Changing Hawaii
A show of hands, please: Who was surprised by how short-lived the decision was for the Miss America pageant to interject some reality into its annual fantasyland event? Me neither. Ugly side of beauty pageants
It's amazing that the change in entry requirements was considered in the first place. Imagine allowing women who have been divorced, pregnant, had an abortion or adopted a kid to run for the coveted crown.
Horrors. That might have resulted in an honest-to-goodness, real-life young lady who's overcome adversity to snare the title, as opposed to the lovelies hitting the runway tomorrow in Atlantic City.
Frankly, this rule alteration just didn't jibe with the whole premise of the hoopla.
Miss America, like other beauty pageants, is a competition pitting female against female, so men can ogle, and girls and women can feel inferior.
The contestants are judged on appearance, a modicum of talent and the much-desired but hard-to-define criterion of "poise."
Poise: the ability not to perspire profusely or to trip in high heels; to smile and appear non-threatening while talking about world problems and current events; to be cheery yet not jiggle like Jello during the swimsuit competition.
In other words, superficial stuff.
Then along comes the Miss America Organization board, fearful of violating New Jersey's discrimination laws.
It sends out new contracts to state pageant directors in August, notifying them of desired alterations to the so-called moral's clause.
An uproar ensues and the no-backbone board yields.
Thus, we return to the comfort of the status quo, great for those who believe that everything in the world is hunky-dory and peachy keen.
In this scenario, nobody makes mistakes or is afforded the luxury of rectifying them. In this version of life, women are held to a rigid standard of behaviors and must abide, or they cannot play. Unless, of course, they lie.
Lie? Would aspirants lie to get big scholarship money?
Not in Miss America-ville. In this magical haven, women don't have bad marriages that would be more beneficial to both parties if they actually parted.
They don't have premarital sex or, if they do, they have 100 percent fool-proof birth-control measures.
And if they happen to get hapai or want to adopt a child, well, tough. They are unfit to represent the ideal of fair maidenhood.
"I was shocked when I heard about it (the rule change)," Leanza Cornett, Miss America 1993, is quoted as saying. "I was like, 'What?' "
NO, it's more like, "Why not?" Star-Bulletin reader Scott Reynolds retorted to the whole brouhaha with the following e-mail: "The continued ban on divorced women and women who have had abortions is both absurd and demeaning...If a woman becomes pregnant at a time when she is unfit for pregnancy, who are we to deem her lowly?
"These decisions do not come easily and almost always haunt the individuals for their entire lives...If Leanza Cornett, Miss America 1993, wants to be seen by little girls as a role model, she should try solving social issues instead of degrading the unfortunate."
Thanks, Scott. Who said men don't get it? Who said women get it?
In closing, another show of hands: How many out there look perfect, have perfect backgrounds, have perfect lives, and don't have to lie about them?
Diane Yukihiro Chang's column runs Monday and Friday.
She can be reached by phone at 525-8607, via e-mail at
dchang@starbulletin.com, or by fax at 523-7863.