It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: redmage
originally posted by: InTheLight
I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?
Boy Scouts were for boys, and Girl Scouts were for girls. Such delineations are not acceptable to true progressives, and now girls are free to join the Boy Scouts.
Saying that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?" is very sexist and regressive of you.
Nobody is buying your point of view here.
Why? It makes logical sense from what we're told about girls and gays joining the Boy Scouts. They couldn't find their own, and we were regressive and sexist for not wanting to allow it.
You can't compare a physical beauty competition to actual sexist and regressive boy scout organizational exclusions. I just explained that above.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero
This may sound odd, but I preferred the evening gown part--do they even do that anymore?? Left more to the imagination.
originally posted by: InTheLight
If that is true, then why is the organization still excluding men? Your greenhorn is showing.
I too am not insisting any standards be imposed on these women - the beauty pageant organizers are. I am just discussing the topic and repeating information and facts.
My stance on this whole thing is that I like the fact that women's beauty criteria will be expanded, we are so much more than how we are judged in a beauty pageant as it stands now. And, if you must know, the contestants will be allowed to choose an outfit of their choice, as I understand. So, who knows, we still may see a bikini or two.
originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: redmage
originally posted by: InTheLight
I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?
Boy Scouts were for boys, and Girl Scouts were for girls. Such delineations are not acceptable to true progressives, and now girls are free to join the Boy Scouts.
Saying that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?" is very sexist and regressive of you.
Nobody is buying your point of view here.
Why? It makes logical sense from what we're told about girls and gays joining the Boy Scouts. They couldn't find their own, and we were regressive and sexist for not wanting to allow it.
You can't compare a physical beauty competition to actual sexist and regressive boy scout organizational exclusions. I just explained that above.
_javascript:icon('')
That's not a comparison to beauty. It's a comparison to "what's stopping them from starting their own?"
originally posted by: InTheLight
If the contestants want to come out in a bikini, it doesn't matter to me.
How beauty will be judged will be changed dramatically, now we may judge on talents, spiritual beauty, intellectual beauty and humanitarianism etc.
originally posted by: redmage
originally posted by: InTheLight
If the contestants want to come out in a bikini, it doesn't matter to me.
Yet you've repeatedly argued against such claiming that it sexually objectified them.
There was never a bikini requirement in the Miss America Pageant. One piece suits were always allowed, and those who came out in a bikini simply did so because they wanted to.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight
How beauty will be judged will be changed dramatically, now we may judge on talents, spiritual beauty, intellectual beauty and humanitarianism etc.
No.
Beauty will remain an individual judgement. You have changed nothing in that regard. The only thing that has changed is that some women will no longer have an avenue open to them, since this will be the death knell of the Miss Universe pageant.
Throughout the globe, men will continue to judge women on physical attractiveness. Women will continue to judge men on physical strength and endurance. The human race will roll on, undaunted, the way evolution has decreed it to be, oblivious to any personal satisfaction you may gain for the moment. Nothing in that regard has changed; only an avenue that afforded some women a means to engage themselves in a competition.
You may have soothed your soul some through this decision, but know this: your peace of mind is temporary, and comes at a far greater cost to the rest of society than you realize, specifically to those you claim to want to empower but secretly wish to denigrate to your own, imagined level.
TheRedneck
We will have to continue this discussion after watching the next beauty pageant without the swimsuits or tight evening gown segments because the women who will be competing then will be remarkable talented and accomplished women who deserve their chance at a scholarship.
originally posted by: InTheLight
The point is that the reason the swimsuit segment was dropped is due to the organizers agreeing it to be sexual objectification and exploitation - again, I am just repeating what they are saying and I believe it to be true as well or they would not have dropped it.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight
We will have to continue this discussion after watching the next beauty pageant without the swimsuits or tight evening gown segments because the women who will be competing then will be remarkable talented and accomplished women who deserve their chance at a scholarship.
Again, no.
In my world, there is now no Miss Universe pageant, just like there is no Boy Scouts of America or National Football League. It has, like the other two examples, become a political tool used to promote political correctness. I can absolutely guarantee you their viewership has fallen by one person; I highly doubt I am the only one who feels that way.
So there will be no discussion between us as to the benefits or detriments of the next pageant. I will not have seen it. That is a certainty.
Can I at least get a heads-up as to which other tradition you expect to be destroyed next? It would be nice to know beforehand.
TheRedneck
How about a woman pope?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight
And yet you celebrate the opposite.
No, that is not clear. Your true intentions are.
TheRedneck