Ethical Argument: Beauty Pageants and their UGLY TRUTH

Lura Hills

Professor Brown

English 1B

15 April 2013

Beauty Pageants and their ugly truth

We all remember the tragic death of JonBenet Ramsey. She was a 6-year-old little girl who was murdered and found in her family home in Boulder, Colorado. Jon Benet was trained and groomed to be a beauty pageant princess, a child star in the role of a dazzling woman. Her mother was driven to promote JonBenet through pageant competition that attracted a lot of adult attention to such a little girl. Was her killer made more aware of her more because she was more in the spotlight, obsessed with her because she shined and stood out in beauty pageants?  Does anyone believe she would have been killed as she was if she had never been in the pageants?   Even if her pageant "career" had nothing to do with her death, could she have had a happier and higher quality of life in her short time in this world if she had not spent so much of her time trying to be perfect instead of just a little girl? I want to address the social issue of beauty pageants and its affect on little girls in their later life. Many things stem from this problem of beauty pageants. While it may seem harmless, and to some people it may seem beneficial to children, there is a strong ethical argument that the small child beauty pageant industry exploits parents and children in a way that causes emotional injury and social adjustment problems.   

Childhood is a time of being nurtured, of innocence, and being protected from avoidable risk of injury. Childhood free of hardship and stress is seen as pure and very highly valued. But it can be taken away in an instant when children are given more exposure and scrutiny than they can handle and cope with, and the effects could last a lifetime.   Beauty “contests” are slowly but surely stealing the innocence from the youth of this nation one by one. 

Thus, a show on TLC called, “Toddlers in Tiaras”, is a show that gives viewers an inside look at the lives and the beauty pageant process by following certain little girls and their parents and their journey. Most of the little girls are under 8 years old, they are whining, and don’t seem happy about the task of competing. Some little girls are airbrushed, have spray tans, false eyelashes, get their eyebrows waxed, and some even have fake teeth! After that they are then put on stage to dance around in little skimpy outfits to be judged on their “beauty”. 

Their whole self worth is put out there on the line to be dissected and then told whether or not they are up to the standard of the judges. One can only imagine what that must do to their innocence and confidence. Being judged and told at a young age that what you look like and your talents are what makes you important and matter can do major damage to your way of thinking and view of yourself. The affects are not limited to just the children on TV. Children at home are viewing it. They see the way these girls are getting praised or rejected and put in the spotlight and they think that’s what is beautiful. One of the little girls on the show Daisey Mae actually said, "Facial beauty is the most important thing, in life and in pageants”. I almost fell out of my chair when she said that! Daisey Mae’s thought process has to be very similar to the rest of her peers that are participating in these pageants. This warped way of thinking will drastically change the way they see themselves and can lead to major problems.

 The message from parents and adults is that to be valued kids need to satisfy a standard that cannot be sustained.  Inability to be perfect or close to it lowers self-esteem, which makes it more imperative to “win” on and of the pageant stage. According to the National Institute of Mental Health,  “Certain psychological factors predispose people to developing eating disorders. Most people with eating disorders suffer from low self-esteem, feelings of helplessness, and intense dissatisfaction with the way they look. Adolescent and young women account for 90 percent of cases of eating disorders.”

A lot of the routines of these girls are highly sexualized and ultra-inappropriate for their age. Their midriff is showing, the skirts are way too short, and their gyrating dance moves just send it over the top on the inappropriate scale. Even if they are just “performing” they are still absorbing the feeling of “acting” older than they are. This tells them that they are more of an adult rather than a child. So, the sexualization of theses little girls can be another factor in harming their later lives. “A report of the American Psychological Association (APA) released found evidence that the display of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development.”

Childhood is complicated enough, so simplicity and challenges that young people can handle are better than holding them to age inappropriate adult standards.

Shooting an Elephant

How are there people in the world that do not feel bad about torturing animals?

Was it really peer pressure that drove the European to kill the elephant?

Could have there been another way for him to feel like he could’ve been accepted by the people and not have killed the elephant?

This article reminded me of this movie that I watched when I was little, Mighty Joe Young. It was about a woman, Jill, who raises a giant gorilla that has been being hunted by poachers. For their safety they relocate to the US, but there Joe is still hunted by another group of people running a fake wildlife preserve and selling the animals organs on the black market for money. Watching this as a little girl, I just didn’t understand why someone would want to kill animals for money and have no remorse. I think that the only reason we should kill animals is for food, even then I don’t like to think of animals being killed for me to eat. But that’s the point, I feel bad thinking about that, and its not for money like these people do. Poachers kill animals for money and get a sort of sick pleasure out of doing so. That’s what confused me when I was little and to this day reading the article it made me angry that there are people who don’t have any regard of the animals. It made me angry that the European killed the animal just to make himself look better. He looks more weak in my eyes that anything because he thought that only way to please the people was to do what he did. If he was really brilliant he should have found some other way, or not have cared what they thought. 

A Small Place

1) Should we made to feel bad and responsible for the face that the people of Antigua feel cheated out of their culture?

2) Since the "tourists" are helping the people of Antigua out financially by spending their "tourist" money there, shouldn't the native people be a little more grateful rather than angry towards them?

3) Do the people of Antigua need to be compensated for the "damage" that was done to their culture?

Question 2#

     I live in Laguna Beach, home of the hit MTV show, "Laguna Beach: The Real OC". I was in 8th grade when the show aired on MTV. It was strange that my little, humble town was now being broadcasted on television for the whole world to see and know about. Growing up in a small town was wonderful. It was safe, quaint, and everyone knew you and you knew everyone. You can walk or ride your bike almost anywhere in town and not have to go very far. Laguna has a lot of history dating back to the 1920's. My house is a 1920's historic Laguna Beach cottage. Many generations of Laguna Beach locals were born and died here and a lot of them still live here today, just adding to the unique and humbleness of the town.

   My freshman year of high school I saw Laguna change, fast. Summer's used to be magical. Beaches were quiet, clean, and inhabited with familiar faces. Getting to the north end of town took 10 minutes maximum. Now....Summers are still magical, but much different. Aside from local spot beaches, the others are absolutely covered with people from out of town (or as Kincaid would call them "tourists"), traffic can only be described as gridlock hell, and you can't go to eat anywhere without waiting in line foe at least 15 minutes. SO needless to say, it's been heavily altered since the airing of the Laguna Beach show.

Now, in Kincaid's book, her tone is very sarcastic and passive aggressive at times. I admit that when I was stuck in traffic in my little beach town, I was pissed off to be blunt. I was honk on my horn and say exasperated in my car to my friends, "Ugh can these tourists just go home!". Although i was never done a terrible injustice, I feel I can still relate to Kincaid when I feel like my culture that I was born into has been changed because of outside influence.

Although, I can relate I realized that I've been a tourist in another place too and so I've seen from the other perspective the fact that it brings people joy and happiness to travel place with loved ones or by themselves. And when someone chooses the place that you call home as a place to vacation, that should tell you something. It should tell you that you are blessed to live in a place like that. Now, I understand that Kincaid probably doesn't go on vacations or have been a tourist a lot but she lives in a place that people flock to for vacations.

So to answer the question, yes. I think that you need to have perspective see that when people come to your home to vacation, although it may clog up your town and be filled up with unfamiliar faces, you still need to see that there is something good in that. I saw that even though these changed have happened my town is still here and it's always going to be my home. If Kincaid realized that then maybe she could be a little less angry and resentful. Knowing that Antigua will always be her home.

Commentary #2 for Cole Fairchild

Cole,

            I really enjoyed reading your response to Hitchen’s article. It was well organized, flowed easily, and I as your reader was able to understand everything you were trying to communicate. In the first paragraph, you clearly state your opinion that Hitchens had a convincing argument in your rhetorical opinion. Your paragraph on ethos was well written. It pointed out how Hitchens not only stated his side, but also allowed room for criticism in that people might have argued that he wasn’t experiencing the full torture and helpless feelings those might have knowing that they would be able to go back to their own comfortable lives. I also agree with your commentary of Hitchen’s personal candor, I enjoyed his use of that as well. Its also good that you quoted him too. Your critique of his Pathos was well written as well. It true that his vivid description of his experience makes that audience feel for him and he gains our trust that way. Your conclusion brought everything to fruition and clearly restated your thesis and the entirety of your response. Some things that I think you could do to make your essay more informative. It is a little short. I would elaborate more of your point and arguments. Go more in depth with your thoughts and points, don’t just state your opinion, but tell us why, you know? Other than that, if it was just based on quality not quantity as well, I’d have only good things to say. 

A Rhetoric Critique of Nicholas Carr’s, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

         Today, we have an amazing tool of convenience right in front of our faces even at our fingertips. This tool is called the Internet. It really is amazing that in the comfort of our own homes we have computers, cell phones, iPads, and more that we can have access to all the information about anything in the world. Sitting on our butts we can get a college degree! It really is baffling to me that everyone on this planet can access the internet. But its what we do with this luxury and how it affects us is the basis for Carr’s article.

           Nicholas Carr, a blogger and writer argues that the internet is making it too easy for us and we no longer rely on “old school” ways of research and learning but rather on the convenience of tapping a few letters on a keyboard and then a click of a button. He voices the views of fellow bloggers who say that our way of thinking and our abilty to concentrate and hold attention on reading has been altered and we can’t focus like we used to, maybe because of the pace, longer time and effort of information getting into our brains. Carr informs us that, “we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition”. He gives evidence of research projects made by universities studying the behavior of students’ research habits and how it shows “a form of skimming activity”, like they cant get the information fast enough.  Carr compares our brains efficiency to that of factory workers that, with the use of a stopwatch, measure their efficiency and productivity to increase it. And with that, Carr informs us about Google and their goals pointed towards the development of an artificial intelligence to make out brains function at a higher level. He quotes Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who say that, “The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive”. Carr concludes his article referring back to what he began his article with, a summary of a movie scene from of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. He compares the deactivation of an artificial intelligence device meant to assist astronauts in an outer space mission, but rather was backfiring on its makers by “having a mind of its own”, so to speak. Carr’s comparison shows us that if we allow the Internet to take the place of our own God-given brains and the capacity at which they naturally move, we will lose our sense of self. He concludes his article with a great, eloquent summary of his thoughts, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
           

           Overall, Carr’s article supports his point of view and has correct usage of kairos, pathos, ethos, and logos. So, Carr achieved his goal to try and persuade his audience that the use of Google can, has, and will continue to affect our brains in a negative matter if it is relied on too heavily.

           Carr begins his article with wonderful use of pathos, which is the emotional appeal to the audience. By quoting the movie, we as an audience are taken back to the film and get to relive the scene all over again. He quotes the artificial intelligence computer, “Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it.” Carr quotes this to have the audience see the computer almost like a human, who has feelings and life. By giving it human-like qualities, which appeals to the reader and is more inclined to continue reading, most likely be hooked at the beginning, and have sympathy for the victim in this article. Another example of ethos in Carr’s article is the conclusion. He returns to the Space Odyssey movie and again appeals to the audience’s hearts and makes them sympathize with the computer. But this time his word choices were what stood out to me the most. He uses words like “childlike pleading”, “robotic efficiency”, and another human-like quality, “innocence”. While these words are not genius or earth-shattering, they do the job. They are simple enough and perfect to get the point across in a gentle way, which was refreshing to me.           

           Another tool Carr uses in his persuasion is the use of logos and ethos, which is the use of statistics and facts to show authenticity. He states many statistics from sources and facts from many studies that support his argument. He talks about a study done by “scholars from University College London”. They studied the behavior of online researchers. “The scholars examined” many researchers skim through information and not even read it all the way through. These facts that Carr communicates support his claim and as well do a good job of showing us that when these people “skim over” material on the Internet they are not doing research the way it used to be done. One may say, “Well if they are learning and its faster, is that bad?” Not at all. But Carr is saying that when this type of learning, this skim-reading” is the only way that we know then that’s when we have to re-evaluate. Like Carr says, “It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.”

        Carr’s use of kairos is very interesting in this article as well and is probably my favorite tool of his that he uses. Kairos is giving historical background to support the author’s argument. One instance that stood out to me. One being the reference back to Friedrich Nietzsche in 1882, when his failing eyesight wasn’t helped with his overuse of handwriting. He bought a typewriter, which helped him a lot. Until a friend of his pointed out that his writing changed a lot. His friend said that his writing, “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.” This can still be said today about our writing style that has been changed by the internet. So many kids will say “what” instead of “pardon”. Or “ya” instead of “yes”. Again, simple points and nothing earth-shattering, but its true. Our language and way of thinking is changing everyday, for better or worse.

         So, Carr succeeds in his persuasion of the audience thought the use of his Pathos, Ethos, Kairos, and Logos. He uses these tools to gain the audiences trust and sympathy while also showing them evidence of the argument and supporting it that way.

Regarding the Pain of Others

Regarding the Pain of Others
By Susan Sontag

1) Should the media be allowed to publish images of war that are graphic and show the brutality of war?
2) Where is the line drawn between "good taste" and inappropriately graphic and traumatic?
3) When it comes to images of unknown, common men and women's faces being displayed during or after their death, should there be a request of permission to the family of the victims?

I will address question #2


I remember when I was 10 years old, 9/11 happened. I remember exactly where I was, who I was with, what I was doing, even what I was wearing. I was old enough to know that this was a seriously tragic thing. But at the same time I was young enough that my parents knew better than to let me know all the gruesome details of the deaths and suffering that occurred.

This excerpt from Sontag's book really made me think about how much we at home have access to the front lines of war, whether we want that inside view or not. While I think its important for us to consider the gravity and brutality of war, there is however, a line that I think must not be crossed and has been crossed in some cases.

 The months following 9/11, there was much more news coverage and education about the culture and injustice going on in the middle east. Coverage included the tyranny going on with their "government". I remember sitting in my living room while my parents watched the a program on the Middle East and some of their customs. I happened to start watching and proceeded to be somewhat traumatized by what I saw. There was coverage of a public beheading of a woman in front of hundreds of people. The way it happened was absolutely horrific and heartbreaking to see. My parents immediately turned it off when they saw I saw it and the look on my face. I think it was too much for a 10 year old to see and probably should not have been broadcasted on national television at 6 in the afternoon when families gather in their homes to watch television.

Now this may be a little off topic but will make sense after I explain. I happen to think that a Victoria's Secret catalog could be argued as one of the many sexiest images in media today. While they are half-naked, it still is tasteful. Then think about Playboy Magazine or Penthouse. These woman are totally naked and these images are more inclined to categorize as porn. These two examples can be compared to the media and their images of war being released. There are images like the Victoria's secret catalogs, where there's enough shown but still a little room for the imagination, you get the message, and you're affected by it. Then on the total opposite side there's Playboy magazine, where too much is shown.

An example in Sontag's excerpt is when she agrees that the images captured can be too much from the folks at home to see.

"The camera brings the viewer close, too close; supplemented by a magnifying glass-for this is a double-lens story-the "terrible distinctness" of the pictures gives unnecessary, indecent information. Yet the Times reporter cannot resist the melodrama that mere words supply (the "dripping bodies" ready for "the gaping trenches"), while reprehending the intolerable realism of the image."

It is healthy for us to be enlightened to that fact that there is suffering and death on the front lines of our war. But I don't think it is necessary or beneficial for us to see some of the graphic images that show too much. It can desensitize us to the point where we might be less moved when we see these images.

What is so bad about HATE?

1) What makes a hate crime worse than any other average crime?
2) Could we as a country get rid of hate all together?
3) Should the US punish those convicted of hate crimes more than someone charged with a standard crime?
4) Is tolerance enough?

Question 4

What I mean by "Is tolerance enough", is that should we be content with people just be TOLERANT of others that are differ in political, sexual, religious, or racial aspects? OR is there a way to change that feeling of hate all together?

I absolutely do not think that you can change the "hate" that people have in their hearts. It is a natural human emotion that we all have, even when we think we dont : ) While reading the article I was saying in the back of my mind, "I dont really hate anything.....". But we all do. I began to think of some of the things that I hate. I wouldn't phrase some of my feelings as "hate". If there was one thing that I do hate is "hate" itself. So, ya "hate" and "evil". Yes. I hate the fact that there is hate in this world and in our hearts.

But now what do we do about that hate in our hearts and in the world? Based on the article, i think that Andrew Sullivan is saying that we can ever get hate to leave this world, but we can be TOLERANT of others' views rather than hating them. But even when they are tolerant they still aren't clean of the feeling or thought. I think that in the end, we have to be the change we want to see in the world. Start with our own hearts and try to love the rest of the human race. So is tolerance enough? I think so.