@roundsquare I find it bizarre that I’m defending the pageant circuit, but ya gotta be fair…
There is a lot in those competitions that includes learned skills and intelligence. They certainly are heard. If they don’t know how to speak well, they don’t get the title.
The ability to exude charisma is something they learn. I don’t know why that’s less socially relevant than say, kicking a football between two uprights. Some pageant skills are actually useful skills.
The part where they are selected according to a genetic model – tall and “appropriately” proportioned – is kind of icky. But it happens all over. Think about gymnasts – male or female. Basketball players. Distance runners. Sprinters. Swimmers. I don’t think that using a stopwatch to measure how well you fit the genetic profile is any more uplifting than having judges vote on how well you fit it. If anything it seems more human for people to be there to notice something unfamiliar but captivating.
Personally, I don’t watch pageants because contestants are not that interesting to me [I’d probably watch if there was more diversity]. But then I don’t watch American Idol or the NBA for the same reason.
I wonder what a competition would be like if contestants were both men and women. I still wouldn’t watch it. But I wonder if that would seem better to people who dislike the way they are so much.
One final thing… most of the competitions in the world reflect values developed to measure people in a time when societal values were different. Look at all the weapons that are used in competition: archery, shot put, discus, fencing. We don’t still place value on the original intent – to be able to kill your opposition – but recognize the value of persistence, focus, and practice that we find in champions. And even events like marathon and pole vault originally reflected military activities. Pageants have certainly evolved. They shall, like everything else, evolve or die. If they added a dodge ball elimination event – that I’d watch.