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 sexually explicit or exploitative material in the
media be discouraged for the purposes of empowering women and other
historically dominated people? In academic literature on the issue of
sexism and patriarchy, most of the evidence examined are media
products. Although often left unsaid, the natural tendency is to
think critically about what controls may be constituted. As seen in
the current state of the American media, when left unchecked, one
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 seems to be three ways forward available.
The first is to adopt a laissez-faire approach. Simply allow the
media to be reflective of the culture 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 media presentations may be
criticized for the purpose of making controversial material fall out
of fashion.
It is
possible to compare these ways forward as they have independently
manifested in different cultures around the world. It is important to
note that this investigation will focus on gender and sexuality. As
each culture studied is represented by independent media, they are
reflective of the sensibilities of that culture. This means that
cultures with medias considered 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). It should be recognized 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 restrict 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 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), which practice some form of censorship in the
form of restricting access of minors to risque material, similar
results occur. 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.
It
would be an oversimplification to 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
world-wide. 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. Countries with freer medias
have smaller gender gaps, which means greater equality.
One
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 one can see how countries with
restricted medias perform in their providing access to those
resources. I believe censorship is a slippery slope, and as can be
seen in our American censorship of sex over violence, its difficult
to be consistent. Medias are representative of their culture of
origin, and that should be taken 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. Medias can change minds, and the best
gift to be given to disenfranchised people of the world is a voice.
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 it
hasn't produced great change recently. Academic criticism may serve
as a conversation starter for individuals to make educated
choices, but perhaps not institutionally. 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
Works
Cited
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment