Every art MUST have a purpose, every celebrity should weigh in on what the culture is fighting over, and no one, absolutely no one, can do a thing that is only meant to serve him or herself.

Somehow, the need for a deed to be wholeheartedly “good for society” has overburdened everything that is creative and by definition provocative. A joke now has to be cognisant of everyone’s safe space, and a product made to entice cannot entice by being overtly sexual.

The recent outburst regarding the Sweeney scandal was another instance of the already empowered complaining about why the multi-millionaire actress wasn’t subscribing to their preconceived model of empowerment.

Funny thing is, a uniquely American problem is no longer confined to America, and Bangladeshi netizens themselves have weighed in heavily against the actress’s alleged attempt at putting women back a thousand years.

Not being a historian myself, I still can guess that a thousand years ago a woman wouldn’t have been able to earn a living by parading naked through the town square while grandising a cliché, and she certainly wouldn’t have been paid to do so by a large conglomerate either.

By that metric, women have made progress. Maybe not in the sense of being perceived equal to the male gaze, but certainly to an extent by utilising that gaze to get ahead.

Competitions such as Miss Universe, Miss World and 100 years’ worth of movies with nudity have catered to the male gaze and certainly made many women climb the social ladder and divorce themselves from the shackles of dependency.

And, you and I both remember all the speeches of women in award ceremonies precisely saying how participating in these charades have empowered them, and given them the opportunity to pursue their dreams. The plethora of Oscar-winning actresses thanking Harvey Weinstein is a basic example of such.

So, the great question therein lies:

Will a 14-year-old girl seeing Sydney today get the wrong message?

In my view, the question can only be answered by first defining what a “wrong message” is.

Is the message that she should not show off (in terms of her physique) to get ahead? Is the message that some of her actions may appeal to the male gaze, and that is by default, a sin?

Or is the message that she can do whatever she likes in a free society? A cliché that is uttered by every other female entertainer on every other TV show.

If the latter is true, then shame on the misled empowered who is only using Sydney as an escargot to show off their own good virtue.

But if the former is true, which seems to be the case for the already empowered, then I would term those who are part of the already empowered colossal hypocrites.

Every time a Miss Universe, World or Galaxy spews out random facts to prove her smartness, every time she walks the ramp in a beautiful dress which bravely shows off her curves, every time she cries after winning that blissful crown, she does so by appealing to the male gaze, and the judges, no matter their chromosome profile, are undoubtedly representations of what a woman should be in accordance with the male gaze.

Beauty competitions are an easy target, but the logic holds true for female actors, athletes and every other field of entertainment.

Sydney isn’t the first to understand what sells in this climate, and surprisingly, the climate hasn’t changed for as long as humans have existed. Objectification has existed for millennia, and may well exist for another thousand years.

However, what is sad is that the already empowered don’t seem to realise that their crowns are beautified through the shiny stones of such objectifications.

Seeing someone like Sydney wear her own crown shouldn’t be the surprising part.

The surprise lies in the fact that the beauty queens are not accepting Sydney to proudly wear it.

---

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of TBS Graduates and The Business Standard.