Questions you should like to see them ask in a Miss World Pageant

If you have a population of 5 men and 5 women, and one man sexes on all 5 of the women, then the average number of sexual encounters for both populations is 1.
 
Definitely something about the objectification of women, and what sort of role model they perceive beauty pageant contestants as being for girls/young women.

If a person chooses to show off their body, they should have their choice respected. To blame them for objectifying themselves is a form of slut shaming and shows a lack of respect for their bodily sovereignty.
 
Many beauty contest contestants hope that it will lead to a career in show business, modeling or acting. Others hope it will help raise money for their education for other careers. So the contestants have a legitimate objective in competing. But that doesn't make the things any less dumb in the first place.
 
Many beauty contest contestants hope that it will lead to a career in show business, modeling or acting. Others hope it will help raise money for their education for other careers. So the contestants have a legitimate objective in competing. But that doesn't make the things any less dumb in the first place.

How is it any dumber than Jeopardy where people display their knowledge of mostly useless trivia?
 

Surveys don't actually tell us how much sex the respondents have though, but rather how much they claim to have.


I recall hearing about a study where researchers compared how attaching the participants to a polygraph machine influenced their responses to questions about sexuality.

When participants thought they could get away with lying, males reported significantly more sexual partners than did females.

When they thought that their lies would be detected, females reported slightly more sexual partners than did males.
 
If a person chooses to show off their body, they should have their choice respected. To blame them for objectifying themselves is a form of slut shaming and shows a lack of respect for their bodily sovereignty.

So what you're saying is I should only address the men in the room about a problem of social norms against women?
 
Surveys don't actually tell us how much sex the respondents have though, but rather how much they claim to have.


I recall hearing about a study where researchers compared how attaching the participants to a polygraph machine influenced their responses to questions about sexuality.

When participants thought they could get away with lying, males reported significantly more sexual partners than did females.

When they thought that their lies would be detected, females reported slightly more sexual partners than did males.

Exactly.
 
So what you're saying is I should only address the men in the room about a problem of social norms against women?
Problematic social norm under question being that we value beauty?
According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:[1]

as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
as if owned by another (ownership);
as if interchangeable (fungibility);
as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).
I am having trouble seeing how we arrive at the conclusion that beauty pageants = objectification of women.
 
I would ask them: "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol Horde got bored?"

Or I would just ask the Australian candidate if the dingo ate her baby.
 
The thing about people in the Feminist movement is that they want the two sexes to be treated exactly the same despite the fact that men and women are not the same and there's obvious differences in the way we act, prioritize, and think.

The treating people exactly the same way part is perfectly fine.
The second part is the problem - more often than not anyway.

In nature v. nurture debates many feminists join the camp of completely wack and evidence-resistant nurture-apologist radicals and misdiagnose roughly everything, proceed to perscribe perfectly ineffective means of decreasing all sorts of gender differences and blame mythical higher powers (the patriarchy and the privilege) when these obviously faulty means utterly fail.

I am not sure why they do that. I suppose they are just really in love with their "theories". Human nature is no prohibitive obstacle anyway. We are essentially in the business of living "against human nature" since we got started with this whole agriculture-and-law-and-not-smaching-peoples-skulls-with-rocks thing.
And so far we seem to be rather good at it.
 
Problematic social norm under question being that we value beauty?

No, problematic social norm under question being that we value a women based upon her beauty, and teach women that their value is based upon their beauty.

I am having trouble seeing how we arrive at the conclusion that beauty pageants = objectification of women.

Bolded for relevance. It's not a "most admirable woman" competition, it's a "who's prettiest" competition.

Could an ugly woman win? Is an ugly woman who enters and loses being told that she isn't as valuable to society because of her physical appearance, as dictated by a male-dominated society?
 
It would be curious to see if instead of some old people who are living corpses or something asking them questions, there could be an online site where you could post your question.
 
Bolded for relevance. It's not a "most admirable woman" competition, it's a "who's prettiest" competition.

Could an ugly woman win? Is an ugly woman who enters and loses being told that she isn't as valuable to society because of her physical appearance, as dictated by a male-dominated society?

Could a woman win an academic competition on the basis of her looks?

It's a beauty competition. Thus an ugly woman is unlikely to win. The problem would seem to me to be that it's called 'Miss World', rather than something that makes clear it's just about beauty. The title does imply that the competition is adjudging who is the best overall female in the world, or who has the most value, and adjudicating that on the basis of beauty is objectifying. But if we acknowledge that it's just a beauty contest, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that.
 
I'm not absolutely certain that there is something inherently wrong with beauty contests.

I strongly suspect that there might be, though.

Don't they send the message to all young females that it's possible, and legitimate, to achieve high status simply by your appearance? And conversely, that being "ugly" is somehow worth less? And that youth is worth more than old age? And furthermore that crusty rich old males are the sole arbiters of this worth? (no doubt there are some token female judges too. crusty rich old ones.)

This seems to be a psychologically flawed premise, somehow.
 
Guys are always telling women what they can and cannot do. Most women like to dress up and show off, so let em.:dunno: Besides I wouldn't assume that what they're doing has much if anything to do with men. If all the men vanished from the planet you can bet the beauty pageants would continue. Perhaps there would be a brief delay as the ladies cleared the guys stuff out of closets and made more room for all their shopping.
 
Back
Top Bottom