Quick Hit: Miss America stiffing pageant winners

You know how pageants like Miss America are always touting the fact that they’re scholarship competitions? Well apparently they’re not so keen on actually giving those scholarships out, instead giving women the run-around on why they can’t collect their winnings.
Via Feministe.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

10 Comments

  1. mnmlst
    Posted September 24, 2007 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Of course, it is terrible for the pageant programs to break their promises. However, am I the only one that has a problem with the whole, “You’re pretty. Here – have $25,000,” thing?

  2. sgzax
    Posted September 24, 2007 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    The pageants must be assuming that contestants will continue to participate in their own oppression by not making waves when they get fucked over for their winnings. Isn’t that amazing? You win a ‘please the patriarchy’ contest and then the patriarchy screws you out of your prize. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  3. MsPitt
    Posted September 24, 2007 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Hey, sometimes the pimp stiffs women who sell their bodies for men’s enjoyment, whether it’s in a seedy strip club, the backseat of a cadillac or the Miss America Pageant.

  4. Adrienne
    Posted September 24, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I haven’t read the article yet, but I just wanted to say that I was in a scholarship program in high school (which was pretty much a glorified beauty pageant where grades actually did matter) and I won a finalist award. I didn’t get my money until over two years later. I was halfway through college before they paid out.

  5. Posted September 24, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I had this same problem with Jr. Miss! I think it was a case of local corruption, but still, yikes.

  6. Posted September 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    …and then you know how Jessica has the “Real Hot 100?” We should all donate money to make $25,000 and do something called, “The Real Ms. America.”
    I know someone who might just take home the crown based on how kick-ass she is!

  7. Posted September 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t about where these women are getting the money. It’s about fairness. Do I like pageants? No. I don’t like a lot of things. Take Wal-Mart for instance. I don’t like Wal-Mart at all. Part of the reason I don’t like Wal-Mart is because they’re responsible for human rights infringements in China. When women in Wal-Mart stores were getting paid and promoted less than men, did feminists say “Wal-Mart exploits people, so why are you surprised that they exploited you too? That’s what you get for working for an evil corporation”? Absolutely not. We were outraged, because what they were doing was unfair and illegal. You may not like how some women make their money, but you can’t say that it’s their fault for not getting what is rightfully owed to them.

  8. sianandcrookedrib
    Posted September 25, 2007 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    we don’t really have pageants in the UK, so i can’t help but find it horrifying that you can get the money for uni by being pretty. so, if you aren’t pretty as defined by men looking at you in a swimsuit, you have to pay how mcu to study at an ivy league school?

  9. manda
    Posted September 25, 2007 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Well said, FEMily!

  10. Life
    Posted November 28, 2009 at 2:53 am | Permalink

    By the time the Games took place in Melbourne, television had made rapid strides, and had become big business in every sense of the phrase. On the other hand, television commenced full-scale operation in Melbourne only a week or two before the Games, about 5,000 sets having been sold by then, and television for other countries could be only by films sent by air and shown three to five days after the events took place.
    The main difficulty was to decide what could justifiably be called news, rights to which would be granted for no fee, and what could be described as entertainment. A further difficulty arose owing to the fact that copyright in any film shown in a newsreel was lost once the film was shown, unless agreement to its restricted use was made in advance.
    In the earlier discussions, the newsreel interests offered to make all their film coverage available to the Organizing Committee for production of the film required by the International Olympic Committee. This was found, on investigation, to be unsatisfactory as the International Olympic Committee requires film coverage of every final. Adequate coverage of all finals would more than double newsreel staff allocations. Shooting and, more particularly, cutting the exposed film for newsreel use would ruin it for International Olympic Committee purposes.
    An option was granted, early in 1956, to a British firm on all television and theatrical film rights. The option was not taken up for business reasons, which are well-known to anyone familiar with the interests concerned.
    At a meeting in New York in July, 1956, between the newsreel interests, the Chairman of the Organizing Committee and the Committee’s overseas agents, the newsreels were offered the standard routine three minutes a day. An average of only two minutes had been used of the Helsinki Games. The only charge was to be a fair apportionment of the costs involved in constructing stands, pits, and other facilities. These costs were to be shared between theatrical newsreels, television newsreels, live television, a French feature-film unit, national requirements, and the documentary official film for the International Olympic Committee.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

174 queries. 0.885 seconds