Formal Paper 2 Rough draft version 2

November 25, 2012

Dear Old Guard Feminist:

An uncontrollable byproduct of free speech is that it generates hurtful language and ideas, which may offend one's sensibilities. A dominated group may feel marginalized by inflammatory language or ideas, like sexism. But what is the best way to empower historically dominated people, like women? The media, which may be influenced by the state, and vice versa, certainly have the power to shape public thought and discourse. Should we discourage sexually explicit or exploitative material in the media for the purposes of empowering women and other historically dominated people? As we examine academic literature on the issue of sexism and patriarchy, most of the evidence we examine are media products. Although often left unsaid, the natural second order of effect is to think critically about what controls may be constituted, direct or indirect as they may be. As we can see by the current state of our media, when left unchecked, we can hardly expect the media to change based on the criticism of academia. I propose that freedom of speech ultimately empowers women, even if some of that speech is less than flattering.

Based on these premises, there only seems to be three ways forward available. The first is to adopt a laissez-faire approach. We simply allow the media to be reflective of the culture and ideas it represents. The second is to impose change through decree of the state. The state already assumes some restriction of free speech, through the vehicle of the law. Specifically, some discriminatory and libelous language are outlawed. Pornographic and violent material and images are regulated to restrict distribution. A way forward would be to further restrict media presentations, protecting dominated people. The third option is a softer form of control through which we may criticize media presentations for the purpose of making controversial material fall out of fashion.

It is possible that we may compare these ways forward as they have independently manifested in different cultures around the world. When we analyze metrics concerned with gender equality, we may make better decisions about the best way to liberate previously dominated people. It is important to note that for the purposes of this investigation we will focus on gender and sexuality. As each culture we will study is represented by independent medias, they are reflective of the sensibilities of that culture. This means that cultures with medias that we may consider free in regards to sexuality, may be quite restrictive politically.

An example of a nation that has opted for strong state censorship is Iran. Max Fisher, a writer for The Atlantic wrote of Iranian censorship, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the cinema since even before its founding. Ayatollah and future dictator Ruhollah Khomeini, in his years as revolutionary, condemned movies in both of his books as forces of foreign corruption and imperialism,” (Fisher). We should recognize that much of the censorship that occurs in Iran is due to deep rooted traditions that would be inconsistent with popular western film. But do women fare better for the strict censorship? It would seem not, as Iran ranked 125th among countries surveyed in UNESCO’s 2011 The Global Gender Gap Report (UNESCO). The report ranks countries in terms of their gender equality, the number one ranked country has the greatest gender equality. The report would seem highly relevant as it compares the gap of services, mobility, and opportunity available for men versus women, as opposed to the levels themselves. This is important because it allows for developing nations imbalances due to historic reasons like poverty or war. In fact, countries in conflict, such as revolution in the case of Egypt and Tunisia are omitted from the report. Iran’s problems with the continued oppression of women obviously run deeper than their media, but it seems impossible to notice that strict censorship of what may be called exploitative material does little for the empowerment of women.

A case in which a state has chosen not to restrict their media is Finland. Finland was reported to be the freest media in 2011 by the Paris based group Reporters Without Borders. That isn’t to say that there are no censorship laws in Finland, but rather they restrict illegal child pornography websites and copyrighted material. The Finish government has chosen not to ban other lawful if distasteful imagery containing exploitative or pornographic material. In the same UNESCO report, Finland is scored as the third ranking country in terms of gender equality. It seems like a leap to say that these numbers mean that a free media produces greater gender equality, but perhaps a free media is an important enabler for those who strive to achieve equality.

Pervasive restriction seems to inhibit gender equality, as identified in the Iranian example. Unrestricted medias seem to enable gender equality. But how do nations with limited restriction stand up in terms of gender equality? In the case of the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK), both of which practice some form of censorship in the form of restricting access of minors to risque material, we find similar results. Both the US and the UK restrict sexual imagery more stringently than violent imagery. Shootings and assaults are common on prime time national television, but nudity is more strongly restricted. Of course, there is some sexually suggestive material available to minors through television and popular movies, but violent material seems more accessible. The UK with a score of 16 and the US with a score of 17 seem to predict a correlation with limited restriction. Milder censorship seems to provide a milder obstacle to gender equality.

We can not chart gender equality simply as a function of media censorship. But a free media tends to fall in line with a smaller gap in gender equality. Reporters Without Borders (RWB), the OpenNet Initiative (OPI), and Freedom House (FH) are all private non-profit institutions that gather data on censorship in varying media outlets yearly. I compared the RWB report, the FH Free Press Rating, and the ONI rating in terms of social filtering and compared them to UNESCO's gender equality index. The results were a little more staggering. In all nations compared, no nation with a “Not Free” rating in the RWB report scored better than the Russian Federation's 43rd. Of the 26 countries available for comparison in both reports with “Not Free” ratings, the mean score was 96.

This would seem to indicate that countries without free medias tend to produce quite large gender gaps, comparatively speaking. Countries with “Free” ratings did much better. Of those 26 countries available in all three censorship reports and UNESCOs reports, the mean score was 27. I should qualify this data by saying not every country with a “Free” media did particularly well in the UNESCO report. Japan was scored as having a fully free media in two reports, however it scored a 98 in the gender equality report. Yet, the averages seem to speak for themselves.

These comparisons may seem generalized, but their results confirm each other. We can not blame restrictive media for large gender gaps in access to power, education, and healthcare (three of the main criteria in evaluating the UNESCO gender gap). But we can see how countries with restricted medias perform in their providing access to those resources. I believe censorship is a slippery slope, and as we can see in our American censorship of sex over violence, its difficult to be consistent. Medias are representative of their culture of origin, and we should take that into account when comparing these numbers. The media is often a forerunner to civil rights reform, notable in the case of the acceptance of homosexuality and minorities' access to power. Hopefully, a free media may also act as a harbinger of the empowerment of women. As a soldier in the US military, I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally witnessed harsh restriction of women's rights. I feel that media restriction was not the cause of women's oppression, but freedom of speech facilitates women's liberation. 

In conclusion, there is a correlation of data that suggests that freer medias tend to accompany societies with smaller gender equality gaps as identified by the UNESCO report. I challenge those who would encourage any type of censorship to look at those nations with restrictive medias and their attendant gender equality gaps. There is plenty of room for academic criticism of distasteful media, but that seems like so much bark without bite when it lacks enforcement. What is truly needed to further the cause of empowering historically dominated people are the success stories of women and other historically dominated people who make positive change. It is not enough to attempt to restrain those backward ideas that have repressed women and others in the past.

Sincerely,




Benjamin A. Meade
123 Main St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062




Enclosures: 2

United Nations. UNESCO. The Global Gender Gap Report 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UN World Economic Forum

Censorship by Country. Wikipedia, 23 Nov. 2012. web. 25 Nov. 2012.

Proposal Revision

I propose to write a paper that will compare the effects of censorship, either formal or informal, with regard to sexuality internationally in the media, and compare that to the relative gender equality in the nations compared. I will conduct research for academic writing on the matter, and discuss those sources findings. I suspect that we will find nations with the most highly sexualized media will also have the greatest measure of gender equality. My hypothesis is inclusive of those media outlets whose sexualized media may even contain pornographic or otherwise demeaning imagery. 

My intended audience is all those interested in a discussion of gender relations as it relates internationally. I find that America is a nation of mixed influences, from its puritanical roots, to its diverse population of immigrants. It would seem of benefit to explore these topics among more homogenous societies in comparison. I will prepare my argument in Rogerian style, accepting that little empirical evidence is available, and most will require less than scientific interpretation. But after my research is complete, it may require me to rework my hypothesis if my evidence contradicts my suspicions.

I will integrate the likely counterpoint to my argument. Including the idea that provocative media may provide a psychological “pressure valve” for releasing sexual or violent ideation. I will also generate counterpoints to the finer warrants to claims that will be needed to support the thesis statement.

The intended reader effect is to regard sexual imagery in the media with a greater situational awareness to the author's purpose, and thus inform judgment. 

Rhetorical Analysis 3 Kimmel

In “Bros Before Hos” by Michael Kimmel, the author identifies pressures and norms that coalesce into what Kimmel calls the “guy code”. Kimmel explores the expectations placed on men first by method of compare and contrast.

Kimmel relates the stories of some of his interviews with women and then with men concerning their gender. He found that women thought “Nobody can tell me what it means to be a woman anymore,” (608). Later Kimmel contrasts this with what male interviewees thought it meant to be a man, “Never show your feelings, never ask for directions, never give up, never give in, be strong, be aggressive, show no fear, show now mercy, get rich, get even, get laid win...” (609). Kimmel's compare and contrast methodology certainly seems appropriate when examining one gender in relation to another.

To explicate his definition of the “guy code” Kimmel employs the classification and division method by categorizing certain attributes as desirable in the male gender. This is most apparent in his “Real Guy's Top Ten List,” (608). Kimmel also includes Robert Brannon's summarized four basic rules of masculinity. These rules, documented by the social psychologist in 1976 are strikingly similar to the list Kimmel compiled in recent times. It can be assumed that Kimmel's objective is to convince the reader that little has changed in the expectations placed on men from the point of view of the social and behavioral sciences.

Next, Kimmel describes the implementation of the “guy code.” Kimmel uses the process mode of writing to describe the operation in action. Kimmel's method can be witnessed in the passage that begins, “Guys hear the voices of the men in their lives – fathers, coaches, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, priests – to inform their ideas of masculinity,” (611). The description of the enforcement of the “guy code” can also be described as a process, as Kimmel explains here, “Masculinity is largely a 'homosocial' experience: performed for, and judged by, other men,” (611).

Kimmel uses description to finish out his essay, as he describes homophobia as a means by which to force masculine behaviors on males. Kimmel appeals to the male fear of being misperceived as homosexual as the driving force in macho behavior. Kimmel states, “Everything that is perceived as gay goes into what we might call the Negative Playbook of Guyland. Avoid everything in it and you'll be all right. Just make sure that you walk, talk, and act in a different way from the gay stereotype,” (613). Kimmel cites his interactions with men in workshops about how it feels to be perceived as gay to reinforce his position that the vehicle for conforming men to traditionally masculine roles is homophobia.

Kimmel employed many different modes in his investigation of male standard enforcement among other males, but chiefly he used the process mode. Several passages begin with a narrative, but they are ultimately related to the process of enforcement. I would like to point out however, that much of his evidence may be anecdotal, and I suggest he may have tainted the interviewees answers with leading questions. It would seem likely that one could find evidence to support a similar standard base for women, but he discounts that in the opening of his essay quoted above. I propose these premises undermine his argument.