The Pros and Cons of Beauty Pageants Analysis

Hey Guys! I haven't updated this blog in...ages. So I decided to share with you an analysis I wrote not too long ago. Sadly, my teacher didn't give much feedback except a few ticks. ARGH. Enjoy. 

________________________________________________________________________________________

The Pros and Cons of Beauty Pageants

Recently, child beauty pageants have become the centre for debate. Although child beauty pageants began in the 1960’s, the murder of JonBenet Ramsey (1996) caused the public eye to turn its focus to child beauty pageants. From then on, the issue has increasingly gained acute criticism regarding the wellbeing of contestants despite parents’ claims that participating boosts children’s confidence and self-esteem.  In the article Materialistic, Narcissistic, Unrealistic: Child Beauty Pageants a Disgrace published in the Avonlea Scrutineer on 2^nd February 2011 columnist J.Rodd confronts the issues circulating child beauty pageants. Rodd extensively describes the formula for the perfect beauty pageant contestant and the strings that come attached with the package. A broad range of persuasive techniques are covered ranging from expert testimony to appeals to responsibility. Rodd’s exasperated tone is evident throughout the text, which support the cause-and-effect relationships that she pin-points in her arguments.

In an effort to unsheathe the inconvenient truth about child beauty pageants, Rodd repeatedly uses emotive language along with expert testimony to support her arguments. The ‘toxic atmosphere’ that these contestants participate in encapsulates the ‘brutal truth’ that ‘not every child can be a winner’, which effectively positions readers to feel sympathetic towards the victimised children. Furthermore, the ‘self-confining cycle of performance anxiety’ that traps those who win and the ‘lasting damage’ that those who lose suffer from sheds light on the fact that contestants are playing a game they will never win. Expert testimony is used to support Rodd’s assertions that child beauty pageants have negative effects on contestants whether that is physically or mentally. The consequences of ‘being a little Barbie doll’ can ‘unleash…destructive self-experiences’ leading to ‘eating disorders and all kinds of body distortions’ as stated by William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist. This testimony persuades the reader to believe Rodd’s assertions as not only is Pinsof a psychologist but also the president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University, indicating that he is a high profile man whose statement regarding child beauty pageants is within his field of expertise, thus leaving readers to feel that child beauty pageants can only produce negative outcomes.

Two illustrations have been inserted into the article to evoke an emotional response from the reader. Each of the illustrations are colourless, however in the case of the stick figure, the lack of colour suggests that the child feels invisible as they are the only ones who appreciate their own ‘specialness’, thus positioning the audience to understand the loneliness those children undergo. The effect of having the illustration of the stick figure, allows the reader to further connect the drawing to that of a child due to its similarity to that of a child’s drawing. Although the second illustration depicts a stereotypical princess, her extravagance is lost as she too, is colourless like the first illustration of the stick figure, however her reason for being colourless is quite the opposite to that of the stick figure. It can be concluded that the lack of colour in the case of the princess is to represent the fact that despite her appearance, she is still very much the same as the insecure stick figure. Rodd’s reason for inserting two colourless illustrations is to compare and contrast the fantasy of child beauty pageants which is represented by the illustration of the princess to the reality which is represented by the stick figure, provoking the reader to establish the lonely link between the two and to evoke a sense of discernment in the reader.

Appealing to our sense of responsibility, Rodd accentuates the fact that condoning participation in the ‘distorted’ and ‘pretentious’ world of beauty pageants is fundamentally robbing children of the ‘innocence of childhood’. This appeal encourages the audience to feel guilty as though we are as low as thieves for permitting these children to participate in what seems like a ‘cynical exercise in marketing’. Similarly, rhetorical questions are used to ask the obvious questions that the reader knows the answer to but won’t ask themselves. Questions such as ‘Can a responsible parent really see this as positive?’ and ‘What kind of parent wants their child to…?’ places emphasis on the parents’ responsibility for making sure their children grow into normal people and how weaving beauty pageants into their lifestyle is not a ‘path to self-development’ but more a ‘gratification of adult appetites or egos’. Through the use of rhetorical questions, Rodd, places parents in the spotlight, outlining the responsibilities they are required to take up and the selfishness the parents of those child beauty pageant contestants display. The writer negates all claims in the defence of child beauty pageants, therefore leaving no room for the audience to view child beauty pageants in a positive light.

Overall, Rodd’s appeal to responsibility and expert testimony pose as the strongest persuasive techniques as one plays around with the reader’s emotion but is supported by substantial evidence. Similarly, the use of emotive words rouses sentiment in the target audience, who in this case are the members of public whom enjoy viewing child beauty pageants and the parents of the contestants. Through the appeal to responsibility, parents are positioned to feel guilt and somewhat ashamed for permitting their children to participate in such vain events whilst those who watch the events are positioned to feel equally at fault as they fuel the industry.

Shoelaces

You use it to tie your shoes, it's what holds it together so you can walk. . .
It's a shoelace! People don't pay attention to shoelaces and don't realise the importance of shoelaces. Shoelaces need more recognition for the things they do!

Let's take it back to the history books, shoelaces have been around for a long time. Your grandpa tied his shoe with a shoelace and his grandpa most likely did too. Now let's picture if these shoelaces were to suddenly disappear into thin air? They wouldn't be able to walk properly because they'd be worrying too much about their shoes falling off their feet! If they can't walk properly, then that leads to them becoming unfit and unattractive, therefore making it so that they couldn't attract your grandmother and great great grandmother, which means there would be no you. Now do you understand what kind of role shoelaces play?

You don't need history to tell you that shoelaces are important, just look at our society now. Preschoolers, highschoolers, university students, labourers and even business people need laces to carry on with their daily lives. So if we were to get rid of the world's shoelaces, that means all our students wouldn't even be able to get to their classes to be educated, meaning they won't be able to graduate, which means that they will not have any qualifications for future careers, thus making it so that there will be an economic crisis. If all the world's workers were to give up their shoelaces, that would only add to the economic crisis, which will lead to starvation and poverty and to the end of the world! Shoelaces need to be recognized as a vital part of our everyday lives.

Now you say that the world doesn't need laces because we have something called 'slip ons' or 'velcro straps'. What you obviously don't know about is something called 'fashion'. Yeah, it's what makes all those teenage girls go crazy and the whole world so judgemental. In this era, shoelaces are in. We wear it with sports shoes, work shoes, school shoes, casual shoes, whatever kind of shoe, it has laces. Even our flats have laces attached to them. The problem with slip ons is that they're not practical. They don't cater for all different foot shapes unlike shoelaces. With shoelaces, you can loosen them so that wide feet can fit into the shoe nicely and comfortably and still look good. With slip ons, it becomes harder for the user to stretch out the entire shoe so that their feet can fit them. Velcro straps are also quite problematic. There are many people who dislike the sound of velcro so much they have even developed phobias of velcro. If everyone were to wear velcro straps, how are those people who have phobias of the sounds going to deal with it? Are they to block their ears with ear muffs? Also another impractical means of wearing your shoe. Shoelaces are soundless when tied and are definitely a better alternative to slip ons and velcro straps, therefore adding more to the importance of shoelaces.

Shoelaces play a vital part in our everyday lives. Without them, our world would not be the same. They determine whether or not someone is even born, when someone dies, are fashion symbols and determines the future of the world itself. Shoelaces should receive the recognition they need.