The Insidious Aspect of Real or Acted Violence Against Women - Research Paper Example

1. According to Catharine Mackinnon, pornography does not deserve protection under the first amendment as free speech. Reconstruct her reasons in support of this claim. Do you think she is correct? Why or why not? Catharine Mackinnon argues that all pornography amounts to the oppression of women. She sees that oppression as two-fold: firstly, all women participating in the production of pornographic materials are oppressed and violated and secondly, all women are then subjected to coercion and potential violence or at least subjected to sexual harassment as a consequence of men viewing such materials. There is also the insidious aspect of real or acted violence against women shown in pornographic materials and of women portrayed as eager participants who keep smiling through their pain and degradation. Mackinnon cites the example of the actress known as Linda Lovelace, who stated that she was forced under threat of violence by her husband to act in the pornographic films she appeared in and that subsequently many women needed medical treatment because their husbands or boyfriends tried to enact the scenes they had watched in the films. The effect on society of this constant drip feed of pornography and violence is that women come to be viewed as toys to be used and not to be taken seriously when, say, reporting a rape or a case of sexual harassment. Women are portrayed as enjoying their humiliation and degradation – a sinister and effective argument used to silence women who often rightly fear that no one will believe them or listen to them. Mackinnon argues against the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech in that she claims that a dominant speaker can always use the freedom of speech argument to silence a weaker one by citing freedom of speech when accused of coercion or bullying. We cannot dismiss this argument entirely, and we have probably all seen examples in our own lives where people were intimidated into silence just through speech without using the force of actual physical violence. The First Amendment and more recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. The Miller test) already allow for exceptions to freedom of speech if the speech contains obscenity or shows sexual conduct in an offensive way. But Mackinnon argues that this is not enough when it comes to the issue of pornography. Rather than being exposed to obscenity, it is the actual harm that women suffer as a consequence of men consuming a diet of violent pornography and she wishes the First Amendment to be adapted so that the publication of images and material that leads to violence against women is included and addressed by it. MacKinnon was instrumental in drafting the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance which proposed to consider pornography as a violation of women's civil rights, and to allow women to seek damages if they felt they had been harmed by pornography. This approach was different to existing obscenity laws as it specifically targeted the aspect of harm that women suffer from pornography. However, the Ordinance was repeatedly struck out by US courts who found that the Ordinance violates the freedom of speech principle of the First Amendment. But it is also necessary to change the public – and particularly male – perception of pornography, although this will be a very long term process. The US have a strong tradition of civil liberties and any attempt at introducing a form of censorship, may quickly lose public support. One should also consider that any model of censorship, the opposite of freedom of speech, has the potential of ultimately silencing far more people on many more subjects. Freedom is a precious good, and the price we pay is the potential abuse of it, whereas absence of freedom ultimately leads to the suppression of every individual. 2. According to Sally Markowitz, the issue of abortion is not “gender neutral.” What are her reasons for thinking this? Explain Markowitz’ understanding of the “impermissible sacrifice principle” as it pertains to the issue of abortion. Markowitz argues that the abortion dilemma is not one of having to choose between fetal rights and the rights of women, but that it entails choosing between other alternatives instead. What are those other alternatives? What do you think of Markowitz’s argument? Sally Markowitz uses the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle as an argument supporting women’s choice with regard to abortions. She sees women in general as an oppressed group in society and argues that an oppressed group cannot be forced by the oppressors to make sacrifices that perpetuate their oppression. She points out that oppressed groups are not exempt from making sacrifices at all, as they remain morally responsible people who may be called upon to assist others, for example. However, in the context of abortion she sees women as one homogenous group who are sexually oppressed by men. According to Markowitz, abortion on demand is therefore justified because all women live in a sexist society. What about fetal rights then? Are they not also an oppressed group, in fact more so than women, because they as yet have not the ability to make an independent choice? However, a fetus is incapable of being oppressed as it cannot yet engage in any kind of social interaction that could place it in either a dominant or subordinate group (Kempton). Markowitz’ view of the pro life and anti abortion argument is that it forces women to make sacrifices for men’s benefit. It requires profound changes in our society to give women and men truly equal status in our practices of sexuality and the result of heterosexual sexuality; i.e. pregnancy. Pro life men assume moral superiority over women by defining themselves as protectors of the unborn fetus but forget that women are often forced into pregnancies and should therefore have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Markowitz basically makes an appeal for social justice – if women are no longer (sexually) oppressed there would be no need for abortion other than perhaps for medical reasons. I believe that Markowitz has a valid point in saying that women are in many cases oppressed in their sexuality and that any anti-abortion policies, once enshrined in law – as they were in the past – tend to increase the oppression of women. However, even in a truly egalitarian society in which both genders enjoy truly equal status, I can imagine that women fall pregnant against their explicit wishes, either because a method of contraception failed or for other reasons. In that case, following Markowitz’s logic, when women are no longer oppressed in any form, they should then no longer have the right to an abortion, as the impermissible sacrifice principle would no longer apply to women of truly equal status in society. 3. According to Karen Warren, what is the “logic of domination?” Explain in some detail how Warren thinks that the “logic of domination” gets used to justify (a) the subordination of nature by humans, and (b) the subordination of women by men. Do you believe that difference is necessarily connected to superiority? Why or why not? Karen Warren sees a clear connection between the domination of women and the domination of non human nature. Historically, western thinking has created a framework to justify the different positions and roles of men and women in society, giving ‘male’ values a higher place in the hierarchy than ‘female’ values. Warren argues that the logic of domination leads to prejudice against the dominated which in turn reasons why the ‘Downs’ (as she terms it) must logically be dominated by the ‘Ups’ if only for their own sake. Thinking in this way perfectly rationalizes and justifies relationships with a dominance/subordination pattern. The logic of domination works on two fronts: firstly, the differences between the genders are used in patriarchic societies to infer male superiority. Thus the ‘otherness’ of women to men, their very gender differences are subjected to value dualism which means that perceived male values and characteristics are superior to female characteristics, a self-fulfilling logic that enshrines the dominant/subordinate pattern. The second aspect of the logic of domination uses this perceived superiority to justify the domination of women by men: because women are morally inferior, need protection, are less intelligent … again, any perceived aspect that seems to confirm male superiority is applied to justify the status quo of male domination of women. This would work with other opposites – at this point I would just like to mention the racial debates of the past which often claimed that black people are inferior to whites because of their perceived lack of intelligence or inability to control their impulses. Similar things were argued in the case of women e.g., that they lack intelligence and do not have the same standards of morals if their behavior is not controlled by men. However, historically women as well as blacks did not have the same access to education as white males, so the argument would be largely self-fulfilling: a perfect example of the logic of domination. It is interesting to note that ‘nature’ is traditionally viewed as feminine or female – the term ‘mother nature’ surely speaks for itself – so that by association nature should be subordinate too. The logical conclusion of this type of patriarchic thinking is that nature is female, and by inference, females are closer to nature than males who represent the cultural, civilized and superior counterpart to the female, thus rationalizing themselves into domination over women. It appears to be a common trap for humans to perceive and define ‘otherness’ as ‘inferior’ rather than tolerate and celebrate differences in behavior or attitudes. We have a long way to go yet to achieve true acceptance, equality and tolerance. Sources Burns, K.A., Warren’s EcoFeminist Ethics and Merleau Ponty’s Body Subject, available at: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34999362/WARRENS-ECOFEMINIST-ETHICS-AND-MERLEAUPONTYS-BODYSUBJECT-INTERSECTIONS# Kempton, S., Friday Feminist, 2008, available at: http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2008/06/friday-feminist-sally-markowitz.html MacKinnon, C., Only Words, Harvard University Press, 1993 Mulvey, E. and Haugaard, J., Report of the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health, Arlington, 1986 U.S. Supreme Court, Miller v. California, Appeal from the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 413 U.S.15 (1973) Markowitz, S., Feminism and Abortion, first published in Social Theory and Practice, 1990, reprinted in James E. White (ed), Contemporary Moral Problems, 7th ed., Wadsworth: 2003 Sterba, J. P. (ed.), Ethics: The Big Questions, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 1998 Warren, K.J., Ecofeminist Philosophy, A Western Perspective on what it is and why it Matters, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford, 2000 Warren, K.J. (ed.), Ecofeminism Women Culture Nature, Indiana University Press, 1997 Read More