What the? Houellebecq!! My concern is how beauty competition impacts children, I couldn’t care less if men/women want to compete to ‘prove’ they’re Ms or Mr Grand Supreme (or whatever other title they want).

‘What is the difference between that and...“Here you go kid, you’re not intelligent/coordinated/athletic enough – life sux like that – you might as well get used to it.”?‘

(oh! I’m having déjà vu!) The difference is that they’re all things that can be worked on to improve and there’s a definitive goal that levels the playing field. You’d have to be an idiot to not be able to recognise that the majority of marketing messages tells (girls in particular) that to be happy/successful/valued they should look a particular way. Using beauty as a ‘competition’ amongst children has the potential to damage their self-esteem and body image in a way skills/talent based competition doesn’t. It’s very naïve to think that a parent telling a child she is beautiful (after she's been formally judged as 'not enough') will be enough to restore her belief that she is. If that were the case, body image induced eating disorders wouldn’t exist, and there wouldn’t be such a big beauty indu$try (including beauty competitions) in the first place. Beauty has been commodified in a way that intelligence/coordination/althleticism hasn’t. Like I said, the only reason anyone should feel threatened about losing the ability to compare the physical ‘beauty’ of children in a competition, is if they have a vested interest.
You might not be able to see the harm, but I do (and it's ok that we don't agree!).

Btw fyi, Definition of FEMINISM. 1. : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

However, you may enjoy this one more though! ;) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

Over and out.

Catherine "The difference is that they’re all things that can be worked on to improve and there’s a definitive goal that levels the playing field."

I'm not convinced that they can be worked on enough to make a real difference for a lot of people. No matter how much effort you put in generally the ones who are winning have a good dose of natural talent combined with some training.

Looks can also be worked on, accepting that up against natural talent it's hard to win a straight out competition. Personality, an enthusiastic smile, some poise and confidence do wonders for most people's looks.

I do have some cringe factor for what I've seen of the kid's pageants but I suspect that a lot of the objections apply equally to most other kid's competitions and maybe has a lot to do with the way the American pageant mum's come across on TV.

Natural talent is always going to be a big help in life, learning to do the best with what you've got is the bit that can be learned and that's the bit parents can do most about.

R0bert

Why are the tots tarted up like showgirls?

If you fellas are so keen on the notion that being judged on one's looks is okay for little ones, why aren't these children left to look like children.

Yes, I know it's nice to dress up...and in a stage play, Eisteddfod or pantomime situation, dressing up is often required. Dressing up in itself is fun, however, these "little" girls are made up and sexualised way beyond a healthy factor - just to be judged on their so-called "beauty".

I see the harm in do-gooders making rules for other people.

When I was at school, we had a canteen. It served pies. I liked pies, and one of lifes little treats was to be able to buy a pie, normally on a Friday.

I had a balanced diet, and in the hell-hole of school life, a pie is a big highlight to look forward to.

But some do-gooders decided that some kids may not have a balanced diet, so ALL kids were robbed of pies. Parents should decide what their kids eat, not some do-gooder.

As is always the case with these do-gooder initives, the unintended consequence was for truency to thrive as kids decided to skip a few classes before lunch to go to McDonalds. So the poor kiddies with poor nutrician still had poor nutrician, and also missed an extra class at school.

That's just one example of the Nanny state.

Patents know what's best for their kids.

'Using beauty as a ‘competition’ amongst children has the potential to damage their self-esteem and body image in a way skills/talent based competition doesn’t. '

Nope. Beauty is an element of these competitions, as genetic athleticism is an element of sport. You have made no case that genetic athleticism can be more easily compensated for than lack of genetic beauty in the correspoding competitions. In fact I gurantee I could look more beautiful easier than I could run faster.

And if you think the pressure on guys to be tough and earn big bucks (intelligence) isn't as big as beauty is for girls you have a screw loose. Just look at any low social status (or short) male and all the mental and social problems they exhibit.

'body image induced eating disorders' are but a symptom of a need for control. Take away body image and another obsessive compulsion would replace eating in the mentally ill teen.

Accurate definition of Feminism: Everything is mens fault, and women are mere helpless victims in any situation.

Catherine M:"Definition of FEMINISM. 1. : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

At present, 2/3 of all tertiary students of Australian origin are female
This is the exact reversal of the situation that obtained in 1972. From http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2127/1/2127.pdf

"In 1973, a newly appointed federal Schools Commission took up equality as a major theme and defined girls as a 'disadvantaged’ group needing special attention. Its comprehensive and groundbreaking report - Girls, School and Society (Schools Commission 1975) -examined ‘the extent of underachievement by women and girls in education and its contribution to the inferior status of women’"

48% of women aged 25-34 have some form of tertiary qualification
37% of men aged 25-34 have some form of tertiary qualification

20% of all trades trainees are female
Of the female trades trainees, 42% are learning to be hairdressers
Of the female tertiary students, most are studying nursing, teaching, humanities or law. Male students are far more broadly and evenly spread across fields, although few study the female-dominated subjects.

As you consider "equality" the paradigm, can we expect to see some agitation to address the obvious inequality in tertiary education that favours women? If not, why not?

Poirot,

Are they sexualised, or is that an adult lens you are applying to children. Sure children will want to look like elders in the culture they live in. Monkey see monkey do.

It just wont cut it for little girls to be told what to wear. I have a 4 year old, and she has a very strong will. She wants to do makeup and wear what mummy wears. Mummy is Hot! But daughter doesn't want to be 'hot' or 'sexual', she just wants to look like mummy.

Who's to say it is wrong. The prudish? Are we to give kids a complex and, as I said, be dishonest about beauty and what it means in society. That's very confusing for a child. Children are observant, and can sniff out a farce. Like little boys can see that touch football is a farce and wnat to tackle each other and be tough.

Is that an adult concept. Are little boys playing tackle footy to be sexually attractive to women?

PS: If a little girl, who has no boobs of course, wants to wear a bikini, I reckon it's a strange message to tell her you cant because that's sexual. Even if you make up some other reason, she sees every woman on the beach in a bikini, and she wants to be a grown up. Denying her this piques an interest about what's so naughty about boobs, and why are adults all uncomfortable all of a sudden. Are my boobs powerful? Anything adults get squeamish about must be really super important!

I think adults being evasive and running to conceal (Something kids have a finely tuned radar for) adult concepts highlights those concepts and gives them great importance, and THAT act is far more unsettling than letting the monkeys see and do. There really is no harm until you introduce the sexual concept by banning it, especially in a cloud of dishonesty.

Anti: It's equality for women; The bonus being positioning women by default as universally disadvantaged, so any attempt at equality where men are disadvantaged should be ignored.