I HAVE always considered pageants, such as Miss Universe (MU), as a platform that objectifies women. Contestants are “displayed” as objects, apparently being judged on their physical appearance, reinforcing stereotypical beauty standards, although to some extent consideration is ostensibly given to their intelligence.
Although the MU organisation claims that the platform provides a safe space for women to share their stories and drive impact personally, professionally and philanthropically, the behind-the-scenes processes that enable these women to participate have remained largely hidden from public view. This situation only came under public scrutiny recently when an incident occurred in Indonesia.
The intent of such pageants may be to choose an iconic woman annually, who can be an inspirational leader and role model for their communities and fans around the world.
However, pitting women against one another places a “toxic” degree of emphasis on physical beauty, with the women being scrutinised from a set of patriarchal lens.
The MU brand has grown over the years, creating a “dream” and aspiration for many women worldwide. These women, from economically developed nations to smaller ones, yearn to become that iconic figure, encouraged to represent their countries by showcasing their identity and intellect and to stand out from the rest.
According to the MU organisation, this annual icon should display confidence, be able to articulate her drive, be authentic and credible, exhibit grace and understand the values of the MU brand and the responsibilities of the title. These seem to reflect that such a pageant is not just about superficial, physical aspects of a woman.
However, despite the claims made by pageant organisers, physical beauty remains a primary criterion for judges, and this can undermine a person’s confidence if she aspires to represent her country as an iconic woman.
If the physical and superficial attributes of a woman are not the key criteria, then there is little justification for highlighting segments, such as the swimsuit round, in which contestants are compelled to strut on stage in revealing two-piece swimwear while being observed by millions of viewers. To me, this is a form of objectification.
All this bring us to the topic at hand – the allegation of sexual harassment within one of the MU organisation franchises in Indonesia.
In my opinion, considering that physical appearance is a significant factor in selecting the MU winner and that various aspects of the competition tend to objectify the contestants, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it should not come as a surprise if the incident in Indonesia is not an isolated occurrence.
When physical beauty becomes a key factor, coupled with a group of women eagerly vying to become the iconic figure each year, the stage is set for possible abuse and sexual harassment.
In the case of the sexual harassment incident in Indonesia, the MU organisation’s swift decision to sever ties with the Indonesian franchisee, that also holds the licence for the MU pageant in Malaysia, does not necessarily mean that the issue will disappear for the organiser.
Sexual harassment allegations are always complex, with each case offering unique insights into how an organisation can improve its handling and communication when facing reputation-threatening situations.
Going public about the immediate termination of the franchise without conducting a thorough investigation may have adverse consequences for the organisation.
The organiser’s statement, confirming that the franchisee had failed to meet its brand standards, ethics and expectations, can lead to retaliatory actions by the franchisee.
Taking measures that affect people’s livelihoods and businesses by not properly addressing reports of sexual misconduct may escalate the issue into a full-blown crisis.
Another aspect worth contemplating is the timeline of when the organiser became aware of the alleged sexual harassment, which could raise concerns about the organisation’s credibility.
By self-assessing the situation, it may inadvertently suggest the existence of a culture where reprehensible acts of sexual misconduct have persisted over a duration of time. This can also lead to queries regarding the organisation’s hesitance, negligence or downplaying of signs or warnings of inherent sexual misconduct.
The organiser should know that with time, such sexual misconducts are likely to come to light.
Putting a lid on such matters or simply severing ties will not cut it. The organisation must take decisive and appropriate action, comprehensively understanding the entire situation, to proactively and effectively manage and address emerging issues.
The organisation must demonstrate a genuine commitment to addressing such allegations. If the franchisee is found to be at fault, it should be held responsible, and the organisation, as the franchisor, should be perceived as playing a crucial role in ensuring accountability.
The organisation’s decision to cut ties with the franchisee without appearing to show any intent to investigate the matter may be seen as an attempt to distance itself from the situation.
What the public wants is for the organisation to have promptly and effectively taken the necessary measures to safeguard its brand when faced with such allegations.
In addition, safeguarding the anonymity of the victim is of utmost importance. Even in situations where the person making the accusations has become publicly known, the organiser should refrain from disclosing any information about the accuser and continue to uphold his privacy.
Lastly, considering the possibility of the allegation evolving into a full-blown criminal or civil case, the criteria for the MU pageant should be able to withstand scrutiny.
Thus, an essential question that arises is whether the organiser inadvertently created a platform where sexual misconduct can take place and even thrive. This is another aspect that the communication and legal teams must delve into as they address the ongoing crisis.
In summary, the reputational stakes for sexual harassment cases are high. If not handled effectively, they can have detrimental effects on the brand’s image and long-term viability.
Considering that pageants, such as MU, may be perceived as promoting the objectification of women, perhaps, the organiser and other pageant organisations should re-evaluate the criteria used to select winners.
Instead of superficial and physical attributes as key factors, the organisation should place emphasis on selecting an iconic figure who embodies qualities, such as grace, intellect, positive values, authenticity and the ability to represent the woman of the future, transcending nationalities, cultures, races and religions.
The writer is the managing director of BzBee Consult and the president of the Public Relations and Communications Association in Malaysia. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
