It's a Scholarship Program

Italy has recently relaxed its gambling regulations. Among other things, it is now legal to bet on the annual Miss Italy pageant. This has not played well among hard-core pageant fans. Aspiring Miss Italies are shocked--shocked--at the idea of being paraded around and objectified:

"We're people, not objects or, worse, animals," complained Anna Prete, the "Miss Calabria" from the southern region of the same name and one of the many finalists unhappy with the government-sponsored scheme….

Miss Italy purists are appalled at what they see is the vulgarization of a 66-year-old national institution and the competition's founder, Enzo Mirigliani wrote to the government to complain.

Allowing bets "damages the girls' dignity, bringing them down to the level of champion racehorses," he wrote, according to Il Messaggero.

Finalist Questions: Why is it more degrading to bet on beauty pageants than on prizefighting? Is beauty pageanting a sport? And why is being an animal worse than being an object?

Hat tip: feministing.

Comments

[Abdul]

I don't know if this demeans them or not, but I've got 2 hundy riding on Miss Eboli.

[smacky]

What do you mean by "prizefighting"? Sorry if that's a stupid question.

[smacky]

Wow, I really do need to drink more coffee in the morning. Nevermind.

[Uncle Sam]

The main difference I see is that the outcomes of beauty contests are determined by judges, the outcomes of horseraces is determined by the horses (at least they are supposed to be).

[Uncle Sam]

are, not is

[Ron Hardin]

Beauty contests are celebrations BY WOMEN of their attractiveness to men. Women watch them, not men. Given a chance, men enter a pig as their own statement on the matter.

The matter being that man was given extremely low standards because women are not a great bargain. Not that men mind low standards, but that's what's being celebrated, really.

Betting on the things is a statement, and the same one as entering farm animals, for the same reason ; a male statement to women : don't let it go to your head.

[smacky]

To answer your question, "why is it more degrading to bet on beauty pageants than on prizefighting?":

It's more degrading because prizefighting involves skill, ingenuity, wit, and technique (features which presumably can be acquired through the virtues of practice and time, although some inherent talent is undoubtably required), whereas beauty pagent contestants, when all is said and done, are judged on their looks, which (barring plastic surgery) are natural and completely out of a person's control (you're either born beautiful or not, as far as your face and basic body structure are concerned). There is no virtue of character involved with that. E.g. if you have a droopy chin, that is going to be counted against you. If you have stumpy legs or naturally thick ankles, again, counted against you. I disagree with Il Messaggero. It's not that betting on the women damages their dignity (they have already done that to themselves for being so fucking vain in the first place), it's that gambling on a winner damages the women's pride . Hence the adage, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Any woman who didn't have the odds leaning in her favor would be totally pissed off, I don't care what anyone else says to the contrary. That is what all the fuss is about.
Everyone knows that that is essentially what beauty pageants are about (does anyone really care about how the hotties are going to achieve world peace??), but since it is out in the open like this now, people are objecting. To admit that all it really does come down to is your T&A, face, body type, et al. is taboo, and that is why people are protesting, no doubt. These women want to maintain the illusion that people care about their banal hobbies, interests, and "personalities".

[Rodney]

The outcome of beauty contests for horses were determined by Mike Brown.

And he did a heck of a job.

[Matt]

it's that gambling on a winner damages the women's pride . Hence the adage, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

Smacky, you shoulda layed off the double espresso

[Matt]

it's that gambling on a winner damages the women's pride . Hence the adage, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

Smacky, you shoulda layed off the double espresso

[Matt]

it's that gambling on a winner damages the women's pride . Hence the adage, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

Smacky, you shoulda layed off the double espresso

[dpotts]

How can I be sure that these women are being objectified if they didn't include any photos with the article?

[Ted]

Gambling on the hotness of chicks. I love being a man in a pseudo-free world.

[Ted]

Gambling on the hotness of chicks. I love being a man in a pseudo-free world.

[mk]

it's that gambling on a winner damages the women's pride

Good one Smacky.

Even as a kid, I never understood why girls would want to be in pageants. I couldn't watch them as I felt so embarrased for the women. Why is it that gambling is the thing that finally wakes them up to their objectification?

[Animal]

Animal not baaaad!! Objects bad! Raaaaaaaaaaa!! Animal smash objects!! Raaaaaaa!!

(crash)

[Larry A]

whereas beauty pageant contestants, when all is said and done, are judged on their looks, which (barring plastic surgery) are natural and completely out of a person's control (you're either born beautiful or not, as far as your face and basic body structure are concerned).

Obviously you haven't looked backstage. The men's chorus I sang with in college served as escorts for several national contests, and during rehearsal we saw the rest of the story.

A contestant certainly has to have a basic level of beauty, just as a prizefighter has to have a basic level of the talents that go into boxing. But after that, it's training, consultation, planning, tactics, strategy, and so forth. Think strict regimens for diet, exercise, makeup, clothing, whatever talent is selected, public speaking and appearance, pageant rules and politics, etc. A beauty pageant competitor works damn hard, just to look naturally beautiful.

For instance the ladies used to complain about how much spaghetti they had to eat. It seems like they were served it at least once per pageant so the judges could see if they could get through the meal without little spots of sauce on their blouses. Tell me a prizefighter would put up with that.

If a woman's gift at birth is physical beauty and she works hard to enhance that gift and beats other women in a beauty pageant, why is that less politically correct than a woman whose gift at birth is the coordination to hit a little ball with a club and works hard to enhance that gift and beats other women in a golf tournament?

MK: Even as a kid, I never understood why girls would want to be in pageants. I couldn't watch them as I felt so embarrassed for the women.

There are probably things you do that I don't understand.

In the above example, for instance, I don't understand why so many people play a game where the better they get, the less opportunity they have to hit the ball. I also don't understand the attraction of gambling on something as fickle as a beauty pageant. Or a horse race.

But in a free society everybody gets to decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't. Therefore I certainly see no reason to be embarrassed for you if you make a different decision than I do.

[Larry A]

I could also point out that Italy's relaxation of gambling laws does not mean that people can now bet on beauty pageants. It means that people can now legally bet on beauty pageants. It's not that big a change.

[Jeff P.]

Paegant contestants have no dignity. Nor do they have souls. Besides, they're probably all desended from Mussolini's comfort women anyway.

[smacky]

Think strict regimens for diet, exercise, makeup, clothing,

Larry A,

Yes, yes, I know all that. You don't need to go backstage at a pagaent to be aware of the stiff, quasi-religious upkeep of these female beauty regements. Ever been inside a ladies restroom? All of these hard work "beauty habits" you're describing are the great leveller for the pagaent competition field - any entrant can learn how to do these things, and I'm sure all of the contestants do work very hard at their attractiveness -- I'm not suggesting that some unkempt, lazy hag should or could honestly and legitimately stand a chance against these women who work so hard to look the way they do, and I'm not discounting their efforts. (Well, at least I'm not implying they're born looking the way they do on stage....I do think all of their efforts are a big waste of time, though, in the scheme of things.) You're missing the bigger point I'm making: When all is said and done, even after everyone is following their own perfect tried-and-true recipes for beauty, it all comes down to what you were born with naturally (again, barring plastic surgery). A woman who has legs that are 1 or 2 inches shorter than some leggy goddess is going to be at a disadvantage, for example. Sure, they're all beautiful and they work hard at it, but someone will inevitably be judged more beautiful than the rest, and women don't typically like that because it is probably based on something out of their control. It's akin to judging guys on whose d**k is the biggest...I'm sure guys who aren't naturally well-hung wouldn't appreciate such a contest, no matter how well they groom it. Capiche?

(At the same time, I don't mean to sound like I'm apologizing for the women who are complaining...serves them right for being so self-absorbed and shallow!)

[mk]

Larry A,

Don't read too much into my statement. As a kid, I was incapable of staying in a room where the tv was showing Three's Company or Mork and Mindy. Upon seeing John Ritter, I would literally run out of the room. I'm aware of it having been a personality quirk.

Anyway, your point is well taken. I'm sure that my daughter could regale you with stories about all the embarassing things that I do.

[The Anti-Puritan]

I agree with Larry A. I would add that if you believe that all contests should be won through discipline and effort rather than natural gifts, you have the same destructive attitude that Salieri had in Amadeus. Salieri couldn't get over the fact that Mozart didn't "earn" his superior musical talent through industry, chastity, and humility. I see this as the dark side of the Puritan Work Ethic. I'm sorry, folks, but you're being puritanical in your objections to beauty pageants.

Amadeus may not be historically accurate, but it's philosophically truthful.

[mk]

As I reflect on it now, it was a bit puritan of me to have such a strong reaction to pageants. It was also undoubtedly a by-product of my extremely liberal upbringing.
Still, I wonder why we celebrate these supposedly highly skilled, genius-level women in wasting their time by doing their nails? They always say things like 'I want to work with children' or talking about how much they enjoy volunteering at the local animal shelter. Great, so why, if you enjoy those things and find them so important, are you on my tv at the moment in a bathing suit grinning like an idiot?
I just wonder about it. That's all.

[The Anti-Puritan]

Besides Amadeus, I might mention The Incredibles as a movie that shows the dangers of contempt for natural gifts as opposed to earned ability.

[Jennifer]

If a woman's gift at birth is physical beauty and she works hard to enhance that gift and beats other women in a beauty pageant, why is that less politically correct than a woman whose gift at birth is the coordination to hit a little ball with a club and works hard to enhance that gift and beats other women in a golf tournament?

Possibly because winning in golf is something objective--if you needed less hits than anybody else to sink the balls, you won. Or an Olympic sprinter--fastest runner wins. Period. Beauty pageants, on the other hand, are based entirely on the subjective opinion of the judges.

Even I think beauty pageants are demeaning. And I say this as a former exotic dancer. (But since I danced to pay for school, I guess that counted as a scholarship program too, doesn't it?)

[The Anti-Puritan]

As I reflect on it now, it was a bit puritan of me to have such a strong reaction to pageants. It was also undoubtedly a by-product of my extremely liberal upbringing.

It doesn't surprise me. Do-gooder liberals today can be just as self-righteous as religious conservatives. Super Size Me, for example, is really just a secularized sermon on the sin of gluttony.

Still, I wonder why we celebrate these supposedly highly skilled, genius-level women in wasting their time by doing their nails?

"All art is quite useless."-Oscar Wilde

[smacky]

The Anti-Puritan,

I'm not opposing beauty pageants or the people people who choose to enter them. I just think that if people are going to enter them, then they shouldn't complain that they are being objectified based on their natural gift of beauty, because that is what the contests are really about. I'm also not discounting natural talents or gifts as less virtuous than those that are earned, I was just giving my best guess as to why some women are complaining and protesting about being betted on. I'm also saying simply that yes, many women will begrudge a beautiful woman for her good looks (even if the ones who are envious are good-looking themselves). I guess someone could make the arguement that talents and volunteer work are taken into account, too, but I'm cynical, frankly. (Possibly the talent/volunteer categories could be considered tiebreakers, or the reverse could be possible too: the appearance could likewise be the tiebreaker).

Either way, I've wasted too many minutes of my life discussing these petty, subjective contests and their attention-hungry participants.

[smacky]

Jennifer made the broader point: why go to all that bother when the contest is totally subjective anyway? Since we're going to recite trite aphorisms here: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Just send all the broads back to the kitchen with "Everyone's a Winner" badges and have them make me a sandwich while they're there, mmmkay?

[Jennifer]

Shut up and make me a sandwich, Smacky.

[The Anti-Puritan]

Jennifer, it's rare for me to disagree with you, but I do now. Sporting events are often won or lost because of referees' judgment calls that are subjective in the sense that another competent referee might have made a different call.

Plus, physical beauty is, in a certain sense, less subjective than we might think. Despite what the blank-slate doctrine of many social scientists would lead us to believe, people around the world agree much more than they disagree on who is beautiful or handsome.

A third point: The rules of a sport may be more objectively verifiable than the call of a beauty contest judge, but they are no less arbitrary. Who decided, for example, that basketball players should be rewarded for dribbling the ball across the court rather than balancing it on their heads? Who knows how many people will never get an NBA contract because they have a talent for the latter, not the former?

[smacky]

government-sponsored (!?!?!?!)

*rage*
*shrug*
*imbibe*
*faint*
*blackness*
*contented malaise*

(An homage to Warren "I need a drink".)

[Jennifer]

Who decided, for example, that basketball players should be rewarded for dribbling the ball across the court rather than balancing it on their heads?

Completely off-point in regards to beauty pageants--the fact is, the rules have been set, and the one best at dribbling IS rewarded over the one who can't dribble at all. Dribbling is an arbitrary rule, true, but dribbling skill can be objectively measured.

Mind you, I'm not supporting any anti-pageant laws. I just think they're demeaning bullshit.

[Cliff]

Larry,

"Think strict regimens for diet, exercise, makeup, clothing, whatever talent is selected, public speaking and appearance, pageant rules and politics, etc. A beauty pageant competitor works damn hard, just to look naturally beautiful."

Don't forget duct tape.

[The Anti-Puritan]

Jennifer:
Dribbling is an arbitrary rule, true, but dribbling skill can be objectively measured.

Not necessarily. A referee has to make a judgment call about whether a player has been traveling. Whichever call he makes, there are some cases in which an equally competent ref might have made the opposite call.

[smacky]

But, The Anti-Puritan, most athletes/sports participants would agree on what makes a great or talented sportsman, given the sport. None of the beauty pageant contestants would ever agree on who is the most beautiful and for what reason, because each is in it to win the title for herself, and each is no doubt beautiful in this way or that way. There is a set of (arbitrary) rules about sports, but there are measurable talents outside of those rules that make athletes excellent in themselves (speed, agility, strength, reaction time, etc.). Maybe the only measurable things about a beauty pageant are volunteer work and essay questions, but after that, it's all looks. You're right to an extent about humans all over the world agreeing on what is beautiful and what isn't, but you're taking that point and stretching it a little too far for your purposes: humans all over the world would likely agree that open sores and hair loss are unattractive. Humans also would undoubtedly agree that symmetry is beautiful, and that healthy teeth and gums are attractive. But I'm sorry, if all the women are gorgeous, the simple fact is that people would entirely disagree on who they think is the most beautiful, if all of the women are indeed gorgeous in their own right. Admit it, it's just an excuse to line up hot women and look at them. I'm not being Puritanical -- at least I'm admitting that that is the purpose of the female pageant. It's pure celebration of the beauty of women (objectified). I think it would be puritanical to deny that. (Some people deny it out of guilt, perhaps? Or shame that they are willing, in fact, to judge women on these physically exacting terms?). To clarify my position again, the women get no sympathy from me for putting themselves on display like cuts of meat.

Jennifer, I have a leftover sandwich from lunch. I can mail it to you if you want. Then again, I might be hungry by the time I'd get to the post office, so it might be gone by then.

[dagny]

Beauty contests are celebrations BY WOMEN of their attractiveness to men. Women watch them, not men.

I have no evidence of this, but I will say that my grandmother is positively obsessed with beauty contests. Whenever there's one on (broadcast) TV, she's watching it. Recently she explained how she had a prescribed ritual to keep track of a local beauty contest that was only broadcast on radio: she'd cut the pictures out of the paper, listen to the broadcast, and eliminate each picture as the girl was eliminated.

And I don't think it's that different than sports betting -- sure, practice is important, but if you look at any REALLY successful athletes, they're genetic freaks the same as beauty-contest winners.

[The Anti-Puritan]

smacky,
I concede some of your points. A beauty contest has a lot more subjectivity than a sport. I would not deny that the main purpose of a beauty pageant for spectators and judges is to check out hot chicks. I think the question of whether it's puritanical to ever put a fig leaf over this fact is a complex one. I agree with Steven Pinker that it's part of the human condition to be highly ambivalent about sexuality. As a devoted Playboy fan, I admit that Hugh Hefner seems to protest a bit too much in his description of the Playmate as the sweet, wholesome "girl next door." But maybe there is value in institutions, like Playboy and the Miss Italy Pageant, that help us cope with this painful ambivalence by showing us that women can be ogled with courtesy and good taste. The rhetoric that these institutions use to negotiate their way past this ambivalence may seem disingenuous at times, but I would call it diplomacy, not puritanism.

I can't understand why people say that beauty contestants are "objectified." The most salient characteristic distinguishing a person from an object is free will. If women enter beauty contests of their own free will, how are they being treated as objects?

I, too, believe that the Miss Italy Pageant is hypocritical for complaining about the new gambling law. But I have a different reason than you for thinking so. The pageant people should have recognized the gamblers as fellow targets of other people's sanctimonious judgments and stood in solidarity with them.

[The Anti-Puritan]

dagny:
And I don't think it's that different than sports betting -- sure, practice is important, but if you look at any REALLY successful athletes, they're genetic freaks the same as beauty-contest winners.

I'm glad you used the phrase "genetic freaks." Janeane Garofalo used the same phrase to describe fashion models in one of her anti-glamor rants. Why does she need to condemn the celebration of beauty when she's so cute? Why did Naomi Wolf need to write The Beauty Myth when she's such a doll? If beauty were money, these women would be the rich rock stars who denounce capitalism.

[smacky]

Recently she explained how she had a prescribed ritual to keep track of a local beauty contest that was only broadcast on radio: she'd cut the pictures out of the paper, listen to the broadcast, and eliminate each picture as the girl was eliminated.

It sounds like grams is a bit overdue for the ol' headshrinker. 🙂

(Kidding!)

If women enter beauty contests of their own free will, how are they being treated as objects?

The Anti-Puritan,

Objectified: because freewill doesn't change the nature of the contest: A "pageant" (at least in the sense we're talking) means lining them up next to each other and comparing them physically. ("Let's see, do I want this ripe peach or this other overripe one with the bruise on it?"). It is item shopping. It is visual distinguishment, and therefore introduces too much subjective bias. In order to unobjectify the contest, it would not require women to line up next to each other in various states of undress in order to decide who is the best person. The contest would probably involve essays and other intellectual tests, maybe, maybe with a headshot photo (to ensure the winner isn't completely appalling to look at). The best person would be judged on their personality , and not on their cup size. Granted, it's their own free will that put them in that place (which is why I don't sympathize with them).

[ChrisO]

Big problem with this article--no pictures.

[The Anti-Puritan]

smacky:
In order to unobjectify the contest, it would not require women to line up next to each other in various states of undress in order to decide who is the best person.

Who ever said that the contest determines the best person? If you think that beauty pageant spectators regard the winner as an inherently superior human being, you're leaping to false conclusions.

[Larry A]

Jennifer: Possibly because winning in golf is something objective--if you needed less hits than anybody else to sink the balls, you won. Or an Olympic sprinter--fastest runner wins. Period. Beauty pageants, on the other hand, are based entirely on the subjective opinion of the judges.

So with a little more thought, I would have compared it to ice dancing, gymnastics, drill team, diving, dressage, etc. Or perhaps drawn an analogy to competitions among artists, musicians, writers, movie stars, etc. Or the myriad "Person of the Year" awards.

What's the moral difference between "Miss America" and "Country Music Performer of the Year?"

[The Anti-Puritan]

Thanks again, Larry A. If beauty pageants treat women as sex objects, do the Oscars treat people as filmmaking objects?

[smacky]

Who ever said that the contest determines the best person? If you think that beauty pageant spectators regard the winner as an inherently superior human being, you?re leaping to false conclusions.

Sorry, I must've not been clear. When I said, "...in order to decide who is the best person" I was implying for the job after it. I should've bothered to type it out. Of course nobody thinks a stupid pageant winner is an inherently superior human...an inherently superior human wouldn't enter a stupid pageant in the first place. :p

[smacky]

D'oh! I made a typo. "for the job" should've been italicized.

Get it? Italicized? I need some sleep.

(seriously, I meant to italicize it).

[kelley]

Pictures? Try http://www.missitalia.rai.it/

[Stevo Darkly]

Thanks again, Larry A. If beauty pageants treat women as sex objects, do the Oscars treat people as filmmaking objects?

I am so sick of being viewed at the office as nothing more than a writing object!

Seriously, some thought-provoking stuff here. I don't know what to say, but I've been reading it all.