# My annual Miss America rant **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 21, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922 "2003-09-21T04:58:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/101 "2003-09-24T07:46:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rilchiam \* > \*\*\*This might not be too rabid in, say, Michigan or Alaska, where you only have a few women who really want to be Miss America, as opposed to the ones who just got a kick out of competing for Miss Whale Blubber. \*\* :dubious: Pardon? Yes, we have a small population (third smallest, I think Montana has fewer residents, and not sure who number two is), but it’s bit shortsighted of you to assume that the girls here are any less willing to compete than Georgia “peaches”. I don’t think you were meaning to be insulting, but trust me, we’re not all up here “gettin our man a beer, guttin’ the fish, and runnin’ the dogsled into town for supples”. Quite a few of us actually ARE “girly girls” who like skirts and high heels and “feeling pretty, oh so pretty” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/102 "2003-09-24T10:06:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* > \*\*:dubious: > Pardon? > > Yes, we have a small population (third smallest, I think Montana has fewer residents, and not sure who number two is), but it’s bit shortsighted of you to assume that the girls here are any less willing to compete than Georgia “peaches”. > > I don’t think you were meaning to be insulting, but trust me, we’re not all up here “gettin our man a beer, guttin’ the fish, and runnin’ the dogsled into town for supples”. > > Quite a few of us actually ARE “girly girls” who like skirts and high heels and “feeling pretty, oh so pretty” 😃 \*\* Oh, **Canvas** , I apologize. What I meant was, it’s my understanding that not every woman who competes in local pageants has the drive to go on to Miss [State] and from there to Miss America. Some of them, I’ve been told, consider it more of a civic duty to represent their town or county or the company that sponsors them, as opposed to a stepping stone to national fame. I also meant that, in some states, face it, pageantry is a religion. I just couldn’t resist the “Miss Whale Blubber” remark. Sorry! :smack: But I certainly didn’t mean to imply that, if there is a “Miss Whale Blubber”, that she would be unfeminine and unattractive! And I can see where you’re coming from. Women from states like Alaska, that don’t get much representation, and are vulnerable to unflattering misconceptions, would probably be all the more eager to show that they are, indeed, contenders! ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/103 "2003-09-24T15:12:14Z")
**Jodi** > [@](#): > > But what difference does it make if I would be okay with something hypothetical, when the question on the table deals with something real? Since the hypothetical isn’t real your opinion on it has no bearing on reality. However, knowing your opinion on the hypothetical would give me a better understanding regarding where you’re coming from. I crafted the hypothetical so that it would more closely conform to the current situation wherein minorities receive scholarships based on factors unrelated to performance. In the new hypothetical women must meet a minimum beauty criteria (analagous to those physical characteristics which a minority would have to hold in order to be considered a minority) and once that threshhold is met they compete on things entirely unrelated to physical characteristics (once again, similar to minorities competing for limited scholarship funds). Your response didn’t give me much to go on but the impression I got was that, though it was easier to stomach, something would have still irked you in the new format. Is that true? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/104 "2003-09-24T22:38:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MelCthefirst \* > \*\*So you reckon the last war is all but won? > Are most major company CEOs male or female? > Do women earn the same amount of money for doing the same job? > Are there substantial amounts of women in parliament/senate etc? > Are there substantial amounts of women in top positions at academic institutions? > Do women and girls not feel so much pressure to look a certain way that they develop eating disorders? > Do women no longer make up the majority of the poor? > Are women able to be in public without being considered public property and having their physical appearance commented on? > Are women still encouraged by cosmetic companies to use their money on cosmetics and not investment opportunities? \*\* Yes, despite the parade of horribles you advance - the last two of which are, really, not so horrible - the better part of the battle is over. That is because the better question, in my opinion, is not equality of result, but equality of opportunity. I base my thoughts to a great extent on neuroscience - male and female brains differ in so many surprising and fundamental ways. Look at autism, from which men suffer at vastly higher numbers then women (I believe it runs about 5:1). Essentially, autism is hypermasculinization of the brain - poor social skills, combined with extremes of systematization. Systematizing professions will, in all likelihood, continue to be predominantly male because a greater number of men will continue to like them better. Conversely, socializing professions, such as human resources and teaching, will continue to be dominated by women, because women will continue to like them better. Of course there are many exceptions, and I don’t wish to underestimate flexibility either - but I do believe we have to accept that men and women, measured as classes in gross terms, tend to have profoundly different preferences, and those preferences are to a great degree hard-wired. The measures you’re proposing - or implying, I should say - would require equality in the political and business realms. Both are, and will continue to be, risky, highly competitive, winner-take-all, loser-left-with-bupkis situations. Can women succeed in them? Of course, and some do. But more women than men appear to be content with opting out And that is not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that that the arenas men dominate are so highly compensated, but it’s with good reason: risk is rewarded. The sad reality is that without extreme risk-takers - the majority of whom are men - we would not have the prosperity we enjoy. So let’s go back to the question of equality of opportunity. Yes, there are still people who assume that women can’t be good [insert male-dominated profession here]. Fewer and fewer, as a younger generation rises to power used to the concept of women in position of authority. I’m an attorney who has worked at all sizes of private law firms, and I don’t know any guys my age (I’m 34) who had a problem with reporting to a woman partner. They may not like a particuar woman, but they’d bitch just as freely about men. And with women now dominating undergraduate education, I don’t think it will be long before the even the vestiges are gone from most fields. Now, I will agree that the obsession with looks can be damaging to girls. That’s part of why I support single-sex education, particularly for girls but for boys, too - at least at the secondary school level. Sexual jockeying isn’t helpful for either gender. It’s also important to ask if eating disorders are quite the mania that they’re alleged to be. Part of the reason they get so much attention is that the victims are overwhelmingly white and well-off, and an awful lot of journalism derives from the “why, three of my friends have the same problem so it must be a crisis!” school - And there are always advocates around to feed it. But having known three people who were hospitalized with severe anorexia (and who fit the profile to a T), I know 'taint good. And that will have to be all for now. ---
**Author:** ![MelCthefirst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@MelCthefirst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MelCthefirst)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/105 "2003-09-24T23:47:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OxyMoron \* > \*\*Yes, despite the parade of horribles you advance - the last two of which are, really, not so horrible… \*\* You, as a male, are able to freely make this judgement - I don’t think so! Whilst I agree with you that women have come a long way and that many men have no problem reporting to a women, we have a long way to go. This is like saying that there is no more discrimation based on homosexuality - get real. Yes, for our age group (in mid 30s) and younger, we tend to have grown up in a more enlightened western world. Women may have easier access to university and especially in law schools, have overtaken male enrolments. Look a bit further on and see how many go on to master degrees in law and how well they are paid once in the workforce. In NZ it will take on average 30 years for a pacific Island woman to pay off her university education, whereas it will take a european male 10 years. Why is this? Because men have easier access to higher paid jobs, regardless of education. Get back to me when women don’t earn 70% of men’s wages for doing the same job. ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/106 "2003-09-25T01:09:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MelCthefirst \* > \*\*You, as a male, are able to freely make this judgement - I don’t think so! > Whilst I agree with you that women have come a long way and that many men have no problem reporting to a women, we have a long way to go. This is like saying that there is no more discrimation based on homosexuality - get real. \*\*This is an extremely poor analogy to use with me. I have been out for twenty years, more than long enough to recognize the extraordinary - in fact, unimaginable - progress that we have made. Discrimination eliminated? Nope. Never will be, probably. Discrimination reduced to where it’s readily ignorable, provided some mobility? Yup. Fair that you have to be mobile in order to get to that point? Nope. Oh well. > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, for our age group (in mid 30s) and younger, we tend to have grown up in a more enlightened western world. Women may have easier access to university and especially in law schools, have overtaken male enrolments. Look a bit further on and see how many go on to master degrees in law and how well they are paid once in the workforce. \*_Can’t comment directly on this point - “master degrees in law” have no real American equivalent_ - but I will say that a big part of the reason most _people_ leave law firms is because becoming partner (which, at the largest firms, is a 1/20 chance at best) is a hateful process. And women are (again, speaking grossly) less likely to put up with it, particularly since it is still somewhat more socially acceptable for a woman to drop out of a high-paying career than it is for a man. Yes, that’s a double-edged sword - but there are quite a number of men I know who would love the existence of a “daddy track.” > [@](#): > > **In NZ it will take on average 30 years for a pacific Island woman to pay off her university education, whereas it will take a european male 10 years. Why is this? Because men have easier access to higher paid jobs, regardless of education.** This is the sort of assertion of which I am very suspicious, for many of the reasons I’m equally suspicious of the next assertion. “Access” is a notorious squishy term - what does that mean? Has anyone done an analysis of how the groups compared longitudinally - for example, how did they do in school, what schools they attended, what degrees they took? Did they actually compare people trying to get the same job? I have no doubt that there are enormous unfairnesses - here in the United States, the wealth gap between blacks and whites of the same income is enormous, and has lasting impact (although a big part of the problem is cultural, so can’t really be cured simply through transfers). > [@](#): > > \*\*Get back to me when women don’t earn 70% of men’s wages for doing the same job. \*\* And for this I will demand a cite. Generally the statistic that’s quoted alleges that for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 70 cents. But that’s not at all the same thing as saying that women are paid 70% of men for equal work, because the work is not equal. More recent analysis in the United States has indicated that, when age, years of experience, education and training, and hours worked per week are all accounted for, there is no longer a statistically significant difference between men’s and women’s pay. Many of the studies that found enormous gaps did so only by grouping too many disparate workers together - for example, counting everyone working over 35 hours a week in the same pool, regardless of whether they actually worked 35 hours (in my current job, I do) or 75 hours a week (when I worked for a firm). \*There is something here called an LLM, which is a one-year course beyond the JD, but it has a bit of a mixed reputation. For people who really want to be tax professionals, it’s great, especially if they go back for the LLM after working awhile. But getting it immediately after law school is a bit ambiguous: the suspicion is that you didn’t do well enough on your JD to get the job you wanted, so you’re hoping that an extra year of school will let you improve your record. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/107 "2003-09-25T02:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Since the hypothetical isn’t real your opinion on it has no bearing on reality. However, knowing your opinion on the hypothetical would give me a better understanding regarding where you’re coming from. They’re strutting around in swimsuits for prizes and a crown, OXY. That’s pretty much all you need to know to understand where I’m coming from. Like I said, not an earth-shattering issue for me, but I’d don’t have boatloads of respect for women who allow themselves to be objectified. And I have even less respect for a program that wants to pretend that’s not an element of what they do, when _obviously_ it is. Heck, I have more respect for strippers, because at least they’re not pretending they’re not in it for the money. But, hey, those contestants have the right to make their own decisions and do whatever the hell they want. As can I, which includes in this case flipping the channel. ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/108 "2003-09-25T12:50:21Z")
Uh, Jodi? Are you addressing me or **Grim**? Just wonderin’. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/109 "2003-09-25T13:32:08Z")
Astorian wrote: > [@](#): > > Fact is, straight males don’t watch the Miss America pageant, and couldn’t be paid enough to watch it. The audience is overwhelmingly female. ahhhh, I think we’ve hit the nail on the head! The women in the link didn’t look all that great from a male perspective, and I’m not female so I can’t tell for sure, but they DO look like women would find them gorgeous. [broad generalizations ahead]They are done up well and are seem confident in their looks, which women seem to find pretty (on the other hand, men are more attracted to unadulterated looks and all-around confidence[/broad generalization.]) Which brings me to another point. A lot of the questions _Mel_ put forth are largely brought on by women themselves, such as eating disorders and the cosmetic industry (which, I will repeat, increases the attractiveness of women mainly to other women.) And women will comment on women’s looks as much or moreso than men. Many of the questions have some truth to them, and the war isnt “all but” won, as many men continue to have uncivilized views toward women, but at what point will it be not worth it to continue to stuggle for little gain? ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/110 "2003-09-25T15:29:40Z")
**Jodi** > [@](#): > > Like I said, not an earth-shattering issue for me, but I’d don’t have boatloads of respect for women who allow themselves to be objectified. And I have even less respect for a program that wants to pretend that’s not an element of what they do, when obviously it is. I can certainly understand how you might not harbor a great deal of respect for women who allow themselves to be objectified. Likewise I get that you find the pageant misleading regarding it’s stated purpose. > [@](#): > > Heck, I have more respect for strippers, because at least they’re not pretending they’re not in it for the money. AFAICT no one is stating that the women are contestants for a purpose _other_ than for the material benefits. > [@](#): > > They’re strutting around in swimsuits for prizes and a crown, OXY. That’s pretty much all you need to know to understand where I’m coming from. With all due respect **Jodi** I think I need to know more. Suppose the hypothetical pageant I posted wasn’t televised nor the results published? What if it wasn’t a pageant at all, but rather, a scholarship like any other. You have to be beautiful to qualify (just like the previous hypothetical) but once you’ve met the minimum requirements the actual determination of who wins is based entirely on non physical attributes. Does that still reduce the respect you have for the contestants? I had hoped to determine to what extent your objections were based on the women’s beauty (and the accompanying benefits however unfair), sans the trappings of the pageant which you are criticizing. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/111 "2003-09-25T16:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > \*\*Why is this any different than minority scholarships? I, frankly, can’t see the difference except that these women are beautiful instead of African-American or Hispanic. They are favored over people deemed “less beautiful”. Where does that sound familiar? Just substitute the words “more capable” or “more qualified” for “less beautiful” and tell me that doesn’t sound like race-based preference. > > Anyone want to tell me the difference? \*\* Because some people find their race to be a disadvantage or a liability (ever seen statistics on what effect race has on likelihood of living in poverty). Beauty is never a liability. Social studies have found that attractive people are more likely to be aided if they have car trouble, they tend to get higher wages than less attractive people who do the same work, and school children percieve pretty teachers to be “nicer” than plainer ones. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/112 "2003-09-25T16:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > With all due respect Jodi I think I need to know more. Suppose the hypothetical pageant I posted wasn’t televised nor the results published? What if it wasn’t a pageant at all, but rather, a scholarship like any other. You have to be beautiful to qualify (just like the previous hypothetical) but once you’ve met the minimum requirements the actual determination of who wins is based entirely on non physical attributes. Does that still reduce the respect you have for the contestants? I had hoped to determine to what extent your objections were based on the women’s beauty (and the accompanying benefits however unfair), sans the trappings of the pageant which you are criticizing. 😕 Do I object to the fact they’re beautiful? Why would I? That would be in the category “things I don’t give a shit about.” If a genuine scholarship program was based on minimum standards of physical beauty as a qualification for application, my problems with it would be different – namely, what rational basis is beauty for the awarding of scholarship? We need more highly educated pretty people? I would find the basis for the scholarship to be stupid, but I would not have the same objections based on glorifying physicality, because they wouldn’t be doing that (under your hypothetical). Scholarships based on things like sex, sexual orientation, race, etc. are generally defended on the grounds that they advance under-represented minorities and promote diversity in educational opportunities. And generally I buy that. It’s hard to see any non-stupid reason for requiring scholarship applicants to be pretty. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/113 "2003-09-25T17:23:25Z")
A bit of a hijack, but as a college fundraiser I find it amusing that many people think there are unalloyed scholarships “for smart people.” _Almost all_ scholarships at U.S. universities, particularly at state universities, include some form of criteria unrelated to intelligence or academic performance. For example, when I attended Penn State, of all the forms of scholarship and financial aid, less than 750 awards–out of a student population of over 50,000–were merit-only. (And they were dependent on attending the Honors College.) Where I work now, many scholarships are dependent on strange criteria–attendance at a certain high school, or residence in a certain county in New York State, or “ethnic background” (not always the ones you’d expect either–we have scholarships for persons of Italian or Polish descent). In the case of scholarships, dumb luck often beats sheer genius. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/114 "2003-09-25T17:29:37Z")
**kung fu lola** , > [@](#): > > Beauty is never a liability. This is false. Though attractive people are often viewed as more successful, well adjusted, popular, etc. studies have shown that attractive women, in particular, can be viewed as _less_ intelligent/competent. In addition certain studies have shown that there is a perception that attractive people are able to more easily accomplish the same tasks as unattractive people. This can be a liability for the attractive person when they are working very hard indeed and yet their efforts are discounted because it’s “easy” for them. That isn’t to say that the benefits don’t out weight the detriments rather that everything has it’s downside and beauty is not an exception. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/115 "2003-09-25T17:32:05Z")
**Duke** , is that phenomenon attributable to the people who founded the scholarships? Sometimes when a scholarship is founded by a private individual, they tack on their pet cause (like making it only available to alumni of their old High School). Or when they’re founded by businesses, they use it to increase their visibility (my school had a scholarship for someone who made something - anything out of leather, because it was founded by a store that sold suede and leather clothing). Sorry bout the hijack. Promise I won’t be back. ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/116 "2003-09-25T18:09:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MelCthefirst \* > \*\*So you reckon the last war is all but won? > Are most major company CEOs male or female? > Do women earn the same amount of money for doing the same job? > Are there substantial amounts of women in parliament/senate etc? > Are there substantial amounts of women in top positions at academic institutions? > Do women and girls not feel so much pressure to look a certain way that they develop eating disorders? > Do women no longer make up the majority of the poor? > Are women able to be in public without being considered public property and having their physical appearance commented on? > Are women still encouraged by cosmetic companies to use their money on cosmetics and not investment opportunities? \*\* This is absolutely stupid. So you’re saying that a particular group has not achieved equality until they are represented in every aspect of life in the same proportion that they are represented in the population? That’s bullshit. Also, by this measure white people are unfairly being kept out of some professional sports. Finally, you’re on my “presumptively stupid” list for repeating the old incorrect statement that “a woman in the same job as a man makes less money.” ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/117 "2003-09-25T18:20:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grim\_Beaker \* > \*\*That isn’t to say that the benefits don’t out weight the detriments rather that everything has it’s downside and beauty is not an exception. \*\* That’s like saying; “Well, having the use of both legs is easier than being a paraplegic, but then you have to walk places, and go up and down stairs. So using two legs sucks too.” 😃 As for “not being recognized”, to get back on topic, I doubt anyone at the Pageant is going; “Ooh, so she can play the cello, big deal. She can afford $600 for an evening gown and look at that figure! Bring on the poverty-stricken cello-playing fatties!” In the real world, especially in the workplace, a job well done in a job well done. It’s about results, not process. If you’re an asset to your employer, you are rewarded, regardless of how effortless it is for you to make yourself an asset. If you’re a good-looking asset, you just get rewarded more richly. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/118 "2003-09-25T18:26:28Z")
**kung fu lola** (who rocks, BTW): In most cases, yes, the individual(s) or company who endows the scholarship does put restrictions on the awardees. But–and this is the crucial point–donors are _encouraged_ to put in arcane criteria. Most donors, left to their own devices, would probably just say, “Make it a scholarship for the School of Business.” But then the scholarship committee has to wade through potentially thousands of applications. So, the academic committee will say, “Hey, why not make this scholarship only available to coal miners’ daughters/sons of the Revolution/people whose first name begins with ‘T’?” At a stroke, those thousands of potential applications become hundreds or dozens. And, then, a lot of qualified students won’t know about the scholarship anyway…ideally, the committee might only have to look at five to ten applications. The whole business is an interesting one. Maybe I should start an “Ask the…” thread… [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/119 "2003-09-25T18:45:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kung fu lola \* > \*\*Beauty is never a liability. Social studies have found that attractive people are more likely to be aided if they have car trouble, they tend to get higher wages than less attractive people who do the same work, and school children percieve pretty teachers to be “nicer” than plainer ones. \*\* That may be true, but beauty also makes women targets. I’ve been mercilessly harassed by men because of how I’m built and the way I look. Several times I’ve felt threatened by this. And, some women also treat attractive women badly. Jealousy can be very ugly. Granted, maybe these don’t seem like serious problems, but beauty is not without some amount of liability. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922/120 "2003-09-25T20:22:20Z")
**Grim\_Beaker** : > [@](#): > > **Jodi** > > > [@](#): > > > > Because scholarships based on ethnicity or sexual orientation do not require you to be blacker or gayer than the other applicants. Because they do not require you to display some aspect so wholly unrelated to your worth or abilities as “swimsuit” is to “scholarship.” Because they don’t require judging of your physicality at any time, for any basis of the awarding of such scholarships. > > Well, I disagree. Those scholarships you mention do require you to be blacker or gayer than other applicants. They require you to be blacker than whites and gayer than straight people. False parallel. The Miss America pageant is not one in which you must be “more female” than other (non-female) applicants. And **Jodi** is right, the other categories are not used in a superlative-comparative sense (you are either in the category or you aren’t). Even needs-based scholarships generally are not awarded to the “most poor” applicant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-annual-miss-america-rant/202922.md?page=7)