I'd like to make a few comments about the recent Miss America controversy. For those who aren't up to speed on it, here's a quick vidcap:
By now you all know I'm conservative, so my feelings on this aren't exactly a mystery. However, in this case my discomfort runs deeper--I think--than mere conservatism. As I mentioned in my comment on the previous post, I think there are common standards of decency that apply across the board, whether you're liberal or conservative. One of the most important ones, I think, is consistency, which I think has been violated by many of the left with a glaring double standard. Here's another video which I think illustrates my point:
So here's my question: can you imagine Martin Luther King trying to make sure that his civil rights movement applied ONLY TO BLACK LIBERALS? To be fair I can understand the uneasy feelings feminists have about the whole pageant scene because it degrades women, but as you saw on that clip that's not what they really have a problem with. If it were the other way around, for example, and a conservative judge wasn't happy with a liberal contestant's answer, this feminist would be outraged. In short, I think it's clear that only women who sympathize with the entire liberal agenda are "worthy" of the benefits of feminism, at least to this particular feminist. So again, isn't that the equivalent of M.L.K. achieving conditional civil rights only for black people who have certain beliefs? Would that even make any sense? And if not, then why would it be any different for feminism? Isn't it just another civil rights issue? I thought part of the reason M.L.K.'s movement caught on was because it harmonized with the Declaration of Independence that you don't have to earn rights because "all men are created equal" and that they are all "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"? If I'm not mistaken, M.L.K. actually quoted the Declaration in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Maybe I'm just not supposed to understand it because I'm a conservative, but I still can't see how such a stance can do anything but hurt her cause...am I wrong?
But here's the funny thing about all this: if anything Carrie Prejean has only benefitted from all of this. I think she's actually better off now than if she had actually won the pageant, because nobody would even be talking about her. But thanks to all this controversy, she's on the news all the time now. Anyway, I just think it's ironic that Perez Hilton actually jump-started her career in the process of trying to destroy it. I guess it's like they say, there's no such thing as "bad publicity," though I guess that also applies (unfortunately) to Perez Hilton. For the record, though, I think Prejean came out on top.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
sorry about the cutoff on the second video, by the way, those were the smallest dimensions it would allow.
I didn't watch the videos but let me voice my opinion on this issue. I have two of them.
Opinion #1. I think it was great that Miss Cali. voiced her opinion and never backed down. She was applauded by social conservatives and alike after the pageant, and stuck to her guns the whole way through. I think she represented her state well, seeing as they did pass prop. 8 with a majority. So props to her.
Opinion #2 I do have a problem with Miss Cali. being called the spokeswoman for marriage. Seeing as she did pose topless with only a pair of panties when she was 18. What does she have to say about the picture? "I'm a model, and sometimes models pose in lingerie. This is just an attack on my Christian faith." I think that is a huge double standard and hypocritical and I don't think this girl should be the spokeswoman for marriage. I don't think you should be perfect, but an apology for posing topless instead of defending it would be a nice start.
My question is this: How come Perez isn't calling Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Bill or Hillary Clinton a dumb b----? They have the same opinion that Prejean does, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. To my surprise, CNN's Roland Martin of all people wrote an excellent article coming to her defense (and as a result, moved up a couple points in my book). Here are some notable quotes from that article:
"A lot of folks say they like to keep it real, that they want authenticity and straight talk. Yet when someone actually does it, there is hell to pay. Welcome to the world of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who, since she answered a question regarding same-sex marriage in the Miss USA pageant April 19, has been attacked savagely by those who oppose what she had to say.
Prejean surely has heard the debate go back and forth. But her remark isn't outside the mainstream. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows that 55 percent of Americans are against same-sex marriage, and Proposition 8 passed by a 52-48 percent margin.
Four very popular liberals in the country have the same belief as Prejean, but a beauty pageant contestant is being torn to shreds. Hello, hypocrisy! The day we condemn folks for speaking honestly is the day we become a bland society.
Maybe we're already there."
And like Creighton, I think that the picture was somewhat of a black mark on Prejean. However, it wasn't necessarily a "topless" pic per se. She had no top on, true, but her woman parts were covered and her bare back was facing toward the camera. Much more skin was on display in the actual pageant than that pic. Still, I don't want to make excuses for her. Creighton's right though, the pic was suggestive enough, so I think an apology would have been appropriate.
Though it's unfortunate about the topless pic and all, the fact that she isn't actually married is equally as odd in my view. Let's be honest, though: it's her new-found celebrity status that landed her the job. I will agree, though, her "topless" or risque' photos don't help the cause, but I feel like it's blown a little out of proportion because we're specifically talking about traditional marriage here. Do we want to send the message that you can't believe in traditional marriage unless you live up to a certain moral criteria in all aspects of your life? If you set the bar THAT high, then who does that leave? True, you don't want to ENCOURAGE immoral behavior, but you do have to prioritize at the same time, right?
Plus that kind of attitude would be self-defeating in terms of the purpose of these traditional marriage advocacy groups: THEY WANT MORE PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED, NOT LESS.
What if, for example, someone actually told her she shouldn't get married because of those photos? Wouldn't that be a little extreme? So what gives?
Personally I think there's some confusion from the fact that marriage has a different significance to different people, even just for traditional marriage. For people with conservative values, especially Christians, marriage takes on that sort of meaning for them. But there are also non-religious people, or less religious people who get married for whom it has a different meaning. Christians may be more passionate and vocal about it, but it's not like they have a monopoly on it (or at least the traditional version of it, anyway).
Here's the other thing, though: marriage often improves moral character, especially once children are brought into the mix. Though there are some extreme jerks out there who don't live up to the responsibility, many parents get their lives together for the sake of their family where they otherwise wouldn't. That's a very positive thing that I think would be at risk if we adopted a moral absolutist view that only certain people "deserved" marriage, at least from a pragmaic standpoint.
So back to Prejean, I personally can overlook certain moral shortcomings at least in terms of a marriage spokesperson, though she definitely wouldn't be my first pick for conservative values in general. What's unsettling for me is the fact that she isn't actually married: I just think it would be better if she were. I mean, just think how it's going to look if she ends up getting divorced later on? To me, that would be more hypocritical in terms of this issue than a few risque' photos, though obviously I don't condone them on their own terms.
There has been some interesting discussion on this post so far. But I would like to add my two cents worth. Personally, I don't think her response to the question was as horribly biased as everyone is making it out to be. She said that she was glad we lived in a country where people could choose for themselves who they wanted to marry. But that she personally believed in a traditional marriage. She didn't say she hated gays and never wanted them to marry. She was glad they had the chance to marry. But she personally had a different view. I think everyone is making a bigger deal out of this than it should be. The scripture comes to mind that "the wicked take the truth to be hard." They are backlashing against her so harshly because she is right! Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how it has always been and that is how it should always be. I don't want to turn this into another gay marriage discussion because we have already battled that out in previous posts. But I just think it's interesting. Her response should not have generated this kind of media attention. But because she is right all of those with a different view are taking a stand. Satan is trying to destroy traditional marriage because he knows if he destroys that he destroys everything.
Post a Comment