For this rebirth of By Jove’s period panto, we’ve added in the welcome addition of a chorus. This chorus consists of four women, and within only a few rehearsals, already some fascinating questions of how to mock or criticize ‘objectification’ have arisen. The chorus are essentially fulfilling the role of backing singers and dancers, which when placed in the hands of a feminist theater company, could never be taken lightly.
Backing singers and dancers are so often female, and so often pushed, well, into the background. In one of our scenes, our ‘lovely ladies’ form an ensemble for the saucy number performed by Mr Wickham (a dashing villain, for those unfamiliar). Here we spotted an opportunity for ironic criticism – mocking the phenomenon of video girls* by exaggerating it in panto context. The only issue is: how do we ensure people interpret our irony? Will our attempts at mockery simply blend into the trend we are trying to question?
Obviously I don’t want to give out spoilers, but I would like to draw attention to why sexual objectification is still such an important topic in feminism. It’s not just because of Robin Thicke – it’s because of conflicting philosophies within feminism.
Objectification was a key subject for second-wave feminism, but in the context of third-wave it becomes a topic of conflict and complexity. Although most feminists are in agreement that sexual objectification is ‘bad’ (whatever the hell that means), this view is not entirely compatible with third-wave principles that prioritize a person’s ownership of their own body. To simplify: you should not allow yourself to be objectified vs. it is your body, so if you choose to be objectified we should not criticize you or disrespect your autonomy. On top of this, some feminists question our whole definition of objectification in the first place. Is it even possible to reduce someone purely to their sexuality, even through an image? Is it actually damaging to our quest for equality to condemn raw sexuality?
Let’s take Miley Cyrus (yes, I’m going there, deal with it). Her new public image is one based on open, brash expression of sexuality. Sinead O’Connor says she is allowing the industry to ‘prostitute her’, i.e. make money from selling her as a sexual object. Others simply condemn her for being promiscuous and settle for simple slut-shaming. Although I have no doubt that judging a person’s worth based on their sexuality is abominable, the right reaction to Miley’s ‘objectification’ seems less obvious. It is sad and wrong that female musicians are pushed into being defined by their sexual appeal to men, but if Miley has made the choice to exploit her sexuality, what can our moral standpoint as feminists be?
As usual, I find myself in a happy halfway point between the arguments: hate the objectification, not the objectified women. Although if I am honest, this is easier said than done. It is difficult to separate these two factors. So while the theoretical front of this debate battles for ideological domination, we must simply remember that few feminist issues should be viewed as ‘settled’. Objectification is not a dead topic, it is more complex than ever, especially with the current backlash against phenomena like Page 3. This is why it seems right for our feminist panto to play with the subject as much as possible – let us explore the difficulty of the issue.
The strength of the feminist movement will come from acknowledgment when there is contradiction, not from absolutist statements about what is good or bad for women. Let’s face it, nothing is that simple.
*Video girls are the women typically seen in commercial music videos who are simply there to look sexy and compliment the (usually male) artists around them. I suppose the ladies from Blurred Lines are a perfect example. I take issue with it because it puts women in the role of accessories or objects, and diminishes any contribution they could have to a project that isn’t their sexualized body.
