Last Thursday, the Oxford Union passed the motion “This House believes that the commodification of women’s bodies has gone too far”, with 133 members voting in favour of the motion and 97 members voting against it. The debate was the last of the academic year and included parting speeches from this term’s committee, including President Anita Okunde who made history as the first Black woman to lead the Union.
The debate was preceded by the emergency motion “This House would have a hot girl summer”. After a heart-felt debate about whether we should have a ‘hot girl’ summer, a ‘good girl’ summer or a ‘go get ‘em girl’ summer, the chamber resoundingly supported the motion.
Opening for the proposition for the main motion was the Union’s Chief of Staff Amina Bellalem. She focused on women’s bodies as goods to be sold and goods to be purchased. Specifically, she argued that surrogacy “can be beautiful and intimate. But once this biological gift has been commercialised” it can lead to problematic power dynamics where women are “relegated to their bodily functions”. Bellalem also highlighted the disparities between women in developing and developed countries performing surrogacy as well as problems relating to sex work.
She further remarked that “plastic surgery normalises body modifications and unrealistic standards. The message is clear: your body needs costly fixes to be acceptable.” She concluded her remarks, saying: “Commodification is not liberation but an exploitation dressed in the language of choice.”
The first speaker for the opposition was Maya Kapila, a member of Secretary’s Committee. When introducing the opposition speakers, Bellalem had said she was not surprised to see Kapila on the opposition bench, noting her much-loved Thatcherite politics.
Kapila opened by stating: “To say commodification is always necessarily exploitation is to deny the history of women’s exploitation.” She drew on examples from the Roman empire and the slave trade, questioning why the “breaking point” for commodification is OnlyFans. She argued that for the first time in history, women truly have autonomy over their bodies and that “women are safer and better today than centuries gone by – they now set the terms and reap the rewards [of commodification].”
Cameron Russell – author, fashion activist and former model – was the second speaker for the proposition. She argued that the “commodification of all bodies is exploitation” and that “the idea that a person is only a body from which to extract profit is inhumane.” She rejected the capitalist ideal of commodification in all forms – whether typing on a keyboard or performing sex work. Russell also doubled-down on objections that commodification leads to empowerment, arguing that the need for desire can be distinct from commodification: “Desire is beautiful … this is not a gendered thing nor is it something to be ashamed of.”
The American fashion and culture journalist Dana Thomas was next to speak in favour of the opposition. Thomas began by speaking about her experience modelling as a teenager and the trade-off that she made between modelling and baby-sitting. She accepted that some might see her modelling career as “commodification but really it was her choice and these issues are not so black and white. To view them as such would be to make a really rash conclusion.” Ultimately, Thomas’s modelling career enabled her to pay for her college education. She argued that, in our capitalist society “beauty can get people to part with their money” and that this is “not necessarily a bad thing.”
The chamber erupted in laughs of embarrassment as she called out all those who wore make-up, indulged in skincare routines, and shaved ahead of the debate. With a nod to her husband’s black tie, she noted that “we indulge in these practices because we want to amplify our gendered appearance.” Asking the chamber “do you feel commodified?”, she replied “I’m guessing not.” She drew on the philosophical debate about beauty, its power and its ‘form of genius’ in the words of Oscar Wilde. In her concluding marks she drew attention to her tuxedo and her absent shirt: “I may appear sexually available, but do I feel commodified? I have your attention. I have control. I am a woman in full.”
Following resounding applause, the chamber turned to speeches from the floor where countless members spoke passionately in favour of the motion. Few members sought to oppose the motion, with the President calling upon opposition speakers with little success. One comical moment featured a speaker in favour of the proposition who accidentally stood up to give opposition remarks. She quickly returned to her seat.
Leane Deeb, a digital content creator and designer of Gymshark’s modest wear collection, provided concluding remarks for the proposition. She argued that “this motion is not an attack on women, but a challenge to the world we inherited. A world which tells women their value lies in how they look, not how they are inside.” She rejected arguments that female commodification can be autonomy-enhancing, and spoke about her own journey as an influencer as she “chose to align with my faith and cover.” Whilst she lost followers in the process, many women reached out supporting her and she said that “for the first time I felt free.”
Deeb asked: “Is it really empowerment if we tie our worth to how we look? This is not about modesty versus not, it’s about choice versus conditioning … a woman’s strength is not in how she’s seen but in who she chooses to be.”
The Wizard Liz, a podcast and youtube sensation, gave the final remarks of the evening on behalf of the opposition. Anticipation reached its climax as she got up to speak, with many in the chamber turning out to see her. She spoke from the heart about her childhood experiences of commodification, reflecting that “the first man to sexualise and objectify me was my father.” She argued that for the first time women have agency in commodification, saying that “the main thing the patriarchy tries to do is to ruin women’s autonomy over their bodies. Who are you to control women and their choices?”
Liz went on to say that “men and women are afraid of true female power” and that the “one thing men love more than objectifying women is making money … women are making millions from men’s lust.” As a result, she claimed that “we are walking towards a female dominated society because of this … money is power … people will listen to women with a lot of money because unfortunately that’s what this capitalist society cares about.”
She concluded by remarking that “we do need feminism and we do need men” but she does not “believe men are meant to lead. Instead, they are meant to protect women from other men and women are meant to lead … women are and will continue to reclaim their power. We will no longer be told what to do, what to wear and how to act.” If the motion was dependent upon applause alone, it seemed that Liz had captured the hearts and minds of the house. Yet, despite her passionate and personal delivery, the motion passed with a clear margin.
