Last week, my fellow columnist Elaine Harrington wrote defending Derby Days, Sigma Chi’s week of challenges in which sororities compete to raise money for the fraternity’s philanthropy. Criticism of the event stems from the fact that Sigma Chi essentially gets sororities to raise money for its philanthropy without having to do much work itself. For the most part, Harrington’s argument was persuasive: she wrote that Derby Days makes more fundraising possible and can be a source of bonding for sorority women. But she also asserted that whatever objectification of women arises — which, as she admits, it does — is acceptable because it is not mandated. This assertion dismisses the gravity of such objectification.
Whether or not sorority women are technically required to sexualize themselves in Derby Days competitions, there is an inherent pressure in these events to do so. During dance skits, for example, the more sexual the routine, the more likely the sorority is to win that particular competition, as the judges are all fraternity brothers. Perhaps some women purposefully use sex appeal in this instance, but the pressure that exists to utilize sex appeal — since that sex appeal could aid in victory — makes it difficult to conclude that decision is uncoerced.
Moreover, even if these acts are deliberate, accepting them as empowering is an allusion to “choice feminism,” a strand of feminism that suggests as long as a woman makes her own choices her actions are inherently feminist actions. Expanding this thought leads to the conclusion that, should a woman “choose” to work in a strip club, for example, or “choose” to prostitute herself, she is not promoting objectification but rather her own empowerment. This kind of thinking ignores the often-coercive circumstances that lead to such “choices,” just as suggesting that sexualization during Derby Days is a matter of choice ignores the inherent pressures of the events. This line of thought also assumes there are more options than truly exist. Harrington wrote that several sororities opted not to perform a dance skit this year; ostensibly, the options are to win by performing a sexual dance, or not to partake at all.
This is not to say, broadly speaking, that the mere existence of outside pressures automatically negates personal choice. But while some women may be making decisions independently of these pressures, or rather, in spite of them, it is dangerous to assume that all or even the majority are; doing so perpetuates these pressures by ignoring their existence.
Harrington wrote that “casual gyrating during rainy noontime dance skits seems less of an attempt to solicit Sigma Chis than a joke that men are simple-minded and swayed by seductiveness.” But whether or not such acts are a joke — which it’s not all clear they are — that joke is clearly lost on the men for whom this “casual gyrating” takes place. If the men only see women hyper-sexualizing themselves to win their favor, it doesn’t matter if the joke is on the men; this is not female empowerment, it simply reinforces the fraternity brothers’ position of authority and power to determine which sorority women are sexy enough to win the dance competition, or, perhaps more generally, to win their attention.
There are converse situations at the University in which women objectify men; for example, Delta Zeta’s Mr. DZirable event, in which fraternity brothers compete to win the sorority’s favor, is also often based on sex appeal. If the men participating feel coerced into sexualizing themselves at this event, then this is an obvious problem, and their objectification is unfair. But since Mr. DZirable only requires the representation of one man from each fraternity, it really is more of a matter of choice, since a willing member of each fraternity may sign up, but all the brothers are not necessarily pressured to do so. Thus, the social dynamic of men as the judges and women as the objects persists.
The danger in the reinforcement of this social dynamic is obvious. At the University, this is the sort of dynamic that leads to (unsubstantiated) rumors of girls wrestling in jello during fraternity rush for the viewing pleasure of potential pledges. Societally, it is the kind of dynamic that sexualizes women to such an extent that they are prevented from being taken seriously in the workplace.
This is not to say that sexualization itself is bad; on the contrary, women and men who truly choose to appear sexy — unaffected by outside pressures — should do so freely. The line between such behavior and objectification can be difficult to place, and there can be gray areas, but in the case of Derby Days such activity veers on the side of objectification. There is a difference between willfully acting sexy for personal pleasure and doing so for the sake of points in a competition. Asserting that this objectification is by nature a choice diminishes just how demeaning it really is.
Dani Bernstein is a Senior Associate Opinion Editor. She can be reached at d.bernstein@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
