© Jaimie Duplass / Shutterstock
Although
Honey Boo Boo has captured the imagination of the American audience with her boisterous personality, she isn't the only little girl on the beauty pageant circuit. Thousands of children compete each year, and a new study published in the
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry takes a critical look at these pageants.
Martina M. Cartwright, adjunct professor at the
University of Arizona and a registered dietitian, suggests that these high-glitz child pageants are often
more about the parents and their needs and have little to do with the children at all. The study also suggests that participating in these events can actually be harmful to children's health and self-esteem.These pageants have been popularized by
The Learning Channel's reality show
Toddlers and Tiaras and its spin-off,
Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. As part of her research, Cartwright attended two live tapings of
Toddlers and Tiaras. Cartwright claims that some pageant parents exhibit "princess by proxy," a unique form of "achievement by proxy distortion."
Adults with this condition are driven primarily by the social or financial gains earned by their child's accomplishments, regardless of risk involved for the child.The glitz pageant is a $5 billion dollar industry in America, which was first introduced to many through the death of 5-year-old beauty queen Jon-Benet Ramsey in 1995. Cartwright focused her research on these types of pageants, where contestants wear heavy makeup and ornate costumes, sometimes costing more than $1,500. Cartwright estimates that along with entry fees, photo and other expenses such as wigs, fake tans and artificial teeth known as flippers, the average cost of participating in a single contest runs between $3,000 and $5,000.
Glitz pageants have prizes that include cash awards, crowns, trips, puppies and sometimes even "bit parts" in movies. These prizes and the potential for fame and fortune may contribute to "achievement by proxy distortion" in parents, according to Cartwright.
Comment: While the above article is very interesting and informative and provides fascinating scientific proof of the fact that psychopaths are very much a different type of human than the vast majority of humans, the following paragraph is a rather uniformed and callous attempt to rationalise away the disastrous effects that psychopaths have had, and continue to have, on human society. Dr. Robert Hare has stated that psychopaths, who may constitute up to 6% of the population, may be responsible for 50% of crimes. This is hardly something positive. The author also misses the fact that when the ability to be "cool and calm" in a crisis is NOT a choice but rather a state of being, any possible positives far outweigh the negatives when you consider that the apathy of the 'calm and focused' neurosurgeon above would just as likely result in serious malpractice. In short, psychopathy has not "double edge", psychopathic traits are in no way positive to human society. The current dire state of our global society is a testament to that fact.