Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    To say nothing about the fact that the candidates have to be
    conventionaly beautiful, of a certain height, and weight, in order
    to qualify.  I wonder how many men's scholarships require that a
    man be handsome?
    
    
    Lorna
    

        Of course, to be fair, a large number of the scholarships
        available to men require that they be able to play various
        popular sports: which also has very little relationship to
        academic achievement. 
        
        Basically, someone has money, and chortling evilly to themselves
        considers "now what can I make people do to get some of this
        money?"  If it works, and they're amused by the results,
        they keep doing it.  I think that's a big :-), but I wouldn't
        bet on it...
        
        	/dave

    
    Re -1, also, to be fair, athletes do have to work to be good at
    what they do.  But, women are either born with beautiful faces and
    perfect bodies or they're not.  
    
    These beauty pageants perpetuate the idea that the most important
    quality in being a woman is good looks.  This is horribly unfair
    to all the average looking women of the world who are worth getting
    to know even if they don't look like Christie Brinkley.
    
    Sports vs. beauty pageants = men being rewarded for *what* they
    can *do* and women being rewarded for what they look *like*.
    
    Lorna
    

    Do you really suppose that the women who win beauty pageants
    don't work at it?  Everything that I have heard suggests that
    it requires constant effort over a period of years (probably
    starting around age 3).
    
    Conversely, success at sports may require work, but that doesn't
    mean that any man could be successful at sports.  If I'd started
    playing football at age 3, I'd still have had no more chance
    of being a football star than mostr women have of being Miss
    America.
    
    Not that I disagree that it is silly to give people money for
    being good looking; but I believe that the analogy between sports
    and beauty contests is closer than you think.  Both require unusual
    native talents and physical characteristics, followed by a lifetime
    of dedication and hard work.  And both are rewarded because there
    is a market for them.  (Michigan pays big scholarship bucks to
    football players because Michigan makes big money from football--
    exactly the same reason that the Miss America pageant pays big
    scholarship bucks to beauty pageant winners.
    
    	-Neil

        I like Neil's comments... but my reply was primarily directed
        to the quoted comment in .0 about scholarship vs. no judgement
        on (or reporting of) academics.  I was merely pointing out
        that while this may be odd and somewhat irrational, it's
        not unique to beauty pageants.  My analogy wasn't intended
        to be universal.
        
        And of course there are also male "beauty pageants" (though
        they don't usually use those words); I don't know if any
        give scholarships, but I wouldn't be surprized.  Certainly
        they give a lot of money.
        
        	/dave

    
    Re -1 & -2, I still maintain that beauty pageants perpetuate the
    myth that to be desirable and worthwhile to society women have to
    be beautiful.  If you do not believe this is more true for women
    than for men just take a good look at news anchors.  Virtually all
    the women are quite good looking - Jane Pauley, Connie Chung, Diane
    Sawyer, even Barbara Walters isn't a dog.  But, look at some of
    the most famous men - Walter Cronkite, Hugh Downs, Huntley & Brinkley
    - they can be fat, old, bald, and homely and nobody seems to care
    as long as they know their job.  (It's true Bryant Gumble - or whatever
    his name is - isn't bad looking but he's an exception.)  Look at
    that couple who give the news on Channel 5 in Boston.  She's fairly
    attractive, he's mediocre at best.
    
    The same is true of TV sitcoms.  The men (with a few exceptions
    like Don Johnson) can look like anything as long as they have charisma,
    but it seems that to get on TV a woman has to first be beautiful
    - unless she's Dr. Ruth or some other weird character.
    
    Well, it just seems to me that there is so much more emphasis in
    life placed on women being good looking than on men being good looking.
     Men can be fat, old, ugly, missing teeth, bald, and god knows what
    else and they can still seem to get a wife if they want one.  But,
    I've known many average looking women, intelligent, with good
    personalities, who dress nice, wear make-up, keep their weight down,
    have their hair done, etc., who can't seem to "get a man" to save
    their souls.
    
    For example, before he got married Henry Kissinger, certainly no
    prize in the looks department, was often seen with beautiful women
    on his arm.  I've never heard stories of Margaret Thatcher being
    trailed about by handsome men - or Golda Mier (sp?) or Indira Gandhi
    when they were alive.  
    
    I just feel that it's unfair the emphasis placed on women in society
    in regard to worth as opposed to men.
    
    I agree that women in beauty pageants had to work in order to learn
    how to smile constantly, walk around in front of people, and do
    their little talents like baton twirling and learn to answer their
    silly little questions like "What I want to do for society", but
    to begin with they have to have a beautiful face and grow to be
    a certain height.  If a woman is beautiful but only 5' tall she's
    not eligible!  Athletes do not have to be beautiful and there are
    plenty of famous ones to attest to that fact.  The fact is it doesn't
    take much effort on a woman's part to be born with certain facial
    features, but it does take a little work to be a great football
    player.  Do you really think that Christie Brinkly has worked as
    hard to get where she is as Larry Bird has?
    
    Lorna
    
    

    
    	Re .6 -
    
    	Your "have to be beautiful" argument boils down to an addage
    that's been true for all time (up to "lately", anyway) that Women
    have sex and Men want it. The man's perception of what a Woman "has"
    leads to his degree of "want" and therfore her "worth" and the $.
    The seemingly sexist intent of offering valuable scholarships ($)
    to beautiful women is, well, sexist.
    
    	Joe Jas
    

There was a very short interview on National Public Radio's "Morning
Edition" on saturday with the head of the Miss America organization.  He
explained that they were no longer giving out the contestants'
measurements, and was very proud of himself.  He used that to show how the
competition wasn't sexist, and anyway, he said, one couldn't believe the
measurements that were given, because the contestants used "female
engineering" (his term).

Scott Simon, the interviewer, asked if they weren't going to give up on the
swimsuit competition if they were getting away from sexism. The man said
that they wouldn't. It was important, he said, because the judges had to be
able to see the woman's body to see if there were any obvious flaws in her
appearance. He cited two particular flaws that could be detected: missing an
entire arm, or being obese. Scott asked if a woman couldn't be considered
attractive even with those "flaws", but apparently that's not possible.

Scott sounded pretty exasperated at the end! (I like to listen to this
program because they do a little editorializing, and it's funny, unless I
disagree with it...)

					--hs

re: .7 (Joe Jas)
>    	Your "have to be beautiful" argument boils down to an addage
>    that's been true for all time (up to "lately", anyway) that Women
>    have sex and Men want it.

Good point. I'm sure that it *has* been seen to be this way for a long time,
but why?  Couldn't it just as easily have gone the other way?  Don't women
"have sex [to give]" simply because men are taught to be more aggressive and
come to the women to "get it"?

I'm not sure that this is an entirely new topic to this notesfile, but I
don't remember seeing it stated just like Joe did.  
					-- hs

"The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because
the average man can see better than he can think."
				-- Anon

"It ain't what you got, but the way that you got it."
				-- May West

Lorna's right as far as the accomplishments of women are more easily
accepted as "rewards" for their beauty.  The "work" that these women do
are toughies like balancing on 4-inch heels, runway walking, and how to
stand with one knee in front of the other, hips sidwise, so that the
legs have mamximum extension and make a straight line from the pelvis.

Did anyone see the movie "SMILE", one of the best representations of 
beauty pageants to come along in years.

Beauty pageant scholarships really aren't comparable to athletic
scholarships, although some of those have been given out for the same reason.

There are male equivalents to Christie Brinkleys and one of them is
Refridgerator Perry.  This guy plays pro football simply because he's
HUGE!  He plays defense because no one can get around him!

He's not GOOD, he's BIG.  He got where he is not by what he did, but
by what he IS...

Somewhat like Prince Charles, I guess.

I think beauty pageants are awful... and I will admit that I spent my
formative years in front of the TV, enjoying these things because my
brothers and I shredded these girls totally!  My youngest brother, ever
notorious for trying to irritate me, said, "Karen, you could never get
into one of these things..."

With fists curled into balls and ready to pounce, I asked him why.

"Because you're too smart.." was the answer.

And that's unfair.  All the women leaders that Lorna mentioned were
exceptional women and *very* homely.  It's as unfair to assume that the
beautiful are stupid as it is to assume that the smart are homely.

To make things equal, I think guys ought to be awarded scholarships
on penis size.

karen

    
    	Re .11 -
    
    	"penis size"  'Cmon - you just sound a bit irratated, like Lorna.
    There are "sized" organs on a woman's body too, but thats not all
    the Men look at :^)
    
    	Men can be born with "artsy" qualities: Proportion, Curvature,
    Texture, Color, ect that definately affect how attractive they are.
    Dont think for a minute that these qualities "dont matter" in some
    guy's life -
    
    	Joe Jas
    

        .11:
        
        Sigh... once again, beauty pageant scholarships are equivalent
        to athletic scholarships in that the ability to win them
        had no relation whatsoever to academic ability.  Period.
        That's all I said, that's all I meant.
        
        The "penis size" analogy is quite a bit off... that's like
        saying beauty pageants are judged on the size of the women's
        vaginas, which is certainly untrue: in fact, they seem unwilling
        to admit that women even *have* vaginas.
        
        Even fudging the issue to include breasts (which aren't at all
        analogous to a penis) that's hardly the primary attribute on
        which pageants are judged, although it's certainly more of a
        factor than it should be.  Do you really think that a woman
        with "perfect" breasts---and nothing else---would win?  I
        seriously doubt it!
        
        The closest male equivalent is probably the muscle builder
        conpetitions (although there are now women doing that as
        well).  It's not *quite* the same thing, since the development
        of muscles nobody ever even heard of to thoroughly grotesque
        proportions takes quite a lot of dedicated work (possibly
        even more than learning to balance on 4 inch spike heels,
        which is something I wouldn't care to try!)  Although, at
        that, I'm sure a lot of the beauty pageant contestants spend
        a fair amount of time exercising to develop and retain their
        figures; so maybe it's not all *that* different.
        
        Again, I'm *not* defending beauty pageants... I think they're
        stupid.  I think sports are pretty stupid, too, for that
        matter; and academic scholarships based on either borders
        on criminal.
        
        	/dave

The "penis size| crack was made with a smile, not a frown.. only I'm
not very good at making smiling electronic faces :*).

But I wasn't talking about penis size as anything but a sexual criteria
over which you guys have NO control!

Let's get 50 guys into a room... pick out the 10 smartest and most
talented, and the have them drop drawers and select our winner.  We'll
pick a Mr. Congeniality for the schmoo who can't hope to compete well
and we won't feel quite so bad about holding up the rulers...

If that's NOT the case, Dave... then *WHY* does beauty settle the final
question?  Why aren't these girls anything BUT perfect??!

Why don't we have Ms. Brains pageants?? Why not have Mr. Stockbroker
pageants??

We don't because too many people (both men and women) get off on this
parade!  Men like seeing nuble flesh in high heels, women like to imagine
they are the nubile flesh or remember when they were nubile flesh...

So the penis is not a 1-for-1 translation for breasts, but in an analogy,
it's as close as I can get... You get what you get and no amount of
wishing is gonna change it!

And it's damn unfair to get awarded a scholarship based on that and NOT
be embarassed about it...

I don't think Kellye Cash has a DAMN thing to feel accomplished about!!!

bugsy

        .14:
        
        "beauty", even in the superficial judgement of beauty pageants,
        is a lot more than just breast size... or penis size, if
        you insist on that analogy.
        
        But the primary intent of this reply is to point out that
        once again you've tried to read into my comments a lot more
        than I said.  You seem to be expecting me to defend beauty
        pageants, and I've already said several times, quite explicitly,
        that I think they're dumb and useless.  I have no desire
        to defend them.
        
        Maybe some insight on the question of "why not Ms. Brains
        or Mr Stockbroker"... most people would probably be bored
        watching a competition for qualities they can't measure for
        themselves, directly and immediately (note that chess matches
        have never been particularly popular).  *Everyone* feels
        competent to judge a purely physical beauty pageant for
        themselves: you can *see* everything involved in the judgement.
        It's very simple and direct.
        
        Whereas, even another stockbroker couldn't really judge how good
        a stockbroker the contestants were, based only on the
        information the "Mr. Stockbroker pageant" could reasonably
        provide. You'd have to simply accept the word of the pageant
        officials, and wouldn't have the slightest identification with
        the proceedings.  The show wouldn't be very popular, I suspect.
        
        People *do* get awards for being "the best scientist" (e.g.
        Nobel prize), the "best engineer" (usually within some society),
        designing the "best product", etc.  These are (almost) entirely
        based on capability.  They also get relatively little media
        coverage.  Probably, mostly, for the reasons I've pointed
        out previously.  Most people don't give a damn about most
        of the awards: they can't understand what the award is for,
        much less why it was earned; and even most qualified people
        couldn't judge personally whether it was truely deserved.
        Furthermore, for an award based on achievement, there's not
        much to show on a TV program.
        
        A lot of research and effort has to go into making an informed
        decision, so the result has to be known ahead of time.  You
        can't just sit 20 scientists down on a stage and have them
        perform their experiments, or do their humanitarian deeds, to
        demonstrate their qualifications for the award.  Maybe the
        judges could shuffle through their papers and "ah-hem" for a few
        hours while they make their final judgements, but it'd be a
        pretty boring show even for people who knew what was going on.
        
        Beauty pageants, muscle pageants, sports events are *simple*,
        *direct*, and *physical*.  They can be shown, and most people
        can make direct and personal judgements based on their
        observations and the rules of the competition.  They can have
        informed opinions on the results of the competition, and
        therefore feel "a part" of the proceedings.  *That* is what
        makes these sort of things mass media events, and why so much
        money is dedicated to prizes for them.  It's also part of what
        makes them so stupid: they aim for the "lowest common
        denominator" of the audience... which is pretty low.
        
        This discussion's sorta fun... I keep thinking about it and
        making up new theories to explain the phenomenon we're
        discussing: I still think the whole thing's dumb, but I'm
        starting to feel like maybe I understand why it exists to
        begin with! 
        
        	/dave 

    Maybe one consolation for all us bright but average looking women
    is, "who has ever heard about past Miss America's" (except for the
    few notorious ones who have violated some of their silly rules).
    I mean, c'mon, is Beth Meyerson the best and most stunning role
    model they can use? Has any one of them in later adult life done
    anything more important than appear in supermarkets, or some other
    trivial endorcements? Courage, mes amis, brains will out. 
    
    I could have been Miss America - I'm cute enough ( ;*) ), but I'm
    only 5'2" - and I've trotted those 62 inches further than any Miss
    America has!
    

    Sorry, I think her name is Bess Meyerson; but then again, I DO lisp....
    just proves my point that you can't even remember their damn names....
    
    Stel
    

	    Studs Terkel's _American_Dreams:__Lost_And_Found_ includes
	an oral history of an ex-Miss USA.  The gist of it is that she
	wasn't allowed to exhibit intelligence or independence.  It's
	worth reading.
			<_Jym_>

    
    	There's a *male* beauty pagent on TV tonight...
    
    	Joe Jas
    

Re .6: (and others, too...)
    
>    I agree that women in beauty pageants had to work in order to learn
>    how to smile constantly, walk around in front of people, and do
>    their little talents like baton twirling and learn to answer their
>    silly little questions like "What I want to do for society"...

I don't know how "silly" these talents are, they sound like prime requirements
for a successfull political life to me...:-)

>    Do you really think that Christie Brinkly has worked as
>    hard to get where she is as Larry Bird has?
    
Yep. Talk to any pro model in even the minor leagues and you'll hear a
daily routine that will exhaust you just listening to it.

More seriously. I agree that these contests are closer to being part of
the problem than of the solution. But I think the self discipline, grace
under pressure, etc. are things that these women can be proud of...OK,
maybe all the more so for a "legitimate" woman pro athelete but how many
(of either sex) can aspire to that height? Plus I imagine that in many
places such contests represent one of the few "tickets out" even if only
to something plebian by urban-professional standards.

Woman accomplishment == gets enough flack as it is, don't add burden
of political correctness as well...
    
    Just browsing notes from "before my time"...

    
    For one thing (if anyone is interested) look back to the "3 year
    old" starting out in pagents. 300 little girls all dolled up by
    mom so they can compete with everyone else and spend their entire
    life living up to what mom and the geniuses in advertising had made
    so important in life. Because they're little girls they aren't expected
    to do anything else in life but to grow up and be someones wife
    and mother or a beauty queen. Is that fair to blame everyone else
    for this travesty when you should be yelling at the big executive
    that puts these feeble ideas in parents heads and mothers who go
    to all kinds of extremes to see that their little girl is the best
    looking or prettiest of them all and keeps pushing until that's
    all the little girl can think of? 
        I want more for my daughter but that's because I'm her dad and
    wouldn't think of putting her through that, she's only 2 1/2 but
    it sure as hell will bw what she wants to do instead of what society
    wants her to do!!
    
       Penis size???  Silly but I figured someone would bring it up...
    
    Tom