Walk Into The Pageant Like, What Up? I Gotta A Big Thought!
I went through a phase of being a pretty awesome straight edge punk rocker. Blue mohawk, pyramid studs on my leather belt, and a 'fuck you' attitude. I enjoyed my moral superiority of thought. I condemned things like alcohol, smoking, and fun. I condemned people for conforming, for operating within the system, for supporting "the man". I was a judgemental jerk and I hated "perfect people". I didn't really have major goals of my own, but I criticized people who made goals that I thought were dumb.
The epitome of the perfect people I hated were highlighted in beauty pageants. I was a hater way before it became trendy to spotlight beauty pageant fails.
We laugh at how stupid they must be, as if we would never make a mistake, or succumb to nerves during an elite competition, in the spotlight, in front of thousands of judging eyes. Their intelligence failures reinforce our ignorance that the contest is purely for gawking, when the hosting organizations clearly give a criteria for judging that is beyond just physical appearance. There's no doubt that these organizations are corrupt and terrible, but why criticize the competitors?
While most people may not understand the criteria for judging a beauty pageant, they most certainly are goals that these competitors set for themselves, work extremely hard towards with ferocious tenacity, and then present their accomplishments in front of thousands-strong audiences to be judged.
Judging is not criticizing; and reiterating our ignorance that these pageants are only about physical appearance is not accurate. If you want to criticize, be accurate. In fact, only two-thirds of the competition is based on physical appearance.
I know another competition that is 100% based on physical appearance, but it doesn't receive the same social outcry of condemnation. Fitness and bodybuilding competitions.
Be that as it may, I think what is forgotten in these competitions that incorporate physical beauty is the training involved to be a competitor. These are wonderful examples of people setting goals, working toward them with a capacity that most people can't understand. Most people have no idea what kind of training and dedication it takes to compete in one of these competitions. It takes more mental fortitude to achieve that physical appearance you see on stage than any critic displays in presenting their shallow opinions.
Yet, to someone who doesn't understand the criteria of the competition, or the dedication necessary to compete, a pageant still looks like an outdated contest about looks. How do most people miss the countless hours and sacrifices that were made in order to master one's own body? And why isn't the mastery of one's body not more impressive?
In my eyes, this is all about setting goals, working hard toward them, and conquering them. However, naysayers will maintain that beauty pageants objectify women and some might add that bodybuilding competitions objectify men. But, these participants aren't competing to objectify themselves. And if you objectify them: the problem is with you! Someone recently told me that when she was just 16, an older coworker (30s male) told her that she was the reason guys do bad things (rape). You can't blame a woman for being raped because of how she looks. Anyone can wear whatever the fuck they want - it's the person raping that is at fault for raping! If we're objectifying beauty pageant competitors, we're at fault - not the women competing! So why are we harshing on them? Aren't they simply examples of people setting extreme physical and mental goals for themselves - and then conquering them?! We should be praising their success! We should be inspired by them! We should respect them!
There are other examples of physical success that we do praise that came from the same extreme, laborious training and dedication. Gymnasts, for example, make the same sacrifices in order to master their own body. We all watch that and say, "Holy crap, that's awesome" without the objectification!
Or, going back to corrupt facilitating organizations, we can look at FIFA. Soccer players are equally, unimaginably amazing athletes but there's no condemnation of them for trying to achieve their goals (pun intended). In the case of FIFA, they're berated for what they are, as they should be, but the competitors escape this deluge of criticisms, as they should - and so too should beauty pageant competitors.
I've explored several phases since my straight-edge punk rocker days. With New Year's Resolutions upon us, I'm currently exploring a phase of appreciating peoples' goals, no matter what they might be. I am inspired by their dedication to whatever, and am not lost in superficial judgements. I am in awe at their accomplishments, and not belittling of their motivations. I am humbled by their sacrifices to achieve what is important to them, and not critical of what I think should be important to someone else.
I may not understand the world of physical appearance competitions, and I certainly never thought in a million years that I would be defending beauty pageants. I do understand goals and hard work, though. If a little girl (or anyone) sets her sights on a goal, and is willing to work toward it, who are any of us to denounce her passion? Get it, girl!
5 comments:
Michael
said...
The problem with your argument, though, Andrew, is that Mr. Universe is a false equivalency. Competitors in that contest are not conforming to a patriarchal ideal of what it means to be a man, whereas pageant contestants are doing just that. A better comparison would be to compare female bodybuilding or fitness competitions, which are a very real thing, and you make that argument with a different example with gymnastics. Those are indeed not derided, but regarded as athletic endeavors that do require sacrifice and dedication.
So yes, pageants are very much still sexist and do deliberately portray women as being valued for their appearance as it conforms to a sanitized, orthodox standard of beauty and acceptability contrived by men. I point out sections of the article I linked to as evidence of that (the purity rule and the morality clauses etc.). These are again manifestations of the desire of men to control female sexuality. If a woman wants to go ahead and find her fulfillment in performing in them, fine. I'm not to judge, but I would argue that doing so is to go along with an institution that exemplifies and indeed celebrates the disempowerment and objectification of women by traditional male holders of power.
Well, fine, swap bodybuilding videos out from male to female. Same point stands. Female bodybuilding competitors aren't conforming to a patriarchal ideal of what it means to be a woman - they set a physical goal, achieved it, and then competed based on a set of criteria specific to the event. How is a beauty pageant different?
Could it be that outside observers, who don't understand the criteria of the competition, perceive something different than what it is? That's never happened before with anything else. wink emoticon Could it be that critics are so quick to judge the competition and label it as representing beauty for all womankind than to identify a beauty competition as its own thing within the context of the parameters of the event?
Who decided that a beauty pageant represents a man's ideal woman? Who decided that female bodybuilding doesn't represent a man's ideal woman? Aren't the people making those decisions the ones who are the problem - and not the competitors who are chasing/achieving goals and dreams?
I would argue that tradition reinforced by popular marketing and consumerism has indeed defined the aesthetic measured in beauty pageants as a representation of the Western ideal of feminine beauty. Not strength or fulfillment, mind you, but simple a physicality that would be pleasing to men's gazes. I maintain that fitness or gymnastic competition are indeed qualitatively different from beauty pageants in that the competitors are treated much more as subjects and less as objects.
Regardless, I feel at this point I've said just about all I can. I don't have the life experience of a female to draw upon to make better arguments than the ones I already have. Maybe I am indeed wrong after all. However, I suspect that most women who are conscious of the way men have created a society in which women's bodies are primarily viewed as commodities to be consumed rather than to be lived in an enjoyed would side with me on this, female bodybuilders included.
I can tell you that, at as far as bodybuilding goes, the industry around it ,including standards and judging, is stuck in a feedback loop that is becoming more ridiculous by the decade. The videos in your article of "pumping iron" era Arnold don't even represent the aesthetic ideal required for competition now. Arnold wouldn't win with that body today and he has recently been vocally critical of that fact. The competition itself has caused these guys to move away from the Greek aesthetic ideal into a size competition. The use of "gear," as in drugs, is pretty much given with competitors now, and it shows. The distended bellies that all of them sport is evidence of rabid Insulin and HGH abuse, and they're so common and unavoidable when hitting those sizes, that they're now part of the ideal. The arms race to look more artificial than the next guy is making the competition a joke. Who in the general public thinks a pregnant belly and 30" neck is attractive? The bodybuilding industry and it's fans do, nobody else though. I think your average person reacts the same way to the disconnect between female/child pageantry and what is attainable in the real world. Only a fool thinks pagentry reflects reality. I don't think the standards reflect the oppressive will of a rigid patriarchal ideology, as much as they represent the gross extremes of industrial group think.
I know what you're saying, but I also just Googled Mr. Universe and the 2015 winner is actually being called the new Arnold. I see lots of photos and videos comparing the two and stating how similar they are. I would also argue that your argument that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as beautiful by a pageant's standards and the real world, similar to the one between bodybuilding competitions and the real world ideal for a male physique, is false.
To make that argument I would point you to popular film, TV, and advertising. Every Ms. Universe contestant fits into a common aesthetic shared with super models and actresses. Any one of them could easily be featured in a Victoria's Secret catalog. On the other hand, the Mr. Universe contestants generally can't fit. Sure, Arnold became a huge Hollywood success, but he did so by playing roles like Conan and the Terminator, which called specifically for that physique, and I can't recall a film in which he played a romantic lead. Such roles are instead reserved with the heartthrobs of the day, such as Colin Firth, Hugh Jackman (who only got ripped to play Wolverine), Hugh Grant, Denzel Washington, or other men of relatively normal physiques.
As a tangential argument, I'll also point out the false equivalency of female objectification and male power fantasy in comic books. Uninformed men often point out that Superman and his ilk in tights exposing their ripped physique is the same as any of the number of egregiously oversexualized female characters. I think this comic makes the point best: http://i.imgur.com/SVLJ21x.jpg
5 comments:
The problem with your argument, though, Andrew, is that Mr. Universe is a false equivalency. Competitors in that contest are not conforming to a patriarchal ideal of what it means to be a man, whereas pageant contestants are doing just that. A better comparison would be to compare female bodybuilding or fitness competitions, which are a very real thing, and you make that argument with a different example with gymnastics. Those are indeed not derided, but regarded as athletic endeavors that do require sacrifice and dedication.
So yes, pageants are very much still sexist and do deliberately portray women as being valued for their appearance as it conforms to a sanitized, orthodox standard of beauty and acceptability contrived by men. I point out sections of the article I linked to as evidence of that (the purity rule and the morality clauses etc.). These are again manifestations of the desire of men to control female sexuality. If a woman wants to go ahead and find her fulfillment in performing in them, fine. I'm not to judge, but I would argue that doing so is to go along with an institution that exemplifies and indeed celebrates the disempowerment and objectification of women by traditional male holders of power.
Well, fine, swap bodybuilding videos out from male to female. Same point stands. Female bodybuilding competitors aren't conforming to a patriarchal ideal of what it means to be a woman - they set a physical goal, achieved it, and then competed based on a set of criteria specific to the event. How is a beauty pageant different?
Could it be that outside observers, who don't understand the criteria of the competition, perceive something different than what it is? That's never happened before with anything else. wink emoticon Could it be that critics are so quick to judge the competition and label it as representing beauty for all womankind than to identify a beauty competition as its own thing within the context of the parameters of the event?
Who decided that a beauty pageant represents a man's ideal woman? Who decided that female bodybuilding doesn't represent a man's ideal woman? Aren't the people making those decisions the ones who are the problem - and not the competitors who are chasing/achieving goals and dreams?
I would argue that tradition reinforced by popular marketing and consumerism has indeed defined the aesthetic measured in beauty pageants as a representation of the Western ideal of feminine beauty. Not strength or fulfillment, mind you, but simple a physicality that would be pleasing to men's gazes. I maintain that fitness or gymnastic competition are indeed qualitatively different from beauty pageants in that the competitors are treated much more as subjects and less as objects.
I would also argue, conversely, that the rules of these other events are far more objective to the art of what they are competing in and less subjective to the whimsy of male opinion. "She looks better in a bikini" or that "this one's answer about world peace is much more vapid and inoffensive to our audience than this other woman's actual opinion that challenged our world view," seem to be how such competitions are judged. To win the women must not dare to upset the paradigm that women should be blasé in their thoughts and leave the real thoughtwork to the menfolk. And again with the purity and morality BS.
Regardless, I feel at this point I've said just about all I can. I don't have the life experience of a female to draw upon to make better arguments than the ones I already have. Maybe I am indeed wrong after all. However, I suspect that most women who are conscious of the way men have created a society in which women's bodies are primarily viewed as commodities to be consumed rather than to be lived in an enjoyed would side with me on this, female bodybuilders included.
I can tell you that, at as far as bodybuilding goes, the industry around it ,including standards and judging, is stuck in a feedback loop that is becoming more ridiculous by the decade. The videos in your article of "pumping iron" era Arnold don't even represent the aesthetic ideal required for competition now. Arnold wouldn't win with that body today and he has recently been vocally critical of that fact. The competition itself has caused these guys to move away from the Greek aesthetic ideal into a size competition. The use of "gear," as in drugs, is pretty much given with competitors now, and it shows. The distended bellies that all of them sport is evidence of rabid Insulin and HGH abuse, and they're so common and unavoidable when hitting those sizes, that they're now part of the ideal. The arms race to look more artificial than the next guy is making the competition a joke. Who in the general public thinks a pregnant belly and 30" neck is attractive? The bodybuilding industry and it's fans do, nobody else though. I think your average person reacts the same way to the disconnect between female/child pageantry and what is attainable in the real world. Only a fool thinks pagentry reflects reality. I don't think the standards reflect the oppressive will of a rigid patriarchal ideology, as much as they represent the gross extremes of industrial group think.
I know what you're saying, but I also just Googled Mr. Universe and the 2015 winner is actually being called the new Arnold. I see lots of photos and videos comparing the two and stating how similar they are. I would also argue that your argument that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as beautiful by a pageant's standards and the real world, similar to the one between bodybuilding competitions and the real world ideal for a male physique, is false.
To make that argument I would point you to popular film, TV, and advertising. Every Ms. Universe contestant fits into a common aesthetic shared with super models and actresses. Any one of them could easily be featured in a Victoria's Secret catalog. On the other hand, the Mr. Universe contestants generally can't fit. Sure, Arnold became a huge Hollywood success, but he did so by playing roles like Conan and the Terminator, which called specifically for that physique, and I can't recall a film in which he played a romantic lead. Such roles are instead reserved with the heartthrobs of the day, such as Colin Firth, Hugh Jackman (who only got ripped to play Wolverine), Hugh Grant, Denzel Washington, or other men of relatively normal physiques.
As a tangential argument, I'll also point out the false equivalency of female objectification and male power fantasy in comic books. Uninformed men often point out that Superman and his ilk in tights exposing their ripped physique is the same as any of the number of egregiously oversexualized female characters. I think this comic makes the point best: http://i.imgur.com/SVLJ21x.jpg
Post a Comment