I HAVE always considered pageants like Miss Universe (MU) as platforms that objectify women. Contestants are displayed as objects, apparently being judged on their physical appearance, which reinforces stereotypical standards of beauty.

Although the organisation says the platform provides a “safe space for women to share their stories and drive impact personally, professionally, and philanthropically”, what happens in the background for these women to get there, gets no public scrutiny until recently, when the Indonesian debacle surfaced.

The intent of such a pageant is to choose an “iconic woman” annually to serve as an inspirational leader and role model. Yet, it is toxic to pit women against one another.

The brand of the MU has grown over the years, creating a dream and aspiration for many women all over the world, from economically developed countries to smaller nations.

According to the organisation, this annual icon should showcase confidence, be authentic and credible, exhibit grace and understand the values of the brand and the responsibilities of the title. These would seem to suggest that the pageant is not just about the physical aspects of a woman.

Yet, regardless of what pageant organisers may say, physical beauty is a prime criterion. If the physical and superficial aspects of a woman are not the key criteria, why the need for the swimsuit round requiring contestants to prance on stage in skimpy swimwear for millions of viewers? This, to me, is objectification

This brings us to the matter at hand – the allegations of sexual harassment in the organisation’s Indonesia franchise. 

When physical beauty is a key factor, the stage is set for possible abuse and sexual harassment.

The fact that the organisation had immediately severed ties with its Indonesian franchisee, which also holds the licence for MU Malaysia, would not necessarily make the issue vanish. Sexual harassment allegations are always complex. 

Another aspect that needs consideration, if indeed sexual harassment did take place, is what did the organisation do, once it was informed about it. Did the organisation drag its feet, ignore or even minimise the signs and warnings?

Putting a lid on such matters or simply severing ties will not cut it. Organisations must act decisively and appropriately to manage such issues.

MU must be seen to take such allegations extremely seriously. If the franchisee perpetrator is guilty, it needs to be held accountable.

The fact that the organisation had severed ties with the franchisee, without apparently showing any interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, may be perceived as an act of washing its hands.

There should be no need to investigate how such allegations were leaked. The organisation must take appropriate, effective and timely action to address such allegations when they arise.

Protecting the victim’s identity is paramount. Even in cases where the accuser has made a public appearance, the organiser should avoid sharing any information about the accuser and continue to protect the accuser’s privacy.

The MU’s judging criteria itself should be able to stand up to scrutiny. A key question that arises may be, has the organisation created a platform where sexual misconduct can take place and even thrive? 

Instead of making superficial and physical considerations the key factors for a winning candidate , the organisation should ensure that the pageant chooses an iconic-figure who is a woman of grace, intellect, positive values, authenticity and above all, one who indeed can represent the woman of the future, cutting across nations, culture, race and religion. – August 19, 2023.

*Mohd Said Bani C.M. Din reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.