Sexism, feminism, and university culture

Sin City has ‘sexy dancers’. They are part of the aesthetic of the night. They are, in one word, objectified. What we need to decide, however, is if this objectification is part of a trend of misogyny that is permeating University culture. 

 As The Guardian reports, clubs all across the nation are promoting such events as “CEOs and corporate hoes” and others along a similar line.* These dress codes clearly sexually demean women: first, by suggesting that the dress code for a female attendant should be to make themselves ‘look’ sexually available and secondly, by demeaning them for adhering to that dress code by suggesting that they are in fact “hoes” for doing so – and therefore could potentially be treated as such. 

The issue becomes more complicated, however, when we consider exactly what objectification is, and at what point objectification becomes demeaning. Every time a model struts on to the catwalk at a university fashion show they are turning themselves into an object on which to exhibit clothing (or lack there of). Every time a boxer walks into the ring on Fight Night, he is turned into an object of (violent) entertainment. Every time that a sports team strips for a naked calendar, they commodify their bodies. Are all these forms of objectification demeaning? And in what ways are they comparable to a woman who dances suggestively on stage in order to contribute to the entertainment of an event in our Union? What I would suggest to you is that perhaps the ‘sexy dancers’ are more akin to the charity model than the ‘corporate hoes’.

Essentially, the fact that no protest is raised over some forms of sexual objectification in this town (and I can assure you that some of the models in many of this years’ fashion shows will have on far less clothing than the dancers at Sin City), suggests that not all forms of sexual objectification are sexually demeaning. In fact, when we equate these ideas without thinking carefully about the nuances of their occurrence, we perpetuate a misogynist narrative. By automatically labelling the sexual objectification of a woman as sexually demeaning, we are removing her agency. Has anyone even bothered to ask the dancers what they think they’re doing? Or perhaps what they think empowerment looks like? I would at least think twice before labelling them misogynists if they answer “dancing”.

If St Andrews really wants to take sexual equality seriously, then we need to make sure that our zealousness does not impede sexual freedom; that in our acceptance of feminism we do not forget the existence of feminism(s).

*This article has been amended to correct a previous misrepresentation of the St Andrews GIG’s 2011 Black Out party. 

Headline image © atmtx