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.

 

Miss America ends swimsuit competition

page: 22
21
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

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.


That's not a comparison to beauty. It's a comparison to "what's stopping them from starting their own?"




posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I liked the evening gown competition as well. It showed the girls' poise and glamour more than the swimsuit competition. The swimsuit competition was to show off physical beauty, which is one, but only one, aspect of beauty.

I occasionally would watch the talent competition as well, as it showed another aspect of what I would consider "beauty."

The interview portion, not so much. Some of the answers were so... rehearsed. Dry. I consider mental sharpness an inherent part of beauty and that one disappointed far too often.

I just realized the real underlying aspect of this issue. Some of us, taking the position of wanting to retain the swimsuit competition, see "beauty" as multifaceted, including mental acuity, poise, talent, fitness, and yes, sexual attractiveness. Others, who seen to be taking the position of against the swimsuit competition, apparently see "beauty" as being only skin deep, restricted to how sexually attractive a woman's body is. I have no issue seeing which of the two positions is more sexist.

Referring to my earlier post, it is still true that sexual beauty is often the first thing men notice; it is simple biology. But we are also more than just animals (hopefully) and there are many aspects of beauty that come into consideration after that first contact is made. It is a sad thing that so many seem to ignore that fact. True beauty comes from within and manifests to without; ugly encompasses the soul itself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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.


That doesn't sound odd at all. I prefer class as well, but if I'm not looking for personal interaction I don't care either way. Show me a flat midsection without a six pack and show me some butt muscles. No fake boobs either.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
If that is true, then why is the organization still excluding men? Your greenhorn is showing.


You'd have to ask them. Perhaps they have closeted sexist and regressive tendencies like you.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


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.

That dog don't hunt. Support for a decision is akin to making the decision.


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.

The whole point of a competition is to standardize to some degree the conditions under which the judges judge. You advocate removing those standards, which is akin to simply removing the pageantry altogether. In the end, your delight with this decision is transparent: you don't like that some women are considered more beautiful than others, and you want to destroy any section of society that allows this (in your opinion) abhorrent abomination.

Please just be honest with yourself and with us. It's OK, really. People are allowed to have differing opinions in this country.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   

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?"


Miss America has not announced they will be including men, and why is that? Because it will remain in some form a women's only competition which may still include a beauty part because the term beauty pageant is still part of their description, that has not changed.

So why beat a dead horse, do what other excluded people did in the past, such as women in the past who started women's groups, start your own special beauty pageant or start a group to protest these types of exclusionary pageants.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I don't have to because unlike you I already know that it will remain a beauty competition in some form, something you refuse to admit.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
How beauty will be judged will be changed dramatically, now we may judge on talents, spiritual beauty, intellectual beauty and humanitarianism etc. If the contestants want to come out in a bikini, it doesn't matter to me. But I am sure they would want to impress the judges who follow the organization's criteria.
edit on 16CDT04America/Chicago03440430 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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.


Bikini or swimsuit, whatever, semantics. 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.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter to me what they do because what matters is what the judges think and I think it would be a big mistake to come out in a bikini or skimpy outfit when the judging criteria has changed from primarily physical beauty based judging to talent and accomplishments judging.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

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


Well, that remains to be seen. 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.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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.


So you agree with the organizers that the swimsuit segment qualifies as "sexual objectification and exploitation", yet you previously state, "if the contestants want to come out in a bikini, it doesn't matter to me.".

Since all bikinis worn were by choice, the only way to reconcile those two sentiments is the logical conclusion that "sexual objectification and exploitation" doesn't matter to you.

Again, your sexist and regressive tendencies are shining through...

edit on 6/6/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


How about a woman pope?

I'm not Catholic; what would it matter to me?

If there's no religious restriction on it, go for it. As far as that goes, if you want a female President, nominate Condoleeza Rice. I'll give her some serious consideration!

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Yes, it does not matter to me if they are okay with being sexually exploited on national TV, that is their choice. Is that simple enough for you to understand now Redmage?
edit on 16CDT05America/Chicago03250530 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

And yet you celebrate the opposite.

No, that is not clear. Your true intentions are.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The point being that some traditions are damaging or no longer serve society's higher purposes and must go.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

And yet you celebrate the opposite.

No, that is not clear. Your true intentions are.

TheRedneck


I don't get what you mean? That last post was for Redmage. My intentions are obviously lost with you and Redmage because of lack of understanding or lack of desire to understand what real progress looks like.
edit on 16CDT05America/Chicago03850530 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join