Last week, two guest columns were written about the fashion show FACES. One author, Abhi Chandrasekhara argued the models in the show were submitting to a level of indecency and essentially objectifying women by acting “promiscuously” on stage. The other, Marisa Di Frisco, countered that sex appeal is an inherent part of fashion and that the women, by embracing their sexuality, were put in a position of dominance.
I found the point Chandrasekhara attempted to prove in his op-ed to be extremely flawed. Both Di Frisco and Molly Quell, in a letter to the editor, highlighted fallacies and inconsistencies of his argument. Yet, at the same time I feel that beneath Chandrasekhara’s sensationalism, he might be getting at an important question: Does our culture promote an image of women that effectively objectifies and degrades them?
I do not think the models were guilty of furthering this stereotype. If these women have enough confidence and nerve to get on stage and strut their stuff, good for them. Vilifying a women’s personal decision and making it emblematic of a structural problem in society is certainly not what feminism is about.
But although I agree women’s rights have come a long way, I still think within mainstream American culture there is a persistent objectification and degradation of women that pervades all forms of media. The pervasive image of women presented in advertisements, TV game shows, sporting coverage, etc. is sexual or focused on some physical attribute that would lead the viewer to think about women in sexual terms.
That is why I think Di Frisco is misguided to say, “the female models … were often in positions of power throughout the show … The dichotomy of each runway team depicted the woman as the powerful person in the relationship.” The fact that women are generally shown to be dominant only when flaunting their sexuality or being hyperly consumeristic is not reflective of power. Rather, it’s symbolic of female subordination throughout society.
On many TV game shows, men host and women either dance or perform some remedial tasks such as flipping buttons or holding microphones – all while wearing considerably more ‘sexualized’ clothing than their male counterparts. Think of the new Show Me the Money show – where all the women opposite William Shatner do is salsa dance. Or consider beer and liquor advertisements: What is the predominant female role in these ads? And what about the fashion industry? Would I be wrong to say only tall and thin women make it in the fashion business, especially in elite sectors like runway modeling? If these examples reflect the majority of the media’s depiction of women, I don’t think it’s empowering if every fashion show replicates it.
I don’t think these questions are controversial. But I suppose their implications are, because it forces us to react in some way. For me, I can’t be comfortable with the fact that the Social Issues Research Center has established “the body type portrayed in advertising as the ideal is possessed naturally by less than 5 percent of females.” It’s not only a complete distortion of reality, but it damages the fabric of our society.
In a scientific study published in the Sex Roles Journal in 2002, a two-year long survey of female undergraduates showed that the more “sexually objectifying advertising” women were exposed to, the higher their levels of “self-objectification, appearance anxiety and body shame” they experienced.
I don’t say these things because I’m somehow above it all. I’m not. Models are pretty. I like Maxim covers. I’m just disgusted that’s all I see. I wish I could offer a magic remedy for this. If I could, I wouldn’t advocate destroying the fashion or advertisement industry – both have a function in our society. I just hope that like all other addictions and vices, admitting there is a problem will be the first step toward a solution. But just like all other problems, what you do after that first step is a matter of choice.
Alan Wright is a senior economics and government and politics major. He can be reached at amwright2@gmail.com.