Does "Little Miss Perfect" (TV show) make anyone else nauseous

[bigred]

Just wondering. Actually how this could not creep anyone out escapes me. Yay, let's have parents who exploit and whore out their children for fame and fortune - great idea for a show! Not enough trashy BS out there! Cmon more makeup! Hey......why stop there? How about breast implants? Baby boobies for the baby hookers! wheeeeeeeee

:vomit:

[ToddH]

My wife loves this crap. It makes me want to rip out my eyes and shove an ice pick in my ears.

[Dancing David]

Little Miss Sunshine!

South Park "Just a Little Girl" episode with the Little Miss Pagent.

[Mr.D]

There's a pair of documentaries out there "Painted Babies" and "Painted Babies at 17."

The first one follows a pair of five year old girls and their mothers who take them around the pageant circuit - Unfortunately I have not seen that one. I have seen the followup documentary though, which is pretty good. The original filmmaker goes back and finds the two girls from the original and shows what their lives are like now as young ladies.

One of them is almost pathologically normal - really. The pageants are part of her past that she acknowledges and probably appreciates to some extent, but not much else; she has a part time job and is about to head off to college. It's a heartening reminder that for many of the participants, it's just a childhood social/competitive/fun activity like sports, scouting or music lessons.

The other one is still involved with the pageants. Neck Eyelash False Eyelash deep involved. I can't possibly do it justice in a few sentences, so suffice it to say that this young woman's entire life as she enters adulthood is all about pageants - it's all that she and her mother talk about and do.

The followup aired on NatGeo or Learning Channel or History Channel a year or two ago. ToddH, if you can track it down I highly recommend you "make" your wife watch it - I think it may put some of the seriousness and competitiveness in perspective. (Oh and PM me if you find the original somewhere on line)

[Foolmewunz]

Mr. D - try the following. I can't follow the link in the first message, but this appears to be a "fansite" - not sure if they're pro or con, but the link they mention seems to have the first film on it.
(I'm at work and my Net Nanny blocks me. But the reviews I've read sound interesting and I'm going to check it out at home - I am sort of like a gawker at a car crash/train wreck when it comes to these pageants. I find them repulsive, frankly, but I just can't tear my eyes from the screen whenever there's something being aired on the topic.)

http://www.dance.net/topic/6072786/1/Modeling-Pageantry/Painted-Babies-and-Little-Beauties-Pageant-Documentaries.html&replies=11

[steve s]

The followup aired on NatGeo or Learning Channel or History Channel a year or two ago. ToddH, if you can track it down I highly recommend you "make" your wife watch it - I think it may put some of the seriousness and competitiveness in perspective. (Oh and PM me if you find the original somewhere on line)

It's available on Youtube.

Steve S

[Accidental Martyr]

I never really gave this stuff much thought until the JonBenet Ramsey case. I did find it very disturbing seeing the outfits and makeup they put on these kids. After meeting my wife I found out she, along with her sister, was in these things when they were kids but I think they turned out OK.

[steve s]

Now this is thoroughly disturbing.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_81544b82017034630.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19169)

Emcee:And how would you bring about world peace?

Baby:Gobblydoodeedah.


ETA: I just watched a bit further into the video. They mention that only parents are allowed to attend pageants; no outsiders allowed. Gee, I wonder why that is?:rolleyes:

[Wowbagger]

The uncanny valley is NOT supposed to apply to real humans!!

[Donal]

I found out about the show because the Soup loves to take the worst clips of it. My girlfriend found a few episodes running the other day and we decided to watch it out of morbid fascination. We both were simultaneously disturbed by the show and amused by the irony.

Essentially, Little Miss Perfect seems to be advertising for this one guy's chain of beauty pageants deep in the heart of Texas. The guy, big shock, is flamboyantly gay. What I find ironic is that he is taking their little girls, sexualizing them and parading them around (aren't most gay bashers scared of gays perving up their kids?) and the parents pay for the privilege.

[Philosaur]

I'm hoping someone else here has seen Mr. Show. Here's their take on these sorts of pageants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPNvGP8Q9Kc

[Drudgewire]

I'm not familiar with this one, but TLC's "Toddlers and Tiaras" is downright horrifying.

[HarryKeogh]

Those pageants are the creepiest thing on earth. It's just so weird to talk a three-year-old girl and sexualize them. Put them in trampy outfits, watch them "flirt" with the judges, cake their face with make-up. Have they incorporated stripper poles into the routines yet? And it's all for the parents to live vicariously through their kid.

[Donal]

I can see a lot of the attitude that shines through from "those parents" at little league games. The whole point of these kinds of activities is supposed to be kids having fun and making friends and taking pride in doing something well.

Spray on tans, personal trainers, false teeth, hair extensions and such are almost child abuse.

[jillianbean]

These shows and the pageants in general do nothing but contribute to the oversexualization of young girls. And probably one of the many reasons why the rest of the world hates us. Our country freaks out over "Nipplegate", but it's okay to dress your four-year old like a two bit floozy. Classy, America.

[bigred]

Well said all. Thx for reminding me someone else gets it.

[KingMerv00]

Well said all. Thx for reminding me someone else gets it.

Just about everyone above the Mason-Dixon gets it.

[Donal]

It really is so weird how these things are mainly popular in the South, but they are so afraid of sexuality on TV.

[bigred]

Just about everyone above the Mason-Dixon gets it.
And even people in Philly. Go figure.


It really is so weird how these things are mainly popular in the South, but they are so afraid of sexuality on TV.
You have evidence that more people in the South watch this show than in the North?

[Donal]

The pageant circuit thing is way bigger in the South. The show in question itself is entirely set in Texas.

[bigred]

The show being in TX doesn't mean pageants are "way bigger in the South." I'm from the North but have lived in the South for many years. I've never even heard of these type of pageants nearby or ever heard anyone even talk about one. Hell I never even knew they existed until that Ramsey thing and forgot all about it until this show popped up.

And I'm pretty sure they show in question is broadcast all over the country and its ratings depend on viewers all over the country.

[One Eyed Jack]

The guy, big shock, is flamboyantly gay.

Stereotype much?


To OP:

Yes, these things disgust me.

[Moss]

It's a bit of a hen and egg thing for me with the sexualisation.
Do the pageants really sexualise the young girls or do we interprete it that way because our culture pretty much makes us interprete sex into a lot of stuff?
Regardless of that aspect, I think the pageants are problematic in that the moms doll up their children and try to live through them. I don't think that's a healthy attitude towards a child.

[MikeMangum]

Just about everyone above the Mason-Dixon gets it.

Bigotry much?

[GreyICE]

The uncanny valley is NOT supposed to apply to real humans!!

That's the most dangerous application of it, actually. It's why it's more than just a note on aesthetic design courses.

[KingMerv00]

Bigotry much?

My policy is that most jokes are funny unless you really mean them. Now that I think about it, you might have thought my joke was a reference to slavery. It wasn't meant to be. I was drawing a north/south comparison. My point was that these pageants tend to take place in the south. If I'm wrong about that perception...my bad. I don't think I am though. Compare these schedules:

The South

Texas (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/Texas_pageants.html)

North Carolina (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/north_carolina_pageants.html)

South Carolina (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/south_carolina_pageants.html)

Georgia (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/georgia_pageants.html)



The North

Pennsylvania (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/pennsylvania_pageants.html)

Massachusetts (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/massachusetts_pageants.html)

New Jersey (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/new_jersey_pageants.html)

New York...not part of the database. Apparently there are no pageants listed.

[KingMerv00]

The uncanny valley is NOT supposed to apply to real humans!!

Oh come on. She's adorable...

Link removed, breach of Rule 4.


. . . AND SHE'LL FEAST ON YOUR SOUL!!!

[MikeMangum]

I was drawing a north/south comparison.

No ****, Sherlock. It was pretty obviously a standard issue "point and laugh at those southern rednecks because they are trashy" statement, as evidenced by the following:

My point was that these pageants tend to take place in the south. If I'm wrong about that perception...my bad. I don't think I am though.

My question is, did you make your statement about the Mason Dixon line before or after you actually did any sort of research on the matter?

Compare these schedules:

...

New York...not part of the database. Apparently there are no pageants listed.

You sure about New York (http://www.pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/new_york_pageants.html) not being part of the pageant database? Because I see 30 pageants listed for New York. The state with the most pageants, according to this site, is California. Someone could very easily make a statement about "those damn people on the coasts" as a generalization.

Why turn a thread about pointing and laughing at people for their actual behavior into a thread about pointing and laughing at people for their state of residence? ;)

Seriously, why generalize this behavior to an entire population? What IS the point of that except bigotry?

[KingMerv00]

You sure about New York (http://www.pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/new_york_pageants.html) not being part of the pageant database? Because I see 30 pageants listed for New York.

Yea, sorry about that. For some reason New York isn't listed amongst the shortcuts on the right side of the page.

Why turn a thread about pointing and laughing at people for their actual behavior into a thread about pointing and laughing at people for their state of residence? ;)

Seriously, why generalize this behavior to an entire population? What IS the point of that except bigotry?

I'm from New Jersey so I've grown immune to state-based insults. :D To me, it not insulting precisely because everyone knows they are ridiculous. People who think stereotypes are an accurate reflection are idiots.

[Donal]

'm from the North but have lived in the South for many years. I've never even heard of these type of pageants nearby or ever heard anyone even talk about one. Hell I never even knew they existed until that Ramsey thing and forgot all about it until this show popped up.

Your personal incredulity means nothing. Count up which states have the most pageants on this site (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/pageant_calendars.html). California has the most, but it isn't even close per capita. How the hell does Alabama have twice as many pageants as New York?

And I'm pretty sure they show in question is broadcast all over the country and its ratings depend on viewers all over the country.

So is Deadliest Catch, but how much crab fishing do you think happens outside of certain states?

[quarky]

I draw the line at dressing up aborted fetuses and entering them in contests.

Said practice is, frankly, disgusting.

[Donal]

Stereotype much?


This particular individual fits the stereotype. Not all gay people. Jeez, lighten up.

[KingMerv00]

Your personal incredulity means nothing. Count up which states have the most pageants on this site (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_calendar/pageant_calendars.html). California has the most, but it isn't even close per capita. How the hell does Alabama have twice as many pageants as New York?

Don't say "hell". Only those dirty, stupid, ugly Philadelphians say that.

[One Eyed Jack]

This particular individual fits the stereotype. Not all gay people. Jeez, lighten up.

You're right. It's fine to perpetuate stereotypes if you find someone that fits the mold. /sarcasm

[Brian-M]

Oh come on. She's adorable...

Moderated content removed.


. . . AND SHE'LL FEAST ON YOUR SOUL!!!


That image isn't showing. Did you mean this one.... ?

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

(There are more here (http://izismile.com/2009/10/27/creepiest_iprofessionally_retouched_photos_of_chil dren_80_pics.html).)

[Cayvmann]

Just about everyone above the Mason-Dixon gets it.

Most of us uneducated yokels below the line get it too. Whoring out your kids is big business for the Yankees too. This whole North-South thing gets tiresome.

[Donal]

Whoring out your kids is big business for the Yankees too.

Hey lots of teams trade promising minor leaguers for establish veterans.

[Donal]

You're right. It's fine to perpetuate stereotypes if you find someone that fits the mold. /sarcasm

Technically, the person that fits the mold is perpetuating the stereotype.

[Dancing David]

Just about everyone above the Mason-Dixon gets it.

Hey, it runs through Decatur IL, be careful there!

[bigred]

Most of us uneducated yokels below the line get it too. Whoring out your kids is big business for the Yankees too. This whole North-South thing gets tiresome.
oh cmon he was "just kidding" wasn't it obvious

:rolleyes:

[sgtbaker]

I don't know, I keep arguing with myself about this. On the surface, it seems like these parents are teaching their children that beauty is everything and even natural beauty is not enough (cake on the cosmetics). There is only one "fairest of them all" so essentially, all the children who don't win are told that they just aren't pretty enough. I have never actually watched a beauty pageant so I don't know how the awards really work but I am assuming that with all the make-up and frilly clothes that surface appearance accounts for something. So to make it "fair" they would have to give awards to everyone which totally defeats the purpose of competition. Learning to lose is as important as winning, for children.

On the other hand, in my kids school, they give out awards at the end of every quarter. I can't stand the teachers that give every child in their class an award, the whole purpose of them is to commend the hard work. Some quarters my kids will take home awards and some they won't. Essentially they learn that hard work begats recognition. Some shine and some don't. When my youngest doesn't get an academic award, she tends to work harder to get it.

That might not be a good comparison because academia is flexible, to a degree. So let's try sports. There are some kids that are really good at sports and some that just aren't. I never agreed with not keeping score in a competative game so no child feels like they actually lost. The fact is, not all kids are into sports, not all kids are into academics, and not all kids are into pageants; but some are. For every little girl that is doing it because their mother needs a pageant queen, there is another little girl that really loves being able to dress up and wear make-up and parade around on stage. In all three catagories, there are parents that over-do it, though. Some parents completely deny their child any social activities, at the cost of interaction, because high grades are most important. There are some parents who have their kids in 3 different sports per season at the cost of time for anything else. I know a mom like this. Her kids live on fast food and frozen meals because after all the practices, competitions, and away games, there is no time for healthy meals. I don't think the other two extreme examples stray very far from the pageant circuit families.

[jadey]

I don't know, I keep arguing with myself about this. On the surface, it seems like these parents are teaching their children that beauty is everything and even natural beauty is not enough (cake on the cosmetics). There is only one "fairest of them all" so essentially, all the children who don't win are told that they just aren't pretty enough. I have never actually watched a beauty pageant so I don't know how the awards really work but I am assuming that with all the make-up and frilly clothes that surface appearance accounts for something. So to make it "fair" they would have to give awards to everyone which totally defeats the purpose of competition. Learning to lose is as important as winning, for children.

I definitely agree that learning to lose is extremely important. However, in the case of losing in a beauty pageant, what is your recourse? Try harder? Work to become more beautiful?

On the other hand, in my kids school, they give out awards at the end of every quarter. I can't stand the teachers that give every child in their class an award, the whole purpose of them is to commend the hard work. Some quarters my kids will take home awards and some they won't. Essentially they learn that hard work begats recognition. Some shine and some don't. When my youngest doesn't get an academic award, she tends to work harder to get it.

I agree with you on this. Commend effort. I coach youth soccer, and this year I introduced "Award patches" to my 9/10 year olds. I try to award for an honest effort, not just results. Of course, this is tailored to each child's abilities so that even the most uncoordinated child can earn a patch for hard work and effort. Ideally, everybody earns at least one award by the end of the season. So, I see no issue if everybody gets recognition if they all earned it through effort. Results are not everything IMO.

I don't watch the score in my matches (the kids do though, I assure you) because I really don't think it matters. I had a situation where some of my team was a bit frustated because we were losing by 1 point. Near the end of the game, the opposing team's goalie went to punt the ball and it went up over his head and bounced in the goal (poor kid). The game ended in a tie, and some of my players were relieved by that. I made the point of explaining to them that the outcome should not dictate how they judge the game, rather their collective effort. The fact that the other team gave them a goal should not change their outlook on their performance. You either gave it your all or you didn't, and the results (score) don't necessarily reflect that. I'd like to think that the other coach did the same for his team. Unfortunately, many of the parents fail to recognize this as well.

That might not be a good comparison because academia is flexible, to a degree. So let's try sports. There are some kids that are really good at sports and some that just aren't. I never agreed with not keeping score in a competative game so no child feels like they actually lost. The fact is, not all kids are into sports, not all kids are into academics, and not all kids are into pageants; but some are. For every little girl that is doing it because their mother needs a pageant queen, there is another little girl that really loves being able to dress up and wear make-up and parade around on stage. In all three catagories, there are parents that over-do it, though. Some parents completely deny their child any social activities, at the cost of interaction, because high grades are most important. There are some parents who have their kids in 3 different sports per season at the cost of time for anything else. I know a mom like this. Her kids live on fast food and frozen meals because after all the practices, competitions, and away games, there is no time for healthy meals. I don't think the other two extreme examples stray very far from the pageant circuit families.

I agree that a balance is more beneficial to 99% of the kids out there. And over doing it in one area may tend to get one's priorities out of whack. At least when kids over do it in sports, they reap some physical health benefit, where I don't see that as the case in the beauty arena.

[sgtbaker]

Jadey

I definitely agree that learning to lose is extremely important. However, in the case of losing in a beauty pageant, what is your recourse? Try harder? Work to become more beautiful?

I honestly don't have any answers. I do not have any experience with "girlie" type girls. I have seen some babies spend all day with headbands, ribbons, and clips in their hair but neither one of my daughters would tolerate them for more than a minute. They weren't into it so I didn't force it. As they got older they were just the type to prefer shorts over dresses so beauty pageants were so far out of the question that I never gave it any thought. I am sure there are some little girls that just enjoy dressing up and being on stage, regardless of winning or losing. I do think that there are possible positive and negative to both winning and losing a beauty pageant. Winning can either teach your child that beauty is everything but it can also be a nice ego boost for a child to actually win. On the other hand, losing can teach a child that beauty is something left to be judged by others or it can teach a child to hold their head high because it really doesn't matter what a panel of judges thinks.

At face value, I really do think it's a horrid practice but when I try to justify my own position I end up arguing with myself.

[jadey]

I honestly don't have any answers. I do not have any experience with "girlie" type girls. I have seen some babies spend all day with headbands, ribbons, and clips in their hair but neither one of my daughters would tolerate them for more than a minute. They weren't into it so I didn't force it. As they got older they were just the type to prefer shorts over dresses so beauty pageants were so far out of the question that I never gave it any thought. I am sure there are some little girls that just enjoy dressing up and being on stage, regardless of winning or losing. I do think that there are possible positive and negative to both winning and losing a beauty pageant. Winning can either teach your child that beauty is everything but it can also be a nice ego boost for a child to actually win. On the other hand, losing can teach a child that beauty is something left to be judged by others or it can teach a child to hold their head high because it really doesn't matter what a panel of judges thinks.

At face value, I really do think it's a horrid practice but when I try to justify my own position I end up arguing with myself.

I agree whole-heartedly. So ultimately you have to let the kid choose.

I'd say that the younger they start, the more I am opposed. I saw a "Toddlers and Tiaras" episode, and they had 2 to 5 year old boys and girls "competing". One girl actually seemed to enjoy it, but all the others ranged from hating it to tolerating it. All of them were doing it because of their mothers.

From the parental perspective, I just can't understand the desire to put yourself and your kid through such an event. To attempt to get a 2 or 3 year old to spend an entire day made up, cooped up, and dressed up is completely unreasonable. How can you expect a child not to throw a series of tantrums in that situation? They're basically putting their kids into a situation where good behaviour is just an unreasonable expectation. I don't see that as beneficial to child or parent. And ultimately, they are creating a situation where the child's good behaviour is in the parent's best interest (rather than the childs), and bribing the child is really the only way I could see to deal with that. Parenting is hard enough without such challenges.

[quarky]

In my back-water town, we have lots of these 'contests', and they always put the photos in the local paper. There's a category for every age and sex, except the boys contests stop at about 5 years old.

I should be clipping the pics from the papers. I could blackmail these kids when they're old enough to date.

[Alferd_Packer]

I draw the line at dressing up aborted fetuses and entering them in contests.

Said practice is, frankly, disgusting.

Wait until you see the semen swimsuit competition.

[jadey]

Wait until you see the semen swimsuit competition.

And the winner gets the ovum.

[jadey]

In my back-water town, we have lots of these 'contests', and they always put the photos in the local paper. There's a category for every age and sex, except the boys contests stop at about 5 years old.

I should be clipping the pics from the papers. I could blackmail these kids when they're old enough to date.

Just the fact that my kid's photo would show up in the paper would be deterrent enough for me.

[Cuddles]

I agree with you on this. Commend effort. I coach youth soccer, and this year I introduced "Award patches" to my 9/10 year olds. I try to award for an honest effort, not just results. Of course, this is tailored to each child's abilities so that even the most uncoordinated child can earn a patch for hard work and effort. Ideally, everybody earns at least one award by the end of the season. So, I see no issue if everybody gets recognition if they all earned it through effort. Results are not everything IMO.

Results may not be everything, but they're very much something. There isn't an employer on the planet who will say "You tried your best, so it doesn't matter that you failed all your exams and aren't vaguely capable of doing this job, we'll hire you anyway.".

A slight diversion, which is actually relevant here - in a thread about Mass Effect 2, I was recently complaining about the achievements. For those who don't know, many games have achievements these days, they're generally given for, well, achieving things, such as exploring a lot of areas, using a certain skill lots of times, and so on. In most games, these will take a bit of effort. Either just requiring a lot of time put into the game, or a deliberate effort to use the skill or visit places. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, hands out almost every single one just for playing the game. If you finish the game, there are only about 3 or so that you won't have gained without making any effort at all. What this means is that the "achievements" are completely meaningless, and may as well just be replaced with a notice that you've completed the game. The whole point is to be able to compare them to other people's achievements, and presumably boast about having ones that they don't, but that's not possible when everyone is guaranteed to have all of them.

To take a slightly more serious example, the UK has quite a problem with exam results at the moment. It's almost impossible not to pass your GCSEs, and rather difficult to get anything less than an A. But the whole point of exams is to tell the difference between people, so the exams have become virtually useless. A-levels have exactly the same problem. So much so that they've recently had to invent a new grade higher than A because universities couldn't choose between entrants when they all just had As. They've even invented whole new exams because of it.

The problem with wanting to give everyone equal recognition is that not everyone deserves equal recognition. If the next David Beckham gets exactly the same recognition as a blind, one-legged chipmunk, that recognition is worth exactly nothing, so why bother with it at all? If you make sure that all your kids get an "award patch", how is that any different from not giving them out at all? Kids aren't stupid. They know that they're not all as good as each other and they can see that if everyone gets the same award, it's not actually an award at all.

As I've quoted before - when everyone's special, no-one is. Trying to award everyone for being special is exactly the same as not rewarding anyone. Trying to teach that winning isn't important is a big problem, because in the real world winning often is important.

[quarky]

We are all special.





(especially me)

[GreyICE]

Results may not be everything, but they're very much something. There isn't an employer on the planet who will say "You tried your best, so it doesn't matter that you failed all your exams and aren't vaguely capable of doing this job, we'll hire you anyway.".

A slight diversion, which is actually relevant here - in a thread about Mass Effect 2, I was recently complaining about the achievements. For those who don't know, many games have achievements these days, they're generally given for, well, achieving things, such as exploring a lot of areas, using a certain skill lots of times, and so on. In most games, these will take a bit of effort. Either just requiring a lot of time put into the game, or a deliberate effort to use the skill or visit places. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, hands out almost every single one just for playing the game. If you finish the game, there are only about 3 or so that you won't have gained without making any effort at all. What this means is that the "achievements" are completely meaningless, and may as well just be replaced with a notice that you've completed the game. The whole point is to be able to compare them to other people's achievements, and presumably boast about having ones that they don't, but that's not possible when everyone is guaranteed to have all of them.

To take a slightly more serious example, the UK has quite a problem with exam results at the moment. It's almost impossible not to pass your GCSEs, and rather difficult to get anything less than an A. But the whole point of exams is to tell the difference between people, so the exams have become virtually useless. A-levels have exactly the same problem. So much so that they've recently had to invent a new grade higher than A because universities couldn't choose between entrants when they all just had As. They've even invented whole new exams because of it.

The problem with wanting to give everyone equal recognition is that not everyone deserves equal recognition. If the next David Beckham gets exactly the same recognition as a blind, one-legged chipmunk, that recognition is worth exactly nothing, so why bother with it at all? If you make sure that all your kids get an "award patch", how is that any different from not giving them out at all? Kids aren't stupid. They know that they're not all as good as each other and they can see that if everyone gets the same award, it's not actually an award at all.

As I've quoted before - when everyone's special, no-one is. Trying to award everyone for being special is exactly the same as not rewarding anyone. Trying to teach that winning isn't important is a big problem, because in the real world winning often is important.

Of course, you miss the opposite extreme, where parents get into fights and kill eachother over children's soccer games, lie about their kids ages to get them into baseball, and pressure them so hard that they have nervous breakdowns over making the team.

How is it bad that each child can earn recognition for the effort they put into the sport? What is the purpose of children's sports?

Is it to keep the kids active, healthy, in a fun and social manner? Is it to introduce them to the spirit of friendly competition and teach them how to win and lose in the real world? Is it because of all the benefits of exercise?

Or is it a vehicle for a bunch of 'adult' children who never matured to take out their aggression on eachother by putting the kids in the firing line?

One of these goals is served by recognizing children who tried hard and steadily improved. One of them is served by dick measuring your 'achievement based' system.

Have you ever considered these are kids, not bloody olympic athletes?

[jadey]

Results may not be everything, but they're very much something. There isn't an employer on the planet who will say "You tried your best, so it doesn't matter that you failed all your exams and aren't vaguely capable of doing this job, we'll hire you anyway.".


I do understand your point. I'm certainly against lowering standards to accomodate poor performance. I do think that there is a difference between recognizing hard work vs compensating for good performance. Ultimately, performance to/above certain standards is going to be the way people will be judged in their careers and generally financially compensated. Ultimately your progression/compensation will be based on what you are capable of achieving. This is a valuable lesson to learn. However, I believe that hard work (regardless of results) is still an admirable quality and worthy of recognition.

[Einzig]

I do understand your point. I'm certainly against lowering standards to accomodate poor performance. I do think that there is a difference between recognizing hard work vs compensating for good performance. Ultimately, performance to/above certain standards is going to be the way people will be judged in their careers and generally financially compensated. Ultimately your progression/compensation will be based on what you are capable of achieving. This is a valuable lesson to learn. However, I believe that hard work (regardless of results) is still an admirable quality and worthy of recognition.

But how can this relate to these child exploiting competitions? After all, it is the mothers that are the main drive, very obviously.
They are not judged for being cute and behaving like normal little girls, but being able to act and look like dolls. I think the competition performances are about as healthy, useful and challenging as a competition for kids to have dogs lick their mouths.
That said, if they want to use their Barbie routines for being good at dance routine skills later on in life, perhaps it could be useful. Sports are not comparable to pretentiousness.

I agree with the original post. Couldn't even finish watching 'Living Dolls' or 'Little Miss Perfect', it was that sickening. Especially in this part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI6d5_fCPUw) the sexualization is apparent. I agree with another poster that the mothers seem to be the types that are insecure about their own appearance and they use their prettier daughters to compensate. The observation that fathers seem to not be very involved in this "innocent family fun" to me strengthens the argument.

[jadey]

But how can this relate to these child exploiting competitions? After all, it is the mothers that are the main drive, very obviously.
They are not judged for being cute and behaving like normal little girls, but being able to act and look like dolls. I think the competition performances are about as healthy, useful and challenging as a competition for kids to have dogs lick their mouths.
That said, if they want to use their Barbie routines for being good at dance routine skills later on in life, perhaps it could be useful. Sports are not comparable to pretentiousness.


My post did not relate to the beauty pageants, it was a bit of a derail concerning my de-emphasis on rewarding results (winning) vs an emphasis on rewarding hard work in youth soccer.

I agree with the OP that I see no redeeming quality to these beauty pageants. The younger the entrants, the more strongly I feel about it.

[Arisia]

I've noticed the pageants for boys tend to end around the time that they could start at the very first level in Little League or even Pee Wee Football... so the dads take over then, often putting just as much performance pressure on 'Junior' as Mom does on 'Sis', just in a different way.

I looked at pageants when my daughter was young, since I ended up on mailing lists for a couple of them somehow (and yes, there were a few pageants in Massachusetts, but I never got the sense that the 'pageant culture' was really big here.) They never struck me as something she would enjoy, since she's never been a 'pink princess' kind of girl. She still has no interest in make up or getting her ears pierced, and she's 12.

[fitzgibbon]

Spray on tans, personal trainers, false teeth, hair extensions and such are almost child abuse.


Almost?:eye-poppi