Nick Fletcher MP is a role model of stupidity

The MP, Nick Fletcher, caused outrage in Parliament this week when he claimed that casting women in roles on TV or in film which had traditionally gone to men (such as James Bond or Doctor Who) would leave men without any positive role models to emulate and therefore, with nothing but criminals left to look up to, would be more likely to end up as criminals.

The outrage centred on the ridiculous sexism of the claim, but I thought it was a nice example of how philosophical thinking can be applied to every day life. Fletcher was certainly sexist. But his sexism extends to the logic of his argument too. It’s easy to show how:

Fletcher’s central claim is that without “positive” role models (such as the state-sponsored assassin, James Bond, and the intergalactic time-travelling war-lord, The Doctor), men will turn to the only role models left: criminals.
Claim (1) only makes sense on the assumed premise that role models are self-evidently important and that without positive representations in which young people can see themselves and aspire to they might fall prey instead to whatever bad, and potentially damaging, role models are left.
The sexism of Fletcher’s argument is thus clear, as he has completely ignored the reasoning for why it might be considered a good idea to cast women in popular leading roles in television and film which previously went only to men: that in such an environment women do not have sufficient representation in leading roles across mass media and, without being able to see themselves as such leads, will be stuck only with the role models they are left with - secondary side-kick roles which perpetuate the damaging idea that women should play second fiddle to men. This is identical reasoning to why he wants men to have good role models in media too, and Fletcher does not provide any additional support for his supposition that only men’s role models should matter here.
If Fletcher’s argument was not sexist, seeing as it is based on the importance of role models and representation, he would instead be advocating the importance of representation and positive role models for all. But he is not. He is explicitly making the case to deny female role models and representation so that only men are catered for.
The sexism (as with all sexism) is thus incoherent: if the logic follows for men it ought also to follow for women. Therefore either (5a) both men and women (and all other identities) ought to have a wide range of good, positive, representation in the media; or (5b) men will also be fine with only limited or negative representation (as women have historically suffered) because such representation doesn’t matter and does not need rectifying.

Calling people like Fletcher out on their prejudices is important, but philosophy allows us to show further that if Fletcher himself was consistent in his thinking about the need for positive popular role models and the powerful impact of representation in the media (upon which his entire fear about men turning into criminals is based) then he would either be forced to disavow his own conclusions and argue for more diverse lead roles for female actors, not less (5a) or concede that such representation doesn’t matter, making his argument redundant (5b).

It is perhaps worth noting also that position (5a) is completely compatible with also suggesting crime ought not to be glamorised in the media because of its potential impact on impressionable men and women who may end up emulating such criminal role models in the absence of anything better. But I would include the suave murderer James Bond in that category too (at least The Doctor is theoretically a pacifist, even if they are all-too often in cahoots with the army). An intellectually incoherent politician is a bad enough role model for children, but a politician publicly fighting for the rights of young men or young women to grow up inspired to be obedient and replaceable killing machines for the state like James Bond is no role model for anybody.

Author: DaN McKee

My book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE and from all good booksellers. Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here.