Gender Inequality in the Media
I’ve been working on a new set of class notes for Relationships and Morality – one of the optional Higher RMPS units. I previously felt that perhaps this unit wasn’t as relevant as some of the others – partly because a third of it centres on marriage – but I’m actually really enjoying teaching it and working on new material as there is SO much you could include.
A downside of printed notes in the inability to share videos – so I thought I’d share some thoughts here and take you through a typical analysis style question and how I would answer it:
Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from gender inequality and discrimination in the media.
As with any morality question, I always work backwards through the question. So first up – what do we mean by gender inequality and discrimination in the media?
Gender Inequality in the media is seen when men and women are not treated or represented equally in TV, films, news, adverts, social media, and other forms of media. This leads to exploitation when people — often women or girls — are unfairly used for profit, entertainment, or attention.
For example, women are often shown in stereotypical roles (e.g. as mothers, carers, or objects of beauty) while men are more often shown as leaders, heroes, or decision-makers. Exploitation can be found in advertising – where people’s bodies are used to sell products – or Reality TV or social media that pressures young people to look or act a certain way to gain likes, views, or money.
What moral issues arise from this?
The first issue I’m going to focus on is the question of whether ‘the male gaze’ is a moral problem. The idea of the male gaze comes from film theory and describes how women are often portrayed in the media from a male point of view. Instead of being shown as full characters with their own thoughts and identities, women are sometimes filmed or photographed mainly to be looked at and admired for their bodies or appearance. This Media Studies teacher explains it brilliantly:
On the one hand, the male gaze is a moral issue because it treats women as objects rather than as full human beings, which undermines their dignity and can contribute to inequality in society. By focusing on appearance and sexual appeal, it encourages harmful stereotypes and pressures women to conform to unrealistic standards, affecting their self-esteem and opportunities. On the other hand, some might argue that media representations are simply forms of entertainment or artistic expression, and that viewers can choose how they interpret them.
The video relating ‘the female gaze’ is also an interesting one if someone raises that question:
What is a non-religious response to this?
Personally, I like to stick to moral philosophy and either focus on Utilitarianism – or Kantian ethics. For this, I think Kant fits nicely!
I need to begin by describing what Kantian Ethics actually entails:
Kantian ethics is based on the idea that every human being has inherent dignity and must always be treated as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end.
So what would a Kantian ethicist say about the male gaze?
Obviously, the male gaze objectifies women by reducing them to their physical appearance or sexual attractiveness, using them as a means to entertain or please the viewer. From a Kantian perspective, this is morally wrong because it ignores women’s full humanity. Therefore, a Kantian would argue that media should portray women (and men) in ways that respect their dignity, show them as whole persons, and avoid reducing them to tools for profit or pleasure.
Time for another moral issue?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned ‘harmful’ gender stereotyping in adverts in 2019. These rules set by the ASA state that adverts must not include gender stereotypes that could cause harm or offence. Here’s a short Mitchell and Webb clip (from 16 years ago!) trying to poke fun at the inequality in advertising:
So is the portrayal of gender in advertising still a problem? Many would argue yes – as we now have the issue of ‘sneaky sexism.’ Sneaky sexism is a term from Jane Cunningham and Philippa Roberts, authors of Brandsplaining: Why Marketing is (Still) Sexist and How to Fix It. They argue that many brands act like they control what customers want and how they should behave—a problem they call “brandsplaining.” Sneaky sexism is a subtle version of this, where advertisers hide sexist ideas in their campaigns so they still appeal to audiences while avoiding backlash or cancel culture. Instead of explicit sexism, it’s now far more implicit.
Take this ‘weight loss story’ as an example. Instead of telling women they need to change their body by being ‘beach body ready’ etc. the message is women need to fix their behaviour and learn to love themselves from the inside out. They’re not to blame for their weight and there should be no shame… but ultimately what is the message here?
Of course, advertising is now much more than the break-filler between TV programs. They are streamed on our phones and we’re bombarded with advertising even when we don’t realise it e.g. through product placement or influencers. It may be more subtle, but it can easily be argued to still be there.
How to phrase this issue? Simples.
Another moral issue is gender stereotyping in the media. On the one hand, the Advertising Standards Agency banned adverts with harmful stereotypes in 2019 and this prevented advertisers from showing explicit stereotypes such as women being shown as ‘belonging in the kitchen.’ However, on the other hand, all this has done is make stereotypes more implicit and harder to spot. This in turn could be more harmful to people impacted by it.
What would Bentham say?
As a Utilitarian, Bentham relied on the Greatest Happiness Principle: an action is right if it creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He took into account different aspects of happiness such as the intensity, the duration, and how likely it would lead to more pleasure.
So, Bentham would perhaps point out that the advertisers themselves are happy and whoever hired them is likely to be happy IF the advert is successful. However, those impacted by the stereotyping and the implicitly messaging could very well be unhappy – perhaps through seeing what they cannot achieve or feeling a pressure to conform to a fake ideal. Therefore, a Utilitarian could well take issue with ‘sneaky sexism’ and focus in on the harm done.
Of course, Utilitarians do have to attempt to predict the future – which can be hard to do. But John Stuart Mill developed Bentham’s theory a little, to point out that not all happiness is equal and ‘Higher Pleasures’ – those which enable us to improve ourselves – are decidedly more worthwhile that ‘Lower’ or ‘Piggy’ pleasures such as greed or gluttony. So in this situation, Mill would be likely to deride the ‘sneaky sexism’ as it leads purely to wealth and consumerism. Whereas, valuing honesty would be more akin to a Higher pleasure and therefore a much more worthwhile pursuit.
If I were so inclined – I would go on to look at the gender pay gap within the media, the differences in screen time that men and women have (women actually only account for 37% of people portrayed in adverts), and I definitely could rant about the impact of social media. But right now… I need to go have a cup of tea. Let me know what you would cover and I might revisit this one over the coming weeks!
