23 August 2001, 822 words
Whenever you criticise a group that is not your own, your arguments had better be completely logical and based on hard fact. If not, it will appear as though your views are informed entirely by hatred or envy or aggrandisement. This is true for weighty matters, such as race or politics or culture, but even truer for lighter issues, such as beauty contests.
The criticisms last week for the Cancer Society's "Single, Sexy, Sold!" event was a good example of this guideline being violated. Hazel Brown of the Network of Non-Governmental Organisations, is well-known for criticising events which emphasise female beauty. Brown may or may not have valid points to make, but her vituperative rhetoric always casts doubt on the genuineness of her arguments.
The Hindu Women's Organisation has a very narrow focus on women's issues (demonstrated most recently by its short story contest, which manages to be both sexist and racist). The HWO finds its voice only when it sees Indian women being "denigrated", and I suspect that they would have been completely indifferent to this issue except that one of the women being auctioned carries the surname "Maharaj".
All that aside, though, do the criticisms from these two organisations have any merit? Were the women being auctioned, and women in general, denigrated by this event? Maybe, maybe not. But, even if they were, I believe that the attitudes and values embodied by Brown and the HWO do far more to denigrate and disempower women than a fun affair.
The Cancer Society's auction was criticised for its connotations of prostitution and slavery. In the first place, the ethical problem with prostitution is not that of payment for sex, but the lack of choice and rights for women who become prostitutes. I doubt, though, that either Brown or the HWO would support the legalisation of prostitution, although this would do much to lessen the denigration of women in that profession.
In the second place, traditional marriage has always been a greater form of prostitution than prostitution itself. The marriage institution has historically been the main device by which men control women. Women have been regarded as property in almost every culture: first the father's - which he sells for a dowry or to seal alliances - and then the husband's, to provide caretaking, sex and children in return for his protection and provision.
Thus, the Maha Sabha considers the ideal form of marriage to be one where the girl is given away to a man of the father's choosing. Pastor Cuffie praises arranged marriages as "a practice [that] has been common in many parts of the world, with remarkable success". Psychologist Anna Maria Mora who, as a counselling psychologist and Afrocentrist simultaneously promotes two bogus belief systems, writes approvingly of a Nigerian custom where, if the parents do not approve of a prospective partner, permission to marry is denied.
All of them argue that Western courtship and marriage customs result in high divorce rates and parental irresponsibility. All ignore the fact that traditional marriage customs result in the abuse of women and children at rates far higher than those in developed Western nations.
Then there is the issue of women's beauty. Brown's position is that women should not be valued for their beauty alone. This is a valid ethical argument, but one that overlooks the true complexity of beauty's psychological, social and even political power. In both beauty contests and real life, women are valued primarily - not solely - for their beauty. I mean by this that beautiful women generally have higher status than plain ones (although factors such as kindness and intelligence also determine a woman's attractiveness as a long-term mate).
That beauty is the primary factor men consider when judging a female may not be a palatable fact of human nature, but fact it is. But it must be noted that beautiful women have status, not only because of their beauty per se, and also because that beauty allows them to form relationships with powerful people.
It is for this reason that the most sexist societies aren't those where women flaunt their beauty and take part in beauty contests, but societies where women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe and where beauty contests are illegal. The barbarism of the Taliban dictatorship in Afghanistan is an expression of a culture which hates beauty.
Rules about "dressing modestly" are merely a means of ensuring that men (and older women) prevent females from using the currency of their beauty for their own benefit. This is why women are more oppressed in traditional cultures, and have the most social, political and economic rights in the decadent West.
It is for these reasons that I don't think the Cancer Society's auction denigrated either the participants or women in general. In fact, the only problem I have with the event was that Kyra Yarsien went for much too modest a sum.
Copyright ©2002 Kevin Baldeosingh