Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I'm not big on beauty pageants but I guess I tend to look at them as
    part of this foot race stuff. Some folks aren't good at running. And
    they'll never be in such a contest. Some folks are, and this is an
    opportunity. Better something than nothing. I'm delighted that the
    poise, personality and intelligence of contestants is becoming more of
    a requirement.
    
    I think the only thing that sometimes saddens me is the reinforcement
    of the emphasis on looks, which is something you can't do a lot about.
    Some women, because of size, shape or facial features, will NEVER be
    beauty contest material. And often, when women aren't attractive, their
    other positive attributes don't get noticed either. I think that's my
    big problem with beauty contests: we need to also recognize other
    merits of women, especially things they DO. Unfortunately, there never
    seems to be as big a draw.

>I'm delighted that the
>    poise, personality and intelligence of contestants is becoming more of
>    a requirement.
    
>    I think the only thing that sometimes saddens me is the reinforcement
>    of the emphasis on looks, which is something you can't do a lot about.

But then, neither is intelligence.

I think looks is one valuable attribute people can have. So is intelligent,
kindness, humor, strength, perseverence. Some attributes are modifiable,
some aren't - all should be valued.  Things like beauty pageants stress
just one of those attributes (physical beauty), whereas others stress others
(the game show Jeopardy emphasizes intelligence and knowledge.)  I don't
think there is anything superior about one attribute to another - although
I personally value some more than others.

As for whether beauty can be changed - well, yes and no, as with intelligence.
That is, you can't make yourself more intelligent, but through practice and
aquiring knowledge, one can make one's native intelligence more apparant
and useful.  Similarly can one make one's native beauty more apparant.

D!

    I must admit, when I watched part of a pageant earlier this year, I was
    gratified to note that they were focusing more on brains, intellect,
    careers, etc.
    
    But I still am concerned that these women have generally spent a good
    deal of their LIVES doing pageants, many of which do NOT have the focus
    on intellect/career that the most visible ones do.  They may have begun
    as little girls, jumping through the beauty-talent-cutesy hoop, and
    then moving on to Miss-Texas-Chili, and Miss-Corner-Diner-Beauty, and
    Miss-Windjammer-Days.  A majority of beauty pageants are just that, and
    these girls/women work hard and ARE WORKED HARD by those who
    encourage/support them to have poise, grace, beauty, they are given
    diet and exercise regimens that make most people wince.  
    
    These women are shaped and molded, formed and formulated, to compete in
    an arena where what nature cannot produce then plastic surgery and hard
    work can alter.  They become a product.  
    
    That's the part I still don't like.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    ...were there any male contestants?
    
    Dorian

    If there were must of have been travestis... because the contest is for
    girls only...
    there is another context for MR. Universe but it is in Cal, I believe,
    and I don't remember the date, but Mr. Universe and Ms. Universe are
    totally different affairs. Maria Shriver's husband, George Swartzeneger
    (?) has been a Mr. Universe winner more than once...    

>    These women are shaped and molded, formed and formulated, to compete in
>    an arena where what nature cannot produce then plastic surgery and hard
>    work can alter.  They become a product.  

This is true, Jody, but it is also true of all child "stars".  When children
compete on a national level in big stuff, it seems inevitable that they
are molded by their parents, agents, fans, etc.  Whether it is pagentry,
or movies, or ice skating, or piano.

What is the answer? One on hand, it does not seem fair to mold and change
these children's lives so. On the other hand, to be the *best* you have to
start young. Olympic athletes, national pageant winners and world class
chess champions all start at a very young age, too young to really understand
what they are getting themselves into.

D!

   >     totally different affairs. Maria Shriver's husband, George Swartzeneger

    ... uh, that's Arnold.

    One contestant said something like, "It's amazing that a contest that
    places so much emphasis on scholarship and career requires one to drop 
    out of school or quit work in order to compete."   But the fact that is
    takes at least a year of work and a lot of money to "groom" a contestant 
    is hidden.  How are they groomed?  Well they certainly aren't given good 
    jobs to gain career experience or crash courses in physics to hone their 
    intellectual skills!  She's taught how to be physically appealing to
    men.
    
    And the winner gets a $10,000 scholarship or something.  (I don't know 
    the exact figure, but I do know that most of the winners don't even break 
    even).  Her one gown for final night alone could easily cost that or more. 
    But you're not supposed to know that, just like you're not supposed to know 
    about vaselined teeth, glued butts, ripped out pubic hair, surgery, severe 
    dietary restriction and dangerously exhaustive exercise programs.  Just
    like the Chinese weren't supposed to hear the screams of the little
    girls as their feet were broken.
    
    All you're supposed to see are the smiling results of the "ultimate" in
    womanhood - a woman who has succeeded in becoming a shell of the person 
    she used to be.  But it's a nice shell and men like that, (and women
    are still raised to need/want/crave/depend on male approval), so it 
    continues on in the "enlightened" 90s.
    
    I think the emphasis on scholarship and talent and all is just lip 
    service to make the age old female flesh parade more palatable to modern
    audiences.  Like Jody said, these contestants are career contestants
    and if you read your local newspapers, none of the preliminary pageants
    require talent or intelligence.  Just, "GIRLS, WOMEN WANTED TO COMPETE"
    as an ad in today's paper reads.  And that says it all.
    
    A woman's appearance, and how much that fits in with what men are in the 
    mood for today, remains the primary filter.  So what if the flesh part
    now has to stop at the level of the Miss America finalists and the 
    ultimate woman chosen by some other criteria?  The fun for men is
    the parade and I don't think they really care which one gets run ragged 
    for the next year anyway.  It's a small concession to have the crown
    go to one of the finalists based on some criteria that appeases those
    "jealous feminists" because by allowing that, they are better assured
    of getting a new parade next year!  So don't be fooled by the "talent"
    part, you're just getting placated the easiest possible way.
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

    D! Although intelligence is something you're born with, knowledge is
    not. All people can acquire knowledge. Many people can acquire a skill,
    especially given a range to choose from. Most people can be good at
    doing something if they put the time and effort into it.
    
    Beauty is not just something you do, its also something you start with.
    Moreover, I think the other reason why I get annoyed about beauty
    contests is because they are so utterly sexist. Men do NOT compete to
    see who is the best looking, and has the biggest bulge in his briefs
    when he struts down a runway. And its because society doesn't place the
    same value on male attractiveness that it does on attractiveness in
    women. And this bothers me a lot. If being attractive is the only way
    women can get ahead, I don't want it taken away. But I'd like to see a
    beauty contest for men. Just once. With a bikini contest, a tuxedo
    contest, and a talent show. Not men flexing muscles and showing what
    they can develop or do, but literally, looking at what they look like,
    and deciding which one looks best. They should be 17-21, no beer
    bellies, no glasses, no deformities. Perfect teeth, perfect hair cuts,
    groomed hands and feet, beautiful butts, broad shoulders, etc. Walking
    talking male pin-up posters for me and millions of other women to vote on.

    
    .9
    
    You mean it's really just more 'entertainment for men'?!
    
    Well shoot, here we go again...   ;-)
    
    D.

>    D! Although intelligence is something you're born with, knowledge is
>    not. All people can acquire knowledge. Many people can acquire a skill,
>    especially given a range to choose from. Most people can be good at
>    doing something if they put the time and effort into it.

Exactly. Each of us is born with certain propensities, which we an then 
capitalize on and emphasize by learning things.

Intelligence is inborn.  Wisdom and knowledge are acquired.

Beauty is inborn.  Grace, poise and posture are acquired.

Athletic ability is inborn.  Ability to shoot baskets or run marathons is acquired.

Beauty pageant winners are beautiful, but they have to work just as hard
on making the most of thier beauty as the athelete must to hone hir body,
as the artist must to become really good, and as you and I must to make
ourselves good engineers.

It isn't an option that I would choose.  I haven't the inborn beauty for it,
and even if I did, it isn't a trait I value much and so I wouldn't care to
spend lots of time and effort developping it.

Everyone can acquire a skill, some skills are more suited to some people's
inborn talents than others.  For instance, much as I might like to, I will
never be a professional dancer - my body just isn't cut out for it.  But
I can be a top-notch engineer.  Miss Venzulua may never be a doctor - her
intelligence may not cut it.  But she can be a stunning beauty.  The people
who do best in the world are the one's whose interests correspond with their
inborn attributes.

(Rereading the above paragraph, I realize it could be construed as supporting
the old stereotype that a woman can be beautiful or intelligent, but not
both. That isn't true. Some people can be both.  People aren't restricted to
one attribute or another.  People who have many, many valuable attributes
and also work hard to develop them are what I call the Special People.)

>If being attractive is the only way
>    women can get ahead, I don't want it taken away.

I don't think it is the *only* way they can get ahead, but it is *a* way, and
for some particular women, it might be the only way, if beauty is their only
attribute.

I am not arguing that Beauty Contests aren't sexist. They are. They cater
to male interest in women's *bodies*, and are objectifying.  All I am
saying is that beauty, per se, is not a more or less valuable attribute than
other.  I see a lot of intelligent people who act as if intelligence is the
be all and end all of positive attributes; and moreover, that they worked to
get their intelligence, and therefore the rewards it reaps are more deserved
than the rewards a beautiful person gets.  I say there is an inborn and a
developed aspect of both beauty and intelligence, and therefore both (or 
neither) deserve rewards.  While I may envy pagent winners their beauty, I
don't resent their successes - we each have our niche, chosen for us by our
genes, our parents, our history and to a limited extend ourselves - and we
each succeed to varying degrees in that niche.  Miss Mexico's niche is not
inherently less worthy than mine.

>But I'd like to see a beauty contest for men. Just once.

As you point out, in our society, women's beauty is disproportionally
emphasized.  Men's is disproportionately de-emphasized, perhaps.  Or maybe
it only appears so in comparison to the emphasis placed on women's looks.
Nevertheless, a beauty contest for men would be just as objectifying as
one for women.

I wouldn't mind watching one, though it wouldn't be high on my priority list.

D!
 

    I HATE beauty pageants.  
    
    But my wife and daughters watch them.  So in my family, at least, it's
    not entertainment for men.
    
    - Vick

    Rick was flipping through channels the other night and saw a news-clip
    on the coronation of the new Miss-U.
    
    His comment, which I found _particularly_ inane:
    
      oh. she's short. tacky crown. Mexico, Huh?   about time.
    
    Then he looks at me, like _I_ have the answer or something, and asks:
    
      why are they still running these things?
    
    

	Pardon me if this seems impolitic, but has anyone considered
	the fact these women LIKE to do this ?  That it's voluntary ?

	We don't have to like the contests ourselves, but these
	women are hardly coerced !

	I don't watch 'em, because the standard of beauty isn't one
	I appreciate.  I likewise don't watch dog shows, horse shows,
	field-and-track events, and a lot of other stuff that's on
	the tube.

	But if these women like to spray their hair into rigid helmets,
	wear $10,000 gowns, strut around a runway, and wear
	painted-on smiles while the a crowd stares, let 'em !

	One tiny group of women doing this doesn't degrade women in
	general any more than Andrea Dworkin firing a gun into
	a magazine shop does !

	Live and let live ( but don't blast any magazine vendors, OK ? )

	Steve H

    
    the contests are a good club for radicals to use to bash the white male
    debbil Authors of All Evyl..

    
    I'm not at all sure that women LIKE to do what women have to do to make
    it to a Miss Universe contest.
    
    I'll bet lots of women start out thinking its fun, and thrilling, etc.
    But most women I know who are into modeling say that its grueling hard
    work. I think that the competition, and the expectation, and the
    possibility of winning is a large hook that keeps you going. But I'm
    not at all sure that the women like it. Especially if you're taking out
    a year plus of your life to try to become one in 60 or one in 600.
    
    Just as many people don't like working 9-5, 5 days a week, with 20 paid
    days off per year.
    
    Beauty contests to me, are like basketball scholarships to little black
    boys with a gift for dunk shots. The chance at being another Michael
    Jordan is one in a million. But if its the only chance you've got...
    
    When you don't have much else going for you but your looks, (i.e. no
    money for college and no marketable job skills) and if you don't use
    your looks, you'll be waiting tables in Iowa all your life, a beauty
    contest is a ticket up and out. I'm not downing ANY woman who goes for
    it. I just wish women had more avenues for success than just beauty
    contests, and magazine covers and centerfolds. Unfortunately, those are
    some of the most lucrative success avenues women have. And I think that
    sucks. 
    
    But then hey, maybe we should consider ourselves lucky that some of our
    sisters could pick up $1000 just for lying down on the job, when men
    can't...

    
    It seems pretty clear that in a male-dominated society, one of the
    surest avenues to success for women is to play the role that pleases
    men, e.g. the beauty contest role. As long as she doesn't try to become
    president...
    
    D.

    
    I think there's a parallel here between the bucket-wearers and the
    beauty contestants.  Or, rather, between the elephant on the leash and
    the beauty contestants (please pardon me, any future readers, for
    mixing my topical metaphors).
    
    If an elephant is raised being tethered by a rope, and that rope is
    strong enough to stop the baby elephant from leaving its "mooring" or
    the post it is tethered to, then later in its life it will not be aware
    that it CAN break free at some point when it is stronger.
    
    Small girls are often pushed and prodded by stage mothers into
    participating in modeling or competing in beauty pageants, and maybe it
    IS fun at first, to have mommy (or whoever) love you and have the
    people clap (I'm sure the "stage rush" is just as big as the "winning
    rush" in some cases).  But as it demands more time, a stricter regimen,
    how many who have been RAISED since the age of 5 or 6 will question
    what they are doing?  How many will actually be able to take a step
    back and look at the tether and wonder what else there is outside their
    "post"?  How many will be able to disappoint all the supporters who
    have gotten them this far by leaving it behind in order to do something
    they might feel is more self-fulfilling.  
    
    I think the kicker about beauty pageants is that they're like pinball
    or video games.  You can never REALLY win them all, for good.  You can
    win one here and there, but you lose some, and the way some people
    "cheat" (plastic surgery, sabotage, sleeping with judges, I don't know
    what else might happen but you get my drift) skews the outcome
    sometimes too in the smaller pageants, I'd guess.  And even if you DO
    win, what happens after - after the scholarship and the modeling
    contract - what happens?  Women age.  The beauty goes down the tubes. 
    If they're fortunate, they have a career of acting or modeling (or
    lawyering, but frankly if a woman takes a year or two off from
    lawyering to do beauty pageant stuff and make appearances it doesn't
    seem like she takes her career very seriously).
    
    I think Lee Meriwether and Mary Ann Mobley and Lynda Carter are
    exceptions.  I think the rest face the crash of relative anonymity
    after all the starshine wears off, and that's probably the biggest
    letdown of their lives after all the attention and glory....
    
    What are these women setting themselves up for when they get into it? 
    What are WE setting them up for by letting this continue?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    Paint me funny, but I don't look at beauty as a hindrance, but rather,
    an asset.
    
    If I was a "standard beauty", one that could make it to, and win, a
    Miss Universe contest, I wouldn't be ashamed of it in the least.
    
    I don't feel the need to deny any part of me to feel like I'm more of a
    woman (or to feel more superior).
    
    It would simply be a facet of me, and I would use it.  And I don't see
    anything wrong with men appreciating that facet, because I know there
    is more than just a pretty face/body, and that's all that really
    matters.
    
    kath
    
    

the replies to this topic for the most part have, in some ways surprisingly,
overturned my expectations.  I had expected far more references along the
lines of

>    the contests are a good club for radicals to use to bash the white male
>    debbil Authors of All Evyl..

that's from Bob Holt, in .16.  I would like to diffidently point out that the
contributors to =wn=, bastion of glass-chewing extremest feminism that it has
the rep for being,

		   BELIED  THE STEREOTYPE!!!!!

So I guess I'm not the only one with stereotypes of women (in my case,
beauty pagent contestants), that turn out to be at least partly false.

Sara

    re.20
    
    I think the distinction is between having beauty [or at least
    conforming to the most recent standard for same] and chasing after it.
    
    I don't think I've ever met a woman who looked down upon someone who by
    incredible happenstance has huge green eyes, invisible pores, thick
    eyelashes, a creaseless derriere, etc.  I _have_ run into a few [myself
    included to a great extent] who have a problem with carving into the
    body, or just gluing or painting things on to it, in order to attain
    this standard.
    
    I can't look inside a woman's head to _know_ why she does these things.
    I suspect, based upon things many of these women have said, that the
    motive more frequently than not is the ever ephemeral 'acceptance.' 
    For me, it becomes important to go beyond 'what does she want?' to
    'why does she want?'
    
    The why's behind the wants are the things I passionately want to
    change. If a woman [or anyone for that matter] wants to undertake a
    regimen that makes her feel good within herself, body and mind, I
    think that's wonderful.  If the motive is to be loved and accepted, to
    'earn' praise which will enable livelihood, I think that's tragic.  Not
    that _she_ is pathetic or tragic, she's doing and choosing what she
    feels she must --- but that the 'system' is flawed.
    
      Annie

But Jody, as I said, what is the different between beauty pageants and,
say, olympic gymnastics or child actors?  Parents still push, kids still
get a rush but really aren't in a position to make such decisions. And
it's always a losing game...

What's worse about making your kid be a beauty than making them be a star
athlete?

D!

    
>    It seems pretty clear that in a male-dominated society, one of the
>    surest avenues to success for women is to play the role that pleases
>    men, e.g. the beauty contest role. As long as she doesn't try to become
>    president...
    

	Well, maybe go to France, where Mme Edith Gresson is Prime Minister.

	Or, you could have come here, when Maggie was PM,

	........etc.

	Heather

>But Jody, as I said, what is the different between beauty pageants and,
>say, olympic gymnastics or child actors?  Parents still push, kids still
>get a rush but really aren't in a position to make such decisions. And
>it's always a losing game...

>What's worse about making your kid be a beauty than making them be a star
>athlete?
    
    I don't think there is a difference.  I think it's all pretty tragic.
    They're equally bad.  I think the beauty thing is the most transient
    though, the most fleeting, and the shortest career (barring athletic
    overwork or injuries) of the above mentioned list.  I suppose former
    Miss-whatever contestants/winners can become coaches of future
    miss-whatever contestants, just as athletes becomes coaches when
    they're no longer fit to play.  Actors can play a range of parts,
    although the transition from child actor to adult actor, and from adult
    actor to older actor may be difficult.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    It's also interesting to me that Vanessa Williams was stripped of her
    crown when it was revealed that she had posed nude (and in some
    suggestive poses, but aren't they all posed suggestively?).  How dare
    she accept the title of "one who is adored by men" when she had posed
    nude in a magazine for men?  What did she do wrong?  Pose as a madonna
    when she was really a whore?
    
    I guess it is somewhat positive that even beauty pageants seem to be
    influenced by feminism -- they're expected to sound smart.. so long as
    they don't get any worry or laugh lines from all that thinking.
    But it also feels dangerous when parts of the struggle get co-opted,
    makes me think of the ad copy for Virginia Slims cigarettes -- "You've
    come a long way, Baby."  I just doubt that Joe-sixpack is sitting home 
    watching the pageant saying,"Ooh, she's going to be a lawyer -- I vote 
    for her."  Maybe the "intelligence" aspects have been added to keep women 
    from raising hell about it and to keep the "sensitive guys" from feeling 
    ashamed of taking pleasure in watching women parade themselves around in 
    uncomfortable costumes.
    
    So.. if people are going to keep watching those things, I'm glad the
    women are starting to sound (if not look) more like real human beings
    with goals, ideas, feelings.  But it still makes me uncomfortable, and
    I wish we didn't have them.  (Maybe I should save that paragraph in
    case the US ever does start showing executions on TV.)
    
    Justine
    

Blast me if you want, but I have to tell you that I did a few
pagents when I was a teenager. It was a lot of fun for me. I stopped
doing them after I was crowned Miss Teen in 1974. I think it
was the parents, not the contestants who took these things so seriously.


My parents didn't push me to be a beauty queen, but they did encourage
me to attend modeling classes. I believe I gained alot from those
classes - you should see my runway turns...course you'd never know
it to see me now. I don't wear makeup, prefer jeans to gowns,
don't watch the Miss USA pagent and only use my pagent wave on 
holidays!

bonnie

    
    I'm glad it was fun for you. I wouldn't blast you at all. Seems kinda
    like gambling. Its great if its fun and you quit while you're ahead.
    I think modeling classes do a lot to develop self-confidence. If you
    know you look good, its often easier to feel good about yourself.
    
    Questions: how much time did it take? Were you sponsored? If not, what
    did it cost? Was talent an issue? Why did you stop? What did you win?
    Where do you think it might have taken you if you'd continued? Was that
    a place you wanted to go? What are you doing now? Did competing keep
    you from developing other interests or skills? 

Hmmm, I think modelling is a different boat than pageantry.  I've known
models, and modelling takes a lot of training and skill.  you know, I never
realized before I knew a model just how much beauty comes from how you
carry yourself.  I knew a girl in high school who was attractive but basically
pretty ordinary looking...till she did her model routine.  When she stood
there with her shoulders back and her head up, and moved with poise and
grace like that - she was beautiful.  I think it was her confidence...

Pageantry seems silly and frivolous to some people.  Modelling, on the other 
hand, is as much a serious career as any other...

D!

    The question I've been wondering as I read through this string of
    replies is...how many females born in Mexico have a chance of ever
    becoming a lawyer?
    
    In a country with as much poverty as Mexico has, and with such a
    wide gulf between rich and poor, I am not impressed that a lawyer, who
    also happens to be a beautiful woman, has devoted so much of her energy
    and time to winning a beauty contest.  It would seem to me that she
    could put her education and intelligence to better use in helping the
    impoverished women and children of her country, than by becoming a
    beauty queen.
    
    As far as beauty contests in general go I agree with Justine in .26.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Its not necessarily a kill-joy thing. If she can't get a scholarship to
    go to school, the pageant may be her ticket to college.

    
    
    RE: .30 (Lorna)
    
    I think that you might perhaps be forgetting that contests like this
    usually mean MAJOR SCHOLARSHIP MONEY for the winners.
    
    Perhaps the most intelligent thing she could do to get that degree was
    to use her looks and her talents to get that scholarship money (and
    that recognition)......
    
    She's smart, with her position as Miss Mexico/Miss Universe, she can
    make a difference FOR those impoverished women and children in her
    country.....a difference that possibly before the contest she could
    not.....
    
    She is in the public eye now, think about the difference she can make
    now that she couldn't before....
    
    (I guess what I'm saying is, I see it differently when I think
    long-term ability to make change as opposed to short-term sacrifice).
    
    kath

    A $10,000 scholarship, as was pointed out before, hardly balances out
    the year off from legal (or whatever career they have) work in salary
    or the amount of money it gets to train, get coached, take lessons in
    whatever "talent" they've competed in in previous beauty pageants, and
    the price of the one or two costumes/dresses they use in the pageant
    itself.
    
    Chances are women who make it to miss MAJOR-competition were backed by
    quite a bit of money from somewhere.
    
    I doubt beauty pageants are the most efficient ticket to scholarship
    money.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .32, also, Kath, Sara said in .0 that Miss Mexico *is* a lawyer
    already, is 23 yrs. old and plans to own and operate her own health
    resort.  I really don't think too many impoverished Mexican women will
    be frequenting her health resort, do you?
    
    Lorna
    

yes, it was stated that she is a lawyer, and 23.

for the record, Dick Clark said the scholarship was $5,000.  Paltry, eh?

But we can't know what she will do with her success, assuming it happens, when
her term as Miss Universe is over.  She may work to improve the lot of Mexican
women (my impression), or of Mexicans in general -- she like all the contestants
is a real booster of her home country -- or she may turn out like Imelda Marcos
and collect shoes.  Certainly if she is successful in running a resort, she will
create many jobs, and could turn out to be quite the philanthropist, or slave
driver, or somewhere in between.

I don't give so much of myself that I am willing to judge what Miss Mexico may
or may not do in her future.  Ask me tomorrow, if I win tri-state megabucks
tonite.  :-)

    
    re .34:
    
    So what if she tries to further herself and her own career and
    her own interests and not try to help others?  I had it pretty
    lucky and relatively easy too.  I'm not really doing all that much
    for others.  So what?
    
    So Mexico's got a lot of poverty.  We've got a lot here too, and
    there's poverty (at least some) the world-wide.
    
    On a deeper note, isn't that what "society" (or the "patriarchy",
    if you prefer) has *expected* of women all along?  To be so selfless,
    so giving, to the neglect of what *they* really want.  Oh, and
    heaven-forbid she should expect or work for anything for herself!
    
    Surely that's not what you're saying, Lorna? (But it sounded an
    awful lot like that to me).
    

    I see a lot of envy in this topic.
    
                                      L.J.
    

    re: -1  That's nice.  I'm sure there was a point, but I missed it.
    
    Am I hearing some infer that beauty contests are "valid" or "worthwhile" 
    because of what the one single winner *might* do?  When one winner's
    reign is over, she's generally forgotten in the libidinous high of the 
    new parade.  And there always must be a new parade.  Every generation
    of women must be examined physically and measured against each other
    for who looks like the most fun for men, right?  
    
    Career-driven or philanthropically-driven women don't need 
    to win beauty contests to be effective.  If Miss M. is a lawyer, she 
    already has an avenue to both personal wealth and philanthropic
    opportunities far beyond those which a mere $5,000 scholarship could
    bring.  But as Lorna said, she put all that aside for at least a year
    and instead concentrated on "doing her nails".  And it is *that* for
    which she is crowned, praised, fawned over and hailed, *not* for what 
    I see are her far greater achievements as a woman rising out of 
    mediocrity and obscurity in an impovrished country.  A lawyer at 23?
    Has anyone taken notice of that?  Nah, too uninteresting, right?  But
    'ooh, they love to watch her strut'!  It doesn't take a law degree,
    especially via an *accelerated program*, to strut.  It would seem to 
    me that she could "serve her country" and her people much better by
    being honored as a lawyer, thereby giving the millions of impovrished 
    women there some hope and something real to work toward - education.  
    I really don't think having lttle Mexican girls, (and little American 
    girls), running around trying to emulate a beauty queen is of any value 
    at all, except perhaps to Mexican, (and American), boys...  hey, what a 
    coincidence!  But most individual men, backed by the male-driven beauty 
    industry, would much rather live in a world with the kind of women who
    fret over the right eye shadow colors for the new season, than those 
    who'd rather learn torts.  After all, educated women can give the average 
    joes a much tougher time trying to bed them not to mention the fact 
    that such women might also be less inclined to purchase and display the 
    new eye shadow colors thereby lowering men's profits but more importantly, 
    greying their beloved female landscape.  So they honor the lawyer who 
    puts aside her mind for awhile and glues a cute little piece of cloth 
    to her butt, (or a bunny tail or whatever fertility signal men are 
    going for these days), and then pretend it's her mental acumen that's 
    being lauded.
    
    There is nothing wrong with either having or appreciating beauty.  But
    when it it is held up as the zenith of womanhood, it obviously demotes 
    everything else a woman does to being merely nice.  And that's the
    repugnant part.  Maybe only unemployed women or those "waiting tables
    in Iowa" should be allowed to enter.  Then I might agree and accept
    that such contests represent an opportunity a woman might not otherwise
    have.  But what's the point of giving a scholarship to a laywer?  Isn't
    that kind of like taking coals to Newcastle?  Sure it is.  But who
    cares.  The point is the flesh parade.  Everything else is secondary.
    
    Sandy 
    

    Wait - I think I know the point of -2.  You can't follow the
    intellectual arguments being presented so you're resorting to the old
    "you're just jealous" brush off?
    
    S.

    re .36, Ellen, I honestly believe that the most intelligent and capable
    people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves. 
    I believe that when these people simply put all their talents into
    furthering their own interests they are perpetuating a world economic
    system that is a disaster for many people.
     
    Ultimately, of course, each person answers only to their own conscience
    but that doesn't preclude my feeling that I have a right to voice my
    opinion.
    
    Lorna
        

Sure, intelligence and athletic ability are "god-given" (was that the 
phrase?) just as beauty is. So how come we don't have Miss Intelligence and
Miss Athletic Ability pageants? (Could it be because intelligence and
athletic ability are less valued as traits in women than appearance/sexual
attractiveness to males is, by the so-called, alleged, pardon the
expression, "patriarchy"? And also - funny coincidence - look how much it 
*costs* for women to maintain the standards of feminine appearance/sexual
attractiveness that are held up for us here: must be good for business -
somebody's, anyway!) 

Oh well, I suppose these pageants are as good a way as any to keep women
from having any real power around here...  

Whatever works, y'know,  :-} 

D.

    Sandy,
    
    Are you accusing L.J. of being Shortt-sighted?
    
    						Ann B.

    yeah, Dorian,

    and how come men find sexuality in women your and my age
    ludicrous? why are there no 40's or 50's plus awards...

    or grandmother contests?

    sigh

    Bonnie

>Sure, intelligence and athletic ability are "god-given" (was that the 
>phrase?) just as beauty is. So how come we don't have Miss Intelligence and
>Miss Athletic Ability pageants? (Could it be because intelligence and
>athletic ability are less valued as traits in women than appearance/sexual

	Well, we have a programme called "the Krypton factor" this covers both
	athletic ability and Intelligence. It is open to any age and both sexes.
	There is a handicap measurement on the athletic parts, so age and sex 
	are neither an advantage or disadvantage.
	It usually runs over 6-8 weeks, and the winner overall gets the prize.

	We also have a programme called Mastermind, which is purley 
	intellectual, with both sexes competeing equally, and no age barriers.
	The "mastermind if the year" trophy and title is very much prized.

	Both have been won by men and women in the past, and by young(over 18)
 	and old.

	We also have glamerous grandmother compettitions. 

	Heather

    >how come we don't have Miss Intelligence and Miss Athletic Ability
    >pageants?
    
    Because physical beauty better lends itself to pageantry? I mean,
    who wants to looks at a cavalcade of nerds on stage? ;-)
    
    (Envision Bert Parks singing "Here she comes, Miss Computer Geek".)
    

Dana, that's funny!

kinda like the SatNiteLive version of a StarTrek convention, y'know, the one
that Wm Shatner spoke to, and told all the fans to "move out of your parents'
basements and get a life!"

true and funny

Sara

    
    I think beauty pagents are a sad commentary on the human race, and how 
    twisted our "priorities" have become.  These pagents are not only
    degrading to women, but to men as well.  Look at what they emphasize -
    bodies... So what is a body?  Is it the most important part of a
    person?  I think it is the least important - and look how much
    importance we have put into it.  My body isn't me. It doesn't think. 
    It doesn't have emotions. It doesn't cause me to be or act the way I
    do.  I can have the world's most beautiful body, but be totally ugly 
    inside.  I can have the world's most ugly body, but be totally beautiful 
    inside.  So what if a person's body is beautiful, or if they are
    athletic, or if they can speak 200 languages....what are they like inside?
    Are they cruel or kind? Are they greedy or sharing?  Are they filled with 
    anger and hurt, or peace and happiness?  Do they react unconsciously to all
    that they encounter, like an animal, or do they do they act
    consciously? The mentality we have towards the human body seems not to
    be different at all than the way male and female animals view each
    other.  That is why I feel  things like beauty pagents are degrading to
    all humans - are we really human, or animals?  Look at the way wolves,
    gorillas, etc. choose mates... Look at what beauty pagents emphasize,
    or for that matter, body building contests.
    
    C. (-:
    
    
    

    "What really is important" you ask, C?  In this culture, what is taken
    for important is what men *say* is important.  Now sit down and behave.
    You're probably just jealous.
    
    ;>
    
    S.

    
    It's true - our current society is still dictated by what men think is
    "good", as they are the "dominant animal".  But, it is every individual
    human's (men and women) choice as to conforming or not. (Although I 
    realize, when you have a family, or a dependent, sometimes you may have to 
    conform a bit, even if it goes against what you believe.)  I have chosen 
    not to conform - I am myself.  I don't act/react simply just to please 
    someone else's notion of what is good or appropriate.
    
    And...I'm even more naughty than _that_!  I'm actually happy being myself,
    and don't envy, or aspire to be like anyone else! Tsk, Tsk...
    
    C. (-:
    

    re:.48
    
    �    You're probably just jealous.
    
    If you're not jealous, why do you keep mentioning it?
    
    I think your obsession with it says a lot.
    
                                      L.J.
    

re: .50

What is your point?  Are you saying that those people who criticize
the concept of beauty contests are jealous?  Of what? Why?  Are you so
caught up in the value of superficial looks, or in the objectification
of women, that you believe everyone else is?  And/or are you assuming that
only people who are not traditionally (according to current Western
society values) attractive can think critically about beauty contests?
(Do you know what all the writers here look like and/or value?)

---

I think the idea of looks contests wouldn't bother me so much if
they were balanced in our society by respect for and valuing of other
attributes of women.  But looks are so superficial to what a person is,
and women are so objectified by many aspects of our society, that
I can't help but see them as "flesh parades" (quoting someone above),
just another socially acceptable way to present women as mannequins, as
sex objects.  If it was a mixed men's and women's contest, would it
be any better?  Maybe -- it might dilute the sexist attributes, though
it's still such a looks thing.

Why *do* people watch beauty contests?

	MKV

    Just for the heck of it, (sorry to blow your 'cover' Sandy) but
    Sandy Ciccolini, is knock down drag out beautiful... ;-) ...
    and could well have won contests when she was younger...
    Bon

[Sandy] could well have won contests when she was younger...
    
    She could well be winning contests now!
    
    Me?  Jealous?  Hardly.  Although I consider myself attractive, I do
    envy those women I find attractive.  However, I don't consider the
    sorts of women who win pagaents to be attractive to me.  It is possible
    that I might trade bodies with someone, if I could, but it sure as heck
    wouldn't be Miss Mexico.
    
    D!
    

PerS -- yes!  Thank you!  you have helped me to crystallize something that I've
been trying to sort out for a few days now.  L.J., it's your comments that have
made me puzzle over this.  I'll try to explain.

>Funny then how we consider us selves average. (Hey, look at him/her,
>    s/he is richer than me).

or more beautiful, or smarter, or more worthy, or...  

Or, if we know ourselves to be above average, or even gifted, in some way --
richer, more beautiful, smarter -- we *know* that the average ones *must* resent
and envy us for being what we are.

>Stop blaming Miss Mexico, Madonna, taxes, goverment or whatever.
>    That's the easy way out. The non-productive way.

In essense, I think, this is what L.J. has been trying to say.  ('course, you'll
correct me if I'm wrong, L.J. :-), but that's how I interpret it.)  Not only
that it's wrong, but judgemental and that's worse.

Of course, L.J. is right about this.  It is small-minded to begrudge someone 
what they have, and transfer blame to them because *I* don't have what they do,
whether I want it or not.

But I don't begrudge a beautiful woman her beauty.  I would think her shallow if
her beauty was all she cared about, and would feel sorry for her if she thought
her beauty was all she had going for her.

Believe it or not, I do not envy you or your roommate your beauty.  I am not
beautiful, my talents and attributes and abilities lie elsewhere, and since I
value my inner self and integrity above most everything else, I'm almost glad
I'm not beautiful.  It helps me to be seen for those qualities I value most, and
if I was beautiful I'd have some of the same problem your roommate has at being
taken seriously as a person.  The image of a beautiful woman that she must
overcome is 'bimbo, unable to get any other job'. That's an image that society
puts on beautiful women.

I think the difficulty you may have had with the women's movement may partly be
the feeling that in rejecting that image of the beautiful  woman, in
rejecting the (sometimes implied, sometimes directly stated) imperative that
all women must strive to achieve that beauty and be judged by how close they
come to it, that the women's movement has rejected beauty, and beautiful
women.  In truth, there has been some overreaction, just as there has been
some overreaction toward rejecting women who chose to concentrate on raising
children.

I guess what I'd have to say is that the overreaction is not the whole, and not
even most.  But this is long enough, for a reply based on an interpretation of
someone else's words; if I am not way off base, and if you choose, we can 
pursue this line further.

Sara

    Uh, Sara...?
    
    Where did you get the idea that we "begrudge" these women their beauty? 
    I'm beautiful (in my eyes) and I am very happy that I am.  I begrudge
    no one their beauty.  I have yet to see a reply in here that indicates
    the author is resentful or jealous of the beauty of these contestents. 
    I find your implication offensive - please either defend or retract it.
    
    D!

D!, I mean no offense.  I think the implication is present, not necessarily in
this file, but out there, that we (a very general term here) do envy and resent
women who are beautiful.  L.J. said as much, pretty clearly.  I think what we
reject is the emphasis placed on beauty in and of itself, defined by 'popular
culture' (whatever that is) and by movie stars and models and teen mags.  I know
that *I* reject the achievement of physical beauty as an end in iteslf, as the
one goal toward which all women must strive, and if they do not achieve it, they
are put down, and anything else they achieve devalued.  And contradictorily, if
they do achieve it, that's all that is seen.

In a word, we reject the objectification of women.  I think we are _perceived_
as rejecting the women that are (sometimes) seen as objects.  And I think there
is a smidgen of truth in that perception, sometimes.  (Extreme example alert) I
know if I see  a woman in a business setting try to gain advantage by flirting
with a man in power, I get mad, because it makes it easier for that man to
devalue *me*, to judge *me* by sexist criteria.

As to my comment that I'm almost glad I'm not beautiful, well that's just how
I feel.  I do believe that in some sense, our physical appearance, whatever it
is (weight, hair color, skin color, age, dress etc) can get in the way, or
can partly determine how we are perceived.  I do think that when a woman is
seen as a great beauty, it _can_ set up expectations as to what she knows/how
she behaves.  I have not had to overcome the 'bimbo who couldn't get any other
job' expectation.  And I'm not sorry.

(there are other skeletons in my closets, but they are for other topics!)

Hope this helps. Sara

    >I think the implication is present, not necessarily in
    >this file, but out there, that we (a very general term here) do envy
    >and resent
    >women who are beautiful.  L.J. said as much, pretty clearly. 
    
    Yes, you and LJ both very explicitly said that women shouldn't be
    jealous of other women's beauty.  By saying so, in response to this
    discussion, you therefore imply that (at least some) women *are*
    jealous of their beauty.  By telling us not to begrudge their beauty,
    you are implying that we *are* begrudging their beauty.  LJ in fact
    went further, and implied that the only reason we were objecting to
    beauty pageants was because we were "begrudging them their beauty."
    
    That is what I find offensive.  
    
    D!

    Now, could it be that it is The Powers That Be that have declared
    that women who [perhaps] aren't beautiful [enough] [in one particular
    way] are jealous of women who are?  And that it is predominantly
    women who accept The Way Things Are (which is the way The Powers
    That Be have defined Things) who are jealous?
    
    							Ann B.

D!, please re-read what I wrote.  I just did, and I don't think I told anyone
what to think or feel.  The only thing that even remotely resembles it was that
I said I think it is small minded to begrudge someone something they have that
you may or may not want.  But that is a general statement, and not one that
points a finger at you, or at womannoters, or at feminists.

I said what I meant, not what you infer from it.  I am not implicating women in
general, or feminists, but rather addressing how the non-feminist-identified
world interprets some of the actions and beliefs of feminists.  Please let go
feeling attacked, and read it again... we are more in agreement than you seem
to think.

Sara

>...The Powers That Be that have declared
>    that women who [perhaps] aren't beautiful [enough] [in one particular
>    way] are jealous of women who are?  And that it is predominantly
>    women who accept The Way Things Are (which is the way The Powers
>    That Be have defined Things) who are jealous?


    Isn't the rejection of JUST THIS what kicked off and ticked off the
    women who led the agitation in the 60s for women's liberation and
    rights!!!!!

    Didn't it usedta be that we were all expected to be Barbie dolls, and
    compete with and fight other women for our man?  and find our ultimate
    satisfaction in marriage?  We (women in general) expected it of ourselves.

    Didn't my mother tell me, when I objected to an itchy slip, that sometimes
    a girl has to suffer to look pretty?  And that I could get a husband
    someday, even if I did wear glasses?  Wasn't she herself told over and
    over as a child how ugly she was?  and when my dad asked her to marry him,
    didn't her aunt tell her to accept 'cuz she'd never get another offer?

    WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK I GET UPSET THAT A TERRIFFIC WOMAN LIKE L.J.
    REJECTS FEMINISM!  She thinks WE buy into the old prejudices!!!!!
    But in reverse! 

I"m trying, in my deviously inclusive and non-confrontational way, to say that
REAL feminism does not judge a woman on her appearance alone, but on the whole
woman.  Real Feminism, mine anyway, rejects the belief that a beautiful blond
must be a bimbo, and likewise rejects the ACTIONS, *not*the*person*, of a
woman who buys the old prejudices.

YOU, =wn=ers in general and in specific, may not do these ugly things.  But
Feminists _are_perceived_ as doing them.  It is that I'm answering.

       Umm, and having just met L.J. a few days ago, I can vouch
    for her attractiveness, as well...does this provide any clues?
    
       My ex-girlfriend is a former "world-class" model (nearly two
    decades ago) (named as such by Vogue magazine, etc.) and pursued
    it (was "discovered" by the way, didn't seek it out) to make
    money.  Though she had other aspirations growing up, she found that
    she was not supported by her family in those aspirations ("just
    find a rich man,") and supported a husband (a French Baron) while
    he attended law school.  Eventually, due to certain situations, she
    found herself in New York (from Paris) and modeled disappointedly
    for a year or two more.  Then, she hung it up.  She realized (all this
    is according to her) that she had more to offer than beauty, she 
    wanted others to accept her as she is, for the other qualities she
    has, and was thoroughly disgusted and offended by the "meat parade."
    Therefore, she turned her back on fashion and all its trappings.  It was 
    very difficult for her but yet she managed to accomplish much of what
    she was trying to accomplish, eventually.  
         Did beauty help her?  Yes, undoubtably.  Did she exploit her
    own beauty?  Yes, for a while.  Does she have value as a person
    in spite of that?  Undeniably.  She has great value as a person,
    has come to recognize the importance of self-esteem and self-love
    and self-respect.  She *knows* that something as shallow as looks
    is not any kinds of ends...but rather can be used as an effective
    means towards accomplishing many things (especially when used
    with honesty and without manipulation.)
         One more word, here.   Recognize that eventually every
    narcissist, providing they live long enough, has to face the eventual
    toll by nature.  Whatever youthful beauty one has always disappears,
    given time.  One would not only be a fool, but a pitiful fool, were
    he/she to put all their eggs into the beauty-basket.
    
    Frederick
    

    The following is a reply from a noter who wishes to remain anonymous.
    
    						Ann B.
    ========================================================================
    
    re: .60  Sara

    I'm sure most of us would agree that the perception in question ("You're
    just jealous") is present in many people's minds as an unfair negative
    stereotype about feminism.  But let's also remember that we have no
    need to apologize for other people's mistakes or prejudices about us.

    The nature of the "You're just jealous" stereotype involves a belief
    that objections to sexism are ideologically invalid (and are based
    instead on a resentment an individual woman might have for not having
    the assets to be treated as Prime Meat in our cultural flesh market).

    It's an absurd assumption, and we should feel pity for anyone who takes
    it seriously.

    Apologize for someone else's mistake, though?  No way.

Friends, sorry I shouted before.  I'll try to be cool :-)

I don't think I apologized anywhere (else), for anybody.  Not even myself.
I don't think feminists have anything to apologize for.  We did not invent
the myth of those old prejudices I mentioned in .60.  We reject them.

What I am trying to do is debunk the myth that feminists reject women whose
choices and style may be different from 'mainstream feminism', whatever that
is, and may be more traditionally acceptable to non-feminists.  

I've said it before.  My feminism involves *expanding* the choices available to
women.

Sara

    re:.59
    
    Neither one of us said what D! said we did. I hope D! figures that
    out and decides to retract her reply. I don't lie about her, she
    shouldn't lie about me.
    
                                      L.J.
    

    Thank you, Sara, said Ann, shaking hands with her in a rather
    formal manner.
    
    						Ann B.

    L.J.,
    
    In reply 824.50, you wrote:
    
    "re:.48
    
    �    You're probably just jealous.
    
    If you're not jealous, why do you keep mentioning it?
    
    I think your obsession with it says a lot."
    
    so I believe D! was justified in her comments.
    
    						Ann B.

    First off, thanks Sara for trying to explain in more detail what I've
    been trying to say.  You've taken a lot of heat for something I started
    and it is appreciated.  I tend to be rather more blunt that most folks
    care to hear.
    
    As for explanations...Sara hit it almost right on the mark.  My local
    high school once had a NOW meating for teen-agers.  I went and was
    shunned because I chose to wear make-up, a dress, and other feminine
    trappings.  I am not assuming this is the reason I was shunned...I was
    informed of this quite blatantly.
    
    If one is conventionally attractive and uses it to get ahead in the 
    world I find nothing shallow about it or unfair.  That's like saying
    a person with an I.Q. of 170 should not be allowed in a class with 
    people with average I.Q.'s because it wouldn't be fair.  We're all
    given looks, intelligence, and common sense in varying degrees.  And
    I, personally, will use any and all of them to achieve my goals.
    
    
    
                                  L.J.

    Thank you L.J. for your reply. It would've helped if you had said this
    earlier instead of that comment about other women being jealous.
    Anyway, better late..
    
    Beauty is certainly an asset and there's nothing wrong in using it.
    What bothers me and perhaps many other women is that it is often not
    seen as _an_ asset, but _the_ most valuable asset or perhaps the only
    valuable asset a woman can have.
    
    I'm sorry you were shunned at the NOW meeting. We have to learn to be
    more accepting of choices that women make. 
    
    manisha

It's funny how our own experiences so color our view of the world... I'm not
being critical, and I don't really see how it could be any other way.  It's
just so sad that our experiences drive such wedges between us.

I don't mind the heat.  I'm here to learn, and to share what I've learned, and
all the replies in here were part of that.  I could see that you were angry,
L.J., and guessed at the reasons.  You have reason to be angry.

Our experiences shape us so thoroughly.  There are many, many women who write
here whose lives have so much harder, harsher than mine that I am often shocked
by it.  If I had lived their experiences, I can conceive that I might hate or
distrust all men.  Maybe some of them do.  (very gently) Can anyone besides me
see that applying one's own experience as universal is often a mistake?

Not wrong, but mistaken.  Not always right, but still valid.

hugs for all

Sara

    Thankyou Sara.
    
    Bonnie

    The beautiful woman self test.  you make up your own rating, you
    determine your won score.
    Rate the following women:
    Madonna
    Cher
    Miss Mexico 1991
    Mother Theresa
    
    
    ;->
    
    

    
    
    >Rate the following women:
    
    Let's see, I can think of quite a few different ways I would rate the
    following women on beauty.
    
    1. Madonna
    2. Cher
    3. Mother Theresa
    4. Miss Mexico 1991
     
    1. Cher   
    2. Miss Mexico 1991
    3. Madonna
    4. Mother Theresa
    
    1. Mother Theresa
    2. Miss Mexico 1991
    3. Madonna
    4. Cher          
    
    Now, here's an exercise for you....Figure out which "type" of beauty
    I'm talking about in each grouping! ;-)
    
    

    	re.72
    
    	1. ??
    	2. outer beauty, attractiveness
    	3. inner beauty
    
                                       L.J.

    re .71, I really don't think anyone can judge the beauty of someone
    else's soul unless they know them quite well personally.  While I think 
    that Mother Theresa's working with the poor in India seems very 
    worthwhile, I don't necessarily think it proves that she has a more 
    beautiful soul than the other women.  I'd have to be friends with all 4
    women for quite some time before I'd want to rate their inner beauty.
    
    I'd rate them for physical beauty:
    
    1. Cher - very attractive looking woman I think, despite her
              unfortunately peculiar taste in clothes.
    2. Madonna - slightly above average looks but knows how to make
                 the most of what she's got
    3. Miss Mexico - never seen her but if she won a beauty contest...
    4. Mother Theresa - obviously a heart of gold but....
    
    
    It's easier to judge physical beauty, unfortunately.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    >  1. ??
    >  2. outer beauty, attractiveness
    >  3. inner beauty
    
    Pretty good, L.J.!  ;-)    The first one was sort of a ranking on who
    *I* found to be the most beautiful in action/attitude-wise....who I
    felt had the best, most refreshingly beautiful outlook on life....who
    didn't live their lives by other, predefined standards....
    
    It's also the first ranking I did,, because I think it's the one that
    affects me most when I think about it.
    
    kath