One of the problems with drawing diverse characters in cartoons and comics is that making main characters generic is one way to get readers to identify with them. We read characters into even the simplest shapes.
I quit my office job in 2008, utterly frazzled and having just born the brunt of being managed by a terrible boss. I was exhausted, disillusioned with journalism, and just wanted an environment where I wasn't being bellowed at daily. Freelancing seemed the perfect option.
There are already so many pressures placed upon women to look a certain way and be a certain way as moms, that a photo and message like this can trigger negative thoughts and behaviors in non-model moms.
Institutionalised sexism is dangerous because it assimilates into our culture to the point that we don't see it anymore, and conforming to the dominant narrative ends up being mistaken for a choice.
As a woman, a journalist and a mum, I don't 'get' what the fuss is all about over page three. Comments about tomorrow's chip paper, poor little crack whores and sexual discrimination do not faze me. They do not convince most discerning consumers.
Back when I signed the petition a couple of years ago, I imagined my goddaughter, who turned five last week, growing up, coming across The Sun one day and wondering why a mainstream newspaper would display a photo like that.
Regardless of how you politicise the debate over objectification what is obvious to most people is that Page 3 has served a purpose in popularising The Sun in the 70s and 80s, but is now of another time.
It's smug, it's nasty, it's a publicity triumph. It also reaffirms what campaigners have always said about Page 3: That The Sun's loyalty to Page 3 is a commitment to disempowering women under the guise of that age-old defence of sexism: "it's just harmless fun".
I looked at the Page 3 girls and hoped I'd look like Linda Lusardi when I was older. I blushed when various family members and friends would comment on my body - no part of it was left unscrutinised by the people that surrounded me, male and female. I'd say that started around the age of eight.
Taking the bare boobs out of The Sun is a momentous step in the right direction. But let's not dance in the street just yet (maybe just a few fireworks and a glass of bubbly?). We're not done people.
This is the problem with institutionalised sexism (or racism, or homophobia, or institutionalised anything) - it's insidious and works at an almost subconscious level. It takes an inherently wrong and damaging mentality and normalises it.
Men who wouldn't win a prize at Crufts feel entitled to judge the appearance of women and find them lacking, as if they've wilfully failed to conform to conventional standards of beauty out of spite. Men who might easily be mistaken for Dobby the House Elf, feel wronged when the office isn't staffed with eye candy of a standard they deem high enough.
I babysat a young girl last year where a copy of the Sun had been left open on a coffee table. When she saw page 3 she looked at me and asked if the image was what boobs are meant for! But while it's great that topless women have been taken out of the Sun, there is still a long way to go.
Before anyone suggests it - no I'm not a prude and I'm certainly not offended by the sight of a pair of breasts, I'm more offended by what the Page 3 girls represented to young females, particularly when it comes to describing them as 'models'.
I have no doubt that many Page 3 models enjoy what they do but they are not really exploring in different types of sexiness nor are they challenging what it means to be a woman. That's not being a 'hater' or a 'jealous cow'- that' just stating a fact.
To paint a picture of how inequalities work both ways, in the past few years I have had countless conversations with men who want a similar opportunity as their female partner to spend time with their children but who daren't mention it to their manager.