amount of qualifications, when they persistently and openly ogle at the bosom, (Scarily, this could theoretically belong to one of his students), that page 3 has to offer that day, whilst all around them, female students are attempting to eat. This particular situation crept upon me a short time ago, and I have no doubt that it is one that many others have to go through and undoubtedly suffer the consequence of. With that in mind, let me reassure you; despite the fact that I had not deliberately sought out page 3, this smiling, archetypal lady, and her pert breasts, were being shoved in my face nevertheless.

I also find the ‘Don’t like, don’t look’ argument frustrating in regards to history, with the plight of those who have/had suffered greatly at the hands of discrimination being trivialised by such a basic and uninformed concept. For example, though without doubt racism still sadly perseveres within our society, many would say that it is at a much reduced level in comparison to what it used to be, and this does certainly not come as a result of ‘not looking’, or simply ignoring the struggles of our ethnic minorities with an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mantra drilling its way through our heads. This can be explained simply by the fact that ignoring a problem within our society doesn’t mean that the problem goes away, and in many cases can actually become amplified, rotting its way into the minds of individuals, stewing in its own malice. History has taught us this time and time again, and yet now, in 2014, it is still the advice dispensed to us in abundance; do we really want the individuals of the future to look back on the choices we make now with as much disgust as we look back on some of the choices our forefathers, (and mothers!), made? If not, perhaps we should pay heed to the words of the No More Page 3 campaign, and support the encouragement to drop a newspaper, (‘News’, really?), feature designed purely to titillate, arouse, and subsequently contribute to the ever-present objectification of women.

Fortunately however, the “Don’t like, don’t look” argument does have one redeeming quality. Not in the ill-educated, (Though admittedly this in some cases may not be intentional), reasoning behind its words, but in the creativity that it has provoked not only within the brilliant supporters of the campaign, but perhaps most notably, in the fabulous Jo Harrison. Her amazing artwork, surrounding the counter-argument to that infamous sentence you constantly brace yourself for in championing the No More Page 3 campaign, is generated through the stories surrounding those who didn’t like, didn’t look, and yet were still victims of the norms and values that page 3 allows to thrive. Jo’s artwork is a treasure when trying to demonstrate with only little time, or indeed listeners with little patience, that ‘you don’t have to buy into culture to receive payback’.


Create a free website or blog at
The Esquire Theme.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers