Revealed preferences, eh?

From Compass:

This year, spurred on by social media and the effects of the recession, a new wave of feminism is gathering strength at an impressive pace. Over 200,000 people have signed the No More Page 3 petition nationwide

Signing, at no cost, a petition. As against people who actually spend their own money to, amongst other things agreed, see the tits on a daily basis:

The Sun 2,213,659

Hmm.

The British do seem to be on the tits out for the lads side really, don’t they?

20 thoughts on “Revealed preferences, eh?”

  1. On the days that I have to commute into London, more women than men are reading “The Sun”. Can’t all be down to page 3.

  2. Sorting out page 3 in the era of internet porn is like putting down rat poison when an elephant is shitting in your kitchen.

    I hope the Sun keeps it just to piss off the feminists.

  3. @ Ralph Musgrave
    Not quite: it’s putting money where your mouth is: “want” includes “want someone else to pay for what I want, but not prepared to pay for it myself” aka “spoiled brat wants”

  4. Why would any number of people signing a petition legitimise something as illiberal as “No More Page Three” in any case?

    The point about Page Three is that it involves consenting adult women showing their breasts (for money) to consenting adult men. It wouldn’t matter if 40 million people signed up to stop it. It’s not up to them.

  5. Tim
    I clicked on the link “see the tits on a daily basis” and came to some site with no tits. Can you fix the link please?

  6. Sorting out page 3 in the era of internet porn is like putting down rat poison when an elephant is shitting in your kitchen.

    Stig, the point of this is standard puritan practise; when they can’t prohibit something outright, they demand that it be removed from the view of “decent folks”. Smoking is a current example. Trying to hide drinkers away in pubs was another, but that one rather backfired.

    With pictures of women more attractive than themselves, feminist puritans want to ban them all; but if they can’t do that, they want them removed from ordinary media and hidden away in seedy backstreet shops. Or behind paywalls on the internet. Etc. Hence, Page 3 is a constant thorn in their flesh.

    Plus it’s Murdoch who is (supposedly) “right wing” and a consistent bete noir to the progressive conscience.

  7. Au contraire, Julia M, feminism needs to be reclaimed from the current bunch of grievance mongers to reaffirm a woman’s right to be judged on ability not gender, as an individual not a representative of historic victimhood, an adult responsible for her choices.

  8. I think it is a very good thing that we have a list with the names of 200,000+ supporters of tyranny on it. What a valuable resource for future punishment.

  9. JuliaM

    There’s a growing belief that the 1918 Representation of the People Act was a huge errror – this kind of idiocy looks certain to lead to franchise restriction- for the feminists out there- ‘be careful what you wish for’

  10. Are the effects of the recession really driving an upturn in feminism?
    Call me a cynic but I think they are much more likely to drive an upturn in prostitution.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    What a strange assertion, Mr Ironman.
    Like saying the recession would drive an upturn in retailing.
    It’s a market & requires buyers as well as sellers.
    No doubt applies to feminism, equally. Concern about feminist issues is a sign of affluence. Otherwise, people have more pressing concerns.

  12. LJH-

    Calling for “reclaiming” Feminism implies that it was at some point stolen from a prior state; i.e. that it was ever something else. It never was. 2nd Wave (and 3rd and 4th, however many claimed relaunches we’re up to now) was just a recapitulation of the values of the 1st Wave (Victorians up to the Suffragettes), the only difference being the replacement of an evangelical and utopian socialist framework with a post-marxist one. There isn’t some “good old” feminism to rediscover.

  13. @ b(n)is
    Ironman has a point; the market requires buyers as well as sellers but if supply increases and if demand does not increase as much the price will go down as the new suppliers strive for market share until either more buyers who had previously been priced out come into the market or some of the punters indulge more frequently. So an assumption that recession means more young women are getting paid, let alone earning, less than they want to spend and a secondary assumption that some of them will want to pick up some money in the night to top-up their wages from their day job leads to Ironman’s assertion which is not all that strange since there are a boredom of anecdata concerning women turning to prostitution for economic reasons (“driven to prostitution by poverty” or paying her way through Law School).

  14. John77

    Thank you

    B(n)in S

    You pendant! OK then, it leads to an upturn in the SUPPLY of prostitutes if not in the demand for them. Will that do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *