Whoever said “Honesty is the best policy” obviously never met Carrie Prejean.
A few weeks ago, Miss USA contest Carrie Prejean (California) made headlines all across the country after she provided a controversial response to gay marriage which – some would argue – lost the contest for her. Since then, she has been an open target for the left, being called everything from a bigot to a homophobe to a religious wingnut (that accusation only magnified when she joined up with a Christian Publicity Firm and the Conservative-based National Organization for Marriage). Things took a dramatic shift this week when suggestive pictures, revealing the lingerie clad Prejean, were leaked on the ‘net. From there, the blood thirsty pageant officials have moved in with threats of stripping Prejean of her title as Miss California, citing a violation of “ethic and moral” standards.
Right.
I’m no voice for the Conservative movement. You can be sure of that. But this is ridiculous, even for me. This is hypocrisy of the absolute worst kind.
For starters, we should all face facts. The only reason Ms. Prejean is in this perdicament in the first place was because she made the tragic (but commendable) mistake of being bold in her faith by offering a response to a question that did not belong in the contest in the first place. Her views on gay marriage are about as germane to a beauty contest as her views on college football’s BCS (which, as we all know, sucks). Ever since she confidently declared her beliefs (the operative term here is her beliefs) she has been the victim of an all-out smearing campaign from our friends on the left.
For me to believe that going after Prejean is not about retribution for gay folks and truly is about the photos, I would have to completely turn a blind eye to the beauty contest system. Beauty pageants represent the ultimate in female objectification, where the occasional “deep” question is asked of the contestants as a smoke screen hiding the commodification of the event. Contrary to what some may believe, the whole point of a beauty contest is to judge its participants based on appearance. Whether or not they can quote Margaret Thatcher or if Ghandi is truly their role model is irrelevant. For hours, women strut around stage in evening gowns and bikinis showing off their goods. The prettiest one wins. That simple. Virtue, morality, depth and intellectual prowess are secondary – if, that is, they even matter at all. So to get up in arms about photos leaking on the internet (no less racy than what they wear during the Swimsuit competition) is a hogwash (*It should be noted that male bodybuilding contests operate in a similar fashion. The only muscles that matter are the ones you flex.*).
Now, I will admit that to some extent Prejean is now learning a lesson about what our LGBT brothers and sisters experience on a daily basis. For the first time in her life (at least I’m assuming this is the first time she’s been involved in something like this) she is now the subject of stigmatization, persecution, narrow-minded judgement, and mud-slinging based on an expression of her sexuality and a belief she holds. I’m wondering if this experience will truly open her eyes to the plight of marginalized people in our culture. That remains to be seen.
But in staying on point about the hypocritical disallowance of free speech by some folks, my good friend and blogging buddy the Hippie Conservative made a great observation on this very issue (I’ve referenced him twice in one week. So yes Hippie, that entitles me to advertising dollars):
“The entire entertainment industry has now shown itself to be unified on “blacklisting” someone if they don’t swear allegiance to the Gay Movement. No matter your stand on the issue, you have to admit, Joseph McCarthy would be so proud of their methods.”
Though the HC’s comment specifically addresses the entertainment industry, this phenomenon extends far beyond them. The world at large tends to view a lone person’s opposition to a social minority (done in the spirit of free speech) as an act of oppression, worthy of excoriation. But I don’t buy that. Not at all. In fact, if I were to take sides, I would join Team Prejean in a nanosecond. Not necessarily because I agree with what she said, but because I believe in her right to say it, and to do so without fear of reprisal. While I’ve always maintained that some consequences might be in order, something as dramatic as stripping a crown is extreme and unjust.
Then, if the accusations of impropiety should surface about the photos she took, she should respond by pulling out the tape of the competition and showing the judges the part where she and 50 or so other oiled up women strolled on stage with approximately 75% of their bodies exposed.
Quite simply, regardless to how you personally feel about Ms. Prejean or other folks of her ilk, you can’t deny that she is either the victim of an age-old double standard of beauty contest exposure vs. Internet exposure OR – worst yet – she is being secretly punished for having a belief and openly professing it. HC was right. Joseph McCarthy would be proud. And perhaps a little aroused by the photos. But definitely proud.
– ACL
The Unmitigated Word 
Well, OK. I’m convinced.
Nice post, Andre.
Thank you for this post. I am glad there are some rising to defend Prejean to her right to have her own opinion and belief while also recognising the hypocrisy of those who raised the original question and those who have hounded her since.
Hey Dre,
Wow, twice in one week! The check is definately in the mail. I applaud you for your total LACK of hypocrisy. This is truly an assault on free speech, who’s going to dare say anything opposing the Gay advocates if this is the result? As we speak, I’m looking at the cover of US magazine (someone else’s, I assure you) and it has as one of it’s bullet lines “Miss California Implant Scandal”. Implants? In a beauty pagent? My God! There’s more silicone in your average beauty pagent than in all of Silicone Valley!! I should point out that even some of my gay friends think this is way over the line. Once again, Andre, you’ve shown yourself to be a clear enough thinker to see injustice even when it’s on the other side of what you personally believe. Kudos!
I for one am not so easily moved by this post. I read that each contestant was required to sign a contract basically outlining their ethical and moral obligations outside of the contest. If showing revealing photos is apart of that agreement THEY SIGNED, the pageant committee is well within their rights to take action. You all remember what happened to Vanessa Williams, right? This would have been an issue whether or not she made her statements about gay marriage.
Now, as it relates to the vast conspircy theory being tossed around: if memory serves me correctly, the question wasn’t about whether or not she agreed with gay marriage. The question focused on whether states should follow Vermont’s lead in overriding its governor’s veto on same-sex marriage. Nobody asked her to go into some rant…uh, I mean, “explanation” on why she didn’t believe in it. She was asked about what states should do in situations like that, not whether she thought it was right or wrong. She set herself up for this.
Mike,
I didn’t watch the pageant. I never do. So I’ll leave the question/answer analysis up to you. But even if your point rings true, and the gay marriage opposition thing came up as a result of an indirect answer, I still don’t think that was cause enough to crucify her. Had she not offered a direct answer, but her response focused on liberal ideas, she would have been a hero on the left. Had she responded to the Vermont legislature story by saying “I don’t know about Vermont, but I hope they don’t do things like the President Bush. Now HE was a bad man!”, rest assured she would’ve been hired as a contributor for the Daily Kos the next day.
The fact is simple: she said something the left didn’t like. They smeared her for it. She stands to lose her crown because of it. Open and shut case.
The question absolutely was whether or not she agreed with the nationwide legalization of gay marriage. The question, verbatim, was: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. Do you think other states should follow suit? Why or why not?”
If you don’t want an honest answer to a question like that, don’t ask it. It was no one’s business but her own in the first place. It’s not much different from asking about her sexual orientation in a public forum.
Blahblahblah. With two wars going on & the economy in the crapper, why is this news?
-n
This certainly doesn’t rank up there on my list of priorities (despite the length of this post). But this IS an issue that needs to be addressed.
Truth be told, I could care less about either one of these clowns, Perez Hilton or Carrie Prejean. Anybody who even still follows this beauty pageant nonsense should have their heads examines.
Kenya,
I think most people would agree with you. Not a single person I know cares about the contest itself. This story represents a much bigger issue: the punishment and consequences associated with freedom of speech.
This issue may not be important now, but it might be when you get fired by your conservative boss if he finds out you read my leftist, Obama-supporting, conspiracy theorist blog.
Good Job!
When I heard the answer (which was fine to me) and then the comment, I thought wierd (about the comment), seriously I thought that there is a FREEDOM of SPEECH and BELIEFS, but it seems there is not.
I know the rule saying: Keep your thoughts to yourself, but then it goes in contradiction with everything one believes.
She was honest, she talked about herself, she didn’t say EVERYBODY! she said “In my family”.
It’s good that somebody tries to defend her.
“I know the rule saying: Keep your thoughts to yourself, but then it goes in contradiction with everything one believes.”
I agree. She would’ve been better served by not saying anything. But in a society that often encourages people to speak their minds, engage in conversation, etc., it’s very hypocritical for her to pay a hefty price for doing so. Instead of talking to her, challenging her ideas, or even being critical of her thoughts, they outright punished her…and then used a cheesy explanation to justify their moves. Sad day of affairs.
Interesting blog you have, by the way. But do I really have to call you sugar daddy?
In principal I agree with everything you posted, Dre. But if its true that she signed an contract about not doing things like posing semi-nude, but broke that contract, she deserves the punishment that comes along with it. Saying this was retribution for her anti-gay marriage comments COULD have some merit (I’m still willing to give the offiicals the benefit of the doubt). But Prejean put herself in this bind by breaking the rules in the first place.
I read that she’s claiming that the pictures were taken before she competed. If THAT’s true, she should not have signed the contract in good conscious, in the event the pictures ever surfaced. At the very least, she should have told the committee about the photos in the event they were ever leaked (hindsight is 20/20, huh?).
She can cry injustice all she wants, but she has proven to everybody what happens when you don’t take the high road.
OK. Now that this is over and done with, let’s get to more important matters, shall we?
Miss KD,
I concede to the point about following rules. But if she is truly being punished for breaking those rules, perhaps its time the contest reconsiders their guidelines. It is flagrantly hypocritical for an institution known for parading women to set moral standards on their behavior outside of the industry; especially when these women often seek opportunities that similarly rely on their appearance (modeling, for example). I hate to say this, lest I sound sexist, but many women do – in fact – use contests like these as a springboard to another career.
Hey,
This was a great post. I like many others don’t give a hoot about these beauty contests either. But, am a bit in the middle on the Carrie P. issue.
I do agree that she is being persecuted for her statement of her beliefs. (The fact that people are still talking about this is evidence of how many have overreacted to her comments).
and yet, I often think, about a parrallel though not completely identical situation. No one would ask such a question today but if her answer had been the same to a question on interracial marriage… she would have been vilified by everyone as a racist, no? Even if it was what she was raised in her family to believe.
And so in that sense, it’s a question of how far can/does free speech go. We’ve accepted certain things are covered and yet certain things, that depending on how you look at it should not.
All this to say, if it wasn’t a question about Gay marriage… an issue that there isn’t unanimous concensus or a concensus of plurality about, then she probably would not be encouraged by most people for what she said.
btw, GDS is a good enough abbreviation, no?
@ GDS: I think you’re correct in that Prejean would have been excoriated more for opposition to interracial marriage than in the case of her voicing opposition to gay marriage. But at the same time, I think the two are wholly different.
From a biological aspect at least, comparing skin color and sexual preferance is wrong to do, in my opinion. While I think homosexuality has a certain unmanufactured quality (i.e. I believe gay people have uncontrollable and perhaps innate behavioral tendencies), I still think the practice is socially and biologically viewed as a departure from normal body functions. Interracial partnerships don’t deviate from that same male/female biological norm.
Great post, Dre!
Hello Handsome
Hope all is well on your part of the planet , Miss our banter,hope your in good health . Great post Andre , but they always are , pot stirrers and all XO
God Bless
Greeneyes
The story of how the family reacted in the aftermath of the shooting strengthens my faith in humanity. Check it out.
Oops, I meant to post the above on your latest post.