The online news portal of TV5
In the space of two days, we witnessed two free expression cases involving ever-briefer articles of clothing.
Last September 20, the mass-market clothing chain Bench held its annual underwear fashion show titled, fittingly enough, “The Naked Truth.” Adopting a circus theme, the highlight of the show featured the indie-turned-mainstream actor Coco Martin leading a female performer on a leash, as though walking a dog.
Two days later, a female shopper snapped a photo of a T-shirt being sold in SM Megamall on which was emblazoned “It’s Not Rape. It’s A Struggle With A Snuggle.” and posted it on her Facebook page.
Both SM and Bench were forced to apologize, with SM deciding to pull the T-shirts from its racks, after a tremendous public backlash against what were perceived as the insensitive and derogatory treatment of women’s issues by big business.
The lady who posted the rape shirt went so far as to point out SM’s hypocrisy, reciting the angelus store-wide and refusing to screen movies depicting what it self-determines as inappropriate content. Clearly, a big slice of the spending market was sending the message that retailers, whether for profit or publicity, trivialize their female customers at the risk of alienating them.
I did say that these incidents involve freedom of expression clothed, so to speak, in ready-to-wear.
One’s attire is a form of non-verbal communication. Take the case of the rape shirt SM was peddling, supposedly without its corporate knowledge. Obviously, the makers of the printed tee were trying to be clever, what with the alliteration and rhyming, but in that case, the humor did not just fall flat, it cratered.
In comedy, ideally, everything is fair game; no topic is considered a sacred cow. The only limitation, presumably, is taste, but even that evolves over time. Now, you’ll hear fat jokes, jokes about cancer, abortion, erectile dysfunction, and if comics can banter about the Holocaust, then yes, even the subject of rape is open to parody.
Some humor is more successful than others, but in commerce where the object is to move product, the barometer isn’t hahas but ka-chings. And because the rape shirt wasn’t selling anyone, the fact that SM was compelled to remove the merchandise shows that even retail giants can experience flop sweat.
Underlying the issue is the right of free speech.
The printers of the rape shirt cannot be restrained from trying to be funny, funny being relative. I’ll grant that the text bordered on tasteless, but simply because something isn’t suited to someone’s taste is not license to prohibit attempts at humor -- or what passes for an attempt -- altogether.
About free speech it’s often said: “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.”
Today, social media makes it easy for the public to have a dialogue with providers about their goods and services, but in the end, the most effective way buyers can make themselves heard is by withdrawing their patronage.
To that end, I’m speculating what the sales figures are for the shirt.
My thesis is this: if some of the shirts sold, it stands to reason their buyers found nothing offensive in the message. It doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with it, only that they found it amusing, and were amused enough to whip out their SM Advantage cards and make Henry Sy richer. Free expression not only protects the right of makers to print misinformed T-shirts, it also protects those of buyers who are tickled by misinformed tees.
The Bench case is a little more nuanced.
As my former boss was prone to point out, things have to be put in context. The context is that the show had a theme and the girl-on-a-leash schtick was – supposedly -- an exposition on that theme.
It bears mentioning that Bench’s underwear show does not purport to be a couture presentation, and for all its pretensions to art, is meant to enrich pharmaceutical companies making eye drops to treat stys.
Free speech will protect even this sort of staged exhibitionism, but it won’t protect it from censure from those who found Coco Martin leading a woman on all fours on a leash demeaning to women.
Earlier generations of women, including mine, protested against the objectification of women, yet somehow, over the years, that objection has been transmogrified. Now, women have proudly become parties to their own objectification on the argument that they control their own bodies and should be proud of it.
But why protest one particular segment of a show when the entirety of it, indeed the concept itself, is demeaning to women in principle?
Between the abject apologies of Ben Chan and the denunciation of the show by critics, one voice hasn’t been heard in the din. It belongs to the woman who agreed to be led around by a leash like an animal.
I can only presume that, first, she consented to the portrayal, and second, she was paid for the professional performer that she is. Shouldn’t part of the venom be reserved for her for her part in it? As a woman, after all, she is the mistress of her own body and if she wants to flaunt herself in that particular way, more power to her then.
Free expression is more complicated than many people think.
No comments:
Post a Comment