Photo Courtesy / Raeesah Rizwan
On Nov. 18, Miss UTSC: The Anti-Pageant promises to transform UTSC women “into our idea of a confident, healthy and happy ‘beauty queen.’”
The event description on their website says, “[the girls] will walk up the ramp and talk about their individual vision for change while [answering] questions from eminent judges about their personality and career goals.” At the end of the night, everyone is a winner.
Ashwini Prakash, a third-year integrative biology student and the external coordinator at the UTSC Women’s Centre, is the woman behind this event.
“I do not want to see the very homogenized group of tall, skinny girls with full-on make-up,” said Prakash. “I want to see girls of all shapes, sizes and races on the platform.”
Am I the only one that finds an event where everyone wins a “tiara and a title” patronizing? I don’t need some plastic and a sash to confirm that my issues are worth fighting for or that my worldview is socially approved.
The last thing you want to empower women with is the sense that “we had to create an anti-pageant for the sake of you oddballs out there.”
Hiba Abdoulrezzak, a second-year women and gender studies student, questions the necessity of having a gendered pageant at all. “If they really wanted it to be the anti-pageant, there shouldn’t be a whole show telling us how we should be. We should simply be,” she said.
Ashley Kumar, a second-year music student, agreed. “If they really wanted to make it into the anti-pageant, it would be cool to include guys too.”
Shalia Richards-Steer, a fourth-year history student, said that the event should be called ‘anti-runway’ instead of ‘anti-pageant.’
Or maybe it shouldn’t be called anything at all?
There does not need to be a reaction against the practice of pageantry. Why? Because playing within the narrow box carved out by patriarchy only further perpetuates it.
Even if we separate identity and worth from appearance, women are still being subjected to a series of judgments – however well intentioned they may be.
Instead of trying to work within the system, let’s just forget about it.
Rather than providing an alternative stage for women who exist outside of pageant culture, we should reject the system as a whole. It is entirely pointless playing a game with rules written to make you fail.
There’s no way to truly appreciate individuals if we’re still judging women in pageants, anti or otherwise. So maybe the anti-pageant should be called the well-intentioned-but-misses-the-mark pageant.
As a woman I find this idea stupid.
If the organizers really wanted to be anti-pageant why don’t they put contestants behind a screen and then have the judges judge the contestants based on their answers? That way you take out the whole “image” aspect of a pageant.
Instead the organizer uses a standard pageant segment, the interview, to legitimize this whole anti-pageant.
Newsflash!
All pageants have that segment and many of those girls are students, volunteers, and workers who devote their time and energy to many causes. If they win a huge title, like Miss. America they spend their year mostly doing volunteer and charity work as well.
Why the organizers of the anti-pageant choose to overlook that is sad and in my fact not well-planned.
In fact I would even say it turns me off of attending any so called anti-pageants in the future, or any other ill planned events.
Hey wantedtosay
I saw this at the center and realized that something has been missed, because what is happening at the anti-pageant is actually not as the underground says- When I questioned the organizers, it turns out that there are no judges at the event! The girls have to present ideas to change the community either alone or as a group- and then the center gives them resources to make that idea a reality….and sure enough it said so on their application form as well! There is a serious miscommunication I feel! The research that i manged to get an hour at the center was better than the research that i feel that this writer of the article has put in. But nevertheless
Hmmm…I’m not sure who you talked to Engie, but if you look at the promo video for the event (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=772kyz6QrqI&
it still says that women go home with a sash based on their best personality trait.
I think the point of this commentary is to show that running an “anti-pageant” in general is not empowering because it’s STILL within the confines of something created by a patriarchal society.
The whole point is that this event should not be marketed as an anti-PAGEANT. If it really is about giving women resources to carry out their visions, then why even bring in pageantry?
Hmmm I agree with the fact that the word ‘anti-pageant’ is misleading here. But I think that we forget that in the process the main focus of what these girls are doing is actually quite ambitious. You’re perfectly right about the wording of the event. But for me it seems like they have only focused on whether the event goes with the word…nowhere does the article mention what the girls are ACTUALLY doing….which is far more important than the ‘name’ of the event…Thats the only reason why i was stunned when I read the commentary. but your point about the wording of the event is a valid one!
Hi Engie,
I’m not entirely sure where your research is stemming from because, based on our interviews with the organizers and according to both the Women’s Centre website along with the promo video, the presence of judges in the ‘anti-pageant’ was very clear. In fact, marketing materials for the events clearly stated that:
“On the evening of November 18th, they [the "girls" of the anti-pageant] will walk up the ramp and talk about their individual vision for change while answer[ing] questions from emminent judges about their personality and career goals.”
(sourced from: http://utscwomenscentre.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-miss-utscthe-anti-pageant-all.html)
In fact, the whole event is being organized so that “UTSC girls will be transformed into our idea of a confident, healthy and happy ‘beauty queen’”
Yet, this concept of “our idea” is fraught with a lot of inconsistencies. Whose idea is that? Why is the beauty of girls being subjected to someone else’s idea? Isn’t that a complete reversal of the purpose of this event? Further, why is a tiara necessary to reward someone for having ideas that will change the community? And how will a sash define the entirety of someone’s personality or beliefs?
It’s these very limitations that I was trying to point out in this article. These narrow boxes are carved out by so many others for women in this day and age that to inculcate these self-same boundaries for women BY women (in pageant form) is a gross form of internalized patriarchy.
Also, semantics aside (i.e an event targeted to a demographic of “girls”), the event seems to be an attempt to invert a patriarchal system. And while this is a noble effort, this inversion is mistakenly thought to occur by further engaging in a platform that imposes these media-constructs onto these “girls”.
The message that comes across in creating a divide between “the very homogenized group of tall, skinny girls with full-on make-up” and everyone else is that you can’t be “conventionally” smart and pretty at the same time.
Again, I believe the ‘anti-pageant’ was well-intentioned – however it’s logical failings only muddles the message.
I wholeheartedly agree with Andrea. I went to the event myself. This article wasn’t a commentary, it was just a stupid nit-picking of insignificant details. Yes, anti-pageant can mean anything. I admire the way the organizers handled it, the way it was planned- there was no way any other organization could have pulled something off….. There is ENOUGH of BIG money spent on absolutely useless events out there! If I were the organizers Id demand and apology for such an article. There is in NO way a divide created between girls of two different types or anything of the sort. Maybe going to an event before commenting on it will prove more useful next time.
In regards to v.siewrattan:
Wow, you’re dumb! Or maybe it’s just the way you portray yourself on the Internet. Either way your comment was wrong and here’s why:
“This article wasn’t a commentary, it was just a stupid nit-picking of insignificant details.” An article and commentary are two different things. A commentary expresses the opinion of the writer, which is what Ranziba did.
“there was no way any other organization could have pulled something off” What other organization at UTSC would plan an anti-pageant? Or an event where women specifically were given a platform to express their visions of change, other than the Women’s Centre? And is it an accomplishment that the Women’s Centre planned an event to showcase women? No that’s one of the things the Women’s Centre does.
“Maybe going to an event before commenting on it will prove more useful next time.” I agree there should be a follow up about the event, but this commentary was written before the event occurred (it says so in the first sentence).
As an attendee of the anti-pageant I have to say I disagree with the petty criticisms of this article and I fully support all the students at the Women’s Centre who are trying to make a difference. All I see going on in the article is a nit-picking of small insignificant details.
Who cares what the event is called. Anti-pageant can mean anything the point is it is just a word and it was probably used only as a marketing technique.
Again the point of the event, as was clear to me in the video, website and the event itself was to give a platform to the females in our school to express issues of change they feel need to be made in the female community as a whole.
The event was very well planned and it was a clear success!
My question to all you criticizers is to name how many useless events we have at the scarborough campus that are ultimately about eating food rather than real issues! They are uncountable and a total waste of student funds.
But you are entitled to your opinion regardless of how misguided it may be.
In regards to Andrea:
A name is how you brand yourself, the Women’s Centre chose the name Anti-pageant for their event. That name would obviously make people think this event would be the opposite of beauty pageants but if the website describes it as “[the girls] will walk up the ramp and talk about their individual vision for change while [answering] questions from eminent judges about their personality and career goals.” Then how does this event differ from beauty pageants, all beauty pageants have this section, and it’s called the interview segment.
Also you said that “the point of the event, as was clear to me in the video, website and the event itself was to give a platform to the females in our school to express issues of change they feel need to be made in the female community as a whole.” I just watched the promo video again where some females got titles like “Miss Dancing Queen,” “Miss Vivid & Vivacious,” and “Miss Go Figure.” Can you explain how these titles connect to issues at UTSC that need to be changed? Also the video said “each will take home a tiara and a sash that best represent their personality trait.” It basically sounds like the Women’s Centre is hosting a feel good party for females who need to enter a pageant like this to feel good about themselves especially since everyone is getting an award.
And finally, how can you call events that serve free food useless? The events offer free food to attract students. Does every event at UTSC have to be about a social justice issue? No it doesn’t, many clubs offer fun events as well as serious events to attract more students. How are those clubs wasting any more money than what this event did? It doesn’t seem that having an Anti-pageant would attract a lot of people mainly those from the male community or other females who are not connected to the contestants. Then isn’t it a fair argument to say that money was wasted on this event that only catered to a small section of the student population?