Breast Implants, Heteronormativity and Why Miss California is a Feminist Nightmare.


It is not just that Miss California spoke her mind about gay marriage that makes this uniquely a feminist issue, but it does make her an asshole. For all the arguments defending her right to speak on this topic, to me, it is so sad that people so quickly fight to defend the rights of bigots to speak. So, I obviously fall too left of that argument to even participate in it. Or rather, I just agree with Jill,

It’s not “religious persecution” to say that someone is a bigot for having bigoted views. It’s not “religious persecution” to argue that those who want to deny basic civil rights based on sexual orientation are bigots. It would be persecution to, for example, pass a law stating that a consenting Christian adult wasn’t allowed to marry another consenting Christian adult because of his or her faith, or to criminalize consensual sex between adult Christians. That’s persecution. Not, “I didn’t win a beauty pageant and then Perez Hilton called me a bitch.”

As Jay Smooth pointed out in his video, the issue of pageantry and their role in our society raises bigger concerns. The reliance on heteronormativity and beauty standards in pageants is indeed a point of inquiry.
As a feminist, I hate when women’s breasts make the news, since it is rarely to uncover the sexism embedded within a system. The fact that Carrie Prejean got breast implants is not newsworthy to me. The fact that the California Pageant Association paid for them, well that is. Not because it is scandalous, but because it shows that pageants aren’t about highlighting women as they are or for their talents, but for their physical appearance and to make spectacle of a specific type of femininity.
Pageants only make sense because of binary gender roles that cater to mainstream understandings of femininity. They are a fetishized spectacle of femininity to the point where it is even OK if they are artificially constructed as long as they are pushing a normative ideal of what a “real woman” is. As feminists we know already that ideal is socially constructed. Her blatant homophobia just adds to the already established straight, cis-woman and white standard of beauty necessary for pageants to exist and to perpetuate the illusion of binary genders.

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

96 Comments

  1. jellyleelips
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    And how are “personal self-expression” and plastic surgery mutually exclusive? Has no person ever gotten a tattoo or a piercing in order to appear more attractive? By the same token, has no one ever gotten plastic surgery as a form of, as you said, “personal self-expression”? I understand that plastic surgery is invasive and dangerous, but that doesn’t mean that tattoos and piercings don’t involve sticking sharp metal objects in your body, pain, or altering your appearance to fit SOME ideal (even if it’s your own ideal of what you want to look like). Women who get plastic surgery aren’t all dupes, they can choose to get plastic surgery just as people who desire “personal self-expression” can choose to get tattoos or piercings.

  2. ElleStar
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Christ, sadie, you’re going to derail this discussion if it’s the last thing you do.
    Writers and commenters on Feministing have problematized President Obama’s stance on gay marriage. A 10 second search pulled up these here on the site:
    http://www.feministing.com/archives/013236.html
    http://www.feministing.com/archives/012760.html
    I’m quite sure there are more.
    Perez Hilton was wrong, IMO, to name call, especially using sexist and demeaning words. But he’s not campaigning to take/keep rights away from people who don’t believe the same thing that he does, so I consider him less an asshole than I consider Miss AmericaWannabe. But that’s also my opinion.
    But you know what? THIS ALL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP!
    *getting back on track*
    Personally, I’m disturbed by breast implants as something women do to conform to ideals of beauty in our society. However, I have large breasts and haven’t felt what less well-endowed women feel as a result. Therefore, I have a hard time making a judgment about it. But I am taking an extra hard look at the pageant that PAID for them for a contestant. That seems kind of wrong to me, but I can’t put my finger on why.

  3. theKP
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Do you think part of the reason it feels wrong is that so many people can’t afford medical care? Or maybe it’s that the Miss USA pageant claims it’s a scholarship program, so it feels kind of like it’s a scholarship program for breast implants instead of education?
    I’m also trying to work through why I feel so creeped out by it. Partly I’m worried about the power dynamics between a young pageant winner and the people who run the pageant.

  4. ElleStar
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    I guess it has to do with women not being able to have the time to learn to love their bodies. Maybe without financial help from the pageant, Whatshername would have had the opportunity to grow into her skin a little bit more and see the surgery as unnecessary. But instead, she had the inclination to change herself cosmetically, then the financial opportunity to go under the knife came sooner than it would have if she had paid for it on her own.
    I don’t know if the extra time would have meant she would have changed her mind and grow to love and accept her body, but I guess we’ll now never know.

  5. lefthandedpenguin
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    I once read somewhere (in one of Leona Tanenbaum’s books, I think) that Miss America hates being confused with Miss USA because “Oh, no, no, no… we’re not a beauty pageant, we’re a scholarship opportunity!” (or something to the effect.) Even though the money they win for scholarships is way, way less than the cost of dresses, hair, tanning, boobs, make up, teeth whitening, etc.

  6. voluptuouspanic
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    While I believe breast implants and elective cosmetic surgery are problematic, I’m not eager to jump on the “mutilation of the body” band wagon. Women’s choices for ECS are not free, of course, and are constrained by social institutions. And I’m not going to call breast implants feminist. Absolutely not. But I think there needs to be more critical dialogue. Saying she’s mutilating her body or just isn’t happy with herself or needs better self-esteem isn’t really the issue here.

  7. jellyleelips
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Honestly, I’m sick and tired of the popular feminist claim that Barbie is THE beauty ideal. You are right when you say that straight men do, in fact, desire all shapes, sizes, and colors of women. This is why the feminist insistence on one oppressive be-all end-all beauty ideal is so ridiculous. Certainly, models are above average height and below average weight. This does NOT mean that models are presented as the ONLY female body that is attractive. Actually, one of the judges on Make Me a Supermodel (which should also fall into the category of “feminist nightmare,” right?) put the distinction quite well. Photographer Perou described one model as “girlfriend hot” instead of “model hot.” That is, she is not unattractive, just not right for modelling. There seems to be a general consensus among particularly indignant feminists that if they aren’t stick-skinny and 5’11″, they MUST be considered ugly by the fashion industry. The fashion industry is ALWAYS the enemy. Yet, the media does not merely show the Barbie-doll look. I will of course concede that women portrayed as beautiful in the media are generally white and thin. But, to reduce that to Barbie is willfully ignoring the fact that, in a sense, every woman famous for being beautiful presents some kind of “ideal.”
    If even people in the evil fashion industry can admit that there is more than one type of beauty, then can feminists please admit that there is more than one beauty ideal in the fashion industry?

  8. LisaCharly
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    If breast implants are cheating because they’re not “natural”, are makeup, hair extensions and color, artificially-induced tans and contact lenses all “cheating” too?

  9. FlamingBiatch
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    I think we get into some thorny territory by making a blanket statement about women who get implants. Obviously, most of us would agree that Prejean’s motivations were not feminist, but I would hesitate to judge any woman who got them. I don’t know if she’s has breast cancer or some other disease that left her desiring reconstruction. I don’t know if she’s a MTF transwoman. Even if I found that a friend of mine got them for the dubious reason of appearing more acceptable to society, I would still be hesitant to judge her for doing what she will with her own body. I don’t know what’s in her head, or her heart. Plus, I wholeheartedly believe womens bodies are theirs, and only theirs. No one else’s. It doesn’t matter if I agree with what she’s doing, she is entitled to do with her body what she will.
    I’m an A cup, who is nearly thirty, so I do understand the pressure. When I was a teen, I wanted nothing more than to develop “like normal girls”. Well, it still hasn’t happened, lol. And, I’m not petite, either. At 5’8″, with a strong, slightly thick, build, I sure don’t fit the standard of beauty set forth by beauty pageants. (There seems to be this consolation in our society that it’s okay to be small-chested only if you are petite or waifish, because then you can provide men with the squicky nubile teeny-teen fetish. Ew)
    That being said, I still wouldn’t get breast implants, even as “woefully inadequate” as society deems me. The pain, the possibly damage, the “unreal feel” of implants…plus, I love my little breasts. They’re me, you know?

  10. Nicole
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Yes, gay rights activists and feminists are technically supposed to support each other, or at least ideally. But you can’t lump all gays in with gay activists any more than you can lump all women in with feminists.

  11. Wendy Notsid
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    I can’t agree more. It’s sad because with this whole “SHE’S JUST SPEAKING HER MIND” thing will just be another excuse for anti-feminism to be pushed under the guise of wanting a woman to speak her mind.
    She has every right to say what she wants, but that doesn’t make what she says any good. It doesn’t make her any less of an obnoxious nightmare.

  12. KTBuns
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    I love you, Samhita. :)

  13. MiriamCT
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    What?! There are TWO of these things?
    I must be living under a very happy rock.

  14. lefthandedpenguin
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    Sadie, cunt is a beautiful word. It has its roots as a word that meant reverence for female members of indigenous societies.

  15. baddesignhurts
    Posted April 30, 2009 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    you know what….i need to apologize for using the word bitch. it’s not OK that i said that, no matter what a dipshit loser moron miss california is.
    so…i’m sorry for using sexist language. (i also call men bitches, not that that makes it better.)
    however, i don’t apologize for calling her a dipshit loser moron.

  16. joy-mari.com
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Caveat: this is mostly in response to the comment section. Yes, she’s an arsehole for believing that marriage is exclusively between men and women. But I am surprised that some here are OK with calling her a bitch and a cunt. And no, cunt stopped being a powerful word a long time ago. That’s why some feminists are reclaiming it. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, even to people who say controversial things.

  17. puckalish
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    by “comments problems,” do you mean sadie101?

  18. Chip Bell
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    What a scary, creepy, homophobic, bimbo

  19. Jeannie
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    Okay, I don’t agree with her at all either. I’m definitely pro-gay rights and I don’t agree with what she said.
    But why does no one seem to care that Perez called her a “dumb bitch” for her answer? She didn’t say anything terrible about gay people except that she was raised to believe that gays should not be married. Was it offensive? Perhaps. Was it homophobic? Yes.
    But is that any reason to call her a “dumb bitch?” Why is no one on Perez’s case except for Fox and other right-winged people? I’m very disappointed in how this whole thing is being handled. I don’t care what she says, if she says it respectfully (as she did), there is no reason to resort to childish name calling like bitch, bimbo, cunt, or any of the other words that even people on this post have used.
    It’s time to grow up and stop hurting our cause. Name calling people who are against gay marriage only makes it look even more like there really is a “gay agenda.” I’ve seen more news coverage about Perez’s response to her answer than I have seen about what she said. Get over her answer and respond to her respectfully as she did.

  20. Scheherazade
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    It reminds me of a saying by Voltaire (I think?):
    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ”

  21. Scheherazade
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    Just to clarify:
    I absolutely 100% disagree with what she stated.

  22. ouini
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Yes. In a post with which 99% I agree, the statement, “… it is so sad that people so quickly fight to defend the rights of …” stood out as an atypical misstep of this blog.

  23. llevinso
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Personally I was not at all surprized at Perez calling her a dumb bitch. As many of the commenters here have pointed out, he’s not very woman friendly at all. Seriously, check out his blog, it’s awful.
    So yes, it was wrong of him to call her a dumb bitch even though what she said was offensive and homophobic (I’d change the line you wrote: “Was it offensive? Perhaps.” to Was it offensive? Certainly.) But then you’d also have to spend the rest of your day calling him out for all the women on his blog that he’s called a slut or homewrecker or ugly…and I don’t have the time for that. He’s an asshat.

  24. Alessa
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    How do I put this delicately enough so as to portray that I am completely against what she said, yet refuse to hate someone for their beliefs?
    I think Miss California’s beliefs are wrong. Downright, completely wrong. But I also think that this bashing of what she thinks is a form of intolerance in itself. Yes, she is being intolerant, but I think the best thing for us to do, instead of hating her and slapping a label on her, is to just vote for what we believe and let her know what we think, but nothing else. We all know what it’s like to be called a cold feminist bitch, and how unfair it is. I think calling her a stupid bigot is just as bad, and perpetuating a problem of a lack of acceptance for everyone’s beliefs.
    I think the best way to go about fighting against her beliefs isn’t to bash her and assume all sorts of things about her. She was likely raised a Christian, and let’s be honest, probably truly, whole-heartedly believes what she’s saying. Isn’t that the same for us? Don’t we completely believe what we’re saying, and that patriarchy within our society still exists? But just for that we are labeled cold, humorless, angry… This isn’t any better.
    I am completely for gay marriage, and I think we all need to be fighting as hard as we can to help people like these see that it is discrimination to be denying so many people such a basic right. She clearly is a person who doesn’t see that. But I think that name calling only creates boundaries between all of us, and makes it nearly impossible for one side to listen to the other. How can we ever expect to communicate with these people if we can’t give them any other identity than their beliefs? If we can’t be willing to see them as people with a different view of the world? Only then will we be able to have an open dialogue.
    I would hope that we would try to not define a person by their thoughts, as we all so often suffer ourselves.
    All the same, we all need to be talking about gay marriage, so as to hurry it up and finally give so many people such a basic and fundamental right.

  25. Jrant
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    I agree with theKP. Allowing Miss CA to say what she wants DOESN’T mean we have to ACCEPT what she says. Allowing her to state her opinion and then giving her really low marks is a healthy scenario. I am really uncomfortable with any position that calls for silencing speech, even bigoted speech. Sadly, many Americans share Prejan’s opinions about “opposite marriage.” Telling those Americans “what you say is wrong, shut up and go away” only further alienates them. I wish a pro-gay marriage group would contact Prejan for a civilized discussion. THAT would be much more constructive than Perez’s tantrums. (so, SO angry at that man for giving up the moral high ground.)
    I actually LOVE the question of whether or not breast implants are “cheating.” I think it’s a great opportunity to examine the social construction of “fair play.” To be clear, I DON’T think average women who get implants or tattoos or weaves or whatever are necessarily guilty of anything – but the Miss USA/America pageants are COMPETITIONS just like sports events. I’ve heard several commentators say our approach to steroids in professional sports is uneven and nonsensical. I would love to see beauty pageant (sorry, scholarship competition) standards thrown into that conversation.

  26. puckalish
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Who ever said that “noone cares”? I mean, Samhita said she agrees with Jill, who flat-out said, Perez Hilton came across like an even bigger asshole [than Prejean]. Jill also pointed out that As of this writing, the second entry on Mr. Hilton’s website is a picture of Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel, upon which Mr. Hilton has MS Paint’ed penis microphones. We aren’t talking high-level debate here.
    So Hilton is a complete jerk, has nothing to add to any debate and is an established misogynist (I’d say misanthrope, actually, as he just likes talking trash and making rude drawings)… however, his comment isn’t the focus. The focus is on Prejean’s comment, as well as the sort of strict gender conformity to which she’s adhered. Is it okay with you to talk about that or should we do was llevinso suggests and call out Hilton on the millions of dumb, backwards and mean things he’s said and just leave the feminist analysis of pageant culture for after the revolution in which we overthrow pop culture-obsessed morons and gain a firm control of, um… US Weekly?

  27. Icy Bear
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Ya see, I think that that is an excellent sentiment, in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the reality of power structures in our society means that allowing people in certain groups to say whatever they want will silence people in other groups. If she’s promoting homophobic ideas, she is (albeit indirectly) making it harder for gay people to be respected, be heard, and in some situations, even live.
    I’m not saying she shouldn’t say such things, the lines between allowing free speech and not allowing hate speech is a concept I’ve been struggling with for awhile now, and I still don’t know what I think about it. But I do believe that this is a very difficult issue that can’t simply be dealt with by the happy ideal of ‘everyone should say whatever they want’.

  28. Lisa
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    I agree completely. I hope that Samhita intended to say that we shouldn’t defend the idea that people are free from judgment when expressing their beliefs. With free speech comes the responsibility of being held accountable for one’s beliefs and ideas. I hate when people express a bigoted opinion and when others call them out on it they begin screaming “Free speech! Free speech!” People are entitled to say whatever terrible things they want but it does not make them immune from judgment. I absolutely defend Miss California’s right to say what she said. And I think she’s a bigot for saying it.

  29. RebelliousVanilla
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Anyone who knows the history and purpose of marriage, knows that the term marriage would be wrongly applied to gays. I have no real problem with homosexual couples and they can do whatever they want as long as they respect the laws and stop these silly parades! Don’t they get that they make people dislike them with their attitude?
    Anyway, back on topic… Anyone who calls her a bigot, is a bigot themselves. This term is pretty hilarious since you can use it for anyone you want who has their own believes.
    And what’s hilarious is that the writer of the topic is outraged by the fact that a beauty contest doesn’t care about the ability of women, but their looks. It’s like WTF, didn’t you notice the term BEAUTY contest?!

  30. puckalish
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Who called her “stupid” other than Hilton, who has been squarely condemned both for his potty mouth and his generally misogyny on this site and elsewhere?
    I just did a search for the word on this page and you’re the first one to mention it.
    As far as calling her a “bigot,” well, it’s accurate… and she may genuinely not be aware of how her “point of view,” no matter how she was introduced to it, is couched in hatred and intolerance. Having some people directly call her out for being bigoted may really help her come to terms with that bigotry.
    I know, for me, I’ve been called out on malformed points of view on more than one occasion and even labeled by one label or another for my obliviousness and privilege… and well, you know what? Yeah, it hurt my feelings, but, once I got over that, it helped me to grow and understand that the views I had held and the things I had said were more harmful than any label like “bigot” could ever be.
    It’s worlds apart from calling feminists “cold, humorless and angry,” as those are inaccurate stereotypes… On the other hand, calling feminists “racist” or “classist” holds some real, if uncomfortable, truth to it and the movement can only grow by coming to terms with and struggling against that truth. This, at least, has been true for me in my own journey.

  31. Alessa
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    You can’t deny that there has been a lot of name-calling and unnecessary anger in these comments and the above post. All I’m saying is that is going to get us nowhere: it shuts people down. It makes them incapable of listening, because they are too busy seething.
    And I think hating her for her opinions gets us absolutely nowhere. There are plenty of men and women out there who hate us for our opinions, who think we are dead wrong and they are right. Yes, I think we are the ones who are right, but they feel the exact same way we feel about themselves. We shut down when someone calls us sexist; they’ll shut down when we call them bigots.
    I’m merely stating that I feel like this kind of language, while understandably used, does not help us in the least bit. Maybe you were able to get beyond being labeled and actually sit back and consider it, but you have to keep in mind that these people clearly aren’t thinking of gay people as equal to heterosexual – to me that just screams an “us versus them” mentality. Thus I really think that they are the last people we should be fighting by labeling them, as they’ll just get defensive label US as being under the “them” category.
    I understand your passion though, and I wish that things like this weren’t even an issue. That people understood and saw other who are different than them as nonetheless completely equal.

  32. Alessa
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    You can be married under the law. You don’t get hated for showing affection in public. You don’t have to deal with the discrimination that homosexuals deal with. You can’t honestly be telling homosexuals to tone down their “attitude”, to calm down?
    Are you serious? How on earth could you possibly assume to tell someone who is suffering under society to stop their “attitude”?
    The definition of bigot is “expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance”. Now tell me that doesn’t fit someone against gay marriage? In my above posts I stated that I am against calling anyone that because it gets no results, and causes devision, but the fact that you deny that anyone against gay marriage is one at all is completely ridiculous.
    I’m not even going to comment on your “beauty contest” spiel. My response would be way to long, and frankly I don’t have the time.

  33. RevolutionarilySpeaking
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    RebelliousVanilla, I’m glad you’re here for the simple fact that I think you stand to learn a lot as long as you keep reading the blog and are open to the ideas we generally agree on.

  34. Jeannie
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    I completely agree with you, as I already made the same statement in a comment above. Resorting to childish antics such as name calling makes people automatically not care to listen to any of our points or reasons for why we feel this way.
    I find it kinda funny that some are saying, “Oh, only Perez called her a dumb bitch, no one else, and he does it all the time, so why does it matter?” Yet, the commenter just above me simply wrote “What a scary, creepy, homophobic, bimbo.” The fact that there’s a feminist on a feminist website calling someone a bimbo is just sad. Do we need to get the Guerilla Girls in here for some lessons in name calling?

  35. era4allNOW
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    “…stop these silly parades! Don’t they get that they make people dislike them with their attitude?”
    Maybe you should stop parading your trolling self around here. Don’t you get you’re making people dislike you with your attitude??
    Also, laws can change. That’s what we are trying to do. CHANGE the law so it WOULD apply to gays. I know that’s really thinking outside of the box, but I believe in you. You can do it.
    Also, I think you don’t understand the FULL meaning of the word bigot:
    : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
    You only used the literal first part of the word, not understanding the connotation of the word which is explained by the rest of the definition. I’m not sure what racial or ethnic group you feel we are showing hatred or intolerance for, since it is only Miss CA that we are DISAGREEING with. Disagreeing with someone’s beliefs IS NOT THE SAME THING.
    And way to really think deeply about the affects of viewing women only by pre-defined standards of beauty instead of playing Captain Obvious in a condescending manner! No, not so much. Thanks for playing, but feel free to try again.
    Your ill-thought out comments are what are really hilarious.

  36. LalaReina
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    I liked your response. It bothers me when one side or the other of an issue automatically dismisses their opposition as evil or stupid. I come from a very traditional very catholic and my abuela/grandmother will always believe homosexual is wrong. On the other hand she also believes two people in a relationship need to have their rights respected and protected under the law. Sometimes reason can trump agreement.

  37. femmi
    Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    I’m just curious (genuinely), how do you feel that the right to same sex marriage affects you as a heterosexual person? I am Canadian, where same sex marriage is legal in every province, and I am continuely perplexed by the idea that same sex marriage even affects the lives of heterosexuals. I am heterosexual, and I do not feel as though same sex marriage affects my life at all.
    I am also confused about this business about the ‘defnition’ of marriage. Definitions evolve over time in all sorts of ways. What is the problem with the evolution of the word marriage to include same sex couples?
    I am genuinely curious about your opinion on these questions- I’m not being a smart ass. I am perplexed by the conservative viewpoint, and I would really like someone to explain it to me.
    However, you could stand to state your opinions on this website without being offensive.

  38. LalaReina
    Posted May 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    And of course I meant “very traditional Hispanic” “very catholic” background.

  39. JulieMarie
    Posted May 2, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I was happy to see all of the judges ask the five finalists political questions. Each of the finalists were scared and did not have any knowledge about the topic they were asked to comment on. One of them didn’t know what our tax money is spent on and floundered badly. It was as bad as the girl last year who didn’t know what geography was and showed how unintelligent she was.
    I didn’t know the contestants could have implants and fake hair and caps on their teeth. What about having a pageant where the contests have to be first of all highly intelligent, secondly they should know all about politics and current events in this country as they are representing this country. Third, they should have to be talented, have a particular talent. Fourth, they should be required to be all natural, no fake breasts. These women are sending young girls the message that get fake breasts, fake hair, that is what is important in life, and that you don’t have to be intelligent nor know anything about what is going on in the country. I look better in a bikini than Miss California just from exercising and proper diet, and I’m an older woman. The message to young women should be to exercise, eat well and get educated. What happened shows how stupid those women are and what a sham the Miss America pageant has turned into. It needs to be changed. What are these women supposed to be, only good looking in a bikini, brainless, have implants and then they are supposed to be very wholesome. It doesn’t make any sense. I would rather see someone like Condi Rice considered Miss America than these unintelligent young women with fake breasts.
    The girl who won the contest had much softer features than Miss California. The two finalists actually looked very similar except that the girl who won had much softer features, softer colored hair and looks like the girl next door. I don’t believe Miss California would have won the competition had she not made the comment about marriage. And, since 75 percent of young people are getting divorces and about 60 percent of middle aged people are getting divorces and the few people that are staying married are doing so because they can’t afford to get a divorce, can we get real about marriage is between a man and a woman? It has not been working very well for a very long time. Let the gays get married, more work for divorce lawyers, it will help to stimulate the economy. Gays couldn’t possibly screw it up any worse than straight people have.

  40. FlamingBiatch
    Posted May 2, 2009 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Why do I read this post and see: My religion says it’s wrong. Gays shouldn’t get married.
    I respect anyone’s religion, but, as I always retort to the religious members of my family when they spout things like RebelliousVanilla here: I am an atheist, as is my husband. No one harrasses US about whether our marriage is right “in the eyes of God”. No one harrasses US about whether we are going to “appropriately” procreate or not. No one harrasses US about whether we call it “marriage” or a “civil union”! WHY do gay people get these horrible, intrusive questions? WHY are they required to conform to religious standards, but a godless wench like myself can get married (and call herself married! Not “civil-unioned”) in my kitchen by a JP and everything is hunky-dory?? Just because I have a vagina and hubby has a penis. Ridiculous!

  41. smiley
    Posted May 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I am surprised about some of comments, in particular those that say that it is sad or bad that the women are judged on their looks, and not on their intelligence.
    Well, no one complains that boxers are also judged, in a way, on their ability to knock someone on the head, instead of their intellectual prowess. And no one asks footballers any taxing questions – in fact no one cares if a footballer is not bright.
    Why are parrticipants in beauty pageants judged by different standards?

  42. ggg_girl
    Posted May 3, 2009 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    LOL me too

  43. Jessica
    Posted May 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Please check out our comments policy – personal attacks and hate speech aren’t tolerated. Type carefully on your next comment.

  44. Ashlyn
    Posted May 5, 2009 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    It’s the fact that beauty pageants even exist that people are lamenting…

  45. sync
    Posted May 5, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    excuse me, but redarding to someone as an asshole because of her political believes counts for hate-speech in my book…
    so according to your rules articles are allowed to use “hate-speech” but comments are not?
    now i do sense some bigotry… ;)

  46. chelseagsummers
    Posted May 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    I disagree vehemently with Ms Prejean’s views on gay marriage. But I fail to see how lambasting this woman for her implants advances the argument. It’s an ad hominum attack, and that kind of unsophisticated rhetoric is best left to the playground.
    That said, there is a larger issue at hand. As a life-long feminist and a woman with breast implants, I fail to understand the outrage that simply choosing to get breast implants engenders. No liberal–and few feminists–would castigate a transgender woman for opting to get implants. And yet many feel absolutely no compunction about lashing out at cisgender women who do. Body snarking doesn’t do any woman–neither the snarker nor the snarkee–any good.
    I have always championed feminism because of its inclusiveness, its belief in the intrinsic equality of all humans, and its tenet of questioning socially constructed practices of gender. I am shocked to my D-cups that so many people like me feel so angry at people like me.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

234 queries. 1.453 seconds