Link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cnn-steubenville-rape-poppy-harlow-144458279.html
As we begin our discussions into
feminist ethics, it is eerily fitting that the Steubenville rape case has
become a highlight in the news. If you have not heard the story yet, two
sixteen-year old football superstars from Steubenville, Ohio were charged with
raping an unconscious, blacked out sixteen-year old girl. They were caught from
their posting of pictures and videos of them taking advantage of the girl on
social media sites. The article “CNN
criticized for Steubenville verdict coverage” by Dylan Stableford of
Yahoo News describes the public outcry over CNN’s coverage of the boys being
sentenced with rape.
According to the article, CNN focused almost all of their
attention to the boy’s futures being ruined, instead of the actual victim of
the situation. They expressed heartbreak to the boys having to be labeled sex
offenders for the rest of their lives, as well as their promising football
careers being over. However, they did not bring up the victim until the very
end of the segment.
It is
extremely concerning the way CNN handled this whole story. In my opinion, this
is the epitome of Shafer-Landau’s argument in his Feminist Ethics chapter of
The Fundamentals of Ethics. In the chapter, Shafer Landau claims “ Feminists
argue for equal consideration. The interests of women are to be given the same
importance as those of men…Women are the moral equals of men” (Shafer-Landau
2010, 285). Rape is obviously a huge problem to women today, and CNN’s
broadcast played directly in opposition to what feminist ethics are trying to
accomplish. Society as a whole has placed women’s interests secondary compared
to men’s interests, and this article is no different. CNN broadcast to an audience
that felt more empathy for two boys’ football careers being over and lifelong
labels as sex offenders than feeling rage towards them for committing a
malicious crime. This crime is much too common and frightening for women today
for us not see the wrongness of CNN’s broadcast. It is encouraging to see such
an outcry over CNN’s broadcast, but there is obviously a lot of work left to do
in regards to feminist ethics if such a broadcast can even be aired.
On the
other hand, this story is also a great example for Shafer-Landau’s sixth challenge
to feminist ethics. As he describes earlier in the chapter, feminists argue
that justice and rights hinders us from working with other people, instead of
straying away from them (Shafer-Landau 2010, 282).Shafer-Landau challenges this
view by stating, “while justice and rights are not the whole of morality, they
are nonetheless a very important part of it”(Shafer-Landau 2010, 285). In this
scenario, feminists need to find a way to argue for justice and rights. It is a
woman’s right to live free of rape. A person who breaks this right is subject
to justice and consequences. Feminists would wholeheartedly agree with this
statement (as I am sure all of us would), but face the challenge of them opposing
the popularity with rights. Therefore, I fail to recognize the feminist ethic
of downplaying rights, and think that rights and justice have a place in all
ethics, including feminist ethics.
Bibliography
Shafer-Landau,
Russ. 2010. The Fundamentals of Ethics.2nd
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yahoo. 2013. “CNN
Criticized for Steubenville Verdict Coverage.” Last modified March 18. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cnn-steubenville-rape-poppy-harlow-144458279.html
After reading an article entitled, What is Feminist Ethics?, within The Ethical Life, it is evident that author Hilde Lindemann would argue against the reasoning that finds CNN’s coverage of the Steubenville rape case gender-biased. In his Reality Check, Collin accurately describes Russ Shafer-Landau’s claims that women deserve the same equality as men. He relates this to the CNN coverage of a case where two young, male football stars raped a girl. Many believe that the CNN coverage was outrageous because it mainly focused on the destruction of the male football player’s promising futures, rather than the victim of these atrocities. While Shafer-Landau would argue that this coverage is gender-biased because it shows women not being given equal rights/focus as compared to men, Lindemann would disagree. Lindemann argues that feminists should not think solely of the differences between men and women, but rather focus on the power that one receives through gender assignation and other social factors.
ReplyDeleteLindemann has various reasons against comparing women’s rights to those of men. Her first is: “Which men do women want to be equal to? Women who are socially well off wouldn’t get much advantage from being the equals of the men who are poor and lower class, particularly if they aren’t white.” (Lindemann 2010, 152) Lindemann then argues that even if we found the ideal male to whom women want to be equated, it would still be a way of “measuring up” to something that men already have, of which women are lacking. Finally, focusing on only positive differences between men and women, rather than what is negative and lacking, is also not foolproof because while there is some equality in their differences, social status differences are still present.
After arguing against the idea that women should focus on the differences between genders, Lindemann states that it is more about the difference in the power attributed to genders. She states that gender is a social construct that guides our actions. In relation to the power that is distributed by gender roles, Lindemann states, “It’s a power relation, so it tells men that they’re entitled to things that women aren’t supposed to have, and it tells women that they are supposed to defer to men and serve them.” (Lindemann 2010, 155) Lindemann goes on to explain that gender allows certain privileges to men while women are assigned lower positions that cater to the needs of men: “Gender operates through social institutions (like marriage and the law) and practices (like education and medicine) by disproportionately conferring entitlements and the control of resources on men, while disproportionately assigning women to subordinate positions in the service of men’s interests.” (Lindemann 2010, 155) The author then gives examples of social markers, “such as race, class, level of education, sexual orientation, age, religion, physical and mental health, and ethnicity,” (Lindemann 2010, 156) that distinguish people from one another by highlighting the designation of power through gender distinction.
In conclusion, it is evident that Lindemann would disagree with the reasoning behind the outrage in response to CNN’s coverage of the Steubenville case. Rather than identifying gender differences as the argument, Lindemann might argue that power through gender designation and coupled with other social markers are the reasons why CNN focused on the dim futures of the male football players rather than the female victim whom they raped.
Works Cited
1. Landau, Russ. "Feminist Ethics." In The fundamentals of ethics. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 272-286.
2. Shafer-Landau, Russ, and Hilde Lindemann. "What is Feminist Ethics?." In The ethical life: fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 150-162.