The only problem is only problem is on broadcast TV it wouldn't be "dick" and "bitch" it'd be "*#!@" and "Bitch." That's because "dick" unless it specifically refers to the shortened form of Richard is considered an obscenity. That means it's ok for characters to demean women by referring to them as a bitch but the fragile ears of Americans must be protected from the chaos inherent in a reference to male genitalia. Obviously there's a double standard a foot. Dare we say, even a hint of blatant sexism.According to the FCC's guidlines "material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Theoretically that means anytime the word dick is uttered if it could be substituted with "penis" and still maintain the original intent of the sentence than it is offensive.
In reality the derogatory "dick" is far more often used to denote someone who is considered a jerk, not a sexual organ. Despite this the word is often bleeped or sidestepped by traditional TV.To be fair "bitch" has several connotations from "to complain" through to the more standard relationship to a disliked female. Yet because "bitch" doesn't refer to a specific sexual organ we are not shielded by the FCC from this content. Of course "bitch" refers to the woman as a whole, something most people would find more objectionable than a reference to a single part of a person. So it's ok to be disrespectful to a woman as a whole but if you refer to, or godforbid, expose part of her sexual anatomy, like Janet's nipple, then we're in serious obscene territory.
In this post-Super Bowl Nipplegate era the double standard of the FCC has become quite clearly delineated. A female nipple shown during 6am-10pm is clearly a threat to American morality, despite the fact that all humans have nipples and that one can argue the primary function of female nipples is as a conduit for infant nourishment not sexuality. While it could be a jump into areas relegated to conspiracy theorists, one could see this bias as a continuation of the subjugation of women by creating an atmosphere where their bodies are either objects of potential sin that must remain covered, one could ask how far the logical line is from labeling nipples obscene to the point where the entire body must be covered by a burka to protect the decency of civilization.
Ultimately the issue that I'd like to see discussed isn't whether or not there should be some sort of regulation to screen completely obscene material from the general public. If the community at large is able to agree on a definition of obscenity that still protects the free speech rights of the minority, that's fine. The objectionable part to me is that these standards are not applied in a manner which is consistent. What exactly does it say about our society where we feel we have to shield our citizens from hearing and seeing references to bodily functions yet we can use defamations which effect an entire gender? This systematic bias has become even more powerful now that the exponentially larger fines levied by the FCC often act as a de facto form of prior restraint. In closing maybe we should work to make sure our broadcasts teach a healthier view of the human body and worry more about how a cultural mindset which devalues women is enforced.http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fcc-obscenity.htm
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/13/eminem_fcc/?CP=YAH&DN=110
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/03/indecency_rulin.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041118/011207_F.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-01-14-fcc-obscenity_x.htm
1 comment:
Hahaha.
Isn't it the problem that there are always some groups of people, who want to pick on something, whatever it is? And we are in general more generous to hunting men than caring women.
Post a Comment