I have another question about the pageant. I haven’t watched it in many years, including this one, but I was under the impression that at some point(s) during the broadcast, there is some winnowing down, with maybe 25 of the contestants going on to a higher stage of competition, and then ten(?) finalists being chosen. At what points during the competition does this happen? Do all fifty take part in the swimsuit event? I think the platform question and quiz are only for the finalists, and I seem to remember that not all of them get to do talent.
That’s what I would have thought too. During the quiz phase, the five finalists were asked: “Who said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death’”? They were give three choices. That means that even that box of rocks had a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right. Out of the five finalists, only 2 got the correct answer. This is a scholarship competition???
You can add “men” to that list. 75% of the people who qualify highest on admissions at Harvard are female. For diversity’s sake, 50% of those admitted are male. (Source: CBS News)
Most of the basic personality traits are developed by age 3. Also, the ill treatment of undesireables is a learned behavior – as is, generally, determining what is “undesireable.”[/hijack]
Let’s reward men with big penises. It’s a gift nature gave you, so use it. Let have an annual big penis scholarship contest on national television. We can throw in a tuxedo competition and a quiz in which you are asked to match up photographs of Jennifer Anniston, Matt Damon and Barney with their names. You will have to answer a question about your platform (your plan for saving the world). But ultimately, those things won’t be the “thrust” of the competition.
Hey OP, you still haven’t answered my question. How is the Miss America pageant any different than other scholarship programs that differentiate based on some characteristic? I don’t think that the identity fo the characteristic really makes any difference.
TaxGuy, can I take a stab at that? It’s because Miss America doesn’t advertise itself as a beauty contest. That’s not acceptable nowadays, hence their shift in emphasis and their constant droning about how it’s a Scholarship Pageant. But its roots are a beauty contest, and so long as there’s a Swimsuit Competition, no matter how much they downgrade that competition’s overall point value, the pageant remains a beauty contest.
I think their attempt to pretend not to be a beauty contest, while remaining one, is the cause of much of the acrimony around this issue. Just how far will looking good in a swimsuit get you, and how much will your big butt hurt you (regardless of your supposed Physical Fitness)? What’s being judged in this contest? (Answer: a lot of things other than beauty, but some degree of beauty remains an absolute requirement, until the day a pimply fat girl wins.) But the pageant promoters will never admit this, because this is 2003 and we’re all supposedly enlightened and don’t judge people just by their outward characteristics.
In short, I agree with the OP completely.
Maybe it’s just me but I want the final 10 go at it in a battle royale. In evening gowns.
The winner will be a Miss America you don’t fuck with.
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 in that case I’ll be operating on myself.
Plus she sucked at the cello.
Look, being naturally smart is just as much of a crapshoot as being beautiful. Some people are born naturally dumb as a brick (or mentally disabled, which is just a few IQ points away), and some are born geniuses. Why should the geniuses get all the college money? Stupid people have to eat too. Scholarships for academic achievement generally go to the absolute top achievers, which are typically naturally smart people. The people just below them are the hard workers, who had to struggle to keep up with the smarties - and because they’re not quite there, or because the smarties put out some effort too - they don’t get the money.
How is this different from the beauty pageant? I view beauty pageants, athletic scholarships, etc, as ways for people who aren’t naturally geniuses to finance their education, thus evening the career playing field a bit. Not naturally smart, beautiful, or athletic? There should be a way for you to finance your education too… oh wait, there is! It’s the career choice scholarship! There are tons of scholarships out there for people majoring in specific things or with specific goals in mind. There are scholarships out there for people who do a lot of community service. There are scholarships out there for people of certain races. And I’m sure there are a couple scholarships out there for victims of deformation or other disfiguring medical maladies (eg: scholarships for ugly people)
Why can’t the pretty people have scholarships too?
That said, the pageant is annoying as heck. But hey, they’re paid entertainers, same as the athletes, singers, cellists, actors, etc. They provide something which is percieved as a benefit to society (entertainment), and are being financially rewarded for it. Do you complain that no sideshow will take you because you don’t have 3 heads? That’s money to be earned by those whose natural abilities or condition best serve the role they fill. There are good positions for hard workers too… you get to fill that role.
There is no ONE good way to participate in society.
That’s why they call them scholarships.
I find nothing entertaining about a woman modeling swimwear, casual wear or formal dress. My mind needs more of a challenge. And all too often the “talents” aren’t all that good. The woman who won the title made me wince several times. And the cello was very bad.
But why must their talent be a performing art? What if they are really good at surgery or writing or painting? Isn’t that good enough?
I don’t know of any scholarships awarded on the basis of being physically unattractive. There are scholarships given to people who have disabilities.
Oh, agreed, agreed. But are her complaints reasonable? Is she complaining dispassionately? I would say, no. As with virtually everything, people are fighting the last war - when in fact it’s not only over, but largely won. Yes, of course, there was a time when Miss America was hugely influential. Those days are, thankfully, long past, to the point where the show’s been having trouble getting itself televised. So Miss America is thus symbolic of very little. Were we still in an age when women only went to college for an Mrs. degree, there’d be concern. But when a majority of students are women, and and even larger majority of degree-completers are women, I’d say one anachronistic scholarship program is little more than a curiosity, not something to rant about.
Jodi
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. I don’t see how this is fundamentally different from from being awarded scholarship money based on another physical trait which is unrelated to ability (i.e. beauty). Even pointing out that black people don’t get scholarships based on being ‘blacker’ doesn’t IMO change that. Each potential scholarship recipient competes only with members of their set (pageant contestants with other generally attractive females and minorities with other minorities). The most attractive contestant in the pageant isn’t guaranteed to win. Perhaps you disagree with the weight given to a contestants beauty (i.e. you think it should be heavily discounted when compared with other factors in the pageant) but barring that I don’t see how it is any different from other scholarships which are awarded based on physical characteristics.
I don’t see how this argument can possibly fly so long as they’re still showing the pageant on national TV in primetime. It may not be as influential as it once was, but it won’t be an anacronism until they’re back to airing it on the public access channel in Atlantic City. IMO, “Miss America” still has a lot to say to American girls, and what it says is, you should be talented but above all you should be pretty."
And GRIM, your argument also fails, because scholarships based on race or sexual orientation do not require that you be blacker or gayer than other black or gay people. I’m not talking about in relation to others not qualified for the scholarship at all, like white folks or straight folks. I’m talking about one basically qualified applicant being judged to be better than another basically qualified applicant, based on some quality that is totally divorced from actual ability and largely beyond the applicant’s control. Like how black you are (compared to other black people), or how gay you are (compared to other gay people), or how pretty you are.
Miss America requires you to look better in a swimsuit, and an evening gown, than other very attractive women. And you’re scored on your “ability” to do that. Name me one black scholarship that judges people based on how “black” they look in a swimsuit. Or an evening gown. Or “casual wear.” In other so-called “physical characteristic” scholarships, you either have the characteristic or you don’t. They’re not judging you based on how you rate in that characteristic, as compared to other applicants. That’s my point.
So no, the most attractive woman is not guaranteed to win. But they are still judging her, and all the other women, on how attractive they are. Which – again – has jack-shit with scholarship, ability, or talent. And until they get rid of that element of the “scholarship competition,” it will remain what it has always been – a cattle show.
Jodi,
Would you be ok with the Miss America pageant if it was formatted thusly? To enter the state based pageants contestants must have an average rating of at least a 9 (on a scale of 1 - 10) by a 100 person panel. Once they have qualified as a contestant the winner of the state (and by extension the entire Miss America pageant) is determined entirely on factors not related to appearance (i.e. talent, education, charitable efforts, etc.)
That should be “To enter the state based pageants contestants must have an average physical appearance rating of at least a 9 (on a scale of 1 - 10) by a 100 person panel.”
Exactly. The whole business is demeaning. Of course, it’s not nearly as demeaning as The Bachelor, where the women prance around in a bathing suit in the hopes of landing a marriage proposal from a perfect stranger.
At least Miss America gets a wad of cash and a sparkly crown.
Hypothetical situation. A student is accepted into Harvard but lacks the money to pay for it. She is quite pretty, however, and lands a gig modeling active wear for Fitness magazine. She uses her job at Fitness, a position she landed based almost exclusively on her appearance, to pay for school. How is this fundamentally different than Miss America? Would anybody honestly advocate that it was somehow wrong for her to use the money paid her by Fitness to fund her schooling?
People are being rewarded for being pretty. What’s the problem? Models get paid based on their appearance, as do the talking heads on the news, actors, and spokespeople. Even singers are paid based on appearance. Brittany Spears would not have a career if she looked like Roseanne.
Why single out the Miss America pageant merely because the reward must be used to pay for college? How is that fundamentally different from a student using a modelling gig to pay her tuition?
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?
Wait, so scholarships can be used retroactively? 
(I’m not being sarcastic, I honestly don’t know.)
Apparently, feminists are under the idiotic delusion that the audience for the Miss America pageant is largely heterosexual males, who tune in to ogle gorgeous women in swimsuits.
Please!
THis is 2003, people! A straight man who wants to see female flesh can log onto the Internet, he can flip to a cable channel, he can subscribe to Penthouse… do you really think he’s going to sit through hours of baton twirling and boring speeches for the chance to see a few minutes of girls walking by in one-piece swimsuits? I think not!
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. The only straight males watching are :
-
75 year olds who still miss Bert Parks.
-
Married guys who couldn’t persuade their wives to switch to something much better.
Oh, I don’t know. Certainly I’d be more okay with it than with the current pageant program. But what difference does it make if I would be okay with something hypothetical, when the question on the table deals with something real?
Don’t get me wrong: I hardly get my shorts in a knot over beauty pageants – oh, I’m sorry, scholarship competitions. Life’s short, you know? But I do think they’re ridiculous meat markets and boring to boot.