Dear Old-Timey Miss America, OMG You Are So Fat
This is so cool: a collection of antique photographs of beauty queens, sent in by BFDiva and tipster extraordinaire Jez, who says:
I stumbled upon this collection of antique beauty queen photographs. Unfortunately, they do not date them, but I would guess around the late 1920s based on their hair and makeup. I thought it would be kind of interesting to take a look at previous standards of beauty compared to today.
It is really striking to see how the faces of these women tended to be more soft and round. (Miss Argentina, for example, I would call zaftig.) Strangely, I look at Miss America’s round face and her bow lips and think of Zooey Deschanel, a little bit. Am I crazy?
Anyway, for the sake of comparison, here is Miss America 2009, Katie Stam:
Well she is also beautiful, but there’s definitely more spray tanning and teeth whitening going on in 2009, that’s for sure. What do you guys think?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Celebrities, Fashion, Feminism, Old Timey, Tidbit, Zooey Deschanel
Email us
I hate spray tanning, I wish people would learn to be happy with their own skin colour and its natural variations (like with a real tan from the sun rather than an orange glow from a bottle). I’m for natural beauty.
One thing that really struck me about the gallery was how different each woman looked from the others. Today’s beauty pageants have such a narrow definition of beauty that while every woman there is beautiful, it’s an unremarkable, almost boring, sort of beauty.
They are all so beautiful. And so REAL.
Although something about Miss Russia was vaguely Heidi Montag-ish and I found that troubling…
And the lips.
The BQs of yore are practically lipless by modern ‘beauty’ standards.
Back in 1920, I’m sure there were people bemoaning how unnatural it was for beauty queens to wear lipstick and iron their hair, the way we complain about spray tans and teeth whitening in 2009.
The photos are really cool, thanks for sharing, Mo.
Today’s beauty pageants have such a narrow definition of beauty that while every woman there is beautiful, it’s an unremarkable, almost boring, sort of beauty.
For a few years now, there’s been what I call a “generic Hollywood” look that’s all the rage with American casting directors. The girls have long stringy hair, are flat-chested and very thin. Their facial features are very sharp, narrow and small. It’s hard to distinguish the women from each other, because they all look alike. There’s no variety, which makes it pretty dull.
I love that none of them are “perfect”. They are flawed and absolutely stunning. Thanks for posting this, it totally made my day.
Also, I look a LOT like Miss Germany with longer hair. My face shape was something that bothered me my entire life until very recently and then, wow, there is my face! On a beauty queen!
While there is no fake tanning and teeth whitening in the older photographs, it was also not available back then.
Alot of the women in those pictures seem to have the same kind of short, wavy hairstyle. I am sure the beauty queens each had their own routines that contained things that were the 1920s equivalent of bleached teeth and fake tanning.
Seriously, the current Miss America looks like an alien in comparison to the vintage photos. Big head, big eyes, big teeth – the sculpting and whitening and air-brushing. Ugh. It looks SO unnatural that it’s creepy in comparison to the old photos.
Oh my gosh. Misses Greece and Argentina are so pretty! Sorry. I was just struck. I love these old pictures, and as an almost daily reader (stalker?) of The Chive, have no idea how I missed them!
I actually know Katie, and she isn’t spray tanned or anything. She’s a beautiful woman with all her natural parts and features. It’s no doubt though that women look different nowadays.
Look!
Marisa Tomei;
http://thechive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/a-beauty-queens-old-photos.jpg
Candice, I don’t think disliking the current standard of beauty requires shitting on the current Miss America for fulfilling it.
I love how Miss Italy looks like she knows a secret.
My favorites are Miss Argentina, Miss Estonia, and Miss Austria.
GOD I WISH IT WAS STILL THE 20’S. (Without Prohibition.)
Fellmama, I totally agree, I love her picture. I have to say, that’s one thing I like about the older pictures that I think gets lost in the modern sensibilities. Airbrushing/ Photoshopping not only takes out every single “imperfection” but you also end up losing a lot of the subject’s personality.
As Ashley said, Katie has all her normal parts, and I’m sure she’s lovely, but sometimes all the retouching kind of sterilizes the images and takes away some of that from the subject. It almost makes them look faker than they are, if that makes sense. (That isn’t a comment on Katie’s picture specifically, more on these kinds of promo shots in general.)
Man, I need to start wearing lipstick, my hair naturally does the slightly frizzy curled thing, and I already look a bit like 1920’s Miss America! I often get ambitious to have a completely early 20th c. wardrobe, and embrace the retro beauty. Though at 5’8″, 250 lb, size 20-ish I’d be a GIANT AMAZON by the standards of that generation, the late 40’s sillhouette is very flattering to my hippy body shape. Much easier than dressing to corseted 1880’s standards, by which I would be a GIANT AMAZON GODDESS a la Lillian Russel.
I should note that the style of lipstick application in those days was to over-draw the cupid’s bow, sometimes well outside the actual lip line, and to line the lower lip inside the lipline to make it look tiny and rosebud like. There are some closeups in “The Lady Vanishes” where you can see just how far outside the actresses natural lips her cupid’s bow is lined.
I got a huge ego boost when my husband and I were in the classics section of Blockbuster and he pointed to a couple of DVD covers and said “She looks JUST like you!” I forget the actresses name, but it was a John Wayne Movie from the mid-late 1940’s.
Anyone else wanting some old timey curvy beauty should check out some of John Singer Seargent’s portraits from the late 19th c. Wow this is a long post, I guess I get really excited about vintage examples of beauty standards, because they show a somewhat more inclusive standard, though still limited to young, fair-skinned symmetrical girls.
While Katie might have her “natural parts and features,” let’s be honest and acknowledge that she is obviously airbrushed in this pic, has whitened teeth (or to be fair, maybe just really great oral hygiene–folks think I whiten, but I don’t, so maybe she doesn’t), a haircut and highlights that were likely not cheap, and what is obviously a ton of makeup.
So, while she may or may not be natural *in comparison to other contemporary beauty queens* she is hardly “natural” compared to most women.
This is not to rip her apart for her choices–she gets a lot of money and attention for playing the beauty game–but trying to call her “natural” (at least in this pic; I’ve never seen her before, so that’s all I have to go on) is totally disingenuous.
The 2009 Miss America is beautiful the way a doll or a painting is beautiful. She looks FAKE, like she’s made out of plastic. In stark contrast, those 1920s women look like living, breathing persons.
True, the photo is touched up (possibly without her consent) , but how are we trying to define “natural” and “unnatural” here? Even the women in the old photos have a lot of makeup on. Or are we just talking about photos?
Yes, the current Miss USA is indeed beautiful, but I agree, she looks like every other conventionally beautiful girl out there. She could just as easily be some girlfriend of one of the programmers at work. The others? Some of them look downright threatening — in a chick-in-a-Tarantino-flick sort of way (which from me is a compliment). I want to go out drinking with those chicks. Current Miss USA looks like she belongs in a Revlon commercial.
I’ve seen lineups of “idealized” body types in silhouette along timelines before – I wonder how it would do if we used a face type?
Personally, I don’t find either one “beautiful.” Both look sort of alien to me, but for different reasons. But I’d also like to hear the content of their beauty pageant answers.
The retouching is for sure a problem. She looks more like a digital image of a woman than an actual person. Her skin is all the same color and the shadows don’t look right to me.
And y’know, I find it hard to resist the urge to insult her because frankly, you know what I hate? Women whose entire career/identity/whatever is made up of the fact that they are prettier than me. I’m SURE that that is not how Miss America or any other beauty queen sees this competition or thinks. (I lived next to Miss Teen Kentucky during college, and she was totally awesome.)
But when it comes down to it, that’s all a beauty competition really is. Hey ladies, these women are prettier than you, we will now reward them for having lots of money time and attractive parents.
Even the women in the old photos have a lot of makeup on. Or are we just talking about photos?
Special makeup was used on actresses before color movies. Regular makeup would not show up correctly on a black and white screen. You probably have the same situation with the past beauty queens. Plus, heavy makeup was the “look” in the 1920s.
Shinobi, it’s not just a “beauty pageant.” These women live extraordinary lives, having outstanding talents, high ambitions, give back to their community, and they are in great physical condition. It’s the whole package, and that is what these competitions actually come down to. I do find this particular photo of Katie too retouched though.
I think its important not to uphold older beauty standards higher than the ones held today just because they are more like us. Unattainable beauty standards have been around as long as patriarchy. While obviously the women from the 1920’s look a lot healthier and conventional, or ” like us” they were still objectified and presented because of their beauty. I personally dont think we should blame the individuals like Katie though for adhering to the beauty standards of today but still question why women need approval of their outer self to feel validated and special.
“I think its important not to uphold older beauty standards higher than the ones held today just because they are more like us.”
Why not? More like us = wider, more inclusive. There are, after all, a lot of “us” an only a handful of women who look like Katie. Most of the women of eras past never would have been allowed to even compete in today’s Miss America beauty contest, regardless of the claims that it isn’t actually about who meets an exactly, unforgiving beauty standard but talent, community service, and personal wonderfulness (yeah, sure.) Besides, we’re talking about Miss America here. The very nature of the beast is to objectify the contestants (and, by extension, the rest of us.) Of COURSE this is a bad thing and of COURSE we’d like to see these contests done away with, but in the context of discussing how the beauty standard has changed/grown significantly smaller, I don’t see what’s wrong with us looking at the old winners and seeing “beauty” redefined.
LoopyLoo, it seems you are eagar to seperate “women like you” and “women like Katie” as is it some sort of war. And only a handful of people like Katie? I see a hell of a lot more than that. You also seem to want to reverse the ideal beauty and “do away” with “people like Katie” all together, and dub them fake an unattractive. Why can’t people appreciate all types of womens’ looks without putting down the looks of another type?
Also, have you ever been in a Miss America pageant? Have you ever been a judge? If not, please don’t claim you know what their supposed physical requirments are.
^”Also, have you ever been in a Miss America pageant? Have you ever been a judge? If not, please don’t claim you know what their supposed physical requirments are.”
That’s kind of a silly statement honestly. You don’t have to be a judge or even a fan to know what kind of requirments there are to be Miss America. When was the last time you saw a girl who was 5’3 160 pounds win? I think Loopy was just trying to say that although that girl would never even be able to enter today due to the belief brought on by the fashion industry that anything above a four is chunky back in the 20’s when we didn’t have super fun fad diets or lose 100 pounds in a week scams and farm families were common with big meals and lots of muscle-exercises that these beauty queens fit the body type that normal women of the time had. I don’t think she was really ripping Miss America 2009 but just pointing out that beauty used to be more varied and realistic.
“LoopyLoo, it seems you are eagar to separate “women like you†and “women like Katie†as is it some sort of war.”
I do? Funny, that’s not what I said and it’s not what I meant. I seem to remember writing something about a wider, more inclusive standard of beauty being a good thing.
As for the rest, well, thanks for covering it for me, Betty.
Furthermore, you putting the words into my mouth that I want to “do away” with women like Katie is really, really gross. Do not twist my words into something sick and perverted, please.
Betty, fad diets, including Atkins type low carb, and extreme “cleansing” fasts have been around since the late 1800’s, I’m reading Gina Kolata’s Rethinking Thin, and it’s fascinating to learn that these ideas and fads have been cycling through the trends for a hundred years or more now!
^Really? Wow I didn’t know that! I’ve always kinda thought people ate heartier meals back then since most workers had to deal with more manual labor! I’m sure the numbers of women on it are much higher now but still that’s pretty cool to know. I never really think of people over a hundred years ago dieting. :)
Check out the Miss America contestants without their “beauty enhancements”, and they are not that good looking. Most of them could walk down the street with no makeup, and not one single person would turn and look at them. When you do see them in public close up, you can see the layers of caked-on make up, the spray tans, the capped teeth, the stuffed bras/fake boobs. They only look good from a distance, and even then, they disappear if they turn sideways. No thanks. I’ll stick to “real” women!
“That’s kind of a silly statement honestly. You don’t have to be a judge or even a fan to know what kind of requirments there are to be Miss America.”
That’s true, but the point I was trying to make is that LoopyLoo insinuated that winners are judged mostly by their physical attractiveness, which is purely false, and yes I can prove that there have been pageant winners who would not be considered conventionally attractive.
Back to topic, I aknowledge that physical appearance has changed eith time along with beauty standards. But I don’t think I would say one is better than the other, just different.
Sun, most Miss America contestants don’t have any plastic or cosmetic surgery done. Sure they have stage makeup on when they are at competition, and they have their hair done and nice jewelry on, but nothing that you wouldn’t be able to tell it was them if you saw them on the street.
Sun: “No thanks. I’ll stick to “real†women!”
It’s really not necessary to insult anyone here. These are all real women. WE ARE ALL REAL WOMEN.
I visited the website for the Miss America pageant, but I did not see the picture of 1920s Miss America.
Two winners that bore resemblance to our picture were:
Fay Lanphier, Miss America 1925
Lois Delander, Miss America 1927
Is it either one of them?
I think we were just guessing on the era with 1920s… I can’t tell if it’s either of them, but great sleuthing!
I have to say, I’m a little disappointed (though not all that surprised). I love you guys, and this is not directed at any one person, but many of these comments are not singing praise for the beautiful women of yesteryear, but rather focusing their discontent toward the standard of beauty today. As a firm advocate for COMPLETE body acceptance for all, it makes these kinds of comments frustrating.
While we may focus on fat acceptance, that doesn’t mean that we should launch insults at women who are not our ideal of beauty. It is easy to do so when you are bucking against the social system that tells us we are less valuable for not looking like Katie Stam. But in the end all that achieves is the same prejudice we wish to rid from our lives, only reversed in the opposite direction.
Great observation Jez.