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

Can There Be An 'Us' in Miss USA?

Pageants are notorious for their ability to seemlessly transport viewers back to the days when women were seen and not heard with the mere flip of a channel. As such, they have always been one of my guiltiest guilty pleasures. Every year when Miss USA rolls around, I feel as if I've stepped into a time machine. Back to the days before women complicated things with their calls for equality and cries to be taken seriously. Last night was no different.

There are always the issues of body image as the women parade around the stage in evening gowns and swimwear to be judged by a panel of 'experts' and pseudo-celebrities on some arbitrary scale of beauty or poise or something like that. The fifteen semi-finalists are slated as the perfect examples of how women should look (tall, thin, white, young, blond), smile (even when your not happy), walk (not with purpose, but when and where they tell you to),and talk (as little as possible). One is selected to 'represent' America, easily the most problematic aspect of the entire process.

The 58th Annual Miss USA Pageant had all of that and more, but the most talked about moment by a mile occurred during the question and answer portion of the show:

In YouTube's most watched clip of the day, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton asks Miss California Carrie Prejean about her thoughts on the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont and the possible extension of the law elsewhere. The unpopular answer that Prejean claims lost her the title illuminates a greater issue about the pageant industry, in general: What about all of the 'Misses' and 'Misters' that this narrow depiction of womanhood misses?

Hilton addressed what he called the answer's 'alienation' of many viewers after the show:

While I disagree with Prejean's answer, issue must be taken not with her specific response, but with the whole idea that some constructed 'ideal American woman' can or has at any point existed unproblematically. I'm a bit surprised by the shocked response from bloggers and various media sources. The issue of alienation can't have been ignored up this point. The entire process is inherently classist (It costs thousands to even begin to 'compete'). While Perez Hilton's question displays a slight mainstream disruption of the 'Miss USA' title as some type of accurate representation of 'American' beliefs, viewers must remember those that do not have a celebrity blogger to ask a controversial question.