RSS
Home
Gay rights versus women's rights: Perez Hilton attacks Miss California for views on gay marriage
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Based on extensive news shows, internet publications, and other media, many people are already aware of the Miss USA pageant's recent scandal: one that fascinatingly pits two different social movements against each other: gay rights and women's rights. An explosive appointment to the show, a famous yet infamous celebrity gossip blogger named "Perez Hilton" (a bastardization of the name and image of reality star, model, and heiress Paris Hilton, no doubt) had been a judge for the 2009 Miss USA pageant. Within the powers of that position, Perez Hilton (aka Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.) was able to posit questions to the beauty pageant contestants, namely Miss California, Carrie Prejean.
Openly gay and an obvious supporter of gay rights, the blogger took advantage of his opportunity to ask Prejean a very controversial question, one whose potential answers he might not have been entirely prepared for. Citing Vermont's recent legalization of gay marriage, Hilton demanded to know what Miss California thought about the issue, inquiring about her opinion on whether or not other states should follow suit in granting equal access to matrimony.
Trying to be diplomatic, Prejean began her inevitably controversial answer with the following:
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite."
And then concluded with her real feelings:
"And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
As much as her answer may not seem progressive in the context of California or even nation-wide trends and movements toward tolerance and anti-discrimination, everyone is entitled to their opinions whether or not they are politically popular ones.
Though most are aware that the country is divided on the issue of gay marriage, which is a matter of choice, equality, and freedom of thought, Prejean was instantly condemned for her opinion by Perez Hilton himself on his video blog -- and understandably so. He must have felt personally scorned by Miss California's polite rejection of his lifestyle. Many might have been able to sympathize with him better had he let the situation speak for itself.
But instead, he incited another social-politcal battle (or battles): one that attacks those who dissent with unpopular opinions and most importantly, women and their collective integrity by haphazardly slamming a "bitch" and "cunt" label upon the beauty contestant -- invalidating all of her opinions that do not resonate with his by using her femininity against her and ultimately aiming to degrade her entire worth as a person. If he had wanted to prove a political point about gay rights, he might have better expressed himself with more socially acceptible word choices instead of irrelevantly denigrating her and women through the use of his derogatory statements.
Alas, what is done is done. Perhaps there should be more consideration for the types of questions that are allowed in such pageants in the future -- or better yet: more discernment when it comes to choosing celebrity judges who may ultimately erode their own messages and by extension, the credibility of the production itself.
Then again, how much credibility do beauty pageants -- institutions that overtly compel women to publicly compete against each other to be crowned "fairest of them all" -- have in the great scheme of integrity and social progress? Whether or not America agrees with the notion of beauty pageants in general, like every other social organization, they too have the opportunity to be the best that they can be: socially, politically, and culturally.
To learn more about Carrie Prejean, Perez Hilton, and their subsequent responses to the controversy, see the following interview:
Poll: What do you think about the Miss USA scandal?
Juliette Frette
Related Articles:
Comments
