Beauty pageants do more good than harm

So let us look at the good that AREA gives in his previous post: "If you put something on display, it will have its critics. Only then, will people become consciously aware of it. The public only started debating beauty . .. on a large scale once the beauty card was put on display in pageants. " This is not true, people debated what beauty is for thousands of years before there were beauty pageants, its called aesthetics, its a branch of philosophy. Beauty pageants are not necessary for people to discuss or reconsider notions of beauty. In fact, beauty pageants stifle discussion of beauty by establishing an unquestionable monolithic standard of beauty. The only reason that beauty pageants may have spurred discussion about what is beauty and what our standards of beauty should be is because people have rebelled against the notion of beauty pageants. If beauty pageants are only good because people hate them and what they do to women in our society, is seems that not only is that evidence that beauty pageants are bad but that it would be better to spur discussion of society's standards of beauty other ways. We do not need beauty pageants to instigate a discussion of society's standards of beauty and so this is not a "good" of beauty pageants. In fact, because they silence such discussions this as a harm of beauty pageants. "But at least now they have another way to stop being poor. At least now, some are more likely to look up at the display of beauty we call a pageant, become inspired to consider her looks in addition to everything else, and enjoy her own beauty and give that to the world. " Women are not "inspired" by beauty pageants. AREA has conceded that the vast majority of women cannot meet the standard of beauty perpetuated by beauty pageants or even have a home of competiting in them. If women are constantly told that they need to look like beauty pageant contestants to be beautiful and know they cannot ever look like that then they will become very depressed. Beauty pageants prevent women from "enjoying their beauty. " Moreover, I am not even sure what enjoying their beauty and giving that beauty to the world means, or why its good. It is certainly not a good that is in anyway as significant as the harms of beauty pageants such as suicide and eating disorders and abuse and rape. Moreover, women can enjoy their own beauty and share it with the world without beauty pageants, and are in fact much more likely to do so if they are not continually told they are ugly by beauty pageants. AREA never says why women are unable to enjoy and share their beauty without beauty pageants, simple that for some, beauty pageants are necessary but that is not an argument. "Add to this, she now has a new weapon to use in her struggle to avoid poverty. If bosses. .. have the habit of judging people by their looks, well, now, at least these pageant watchers can save themselves some face " This argument is so offensive to not only women but to the poor I do not know where to begin. AREA seems to argue that the poor are poor because they are ugly and that if they are beautiful they will get a job and not be poor anymore. The poor are not poor because they are ugly, and being beautiful will not help them get better jobs. Moreover, beauty pageants are an incredibly elitist competition. It takes thousands of dollars to get the necessary make up, styling, and outfits to compete. The poor simply cannot compete in beauty pageants. If AREA argues that they dont need to compete, simply be inspired by beauty pageants to be more beautiful, then I have already refused this argument elsewhere. These are the only three goods that AREA gives for beauty pageants. All of them are 1. not unique to beauty pageants, they can happen or be caused by others things, or happen naturally 2. Are in fact harmed by beauty pageants 3. So insignificant or vague as to barely qualify as goods. When we compare these goods to the harms I argue beauty pageants have, these goods are not significant enough to say that beauty pageants cause more good than harm I argue that beauty pageants contribute to a culture in which it is desirable to view women as objects. AREA agrees by saying "By treating their own bodies as objects, they invite the audience and judges to see their bodies as objects as well" The problem is that he ignores my point that women will be treated as nothing more than objects, as nothing more than their bodies. When that happens, it is now more acceptable to abuse and rape women because they are objects, not persons. Yes, rape and abuse are still illegal, but that is not the point. Beauty pageants make it more acceptable for people to break the law and engage in these acts. AREA then goes on to argue that "that is happening, in the next studio over, the same company that broadcasts the pageant is also filming a quiz show that promotes judging people based on their knowledge of random trivia. " This does not respond to my argument. Yes there are trivia shows, so what? How many women compete in beauty pageants or want to grow up to be beauty queens? How many little girls make believe they are in beauty pageants? Alternatively, how many little girls want to compete in a trivia show? How many female scientists, academics, and intellectuals are there? Anyone with even one eye can see that women, when they are young and grown, are much more likely to value looking good over being smart. Beauty pageants are in part responsible for that. AREA's argument that, despite beauty pageants, there are still instances in which women are judged for their intellect, does not change or negate the fact that pageants still play an important part in creating social norms where a woman's beauty is valued over her beauty. Beauty pageants make it more likely that both men and women view women as nothing more than objects and not as full persons, making violence against more likely. This harm is significant enough to alone prove that pageants do more harm then good, but it is not the only harm. The second harm, that beauty pageants contribute to an increase in eating disorders, also does insufficiently refuted by AREA. AREA accuses me of engaging in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy by mistakenly attributing the recent rise of eating disorders to beauty pageants. He argues that "HIV has also gone up since the advent of pageants, I guess those must be connected too. And the increase in once-socialist countries becoming capitalist, and the internet. If only we could assume that everything that increases after event must certainly have been caused by it. This logical fallacy is what they call magical thinking. Check your causation. " Though AREA ignores my arguments that give a causal connection between beauty pageants and eating disorders. My argument is 1. women are more likely to have an eating disorder if they have low self-esteem about their looks 2. Beauty pageants contribute to and judge women by standards of beauty which are unattainable by 99% of women 3. Women are more likely to have low self-esteem if they are unable to meet society's standards of beauty because they then fell ugly. 4. The standards of beauty established by beauty pageants mean most women cannot meet society's standard of beauty, lowering their self-esteem. 5. Beauty standards, by lowering women's self-esteem, increase the likelihood that women will have eating disorders. Just because eating disorders and rape existed before beauty pageants does not mean that beauty pageants have not increased their likeliness. The resolution states "more good than harm" which requires a comparison of the magnitude of the good and harms of pageants. The large magnitude of the harms of beauty pageants and insignificant good means that pageants do more harm than good.