Media, Violence, And Women: A Sexist Combination?

"This is confusing!  Is it sexist to hit you?  Is it more sexist to not hit you?  I mean the line gets real . . . blurry!"
--Deadpool, Deadpool


Right now it is hip to criticize entertainment, especially in the form of video games or movies, that shows men inflicting violence on female characters.  As a fairly recent example of this,  X-Men: Apocalypse marketing material received this kind of illogical criticism last year when an image of the villain Apocalypse holding Jennifer Lawrence's character Mystique by the throat was used in a poster.  This is not an anomaly.  The God of War game series, which I have reviewed several installments of, has probably been criticized far more for its depictions of violence against females [1] than for the great brutality inflicted on any of the males in the games.  Other franchises have been attacked for the same reason.  Why is it that this stands out so much to some critics and consumers?  Why do some people think that it is wrong to show violence against women in media?  And are they correct?

I realize that some people will argue that this is necessitated or made a moral obligation by the fact that more women are victims of abuse and violence than men, at least in certain settings.  Despite the benevolent intentions of such an argument, that does not establish any objective moral obligation to be sexist by allowing posters or films showing male on male violence or female on male violence but not violence inflicted on a woman by a man.  That is just an argument made to appease emotion due to cultural sensitivity and does not reflect any objective, actual moral obligation.  To go beyond this into the claim that violence in media can actually cause anyone in real life to act in a certain way is to seek to support the same thesis with yet another fallacious argument--an argument even more absurd and illogical than the prior one.

Also, the visualization of an act onscreen or in a still image does not mean the material condones that act--partly because a movie or image can't condone anything (only the people in them or the people who created them can)!  Including violence in a story not only makes the story more true to life, but it can even be intended to subtly or blatantly condemn violence as a whole.  Another point is that while actual violence is largely evil, depictions of violence (or other sins) is amoral.  Where in the Bible does it say to not make or watch movies with violence?  To prohibit literature or films with violence would prohibit the Bible and any movies about it.  What else outside of divine revelation could one appeal to in order to condemn such films/posters?  Everyone will object to different quantities or types of violence in media; to ever draw a line other than the one I am outlining here and say "Past this it is too much!" is to succumb to simple logical fallacies based on subjective emotions, assumptions, and preferences.  The intentions of an author or director can be either good or evil; the internal reaction of a viewer can be either good or evil, but not the inclusion of violence itself.

But another problem--beyond the total lack of support for the position that depicting violence is in and of itself evil--with the type of feminists (I am a feminist myself depending on the definition used, as many different ideologies can claim the same title) who object to things like the poster with Apocalypse choking Mystique is that they object to entertainment very selectively and in a highly sexist manner.  I have never heard or read someone complain about violence against men as a whole in cinema.  Just violence against women.  So, do the objectors to films (or video games) with violence against women want equality or do they want to arbitrarily and inconsistently pay lip service to egalitarian gender equality while irrationally condemning depictions of violence against females while allowing or ignoring the opposite?  Each of these goals are different and mutually exclusive; they cannot be pursued at once.  Many who claim the title of feminist really want to elevate women above men under the guise of promoting equality, but you can know these hypocrites by their fruit.

Sadly, my society is extremely sensitive to any perceived threat against women but does not react identically towards abuse of men, whether by men or women.  It is considered appropriate or funny if a woman hits a man, at least in certain circumstances.  The reverse is not accepted, as recorded social experiments show.  If a man were to publicly hit a woman, people--other men especially--may probably begin aggressively challenging or even attacking him, which not only represents hypocrisy on their part but a ridiculous and sexist concern for female victims of male physical abuse that does not extend to the inverse.  But if a woman publicly hits a man, then people would probably not attack her or even urge her to stop.  The hypocrisy is blatant.  Unfortunately, this double standard extends to sexual harassment (and even rape).  Male sexual harassment of women is severely discouraged and despised, but even YouTube videos shows social experiments where women sexually harass men in public and no one objects.  Perhaps this is also related to the absolutely idiotic notion entrenched in the American mind that men always want sex but women generally desire it only with a deep, bubbly emotional connection.  I suppose that the people who believe this bullshit may view it as an explanation for why sexual harassment of women by men is near the epitome of evil but sexual harassment of men by women is funny, something the man should just accept or excitedly invite.  Then there's sexual assault.  I mean, where was the outrage when Deadpool was released and audiences saw a female character grab the penis of a man to overpower him for comedic effect?  I didn't hear anyone claim the movie was anti-men or promoted sexual assault against males, and I'm sure many found that scene funny as the creators specifically intended, yet people objected to a poster for X-Men: Apocalypse showing a villain choking a woman--an act portrayed as villainous in the movie, not as humorous!  And when it comes to rape, some Americans will viciously condemn rape of women and then laugh at jokes about rape of males in American prisons.  Female rape victims have access to great resources and social empathy, but male victims of female rapists are often overlooked, mocked, or greeted with the confusion of others about how to react.  Each of these examples is a disgrace to the goal of true gender equality.

I do not think anyone would have objected did the poster for Apocalypse show a man choking a man, a woman choking a man, or perhaps even a woman choking a woman.  Outrage over things like this merely reveal a hypocritical type of sexism against men and a logically fallacious but socially defended belief that every story that involves abuse of women is either supporting or unintentionally encouraging such abuse.  Remember, though, that I do not approve of gratuitous violence at all.  I am no pacifist, but I am certainly against all actual violence except for justified self-defense and the limited physical punishments outlined and prescribed in Mosaic Law.  That means that I hate illicit violence against both men and women, but I understand that the presence of violence against either gender in a movie or a poster does not indicate a condoning of that violence on the part of the creators or the audience.  To truly believe otherwise is to believe something that blatantly contradicts reason.

To make a movie or game that includes violence against women is in no way inherently sexist, immoral, or harmful to the goal of gender equality.  Including it in media is to acknowledge reality, avoid sexism, and hopefully use fictional examples of abuse and violence to motivate people to cease actual abuse and violence.  Are these things wrong?  I'd love to see anyone argue against those things in the name of promoting gender equality.


[1].  I find it odd that some people criticize God of War: Ascension for the way Kratos has to kill three primary female characters (the Furies), considering that I have not read a single article criticizing the way the three Furies severely tortured many individuals in their dungeon city, including Kratos!  But when he attacks and overpowers them in order to escape their relentless pursuit through which they seek to imprison him again and punish him for breaking a vow to Ares because Ares deceived him into killing his own wife and daughter, who are also women, people object because "it's violence against women!"  Logic, people.  It is helpful.

[2].  This also applies to depictions of other sins like sorcery, blasphemy, or sexual sins.  Writing about or visually depicting these things in and of itself is not good or evil.  How could it be?