Misogyny in Response to Hate is Still Misogyny (or Why I Don't Hate [On] Carrie Prejean)

As I am not one for beating a dead horse, I thought I was finished talking about Miss California. But, it looks like the media have other plans. It seems like I can't open AOL Explorer without seeing some exciting, new information on the new "martyr for the right," Carrie Prejean.

Prejean has been praised/attacked/defended (everything but ignored) by virtually every mainstream media outlet and blog sense her previously mentioned answer on a question asked by Perez Hilton in the Miss USA pageant about the extension of gay marriage. It is fair to say that the comments on Prejean, whether you agreed or disagreed with her answer, have gone far beyond commentary on the issue at hand, particularly in this Keith Olbermann interview with comedian and author Michael Musto from April 30:




The pundit discusses the leak of the news that Miss California pageant officials paid for Prejean's breast implants (news that has recently been expanded to include the existence of topless photos of Prejean that some believe should disqualify her from holding the Miss California crown). Musto refers to Prejean as "a babe who needs a brain implant." He continues "Maybe they can inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?"

To say that I lean left and disagree with Miss California's opinion is a gross understatement, but I think it's fairly obvious why these comments and those like them are inappropriate responses to Prejean's ignorance. I agree that the pageant paying for the implants is an issue. Clearly, they are reinforcing a stereotype that the ideal body for the ideal woman selected to represent the nation must include large breasts (fake or not). But, I absolutely HATE the insinuation that having breast implants (or, in fact, appearing attractive by 'conventional standards') disqualifies a person's opinion. Is this any different from insisting that 'the fairer sex' remain in the home and let the big boys do the physical and mental heavy lifting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I have 'hated on' Miss California at times. I have called Prejean an idiot on more than one occasion. I thought her original response and her responses to further questions on the issue lacked substance. And yes, I have called her ridiculous and opportunistic because I don't find it coincidental that she has suddenly found her calling in the movement to "protect marriage." The fact is, even if you think breast implants and topless pictures make her a 'slut' (a problematic word that I am using for convenience) they do not make her an 'idiot.'

I am not just worried about the coverage of Prejean as a step back for feminist causes. I'm also worried about the way the misogynistic responses are allowing her to be positioned as a sweet girl that is being persecuted for her beliefs. Isn't this just pandering to the people that claim that civil rights have the potential to burden society as a whole. What happened to the days of tossing pies? The message is getting muddled as people become more focused on the 'faults' of their opponents than the reasons why people need to reconsider judgment of one another. Essentially saying "She's just as immoral as we are," does not make the intended argument that 'immoral' is, indeed, subjective.

The Moral of this Post: You can't fight fire with fire. Don't judge and book by its cover. Don't hate the player, hate the game... something like tha