This weekend was the 2016 Miss America Pageant, a beauty contest that has been around since 1921. The history of the pageant is full of controversy from its insistence on only white contestants for the first 30 years (and the first African American contestant wasn't until 1971), its requirement that contestants sign a document confirming that they have never been married or pregnant, through the militant protests in the late 60s and 1970s during second wave feminism, and the ratings plummeting so low that from 2004 to 2011 the pageant wasn't even televised.
Since probably the 1980s, as a result of the criticism of the 60s and 70s, the pageant has defended itself by claiming to be a scholarship program. Last year, Jon Oliver bunked the pageant's claims regarding the amount of scholarships they give out, proving that they don't actually award a fraction of the money they claim to. But what's particularly ridiculous about this claim, which Oliver also alludes to, is that a woman's physical appearance should have nothing whatsoever to do with a college scholarship unless, maybe, its indirectly related to their ability to play a sport (I want to avoid the controversy of giving cheap/free college educations based on athleticism, for now). Because contestants are meant to showcase a talent and answer a ridiculously complex question in 20 seconds, I suppose the pageant would argue that they are no different than IQ and sports-driven scholarships, but their own judging criteria betrays them.
According to their own website the guidelines for judging the swimsuit competition and evening gown competition are weighted so highly as to be essential in winning the pageant. Not to mention the fact that there is a highly weighted "private interview" which could consist of any random criteria the judges choose to use, as many films and parodies have suggested, flirting may be one of those criteria.
I don't say this to suggest that these women are undeserving or stupid or untalented. This year's winner is an opera singer with vocal chords made of gold! But even she, surely, must feel demeaned by having to wear a bikini and parade around in an evening gown in order to be a contender for the scholarship.
But it is not the demeaning of the contestants that most bothers me. They choose to compete in these pageants, knowing what they are, and some may think it's the only way to pay for college. That's a laudable goal. But what does this say to the little 7, 8, 9, 10-year old girls out there who see these women being judged on their physical appearance and "bubbly" personality? I remember watching Miss American and Miss USA as a child and wanting to be one of those women. In high school, I received the obligatory mailings encouraging me to compete, and I have to admit, there was a part of me that found that both flattering and tempting. And, quite frankly, that sucks. So much is made in the media about beauty pageants for little girls from the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, through the Toddlers & Tiaras scandal when a 3-year-old dressed as the Julia Robert's prostitute character in Pretty Woman to the woman, last year, who dressed her daughter as a Hooter's waitress. And this penchant for dressing young girls in inappropriate "adult" clothing is not just molester-bait, and a way to start children down a road of sexual understanding they aren't ready for, but also contributes a great deal to the body image issues these young girls will eventually have. In fact, they start to have these issues younger and younger.
I also remember, as a child, loving one particular dress that I had. It was a big, beautiful Martha's Miniatures pink dress with layers and layers of skirt in the petticoat that bounced and had a small silver jingle bells sewn into them so that you literally made a beautiful sound with every step you took.
These dresses were the epitome of the little girl dress. They were fluffy and bright. They didn't show any risque skin or look anything like what an adult would would wear, at least not unless she was going to a square dance in 1915. They literally came in all sizes, from petite to plus sized, so every little girl could fit in one. And I never felt prettier than I did in that dress. I still give my mom grief for giving it away to a friend of hers from work. I dream about that dress.
Back then, clothes weren't about making you look thin or cheap or old. Little girls' clothes were about the fun of twirling in a layered petticoat and the swoosh and, yes, chime sound that the dress made. It was about being bright and happy and carefree. We didn't want to dress up like adults because there was a clear line demarcating childhood and adulthood and the thought of crossing that line never occurred to us. That line has become so blurred, now, that I fear for the next generation of girls. The feminist movement has done so much for women's feelings of intellectual rigor and equality, but the fact that Miss America is still a thing is not only a slap in the face to all of those amazing women who came before, but a glaring neon sign warning us about the future of self-esteem and eating disorders for women who will continue to feel the pressure to conform to unrealistic beauty standards.
Since probably the 1980s, as a result of the criticism of the 60s and 70s, the pageant has defended itself by claiming to be a scholarship program. Last year, Jon Oliver bunked the pageant's claims regarding the amount of scholarships they give out, proving that they don't actually award a fraction of the money they claim to. But what's particularly ridiculous about this claim, which Oliver also alludes to, is that a woman's physical appearance should have nothing whatsoever to do with a college scholarship unless, maybe, its indirectly related to their ability to play a sport (I want to avoid the controversy of giving cheap/free college educations based on athleticism, for now). Because contestants are meant to showcase a talent and answer a ridiculously complex question in 20 seconds, I suppose the pageant would argue that they are no different than IQ and sports-driven scholarships, but their own judging criteria betrays them.
According to their own website the guidelines for judging the swimsuit competition and evening gown competition are weighted so highly as to be essential in winning the pageant. Not to mention the fact that there is a highly weighted "private interview" which could consist of any random criteria the judges choose to use, as many films and parodies have suggested, flirting may be one of those criteria.
I don't say this to suggest that these women are undeserving or stupid or untalented. This year's winner is an opera singer with vocal chords made of gold! But even she, surely, must feel demeaned by having to wear a bikini and parade around in an evening gown in order to be a contender for the scholarship.
But it is not the demeaning of the contestants that most bothers me. They choose to compete in these pageants, knowing what they are, and some may think it's the only way to pay for college. That's a laudable goal. But what does this say to the little 7, 8, 9, 10-year old girls out there who see these women being judged on their physical appearance and "bubbly" personality? I remember watching Miss American and Miss USA as a child and wanting to be one of those women. In high school, I received the obligatory mailings encouraging me to compete, and I have to admit, there was a part of me that found that both flattering and tempting. And, quite frankly, that sucks. So much is made in the media about beauty pageants for little girls from the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, through the Toddlers & Tiaras scandal when a 3-year-old dressed as the Julia Robert's prostitute character in Pretty Woman to the woman, last year, who dressed her daughter as a Hooter's waitress. And this penchant for dressing young girls in inappropriate "adult" clothing is not just molester-bait, and a way to start children down a road of sexual understanding they aren't ready for, but also contributes a great deal to the body image issues these young girls will eventually have. In fact, they start to have these issues younger and younger.
I also remember, as a child, loving one particular dress that I had. It was a big, beautiful Martha's Miniatures pink dress with layers and layers of skirt in the petticoat that bounced and had a small silver jingle bells sewn into them so that you literally made a beautiful sound with every step you took.
These dresses were the epitome of the little girl dress. They were fluffy and bright. They didn't show any risque skin or look anything like what an adult would would wear, at least not unless she was going to a square dance in 1915. They literally came in all sizes, from petite to plus sized, so every little girl could fit in one. And I never felt prettier than I did in that dress. I still give my mom grief for giving it away to a friend of hers from work. I dream about that dress.
Back then, clothes weren't about making you look thin or cheap or old. Little girls' clothes were about the fun of twirling in a layered petticoat and the swoosh and, yes, chime sound that the dress made. It was about being bright and happy and carefree. We didn't want to dress up like adults because there was a clear line demarcating childhood and adulthood and the thought of crossing that line never occurred to us. That line has become so blurred, now, that I fear for the next generation of girls. The feminist movement has done so much for women's feelings of intellectual rigor and equality, but the fact that Miss America is still a thing is not only a slap in the face to all of those amazing women who came before, but a glaring neon sign warning us about the future of self-esteem and eating disorders for women who will continue to feel the pressure to conform to unrealistic beauty standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment