lundi 3 septembre 2012
Why I hate Miss Rwanda - My Take On that Article
This morning i received an email with this link title: "Why I hate Miss Rwanda". Of course i wondered why anyone would hate a beauty pageant event? This was of interest to me since i have loved and watched all the Miss universe/World i have been able to follow. Compounded to it, i have an unhealthy fascination with beauty. - all kind of beauty. Without exaggerating, in early 2008 - I was part of a team that tried to collaborate with Miss South Africa office for a conjoined event at our campus. So yes .. i love the Miss event big deal - even if i do not always agree with people criteria of selection on what constitute beauty.
As i read the link above and the argument presented, i did not really find cause for hatred. The articles could have as well been entitled "Why i am displeased by Miss Rwanda". The article raises interesting point, but nothing serious that would justify as form of hatred against the organization. Below is the comment i made to some point raised on that blogg:
I am not sure i agree completely with this article since I do not HATE Miss Rwanda. There is more questions asked than answers in this article. Certainly, pouring 120 million on Beauty pageant (still trying to get a hang on the criteria for beauty on this Miss Event) when people are wondering about the 'Agaciro Fund', should give us a pause indeed.
However:
I) As for 'Do the organizers understand the ramifications of teaching young women, that the easiest way to win a new car and attract certain notoriety is to have a certain standard of beauty and be able to sashay down a catwalk in an evening gown?'
I am not sure that they are teaching anything by doing that. They were just rewarding the winner. This is not more harmful than the Telecom companies or the Brewing Companies or Banks giving away free cars, Fridges, Houses to winners of non-intellectual contest - just trying not to use the word 'Luck'. Are we saying that those organizations (Banks, telecom, etc.) are teaching people that they should rely on luck to get what they want?
II) "what does this beauty pageant add to our society or the advancement of young women?"
Not much, except reminding folks that womanhood in Rwanda is celebrated in many ways than one. Gender equality at work, they'll tell us i suppose.
III) "But, hold on a second, since when have young women become tourist attractions?!"
Maybe they should be. After all, we are told that we only have human resources as our natural wealth, don't they? - smile
IV) "While this contest will give our winner the opportunity to travel the world, what is the overall damage at the end of the day?"
The overall damage will be that we will lose the Miss World contest at an international level. That is guaranteed. And Rwandans hate to loose. That will be a hard pill to swallow, but we will have to in few months.
V) "Once you begin to dictate what is the ideal height and weight of women, you run the risk of young girls concentrating more on how they look, rather than the more important things in life."
I am not a specialist in Rwandan girls, but aren't we assuming too much here? I mean, do we really think that our girls do not already concentrate on their looks? And to be honest, since the Miss Rwanda has for purpose to celebrate both 'extravagant' beauty and intelligence (judging by the questions asked to the Miss) - it won't be fair that only one aspect of it is taken as the representative of the Miss Rwanda influence on our girls, namely physical attractiveness. Both physical attractiveness and intellectual performance seemed to have been the purpose of the showbiz (though i ain't confident they succeeded in any of the two - but that is another story for another time).
VI) "the Ministry of Culture and RDB has shown that flaunting yourself in a bikini and a nice dress will get your more recognized than your other natural talents."
Maybe they have not shown that, but rather they have simply recognized this. We may not like it but our world will always value, celebrate and overpay those with natural gifts, talents, natural beauty/physical attractiveness above those who have worked long and hard on their character. It is not fair, nor is it reasonable i concede but this is the world in which we live in. We do that not only on beauty Pageant, but as well in Music awards with all our emerging celebrities, and soon in sports and so on.
The question i am wondering with regard to this article is: why should we value more sports, artistic talents as advocated than natural beauty or attractiveness? None of them are intellectually driven by essence to my knowledge, nor are they part of our core-character infrastructure neither.
Thanks for the courage in psychoanalyzing this issue though - Janet K. - but i have to say that the argument presented has not yet proven to be convincing enough to do away with this Miss Rwanda event yet.
Check My Book here or more here
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Spot on!Couldn't agree more. I also found the critic way too "gratuit" for my liking.
RépondreSupprimerThanks. I liked her initiative to socio-analyse an issue, but she lacked the appropriate tools to make a convincing arguments. :)
RépondreSupprimerVery well put Eric. Hats off....
RépondreSupprimerHmmmm...Eric, I agree that hyperbole was used in the article but it is a newspaper article and not a piece of academic writing. The aim is to get your attention and consider the issue. I therefore don't think it is fair that you analyze the newspaper article phrase by phrase. Instead we should look at the major point which is why government should involve itself in such a polarizing event as a beauty pageant.
RépondreSupprimerI'm not a woman or a parent but I can understand how such an event evokes strong feelings especially in women & parents since whether one likes it or not a standard is set on what an ideal woman should look like (you can imagine the issues that this will create with teenagers). However you can argue that this will be a drop in the ocean considering the standards our society is already exposed to by mass media but to compare it with telco/banks promotion raffles and the like is a bit disingenuous because they dot deal with issues of self identity (you were just attacking the hyperbole and not the argument).
Certainly the Miss Rwanda contest isn't as unifying as say a national football match and in some sense it is elitist. This is why it is in a sense surprising that government will be part of it but one should also consider which agencies of the government were involved and their objectives. Such an event could be ideal for raising the profile of the country which in turn touches on issues of managing the brand of the country and promoting investment. I can therefore see why RDB is involved.
Thanks Nziza for your feedback. I have already been told by another source that i missed the point of the article authored by Janet K. But that source resigned to let me know where exactly did I miss the point. You seem to be the first person that has at least try to do that. So i commend you for that.
RépondreSupprimerYour major contention is that i have not understood that this was merely an hyperbole used to attract our attention.
Okay, i get your point. An Hyperbole is an 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.
For example, when the author said, 'they underwent “intensive” social media training, discussed charity and entrepreneurship and learnt the most important thing a woman should know; how to maintain their hair.' - it was clear from the beginning that she did not intend it to be taken literally. It was a funny way to express what she considered to be a useless boot-camp. That was an hyperbole, hence i didn't even comment on it.
However when she said, 'Do the organizers understand the ramifications of teaching young women, that the easiest way to win a new car and attract certain notoriety is to have a certain standard of beauty and be able to sashay down a catwalk in an evening gown?'
this question wasn't a simple hyperbole, but rather a personal concern for her. She is asking about the ramification of teaching young women to win resources through beauty pageant activities. Implying that this was implicitly or explicitly the lesson taught by the organizers.
It seems that you are also concerned by this, since you raised the same point against my comment about it, saying that i am attacking the hyperbole but not the argument. I beg to differ. In this case, whatever we call the hyperbole is also the argument.
You said, " to compare it with telco/banks promotion raffles and the like is a bit disingenuous because they dot deal with issues of self identity"
Nope, i am not being disingenuous. I dealt with the issue as she raised it. She specifically is concerned that the organizers are teaching young ladies to win resources - cars, etc. through certain standard of their natural characteristic. My comment was merely to point out that the organizers were not teaching them what she fears they were being taught. And i compared it to other organization such as banks, telecom, breweries, etc that also give resources to the Rwandan people who win a non intellectual contest. My question was and still is, 'are [they] teaching people that they should rely on luck to get what they want?' - because an organization reward someone for whatever reason, this ain't meaning that they are teaching a new normality. After all most of those contests are chance based contest. My point was simply to help her and those embracing her views that because gifts/resources are given once or seldom-ly through a certain outlet, this doesn't imply that those organizing them are teaching people that this is how everybody should get their gifts/ resources in life. To even imply that this is what they are teaching is simply showing bad faith against an organization. No dis-ingenuity on my part. I was as candid as anyone would have been.
You also said, "Certainly the Miss Rwanda contest isn't as unifying as say a national football match and in some sense it is elitist."
Isn't it obvious that something that is recent would be less popular that soccer? They are other sports that are also less unifying as soccer, among which is the martial art - Judo. So what is this suppose to mean? That they are useless? Everything that recently started need time to gain popularity, and Miss Rwanda has a good chance of doing just that if i have to believe the author herself, 'This event is quickly becoming extremely popular amongst Rwandans and the PR campaign for the event is top notch. It seems like everyone will make the trip to Gikondo tonight.'
RépondreSupprimerAbout elitism, we should not seduce ourselves. If elitism is a crime or an incorrect behavior, then almost everything is condemn-able. This world gravitate around elitism. Here is a definition of the word, 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
By this definition, even schools, academic circles, Olympic Game, professions, Presidential Candidates suffers all of elistism, for they are all elite groups. Even sports rely heavily on that during selection of new players/recruits - based on perceived superiority. Why then attach an negative connotation to it when it comes to Miss organization - while almost every other organization rely on that?
Finally, you said, 'Eric, I agree that hyperbole was used in the article but it is a newspaper article and not a piece of academic writing. I therefore don't think it is fair that you analyze the newspaper article phrase by phrase.'
Well, i don not know how you came up with your standard of fairness, but for me it is always fair to analyze things phrase by phrase if they are of any interest to me. Secundo, i did not assume that she wrote a piece of academic literature. Nor did i comment it from that vantage point. There is not statistic, no data, no sources or peer reviewed papers i relied upon to analyze her writings. This is a clear indication that i was conscious that i was not involved in an academic discourse.
Eric,
RépondreSupprimerPlease note that I'm not against the idea of beauty pageants and I certainly do not hate the idea of Miss Rwanda. I'm certainly not of the position that it should not exist. I just think you could have argued against her article more constructively. Maybe a response on why you love Miss Rwanda!!!
By the way according to me I still believe you skirted around the point of the article which I believe is whether government should put money in such a polarizing event (you may not agree but based on comments there is a significant number of people against such pageants) which according to her does little in accomplishing the knowledge economy vision. She also points out that there has been less investment (by govt) in events such as spelling bees, math contests... which according to her would be more effective in achieving the knowledge economy. You just made a statement that it should give us "... pause indeed".
Addressing your responses about academic writing, hyperbole and elitism. My point is that every phrase in academic writing is normally thoroughly though out and part of developing an argument unlike the casual writing of a newspaper commentary where normally authors have the latitude to veer from the main point(she did have some questionable figure - the cost of the pageant which obviously could not totally have been footed by govt since there were other sponsors). I guess what I was trying to say is that picking out a line in a newspaper commentary piece is in my opinion not an effective analysis.
I personally do not see the hyperbole in the "intensive social media training ...fixing hair...". I just saw a hint of sarcasm but to me it seemed to build up to her main point (little to add to the knowledge economy - govt involvement...).
On elitism please note I wrote "in some sense" - kind of a mitigating qualifier. My aim was to neutralize a bit the denotation of the term elitism which you correctly pointed out. Actually education especially at the university level has been elitist but governments obviously do invest in such institutions but mostly in line in achieving certain objectives for the common good (e.g. getting the best people to be doctors) but that is another debate - not related to the article we're discussing. You did counter by saying Miss Rwanda is getting more popular but I would be interested to know why you think that is so. What is it about Miss Rwanda that appeals to the new audience?
I also hope you see that you're comparing a beauty pageant to bank/telco promotions (win a car etc...). Of all the things discussed I'm concerned by that the most. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post hyperlinks but I'm sure you can find many articles and reports since the late 1960s of women campaigning against beauty pageants because they see them as an attack on a woman's self worth. The winner is not determined through random selection (where everyone who participates has a clear chance of winning) but instead to even contest there are requirements which disqualifies the majority at birth because of some standards (height, weight, looks...). I hope you can see how this will make a lot of people sensitive to the subject.
Good to read you again Nziza. You made couple of comments and i'll be pleased to respond to them.
RépondreSupprimer1. "I just think you could have argued against her article more constructively. Maybe a response on why you love Miss Rwanda!!!"
This wouldn't help. We would have been like two warship passing by each other at night. Arguing for my love FOR Miss Rwanda (if any) is simply irrelevant. The one who makes a case, should be the one who has to defend it - not the critics. She made a series of assertions which i esteemed to be insufficient and bordering incorrect to what she seemed to consider as the uselessness of celebrating Miss Rwanda.
2. "I still believe you skirted around the point of the article which I believe is whether government should put money in such a polarizing event (you may not agree but based on comments there is a significant number of people against such pageants) which according to her does little in accomplishing the knowledge economy vision."
You were indeed correct to assume that i will disagree with you on this. The point of the article is not the government financing Miss Rwanda but the Government supporting the event either financial or otherwise. she said, 'I don’t understand why the Government is supporting such events'. She believes that no financial support can be justified for supporting this event, she absolutely questions the raison d'etre of this event in the first place as a legitimate form of entertainment, because she believes that it is an absolutely inappropriate practice in itself. After all, she did entitle her article 'Why I HATE Miss Rwanda' and not 'Why I don't support Gvt to support Miss Rwanda'. She has also said this, 'Our society DID need some local entertainment but I must ask, AT WHAT COST?'. She also pity those involved in the event, 'I don’t hate either the girls who UNFORTUNATELY compete or the eventual winners.' I am sure that even if a private institution fully supported the event with no Government involvement she would have still hated Miss Rwanda.
3. "She also points out that there has been less investment (by govt) in events such as spelling bees, math contests... which according to her would be more effective in achieving the knowledge economy. You just made a statement that it should give us "... pause indeed"."
First, i did not say that we should pause indeed because the finances are not equally distributed among her proposed activities. Rather, because the nation seems to be financially in trouble (Agaciro fund) hence questioned the wisdom to invest in entertainment - any entertainment with such amount of money (120 Million). Second, her list did also include in addition to spelling bee, math contest these followings, sports events, or investing in schools that develop real talent in the fields of music, drama, and dance. The question i have been asking since the beginning is why was she advocating an openness to dance, music, drama, real artistic talents and sports which are also non intellectual activities (contrary to Math contest and Spelling Bee) but be against this particular non intellectual activity called Beauty Pageant? This is why i still believe that her evoking of knowledge based economy is simply a smoke screen to validate her attack against Miss Rwanda while at the same time including similar non intellectual program in the list of the knowledge based economy. But some of us have very good night vision and can see through the fog and the smoke screen, and call out the bluff and the inconsistency.
4. "I guess what I was trying to say is that picking out a line in a newspaper commentary piece is in my opinion not an effective analysis."
Why would you even suggest that? What makes you think that everybody should analyze a newspaper article the way you analyze it? care to share where you got your standard on newspaper reading/analyzes?
RépondreSupprimer5. "You did counter by saying Miss Rwanda is getting more popular but I would be interested to know why you think that is so. What is it about Miss Rwanda that appeals to the new audience?"
Matter of fact, that counter point is not mine, but a direct quote from Janet K. herself in the very article we are currently discussing on the 3rd paragraph. As for what appeals to the audience? I guess the entertainment factor. Meeting other folks. The glamour of the event. The beauty of the participants. The thrill while waiting for the selection of the winner by the judges and the audiences (reminiscent of the regional musical showbiz event - TUSKER project fame).
6. "I also hope you see that you're comparing a beauty pageant to bank/telco promotions (win a car etc...). Of all the things discussed I'm concerned by that the most."
I definitely would love to know why? Why is this more worrisome to you if you care to share. I for one am interested to hear about it.
7. "I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post hyperlinks but I'm sure you can find many articles and reports since the late 1960s of women campaigning against beauty pageants because they see them as an attack on a woman's self worth."
Please feel free to do so if you consider it to be of an added value to the point you are making. Since the 60's many trends came up up such as the sexual revolution which i reject. Some women launched a very strong feminist movement that are still strong today. I do not support feminists in general in many of their stances (pro-choice, gender equality, etc) even though they do make reasonable point time to time. Hence most of their arguments are likely to be ineffective against me. But by all means, you can share with me those articles and reports.
8. "The winner is not determined through random selection (where everyone who participates has a clear chance of winning) but instead to even contest there are requirements which disqualifies the majority at birth because of some standards (height, weight, looks...). I hope you can see how this will make a lot of people sensitive to the subject."
Of-course this is not correct. Randomness do not give everybody equal chances. Equal chances is a probability of 50/50. As for anyone who has been part of the Telecom lucky draw for gifts, the willing participants are asked often to increase their chances. Why? How? Simply by registering over and over to break the 50/50 with others and get an edge through a 40/60 or more. And this involve sometime more financial input. The richer who are more willing to invest has more chances. That is life. Unfair - i agree. Of course, we all get disqualify at birth in some respects. Some people can't get their Mathematical concept regardless of which school they go. They just don't have their brain for that. Some can't perfect their voices despite their willingness to sing or how much they try. That is life. Some can excel in some athletic sport, other can't excel due to physical limitation born with. That's life. It is tough and not fair. But we live with it. We celebrate it. And we don't even question the fairness of the talented and gifted one. When singers are selected based on their vocal ability and musical talents at events such as TUSKER project fame or else - we don't boycott that because not everybody have the same chance to win due to inborn limitations. We accept that as normal in life. Some girls are more attractive than other, even in the same family. That's life - there isn't much we can do about it. People get sensitive about a lot of issues. Even the right of animals. I recognize that, but their sensitivity should not dominate the platform. As they are sensitive for their position, so are other also for the other opposite position. What are we gonna do then? Who's sensitivity are we going to follow and give lee way? Tough life.
"Why would you even suggest that? What makes you think that everybody should analyze a newspaper article the way you analyze it? care to share where you got your standard on newspaper reading/analyzes?"
RépondreSupprimerSir, please get me clearly. I did not suggest everyone should share my approach in any way. By clearly stating that it is my opinion does not imply that I want to impose a universal standard. Why I think that way? I had already previously stated that it is a commentary piece in a newspaper. Authors can engage in emotional rants, hyperbole .... The reason could be to attract attention, make people think deeply but not to all the time seek to be deliberate, factual and true to the main argument as one would be in academic writing.
It is kind of similar to a blog. For example your title is your take on the Miss Rwanda article. You have a response which I paraphrase as maybe the contestants should be tourist attractions. I do not think you meant that beautiful Rwanda women should be locked up in a park, displayed for paying foreigners to come and ogle at them. From the tone of your writing it seemed you were more of jesting. So I would be unfair to pick out that line and claim that it is your opinion never mind the leap I would have made about locking up the girls in some park. My point is I would give the author of the article similar latitude in some of the points you addressed. I would just say she went on an emotional rant thereby exaggerating some stuff not that it was her one of her core points. Titles and headlines (which are also often edited) may also serve the aim attracting attention
I still don't get your point nor hers about sports. I actually overlooked it as a rant. Sports especially in coaching and preparation has developed markedly to involve scientific models. I do not know if that is what she meant or if she was referring to heady strategy sports like chess or if she was looking at sport as more unifying given the country's drive away from ethnicity and efforts towards unity and reconciliation.
On the difference between pageants and events like Tusker project fame. Beauty pageants set a female sexual standard just like fashion shows... http://www.darkcoding.net/research/the_thin_ideal.pdf is an article that shows women struggle with beauty standards. Some do even get depressed because they have failed to meet the perceived beauty/sexual standard that would make them appealing to the society in general. Their worth as human beings is in their mind worthless because they fail to meet a standard which they had no chance because of maybe their genetic makeup. If you lose the project fame contest or the MTN raffle I do not think you'll think your manhood is in question. Or suddenly you'll be despised by society. In the case of telco/bank promotions no standard is actually set. If they do regulators should come into play to ensure fairness. By the way your math is wrong on the 50/50 chance statement. It should be more about ensuring the probability of all participants is similar within the bound of reason.For example if one million participate then the chance of winning for everyone is one in one million. If somebody participates ten times the chances increase to one in one hundred thousand which is still very low so in practical terms they both have significantly low chances of winning meaning there's still no cause for concern. But if someone is allowed to have a chance of say one in a hundred while others have one in a million then it is practically rigging. Another point is that the Tusker project fame assesses an art or if you want a group of certain skills. Obviously we do not all have the same set of skills and society allow us to succeed using different skills. Now the considerations about features that define our appeal sexually are different. So it is understandable that some women would be more sensitive because most societies do place a significant value on the worth of women based on their beauty (sexual appeal).
RépondreSupprimerI agree with your conclusion that life isn't fair and the if we allow for all sensitivities not much can be done in some cases. It is also a reality that commercial interests dominate most platforms and it is not realistic to expect beauty pageants to disappear. I actually like watching Miss Rwanda and indeed seeing beautiful women but I also understand & appreciate opposing viewpoints. Looks like you also appreciate that there are people of a different persuasion regarding pageants but you just disagree with them. I on the other hand do not see it as a zero sum argument (i.e. one side is right and the other is wrong). My opinion is that both sides are approaching the truth from different directions.
It would be more fruitful if both sides meet in the day away from their warships. -smile
1. " I do not think you meant that beautiful Rwanda women should be locked up in a park, displayed for paying foreigners to come and ogle at them."
RépondreSupprimerActually, i may have been jesting but i meant the suggestion of tourist attraction. Who says that tourism has to be only on park or in a lock down environment? My experience with tourism having lived in foreign lands, has included places, cultures and the natives people. For the later one, they didn't need to locked up - just observing them in their natural environment and see how they lived was a gratifying experience. If people are so fond of our girls beauty, why not let them come and see it expressed in the natural environment and in special settings as modeling and beauty pageant? I see no quarrels with that. :)
2. "I would just say she went on an emotional rant thereby exaggerating some stuff not that it was her one of her core points. Titles and headlines (which are also often edited) may also serve the aim attracting attention"
Hahahaha ... i am sure that she will not agree with you either. Based on my short exchange with her on facebook - she seems proud of her view on that and she seemed unapologetic. So your strategic defense of her writing is kind of a mute point given the background info i had from her.
3. "I still don't get your point nor hers about sports. I actually overlooked it as a rant."
Actually you shouldn't had seen it as a rant. It was part of her cumulative example to support her case. The simple point of it is that she was wrong. She used a self defeating argument without noticing. That's the problem with special pleading or double standard. Even a newspaper article needs to be consistent and truthful, otherwise why the point of reading it?
4. " If you lose the project fame contest or the MTN raffle I do not think you'll think your manhood is in question. Or suddenly you'll be despised by society."
Nor if a girl lose the Miss Rwanda contest will she raffle and think that she's has lost her womanhood or that she is now despised by society. This cuts it both way.
5. "In the case of telco/bank promotions no standard is actually set. If they do regulators should come into play to ensure fairness."
The standard is always assumed. For-example, the promotion is only extended to their customer. That's an exclusive standard. But we don't complain about it, do we?
6. "By the way your math is wrong on the 50/50 chance statement."
RépondreSupprimerHow can it be wrong since i didn't specified the pool of option. The example assume a dual (implicit in the example that followed) of two hence the 50/50 chance. You assumed millions of participants - of course from that vantage point the probability will change. Someone else could have assumed thousands and change the probability. I took two just to explain how it plays even at the level you suggested. Telecom chance game for example ask to the participants to submit multiple registration by sms to increase the chances. This means the one with more money on the phone and who send frantic smses will considerably increase his chances compare to the less financially fortunate. Increasing the probability of one and decreasing the probability of the other.
7. "Another point is that the Tusker project fame assesses an art or if you want a group of certain skills. Obviously we do not all have the same set of skills and society allow us to succeed using different skills. Now the considerations about features that define our appeal sexually are different."
Why the double standard? So does the Miss contest. It assess only a group of certain characteristics just like you mentioned. Obviously we do not all have the same physical and intellectual features and society has allowed us to succeed using our different features - either in customer care, secretaries, models, airline hostesses, etc ... so why not Beauty Pageant?
8. "So it is understandable that some women would be more sensitive because most societies do place a significant value on the worth of women based on their beauty (sexual appeal)."
The thing is, not everybody gaze at beauty for the sheer sexual appeal it may well convey. Some people are just fascinated by it, without necessary nurturing any form of predatory appetite (in reference to men). Some women should then learn not to be too much sensitive - for after all they'll encounter people appreciating beauty as expressed in her culture everywhere she goes (work, church, weddings, family gatherings, parties, etc) - even if she doesn't go to the Miss contest.
Finally, thanks for the exchange and the paper shared. I read it and it is clear that the issue is not that the Miss contest provoke the health and depression issues raised on the paper. The analyses shows that the problem is a westernize issue. It also admit that it starts at the adolescence. And finally that the model is based on correlation but not on causation as the author readily admit at the conclusion of the paper. It was a good read though. ;)