I do not like Miss California Carrie Prejean. I think she's a bigot, and I don't particularly dig the way she's making the understandable negative reaction to her comments about same sex marriage about people "persecuting" her.
But no matter how I, or anyone else, feels about Prejean - this shit is simply wrong. It wasn't enough that folks were mocking the woman for getting breast implants, now they have to slut shame her into oblivion for some "nude" pictures. (And seriously, the pics are hardly scandalous considering the bathing suit competition and all.)
The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-clad when she was a teenage model.Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday it appears the 21-year-old Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the state contest.
The contract contains a clause asking participants whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards" and if they've ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
Apparently it's only okay for women to be objectified when it's the pageant that's doing it.
It also irks me to no end that sites like the one that released these "scandalous" pictures (and no, I won't link to them) justify themselves by claiming that they've caught Prejean being a hypocrite.
The text posted along with the photo on [redacted] does describe Prejean as a "self-proclaimed bible thumper," and concludes: "So much for being a good role model for the state of California Carrie. Looks like your Dirty photo shoot makes you a sinner too."
You know, there are plenty of ways to fight back against discrimination and hypocrisy - sexually shaming women isn't one of them. Not only is it intellectually lazy (really, there's no other way to show that Prejean's comments were terrible?), but fighting homophobia with misogyny pretty much reeks of hypocrisy itself, no?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Shaming Miss California: Stop fighting homophobia with misogyny.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13543
Well, for some, it's not about slut-shaming, it's about Prejean holding herself up to the same moral standard she claims to represent. She claims to represent conservative family values and anti-gay conservative Christianity, and nude photographs (possibly of her when she was a minor, no less) aren't exactly the most pro-family value and Christian things to have on your record. There are plenty of things wrong with her argument, of course; as a young queer female who worked against Prop 8 in conservative Orange County, CA, I of all people know that. However, if she's going to predicate her worldview on the notion that all ought to be Biblical and Christian and pure, then there's nothing wrong with adopting her viewpoint and saying that from her very own perspective, she is far from Biblically sound and moral.
I agree with this. This really isn't about breast implants or nude photos. It's about hypocrisy. I don't see her critics as shaming her sexuality. I think they're shaming her hypocrisy. If she's going to use following the Bible like a good Christian as a reason to support the oppression of gays and lesbians, then she should follow the Bible like a good Christian and keep her clothes on and not defile her body. She tells other people to follow the Bible, but she doesn't follow it herself when it comes to her own life.
@Helina
She's promoting X conservative Christian value. Simultaneously, she violates Y conservative Christian value.
But going after her for her hypocrisy, by attacking for violating Y, the conversation becomes less about why X is wrong and more about how she should be following Y. We only validate conservative Christian values.
You know, I totally hear what you're saying. But I think that there is a way to discuss her hypocrisy without posting semi-nude pics, implying she's a "slut," etc. We should be better than that.
it's about Prejean holding herself up to the same moral standard she claims to represent.
It's also about mechanisms that support those fundamentalist Christian moral standards -- including the reduction of women to sexual utilities, for good or for ill. Prejean doesn't seem like a hypocrite to me, considering her former job, her choice to get breast implants, and her choice to compete in beauty pageants. Just complicit in the stuff that goes on behind the altar.
Okay, even if this is intended to be about hypocrisy and not about slut-shaming, isn't the end result the same? Either way, the argument is "don't take her seriously, she's an immoral slut." If you want to make the argument that she's cherry picking which parts of the Bible she upholds as inviolable, you could simply ask if she eats shellfish or if she thinks adulterers should be stoned to death.
I think that we, as feminists, have to be critical of ALL attempts at slut-shaming. Just because there's a pretense of this REALLY being about hypocrisy, the bedrock argument here is NAKED GIRL = BAD GIRL
But I don't think that's what the folks at Jezebel did. Whoever wrote that piece called Prejean a sinner, not a slut. They were criticizing her hypocrisy when it comes to her Christian faith, since those photos and pageantry in general go against the Christian value of modesty. They're criticizing her in the context of her value system, not theirs.
It's like the sex scandals of Larry Craig and Ted Haggert. Progressives don't give a shit that they're gay. They care that they're hypocrites -- promoting discrimination against homosexuals while being gay themselves.
The problem is that Christians, like feminists, are not a monolithic group. Some whole Christian factions could give a shit about modesty, not to mention the fact that we all know that individuals will tend to do as they like.
And someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that everyone is couching this as a "Christian" thing when as I recall her initial response regarding gay marriage only mentioned "the way [she] was raised." It may be in the context of a Christian upbringing, but she may just be acting and speaking from the perspective of her family and parents' values - not necessarily Christian ones. If this is the case, then her parents most likely instilled the "traditional marriage" belief in her but may not have had such strong feelings about female modesty. After all, she does do pageants, and they do have swimsuit segments.
I suspect that her being "outed" as a Christian is a good way for the media circus around this incident to explain away her opinion, when the history of her upbringing and formation of her ideals is perhaps a bit more complicated.
What difference does it make that she didn't say "Christian" in her initial comment? She's talked about it since. That makes her a Christian. And if there's any question:
"Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith."
"I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."
Nobody has any business judging anybody. But Ms. Prejean thinks it's her god-given right to work for an anti-equality group that persecutes gays, but she doesn't want anyone questioning her choices. She's a hypocrite.
I wasn't trying to suggest that she isn't Christian, or that she has denied being Christian.
It was more that her beliefs aren't necessarily the result of her Christianity. She could believe the things she does simply because that's what she was taught at home. If her parents taught her to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but they didn't spend a lot of time instructing her not to pose semi-nude, then her personal belief system wasn't per se compromised by doing so.
The comments you quoted seem to be responding directly to people calling her a bad Christian because she posed for the photos. In a vacuum, separate from anything else she's said, those comments are justified.
To be clear, I wasn't criticizing the post at Jezebel - just linking to their analysis of what was screwed up about the pics.
Word, word, word. All of what you say, I am agreeing with. I would even feel the same way if she was in a picture where she was full frontal nude.
I think one thing we can say about her is that while she tried to pull off that whole white America, traditional, WASP values vibe she isn't exactly the wholesome Bible-thumper she wanted to be.
She's a hypocrite, if nothing else.
Jessica this is a great post and I agree with a lot of it (despite the fact that I may have been guilty of calling Prejean a stupid, sanctimonious bitch when I first saw one of her interviews saying she was going to "pray" for Perez Hilton. That said, I know intellectually that calling her names like "bitch" and "cunt" are not cool.)
However, as to the breast implants thing--I don't really have a problem with people mocking that, b/c I think it mainly deals with the hypocrisy of pageant culture. Wasn't the scandal related to that centered on how the California pageant committee or whatever paid for her implants? Thereby underlying the fact that for all the lip service about pageants being about scholarships for young women and the like, it's really just about objectifying them and holding to an unrealistic beauty standard...that was my take on that.
I agree Jessica. This is slut-shaming at its worst. It doesn't matter if she is a hypocrite (which I think she is, but I knew that before the pictures), she doesn't deserve this treatment. She deserves to be judged on her merits, or lack thereof.
I guess we shouldn't expect too much from someone entering a BEAUTY PAGEANT in 2009, but anyhow...yeah if she were being biblically correct, she'd not be out of the house and certainly not parading around in a fucking swimsuit on TV. She'd be pretty much legally owned by her husband.
The Bible is all about misogyny. You can't pick and choose. Her outfits are undoubtedly mixed fiber, and I will *assume* she eats shrimp sometimes. Therefore, she is not being "Biblically correct".
I really am impressed by many Christians and other bigots viewing their "right" to hate speech and outward discrimination as being trampled upon and being persecuted! It takes quite a disconnect from logic and decency to allow that to be used as a valid argument.
Usually I am against this sort of thing (talking about someone's boobs or whatever), but she doesn't represent me, and she doesn't represent any women that I know so I don't really think it's unfair to call her out how they've done. Do I wish they would do it with something other than misogyny? Absolutely. She started this whole mess though. She's a condescending asshole and she deserves to be booted.
The Bible is all about misogyny. You can't pick and choose. Her outfits are undoubtedly mixed fiber, and I will *assume* she eats shrimp sometimes. Therefore, she is not being "Biblically correct".
Way to display your biblical ignorance -- so pervasive in your three statements. Keep it up!
How is this biblical ignorance?
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. (Lev ll:9-12)
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
(Lev 19:19)
And don't get me started on hair cuts menstruating women.
The point is that Christians can't just Cherry pick Bible versus to support bigotry, when they themselves do not follow that book to the T.
"Let he without sin cast the first stone"
Too bad very few Christians adhere to the actual teachings of Christ.
Sorry, didn't mean to detract from the orig subject.
Oh... Please. Just please. Levi?
The primary Christian text is the New Testament.
Ohhhh, which is why "The Bible" contains the New Testament AND the Old Testament. Must have missed the memo about not paying attention to the Old Testament... even though the 10 commandments are in that part.
Maybe Christians should ignore Genesis as well so that we dont have this whole "creation vs evolution" problem anymore.
Except for the fact that quite nearly ALL Christians look at the Old Testament with a open, and yes, cherry-picking attitude. If they didn't, every man that has ever shaved his beard would go to hell.
I think the biggest difference here is that Christians pick what they see to be the most realistic and moral parts from the Old Testament. Some Christians choose the parts that are primarily concerned with loving your neighbor, while others choose a much worse variety... You HAVE to cherry pick with The Bible (especially in the old testament!)
The quotes provided by Kelley Jean were among the variety of many that a lot of Christians would disregard, and only out of necessity. Honestly, please provide ONE book written over 2000 years ago that doesn't have sexism in it. Nothing is completely clean!
On your argument that there are Christians who use these kinds of lines to promote intolerance and hatred... Yes. There are.
But it REALLY would have been appreciated if you had been a lot more considerate about this to other Christians who don't do these kinds of things, and acknowledge that a more *quiet* majority of Christians really aren't like that at all.
And really, just for the record, I am completely for gay marriage. I think Jesus was the coolest cat, but I really think that no one has the right to deny gays the right to marriage. I am just kind of blown away by the blatant lack of PC here when everyone has to be so incredibly careful for every other group and not offending anyone. It just seems like there's a general attitude of "say what you want about Christians because they're the enemy". A good portion of them are not. But very few people seem concerned with mentioning that.
You're right. Pretty much every Christian nowadays cherry picks from the Bible. In my opinion, this discredits all the people who say "the whole Bible is the complete literal truth of God."
It seems you're not one of these people, which means most criticisms of fundamentalist Christians don't apply to you. But I think for people who claim to literally follow the whole Bible, it is illogical and inconsistent from them to only cherry pick certain parts out of it.
The solution? These people should wake up and see they aren't literally following the Bilbe and that, in fact, it's probably impossible to literally follow ANY book. And hopefully they'll get over their anti-gay views and other prejuidices as well.
I hear you there sister.
Why all the hate?
Um, well isn't is Lev which Christians use against Homosexuality?
I realize they mainly rely on the New Testament, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuals.
That's because he had a thing with Judas.
Um, well isn't it Lev which Christians use against Homosexuality?
I realize they mainly rely on the New Testament, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuals.
So if a person is going to claim that homosexuality is an abomination and try to pass laws discriminating against us then they damn sure better be willing to follow the other laws written in Leviticus.
I didn't say I was agreeing with her. I am just saying that there's been a lot of generalizing of Christians overall in this thread that's been pretty offensive.
Yes, she is a bigot who is cherry picking all the wrong things. But why is there all this unnecessary Bible bashing? There are so many people who read it and take the good from it, but there's been such a lumping of Christians in this thread. It's driving me nuts...
Addendum, I wasn't trying to lump all Christians together. I just tend to rant because I am tired of being denied my rights based upon some ancient text by those who don't even follow the rules themselves.
It did not mean any ill will, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
I just would like religion to be kept as a personal thing and left out of policy making.
According to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hate speech is a no no.
Kay.
I feel better now :)
Thanks!
Well, let's define Christianity. Christianity is the belief that Christ, the son of God, fulfilled God's law by sacrificing his life. And what is God's law? It is the Torah, or Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible, one of which you quote from. Much of the Torah, in fact most of it, deals with the practical law of day to day life 2,000 years ago -- which should bring in to focus why, yeah...it might not be a good idea to eat pork and circumcize a boy child.
So the banning of flesh from cloven-hoofed animals, eating scaled animals, sowing mixed seeds, weaving mixed fibers, the bathing rituals for menstruating women, hair length -- not required of Christians by definition of their faith. Following the Bible to a T? Jews do (have). Christians don't (have to). Blunt, but that's the nutshell.
Even your own ignorance of what the Bible means to Christians undercuts a fabulous point that could be made from the "cherry picking" argument. There is not a lot said about homosexuality in the New Testament. So little is said, in fact, that defending homophobia from a Christian perspective is almost indefensible -- because the focus must, from a Christian perspective, be made from the New Testament and not the Old.
Too bad very few Christians adhere to the actual teachings of Christ.
--How right you are. I don't think most Christians would think Christ was a very good "Christian."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong...I once had a feminist professor tell me that a man who identifies himself as a woman is a woman, ie we evaluate people on their own terms.
Can a Christian get the same respect? Except for literalists most Christians (liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist) use the Bible as just a starting point. So if she says she's a Christian, she's a Christian. This is much like my Jewish friends who eat pork are still Jewish, as are my Muslim friends who drink. To put it another way, I'm certainly sure you believe the Taliban are Muslims even though they've twisted the Koran out of all recognition.
There are Christian feminists and it'd be nice if we didn't have to puke on our way to trying to have a thoughtful discussion on an important matter.
On the off chance this isn't lost in the ether...
No, not wrong. My argument is to evaluate and converse with these Christians on their own terms. However, the way most people seem to want to do that is discredit said Christians by holding up their lives to a biblical checklist. That constitutes a hypocrisy hunt, which I think undercuts any hope for having an honest, open dialogue.
My point, in fact, is respect. Ms. Prejean is a Christian because she says is, inherently underscoring that religion is much than that a simple tick-box for the day. I think it's correspondingly disrespectful to attempt to discredit Christians by showing how they fail to tick off all the religious requirements the unfamiliar might believe is fundamental to the faith.
I'm pretty biblically ignorant myself, but aren't the statements against homosexuality right next to the ones about not wearing mixed fibers and not eating shrimp? i think that's what the OP is getting at; you can't follow one law to the complete T and disregard another inconvenient one right after it.
I really am impressed by your complete lack of knowledge concerning The Bible and your bigotry towards all Christians! I went to Catholic school for 12 YEARS (high school was all-girls!), with 1 hour a DAY of Bible study. The Old Testament is fairly sexist, but only as much as everyone else was 2,000 YEARS AGO. Have you even read The New Testament? The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? The Gospel of Thomas? The main message in that entire book is a message of loving your neighbor and of compassion! The fact that you're equating an extreme version of Christianity with ALL Christianity while completely glossing over the more widespread, more common denominations is so frustrating. It's like saying all Muslims are extremists. Have you ever heard of the Episcopalian Church? They have Gay ministers. And women, too.
I don't consider myself Catholic, but only because I think the Church is a human institution and inherently flawed. For you to dismiss The Bible as just a misogynist text is so incredibly insulting. There is so much more to it than those stupid surface meanings, especially seeing as (once again) it's over 2000 years old.
Finally getting back on topic, I can tell you that anyone being raised in THAT particular branch of Christianity has a damn hard time changing. I've seen it up close and personal, and it's like some of these kids are practically brain-washed from a young age. There's a difference between religious respect with gentle criticism and attack, and I know I'm toeing that line, but that's the way it is. These kids are taught to believe some things or they'll go to hell, it's a fact. It's horrible that you think that just because she was raised to believe this and truly feels it she should be publicly ridiculed and hated. What she thinks is her business, no one else's. Even if I do think her opinions are incredibly bigoted and wrong.
I didn't really see her comment as being bigoted towards Christians. I didn't interpret it as her talking about ALL Christians, I interpreted the comment as her being upset about those people who call themselves Christians, but then turn around and act very UN-Christian or display outright bigotry and discrimination towards certain groups of people (i.e. LGBT people, Women, POC, etc.) and then using the bible to justify this discrimination.
I think she's also pointing out how some people will selectively use the bible to justify their discrimination and bigotry by saying stuff like "the bible says so" when at the same time they will ignore other parts of the bible for their own convenience. I used to teach Sunday school way back when (although I've pretty much denounced my religion now) but back then I, personally, didn't believe in "strict biblical interpretations" and "everything the bible says is true", in the bible there is slavery, and misogyny, and many other things that I just don't agree with...I never believed that "just because the bible says so, that it must be". But to those people who selectively use the bible to justify their own bigotry, I think it's perfectly fair to point out this hypocrisy, nor do I think it's being bigoted towards Christians...perhaps the original comment could be worded a bit better, but I don't think her intention was to put down ALL Christian people.
Actually, nope. Don't assume such things (that I haven't read this or that). Recovering Christian. Almost every Sunday for over 17 years. I read a large amount of it, including the Old Testament, which is referred to by Jesus in the New Testament. Not that that's saying anything more noteworthy than that I have read all of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Just saying. I do have apoint of reference and have believed all of it, too.
I am not just picking on Christians, but this is the topic, and I am pointing out her hypocrisy. Most religions are inherently misogynistic. Of course they can be interpreted differently, but I thought a reasonable person would realize I was/am referring to Christians who take one or two verses about homosexuality and ignore everything else about loving thy neighbor and all that. The stuff Jesus actually supposedly said when he wasn't being all magic and making food appear for the thousands (which, by the way, doesn't include women in the numbers. How strange!)
Thanks!
Sorry for coming off so strong. There is sometimes so much anger against Christians in general that I can't help but have a hot button to it. I go to an art school though, and it's easier to come out as gay here than to come out as Christian (which I don't think is a bad thing.. Just as switching one extreme for the other). One of my teachers went on a tirade a couple weeks ago against Jesus, and I was so offended but decided to keep my mouth shut because all the students were nodding their ascent and a couple piping in. And I just didn't have the energy.
Well in everything else you said I agree with you.
I don't think the anger against Christianity is unfounded. You have to understand that 1. Christians are NOT a minority and they need to stop acting as such. 2. They have been imposing (selective) morals on people, into legislation. That is my main problem. You can't legislate morality.
When someone is trying to withhold rights for roughly 10% of the population that is afforded to the other 90%, I have a problem with that. I don't think that stance is really defensible except to say that is is an opinion, and as an opinion, can't be "correct" or "incorrect". If she were against black and white people getting married, none of us would be having this conversation. I really do believe that this sort of "thinking" (more like non-thought) will eventually change, and she can drag her pretty, manicured knuckles into the 2000's.
I have a lot of family members that are Christians. Hell, I'm not even out!
There are decent and indecent people of all creeds. I feel it is up to CHRISTIANS to take a stand against the bigots within their own ranks. I do appreciate that we can have a civilized dialogue!
Well, my only thing is that it's just the generalizations of ALL Christians. Like I said, I think it's terribly unfair to have anger at an entire group of people, when there are many in that group who are not necessarily against gay marriage. Anger at the fundamentalists? Found. Anger at some Episcopalians? Not found. Anger at cafeteria-Catholics? Not found. (IE Catholics who pick and choose... I was one for a while who was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Just don't tell the priest who I received communion from).
Anger at a religion in general? Not found at all. And a very dangerous, slippery slope to embark on. Anger at Jews was the start of anti-semitism, and anti-semitism led to horrible acts on a massive scale.
Anger at someone for the sexual orientation? Not found. Also a very dangerous, slippery slope that can result in horrible outcomes. Both groups were included in the holocaust.
So anger at Christians? I would say not found. How about anger at people against gay marriage? That seems to make more sense.
It's a sad reality of life, people make generalizations. The majority of Christians in the US are against gay marriage and abortion, both. So it's easy to generalize. You are in a similar position to a feminist man. You hold views that are in the minority for a group you identify with (Christianity). So you get blamed for the problems of the bigoted majority within your group.
The majority of Christians in the US are against gay marriage and abortion, both. So it's easy to generalize.
Really? The majority? Do you have some kind of statistic for that? If that's actually true, I will be genuinely surprised. Forgive me for waxing anecdotal, but the majority of people I've met who self-identify as Christian are not in the least bit actually religious; they just thought Jesus was kind of a cool dude and they like celebrating Christmas. And granted I don't live in the Bible Belt, but I just don't think that generalization holds much water. We only ever hear about crazy Christians because what fun would a news story about normal ones be?
Wow, did you really just knee jerk your way from issues with Christianity to the Holocaust? Honestly I do not see anyone on here making sweeping generalizations or aspersions on Christianity, but simply discussing the topic at hand. Please rethink your privilege and maybe try choosing your analogies less dramatically next time- I promise you Christians in this country are in no danger of being rounded up and killed off.
I didn't say that I thought Christians were going to be rounded up and killed. How ridiculous.
What I was saying was that this kind of mindset led to that. And that our acceptance of other religions is what separates us from that.
And I will NOT shut up if I keep hearing hate speech towards Christianity. Absolutely not. YOU might not be picking up on it, but any statement that generalizes Christians as all anti-gay pro-life people is misled and unfair.
Please don't give me your sarcasm. If this was a question of someone generalizing all gay men as giggling guys who wear dolce and gabbana we would not even be discussing this, anyone agreeing with it would be a complete bigot.
Now I did not say I thought you were saying Christians were in danger of being rounded up, what I did say is that is a ridiculous comparison. Christians are the majority in this country, not the oppressed minority, and the persecution of Jews was about more than religious intolerance. Either way your whole outrage is just completely unfounded. Discussing some of the negative aspects and traditions of an insitution does not denigrate every member of the same.
Please, please do not compare things with the Holocaust when they have no bearing whatsoever to it.
And if you do, really, deep in your heart think it's relevant? It's not. The Holocaust/Shoah was hatred of the Jewish race, not the Jewish religion. Victims' religion had nothing to do with it, only their parentage. Some did not even know they were "Jews."
Yeah...there's nothing in the "New Testament" that's mysoginistic...WAIT! There is!
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.
“…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord.” Colossians 3:18
And that's just a few of the fun times in store for women according to the "New Testament" You, and your congregation may not embrace these decidedly outmoded instructions but that doesn't mean it's not in the New Testament. Do you get to "pick and choose" which portions of this "infallible instruction book for life" that you abide by when it's convenient?
Ms Cali gets to disregard the calls for modesty but embraces the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality (and thus - homosexual partnership and marriage as "not right")? How does THAT work?
As a Jewess I may enjoy my bacon, mixed fibers, shrimp and other tasty delights, and I do show flagrant disregard for pre-medical and pre-scientific superstitious notions about female bodily functions and implied purity, but I know enough not to then take the texts of my faith and use them to WHOMP other people who don't obey and adhere 100% to them (especially if those people don't share my faith)
Ms Cali and others may feel free to choose which parts speak to them - but if you pick and choose you have no right to quote scripture to throw stones at other people (or pull the splinter out of their eye) when she's got a log in hers by the standards of the religious text she chooses to adhere to.
The modesty to which the New Testament speaks is both modesty of spirit and of outward display.
1 Peter 3:3 "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."
1 Timothy 2:9-10 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But with good works."
If you'll allow me to paraphrase - not with breast implants, expensive pageant gowns and presumably some sort of tooth veneer system - but with good works (y'know, being a valuable member of society based on what you DO, not what you look like) It's not necessarily slut shaming to say "be modest!" because modest has to do with more than just how much skin is showing - but also how you decide to draw attention to yourself. Immodesty would be primarily concerned judging from the above verses - with obnoxious displays of wealth
From what I gather the idea is that you focus the majority of your energy directed at impressing others with the kind or good things you do, not what you can purchase. It's a good idea.
It does not appear Ms Cali is in line with this doctrine - she did not directly quote the bible (to my knowledge, but I only listened to it once) in her interview - but it is likely that if she identifies as a Christian she most likely objects to homosexual marriage on 'biblical grounds'
Which is pretty stupid considering she's in violation of even the loosest and kindest interpretation of a tenant of the Christian belief system - why exactly does she get to decide what should and shouldn't be legally allowed based on beliefs she's already decided she wants to ignore for the most part?
I'll hate on her for a reason that's got nothing to do with gender - she's a dumbass, and I find her obnoxious to boot.
Additionally I am not saying shes not "allowed" to be illogical, but that it is illogical to decide, yourself, to pick and choose portions of a religious text you wish to abide by and then use the same religious text to whomp other people you dislike for whatever reason.
If the logic is that this text and everything included in it is there because it is the infallible and directly inspired word of G-d transmitted through man for instruction of life...how can you decide which parts of a supposedly infallible and direct from G-d text that you, the infallible and not-G-d human get to obey or not? I don't suppose all Christians believe this idea about the Bible - however that idea is a large contributing factor as to why people choose to obey this particular religious text as opposed to others.
She's got every "right" to be illogical in her religious beliefs as a human being, but as a self professed Christian within the context of her Christianity where is *HER* explicit "right" to pick and choose which over rides others explicit right to pick and choose?
Simply because it's her opinion and interpretation of her religious belief doesn't mean it's not a bigoted, illogical, or just plain dumb. One is not obligated to respect peoples religious beliefs simply because they are religious or dearly held. For instance - I have 0 respect for the religious beliefs of some types of Catholics who believe Jews are responsible for the death of Christ and all the crazy ideas that stem from that (Jews deserve the holocaust!) I will openly ridicule people for holding that opinion.
Just because it's a religious ideal does not mean it is entitled to respect from other people within and outside of that belief system.
Full disclaimer: I come from a bireligious family - Southern Baptist father, Jewish mother. I chose Judaism. I attended highschool at a strict Southern Baptist establishment, and not of my own volition. But what a learning experience...
The "it was 2000 years ago" stuff doesn't wash with me. At one point, slavery was awesome, as far as most whites were concern. Do they get a pass because "that was a long time ago?" I consider slaveholders, misogynists, and all other forms of bigots to be morally indefensible, and I don't care when they lived. I certainly wouldn't base my life upon the teachings of such people, with the excuse that their evils happened "back then" as my defense.
As for the idea that it's okay to cherry-pick because "you have to." No, you don't have to. I was raised Mormon. I rejected that religion and Christianity as a whole because I was unwilling to live according to those rules and that horrendous ethical system. No one "has to be" Christian. They choose to be. They choose to cherry-pick, and claim their religion is all about love, while clinging to the OT. The OT has been used as a basis for a ton of theological thinking. That theological thinking didn't just disappear, and it continues today. To say that the 10 Commandments are "god's law," but you can ignore the hatred of homosexuals and women that lie right next to them is intellectually dishonest. Either you believe in The Bible or you don't.
The Bible consists of two parts, and I've only seen Christians disavow the OT when the implications of it are pointed out. It includes the idea that killing civilians is god's way, that sexually enslaving "women children" is god's way, that killing gay men is god's way, that killing unfaithful women is god's way. To say that the OT is a good guide for living your life when it comes to certain things, but you can ignore all that other stuff? I just don't see how that kind of argument holds together on a logical basis.
Beyond that, why cling to Christianity at all? Most (if not all) of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth, from the virgin birth to the resurrection, are ripped off from older religions. Many of the stories in the OT are, as well. So, how can any of this be the word of god, when it's really the words of other peoples' gods/goddesses? Why stick to the Christian telling of these stories, rather than worshiping the gods/goddesses of those older religions?
And it doesn't end with the stories. Why do you celebrate Easter, which is based on the phases of the moon and the Vernal Equinox? Why is it based on that? Because the older religions celebrated the Vernal Equinox as a holy time. So, suddenly, the crucifixion and death of Jesus were tied to the moon, rather than celebrated on a specific day. How does that work? Why do you celebrate All Saints' Day, which is ripped from the old celebration of Samhain? Why celebrate all of these co-opted holidays? Christian leaders co-opted these and other holidays in order to force their religion on other people. (Of course, they also used things like threat of death as the club, just in case the honey didn't work.) What makes Christianity "right," when it's not even original?
Thank you so much for posting this. I feel like this girl has put up with enough and frankly it bothers me to see so many people crucifying her. I completely disagree with her on the issue of gay marriage and also think it's bigotry, but at the same time I understand that she likely believes it with all of her heart, in accordance with all of her "Christian" values (I personally don't think Jesus would give a damn about whether a person prefers males or females). Sometimes the way you're raised really does just make it nearly impossible to let anything else get through...
It's no excuse for her opinion. But frankly I defend her right to have it. But like I said, I think it's bigotry at it's finest to want to take away a basic right from people just because YOU don't think it's right.
Go ahead and flame me for it.
"Go ahead and flame me for it. "
::flames::
Ok, I'm done.
Well that was actually a rather pleasant flaming.
Thank you kindly!
Thanks for giving your opinion here. I am in agreement with you about the number of times I read (here at Feministing, usually): "Bigoted people don't deserve to say their opinions."
We can call people out on their illogic, or their application of certain principles of their religion to larger non-religious society, etc. But to say they have no right to speech? And to approve of misogynistic exploitation of same people because, well "they deserve it"?
I also am becoming reluctant to read any posts that have to do with Christianity anymore because of the profoundly uneducated stereotypes that are spouted by so many. Even all of the "Biblical" talk makes me want to scream.
People!! There are LOTS of different theologies & expressions of Christianity!! For cripes sake, what if I said, "Well all those Asians just work their kids to death in school," or, "Stupid Italians only teach their male children to oppress women," I would look pretty dumb, wouldn't I. That's how you look talking about "Bible literalists" as if that defines Christianity. Just because you read it on somebody's "religious people are stupid" website, doesn't mean that it is actually true.
i have never once, on any feminist or progressive blog that has discussed this topic, seen a single person actually say that prejean didn't have the "right" to say what she did. but freedom of speech is not the freedom from criticism for that speech. we criticize what she said. that is not the same thing as disputing her right to say it.
as for this whole boobies/newdz thing, at least with the modeling photos, i'm going to have to part ways with jess, because i think it's entirely fair to point out her hypocrisy. i think that in the aggregate, showing how those who wish to use their religions to make law for others are very often unable to follow their religious laws either, is a good thing.
I don't defend her right to have said it. It is hate speech. I think there is a difference between defending someone's right to free speech and defending someone's right to Hate Speech. When the person who is speaking is looking to oppress a group of people and deny them rights I have no sympathy for their "right to free speech".
Jessica, I agree with you, but she shouldn't have signed the contract with the Miss USA company when she knew she had nude or semi-nude photos out there. And, from what I understand, she had a platform worked out that didn't have anything to do with "traditional" marriage and she's ignoring it to use her Miss California title to push the anti-gay marriage message. Being in a pageant is like being employed, it's not like winning a contest. She's supposed to do what she has agreed to do, and if she doesn't, the Miss California office (or whatever it's called) has the right to strip her of her crown and sash.
I soooo agree. It's nothing but mixed messages. You have to be super sexy and have breast implants to be in a pageant, but you also have to seem extremely chaste and if it comes out you actually act in a sexual manner you're outed. Ugh fucking pageants.
With regards to her comment, no, she had no right to say it, if the question had been about interracial marriage and she stated her beliefs were against it, everyone outside of the KKK would have flipped out, as they should.
Sorry you can't be an open bigot about race, and we're getting to the point where you can't be an open bigot about sexuality get over it.
I kinda get how it can not be a mixed message. It plays into the whole girl on a pedestal thing. There is this ideally beautiful woman who is the epitone of what feminity is suppose to be. She is for being looked at, not thinking. This idea of a woman in a bird cage who puts herself on display for men. She should also be chaste and wholesome. She is suppose to be sexy, just not sexual.
I understand your outrage over some of the gloating going around the internet, as though posing topless makes a woman immoral. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say "this shit is simply wrong," linking one of the words to an AP article that simply says that the pageant lawyers are claiming she may have violated a contract she signed. How is raising the possibility of an allegation of a contract breach "wrong?"
For one thing, according to that article, the elements of a breach might, at least from the pageant's perspective, be twofold: Semi-nude photos as well as working for a national anti-marriage rights group. I hadn't known the latter could be interpreted as a potential breach of contract. But I'm assuming that Prejean and most pageant contestants are well familiar with the trouble that can be made by semi-nude photos, particularly after that shitstorm 25 years ago over Vanessa Williams, who'd had amateur photos that weren't even authorized for release.
You know that's also a good point-shame on me for not looking at that before I posted.
Being in trouble for breaching a contract is not in itself slut-shaming. Now obviously we can have issues with what exactly that contract is--which is probably loads of sexist bull-crap. At the same time, however, she should expect to get legal flak if she violates a contract that she agreed to.
I just blogged about this last night! I agree with this assessment. Standing by feminist principles and fighting misogyny even when its hard is absolutely necessary.
I am mocking HER because she is a Christian hypocrite who claims to be a good girl. yes, getting fake boobs and posing half-naked in photos make her such a good Christian girl.
I myself am not a Christian and I don't give a s--t how people interpret religion, but she's such a huge example of a two-faced, lying, repulsive hypocrite.
I will gladly mock her all day and I'm NOT going to apologize for it.
AND I am proud of the way the media is attacking her. It makes me happy.
Stop making me have to defend Carrie Prejean, please. If she were any other woman you'd be screaming 'misogyny' at the top of your lungs (and justifiably so since what's happening is, in fact, misogyny) but just because she's ignorant regarding this one issue you throw her right under the bus.
Posing nude and having breast augmentation surgery has nothing to do with her views regarding marriage equality. There's nothing hypocritical about doing either of those things. What is hypocritical is you picking and choosing whom you protect based on whether or not they fall in line with every opinion you have.
Posing nude and having breast implants DOES have everything to do with her christian beliefs, as they go against her bible scriptures regarding a woman being chaste and covering herself. And, her christian beliefs DO have everything to do with her discriminatory stance on marriage equality as she stated in her answer about how she was brought up.
I think there is a DEFINITE connection between the two.
Connection or not, we're all just perpetuating the patriarchy by using it against her. It doesn't help our cause.
Her Christian beliefs are hers alone. Who are you to define them for her, and decide what is or is not in violation of them?
Hey, back off with the rage Ronin. My point was that "I" believe a connection exists. I am neither defining not throwing stones. HER bible defines and also state punishments. Try going on one of the christian blogs and they post all the references about her "sins" that anyone would bother to read.
No rage -- sorry for coming across like that.
Posing nude and having breast implants DOES have everything to do with her christian beliefs, as they go against her bible scriptures regarding a woman being chaste and covering herself.
What is chaste and what is covering oneself? No Bible I've read gives a detailed definition of chaste or an interactive map of what you can and can't cover up.
Belief is individual. Her belief is her belief.
On the New Testament side, Paul says that women have to cover their heads in church or have their heads shaved; additionally, women are not to wear gaudy or flashy clothing. Also, if Christians like Miss California are going to cite Old Testament law to show that God hates homosexuals, then they probably should follow Old Testament modesty laws, which are pretty clearly laid out.
You speak as though all Christians are raised under the same value system. Are you really that naive? Obviously Carrie was raised to believe that she had the right to do with her body as she wished (and thank goodness for that) but was taught that homosexuality is a sin. Based on that she is not a hypocrite at all, just ignorant regarding this specific issue.
Maybe if so many people hadn't attacked her body and slut shamed her unduly someone could have had a rational conversation with her and educated her. Now there's little to no chance that will ever happen. That's a real shame and really gets to the heart of what bothers me most about this whole thing. How are we meant to convince a single soul that same sex marriage is right and fair when so much unnecessary hate speech is being thrown around?
Bitsy. You speak as though all Christians are raised under the same value system. Are you really that naive?
Your sentence has nothing to do with the topic.
NO OFFENSE, but you seem to be the type of person that would have no problem being sweet to someone's face, yet verbally stab them in the back.
I was responded to your comment that her nude photos and breast implants are connected to her Christian value system. You pointed to one aspect of the Bible that you presumed Carrie was raised to believe in and I posited that, based on her actions, that she was not. You accused her of being a hypocrite and I am saying that, based on what I've seen, she isn't. She's absolutely wrong but that does not automatically equate to hypocrisy.
I have done nothing to support your theory that I am sweet to someone's face but then attack them behind their back. If you want to actually debate me on this issue then please leave unsubstantiated personal attacks out of it.
Please check our comments policy - no personal attacks.
This is the same misogynistic bullcrap that was pulled on Sarah Palin. Such as Andrew Sullivan's incredibly demeaning, fucked-up and woman-hating way of questioning her maternity of one of her kids. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the viewpoints of both Palin and Prejean, and plenty of ways that are not demeaning towards women... and let's face it, this kind of petty nastiness simply would not be happening if either of their first names were "Tom."
Besides, whoever is championing these oh-so-scandalous oh-so-slutty photos is only going to cement her as a hero of the far right. "Look at poor Miss California, victimized by the liberal media," Hannity will say... and he would actually be half-right. This is disgusting. We are better than this.
Knock it off.
(end rant)
I had mixed feeling about the topless photos. I personally would never judge a woman for posing topless, but I do think that the photos demonstrate her hypocrisy. She's holding herself up as a moral standard and she's being celebrated by the religious right., and yet she has topless pictures.
Of course, I feel like a lot of people will look at the photos and think she's a dumb slut, so there's that.
I don't care so much about the fake tits. I think that's more about the ridiculousness of pageant culture than anything else. Of course, some people hear fake tits and think dumb slut, and unfortunately that reaction even happens in feminist circles.
Where did she hold herself up as the moral standard though? Maybe she did and I just missed it so please point it out if I am wrong. But all I recall is her being against gay marriage. Sure, she's a bigot, but I don't recall her saying "Everyone should be like me because I am moral and perfect in every way."
Now, because of her stance on gay marriage the far right anti-gay marriage people have tried to put her up in this position of moral authority, but I don't really see how that's her fault or her doing.
I personally would never judge a woman for posing topless, but I do think that the photos demonstrate her hypocrisy. She's holding herself up as a moral standard and she's being celebrated by the religious right., and yet she has topless pictures.
Sorry, but I think that 'judgment' is exactly what this is. This situation is being made out to be a dichotomy wherein one pole is morality and the other pole is the predilection for topless pictures. Calling her a moral hypocrite implies that posing topless is immoral. That's dangerous territory.
I get what you're saying.
I think my problem is that while she may not be holding herself up as a defender of traditional values, a lot of very conservative churches are and she seems happy to go along with it and accept that role.
And while gay rights and pornography aren't really related, they're both issues that the religious right feels strongly about and so they both fall under the umbrella of "traditional values." It's hypocritical to stand up for "traditional values" when it comes to homosexuality while totally ignoring them in other aspects of her life.
I like this way of approaching the problem better. I definitely agree with what you're saying about her picking and choosing which "family values" she wants to represent.
I just saw the word "morals" come up a lot in the comments and I don't feel comfortable with the idea that posing topless alone discredits her morality.
agreed While I would never endorse the porn industry I think that telling women they are objects their whole life then shaming them when they act like one in the "wrong" way is inappropriate. there are plenty of issues with this individual, we don't need to use slut shaming tactics to make a point.
it is that ridiculous reasoning that if she poses nude we can completely dismiss what she said. we can shame her and our point is more valid.
whether or not she posed nude her comments were oppressive. whether or not she made oppressive comments slut shaming shames anyone who has ever done the activity in question not just her and is inappropriate.
these statements are true whether or not she is "miss California." And beauty pageants have NEVER represented anything other than a patriarchal prescription of what a woman should be. not cool in general. and never representative of me.
I completely concur that Carrie Prejean's homophobia has to be combatted with intellectual candor. Misogynist editorials do absolutely nothing to forward the issue of gay marriage. I wonder if all would agree regarding the gender bias over the media coverage of Carrie Prejean. There is no similar tabloid media firestorm of Jackie Chan's opposition to Chinese democracy. His callous disregard of the past horrors of Mao's totalitarianism is IMO equally repugnant as Prejean's fascist homophobia. Yet no one responded by humiliating him based on his race or gender. There was integrity in the protest of Jackie Chan's views. The response to Prejean's bigotry should be the same.
I think some folks are missing the point when they claim that the criticism surrounding Prejean is alright because it exposes her hypocrisy.
She's a hypocrite (in your opinion), so what?
Plenty has been made about Al Gore's abundant use of energy at his mansion in TN, but has that discredited his position on climate change? Only in the eyes of diehard rightwingers who believe the smallest element of hypocrisy invalidates an individual. Do you really want to bind yourself to the same hypocrisy-watch contract the rightwingers so wholeheartedly espouse?
I don't. Hypocrisy (and the perception thereof) is largely a personal issue. It matters or it doesn't, depending on the individual. Slut-shaming always matters. And it always matters because it's wrong.
We already have Prejean's idiotic blather regarding the country she lives in (California) respecting (it doesn't) the choice (what choice?) of opposite marriage (talk about shaming). We don't need the misogyny with this wealth of material.
I think she's being taken to task first for being a bigot, and second for being a hypocrite, and NOT because of her gender. She was inarticulate, and also misstated the facts in her answer, which is why I think she deservedly lost. She used the platform of her answer to express her discriminatory beliefs. No offense, but she offended millions of people.
Now compare her to Ted Haggard, an anti-gay christian pastor purchasing sex with a male escort and using meth. The criticism against him wasn't because of his gender. It was because of his bigoted beliefs, his hypocrisy, and his use of illegal drugs.
The pageant itself is an open door for slut slamming.
I wrote on this last Friday and these were my questions:
What about Carrie Prejean's absolutely incoherent "opinion" about opposite sex marriage has anything to do with her boobs?
How is "how dare you speak your opinion what with those fake boobs of yours" any different than "how dare you speak your opinion with those boobs of yours"?
Are we really surprised that Carrie Prejean, a person who has spent her entire life to this point adhering as closely as humanly possible to the narrative set down by the patriarchy for women both in looks and behavior also spouts out the patriarchal meme on marriage and who it is for?
I understand the impulse to slam the woman for such an execrable opinion on this subject. Really, I do.
Principle above personality, people. Principle above personality.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Professor of Politics and African American studies at Princeton University, had some good comments last night on Keith Olbermann's show. Basically she said that this is about hypocrisy.
VIDEO LINK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGWNtclAbo
TRANSCRIPT BELOW (I just typed out the relevant parts, the latter half of the interview was about "not Joe not the plumber" as Keith sometimes calls him-so I didn't bother with that part.):
Olbermann: "When the pageant took a shot at her for politicizing things and messing up their pageant, I thought that was fair...but about this photo, I mean, she's right, isn't she, isn't that it's just intrusive or more importantly, it's utterly irrelevant to this debate?"
Harris-Lacewell: "Well it's interesting because in this case she feels bad because she's being stigmatized based on her expression of her sexuality, she's being judged because she's part of a group that is generally stereotyped, that is pageant winners, and she's finding that her morality is being brought into question because of a set of personal choices that she has made. So I think it has everything to do with this particular debate, in that it ought to be causing, dare I say it, empathy on the part of Ms. California for gays and lesbians who are simply trying to live a life of full equality in the United States and are being judged and abused in all of these ways that she is now personally experiencing."
Olbermann: "Okay, you convinced me, it's relevant. She actually confessed in a recent interview that she would like to be better educated on this subject: civil rights about gay people. She could not articulate an answer to a simple question about civil unions or about gay people adopting children. Isn't it her obligation to get that sort of information before she becomes a spokeperson, or am I asking too much of somebody-to fall back on the stereotype-of somebody who was raised in the beauty pageant circuit."
Harris-Lacewell: "Well I don't know if it's it's about people who were raised on the beauty pageant circuit, but it clearly could be a problem of California. I think the key here is that we need to follow Iowa: the center of American open-ness on the question of gay marriage is going to be Iowa. Who won the first caucus for Barack Obama? Iowa. It is the heartland that is going to lead us to equality."
I love listening to Melissa Harris-Lacewell whenever she is a guest on either Olbermann's or Maddow's show...and I totally agree with her comments here, this is very much about hypocrisy.
Thank you for posting this link!
Excellent interview with Ms. Harris-Lacewell. It would be good for Ms. Prajean to watch this clip and ponder the similarities between her being judged and her judgment of others.
She made an excellent point. I too love when she is interviewed by Keith or Rachel.
I guess my biggest question is why the pageant thinks it's so wrong for anyone to pose nude/semi-nude? The only conclusion I can come to is A. That they expect all the contestants to be virgins or B. That they expect them to not enjoy sex/sexual things.
That seems like the worst part about this of all..
I doubt that it's anything that sexual, considering that modeling nude has nothing to do with virginity or sex in and of itself. It's more likely that the pageant wants to maintain its oh-so-squeaky-clean image.
Good point. It's just frustrating that it all comes back to women and their behavior, which is their private decision.
Check this out from the Miss USA FAQs
http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/info/faq
CAN CONTESTANTS BE MARRIED?
No. contestants may not be married or pregnant. They must not have ever been married, not had a marriage annulled nor given birth to a child. The titleholders are also required to remain single throughout their reign.
But of course-- *married* contestants belong in the Mrs. America pageant.
Thank you for posting this. Hmmm I wonder if it has anything to do with innocence...
How disgusting.
I don't think it's as much about slut-shaming as it is about hypocrite-shaming. This woman has said, in public and from what's arguably a position of some power and influence, that gays should not have equal rights, based on her homophobic belief system. And yet she thinks it's fine for her to violate those beliefs. Now, I'm sure there's a bunch of misogynistic assholes laughing about the humiliation of what they see as just some skank with fake tits, but that's not what it's really about.
To me, at least, it's about exposing the hypocrisy of the conservative mindset--priests molesting children, anti-gay politicians hiring gay escorts, and bigoted Nice Christian Girl™ beauty queens appearing in topless photos, to name a few cases. And considering what these people are trying to do to everyone who strays from the range of what they deem morally acceptable, I think we have every right to revel in every small, petty victory that we get.
Oh my god, you did not just seriously equate paedophilia with topless photos, did you?
Your comment shapes exactly what's wrong with this argument. One, what is really hypocritical about getting breast augmentation and/or posing for somewhat revealing photos? It's only kinda/maybe hypocritical when we take the view point of these smallminded religious folks. Why in the hell do we want to do that? The only argument that wins against such smallmindedness is a logical one that picks apart the defense of moral superiority.
Sure, you can pick apart that superiority by proving that the ones who call themselves superior are hypocrites and just as dirty as the rest of us. Or we can pick apart moral superiority by proving there is no moral inferiority, invalidating the projection of superiority. One's pretty damn negative -- "you're a horrible person!." And the other is pretty damn positive -- "no, I/we/my friend am/are/is a pretty awesome person!" Which do you think is better?
You're right, you're being small and petty. And it doesn't help.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think this woman is morally inferior for having breast implants and/or posing for nude photos. I don't, and in fact, I'm sure that someday I'll do those things and more. I'm commenting on the hypocrisy of condemning other people based on one set of beliefs and then violating those beliefs yourself.
Also, on the pedophilia/nude photos front--again, I compared the hypocrisy, not the acts themselves. Obviously, molesting children is extremely wrong, no matter what. It's the fact that this is so common among priests of all people, God's workers, the pure and righteous that condemn others as lusty hedonists, that takes it from very wrong to very wrong and very interesting. And yes, I do think this is related. No one is perfect, everyone is a sinner if you believe Christian doctrine. Those who put themselves on a high moral perch (and who use shame to repress their sexual tendencies to the point where they turn into dangerous compulsions) always fall the hardest, and it's actually quite fascinating when they do.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think this woman is morally inferior for having breast implants and/or posing for nude photos.
I don't have such an idea. My point was that emphasizing and using evident hypocrisy to discredit those who shame others itself discredits the argument that it's wrong to shame others.
The logic is that the morally superior are wrong for shaming only when one among them "falls." Therefore when a more chaste shamer, it's all ok again.
We're perpetuating the cycle of shaming by emphasizing and crying to the high heavens about the hypocrisy of the "superior." When Prejean is sufficiently smeared, another will take her place. We've got to stop smearing, and start arguing from a point of compassion and logic.
ed...Therefore when a more chaste shamer comes along...
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here.
First, I don't think that Carrie is a bigot. Here's why. She was asked what she thought about gay marriage. She spoke her mind. Isn't that what she should do? Isn't that what we all want to do? As feminists, we can't just extend free speech to the speech we like. Keep in mind, not all gay people are in favor of gay marriage...
You can be against gay marriage and NOT be a bigot. If she's mean, hateful, discriminatory, etc. toward gays and lesbians, THEN she's a bigot.
Second, I don't think she's a hypocrite. Since when does being a Christian entail a dress code? Some denominations impose certain clothing standards, others don't. I've seen Christians at swimming pools in bikinis. "Scantily clad" and "Christian" are not necessarily opposites. It depends on one's personal beliefs and values.
Now, what I see as the problem is the institutionalization of sexual objectification. You know, "beauty" pagents. Bottom-line, she reaped some advantages from being in the pagent. She, an adult woman, signed on. If she broke the rules, she has to pay the consequences. Which is good because maybe she will see the pagents for what they are and take her skills and beauty in a more productive direction.
BTW, I haven't seen anyone call Perez Hilton a hypocrite for being gay AND taking part in an activity that encourages women to fit into their very narrow ideal of womanhood.
No one has called out Perez Hilton in this because we all know he is scum and is not even worthy of the discussion.
Really??? Really??? "Not calling out scum" because "we know he's scum"...Wow, that would be a first for this site.
"You can be against gay marriage and NOT be a bigot."
I cannot conceive how this is possible. You seem to be claiming that promoting inequality has nothing to do with hatred or discrimination. How is that possible? This assertion simply does not compute.
Not allowing gay couples to marry BECAUSE they're gay is discriminatory.
Bigotry is narrow-minded intolerance. When women weren't legally allowed to vote or hold property, that was bigotry and misogyny at work.
Believing that gay couples should not be allowed to marry is a bigoted attitude. It is an attitude of stubborn intolerance.
CERTAINLY you can be against gay marriage and not be a bigot. For most people marriage is a religious concept, and since Adam & Eve its been between a man & a woman. This is why a majority of people have always supported Civil Unions even if they don't support Gay Marriage.
In fact marriage is only a civil concept because we tax it, and structure various rights around it. Now I support gay marriage because I believe in separation of church & state, ie, I support the civil right of gays to marry. Religion doesn't enter into the picture. That's the debate we should be having because that's the only one that's going to advance the political agenda. Calling people bigots & the C word & insisting they change their religion is just a course of disaster.
"You can be against gay marriage and NOT be a bigot."
No, you really can't. You can be against all marriage and not be a bigot, but if you think that straights deserve more rights than gays, you're a bigot. You may be a polite, well-spoken bigot, but a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
I agree 100%. Even if you say "no offense," even if you "have gay friends," even if you sincerely believe that homosexuality doesn't condemn you to an eternity of hellfire, you're still arguing in favor of inequality.
Think about it -- if you're arguing that "marriage" is soooooo special and can't be sullied by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, you're basically saying that a concept, an "institution" is more important than the happiness and freedom of real, living people. It's like saying that you can't allow paramedics into a fancy restaurant because it would ruin the atmosphere -- never mind the fact that someone's having a heart attack and needs medical attention. Okay, that analogy stinks, but hopefully I got my point across.
So, what about gay people who are not in favor of gay marriage and think that civil unions are fine? Are they bigoted against themselves?
You know, there are people, gay and straight, that wonder why anyone would want to enter into such an inherently flawed institution.
Just on a practical note, Carrie has never been married so probably doesn't realize how marriage--in one swift stroke--gives the couple so many legal rights. She's relatively young so she may change her mind if people stop being so nasty about it.
Personally, I think that gay marriage ought to be legal. However, I don't believe that a clergy person should have to officiate a gay union if it goes against their religious beliefs. It's easy enough to go to a justice of the peace, a clergy person who is open to gay unions, or having a friend use the internet and become ordained in order to conduct the ceremony (FWI--I (sporadically) attend a place of worship that already performs commitment ceremonies...)
You can't ask someone a question and then bash them for their honest answer. Again, I don't think she's a bigot on this issue--maybe ill-informed. I stand by my statement that it's ultimately about how she treats gay people. And NO, it's not about superficial politeness. It's about acknowledging the humanity of another.
Would you consider it bigoted if she said she was against interracial marriage?
It seems to me that too many people quietly excuse discriminatory speech with the free speech argument or stating that it's just "her opinion" when it comes to gay people. If this were about the rights of women or African Americans I think that we wouldn't be having this conversation and people would not be so adamantly supporting her expressing such a hateful "opinion", not to mention that she is actively working to deny rights to homosexuals. Wrong is wrong, no matter how rosy a person colors it.
This is not an attack on you. I am just responding to your argument because I think it is important to call out people like Miss California on such actions that they engage in, especially when it hurts people.
I'm all for free speech and defending free speech, and yes even if we don't like what a person says, they still have a right to say it. But just because something falls under the umbrella of free speech doesn't necessarily mean that it is free from bigotry or discrimination. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't speak their mind or that people who say hypocritical, discriminatory or bigoted things should not be allowed freedom of speech rights nor should they be arrested or anything like that, it's not illegal for one to personally be a bigot...but...
"speaking one's mind" and giving an opinion, does not necessarily mean that what a person is saying is free of bigotry or hate. Let me be clear though, again, I absolutely defend a person's right to speak their mind, even if what they are saying is mean and insulting to me or others. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that what the person is saying is free of bigotry.
Ask an MRA when he thinks of women/feminists and he says something along the lines of "women are weak emotional creatures, they are below men and therefore don't deserve the same rights as men", it would be considered a sexist/misogynistic answer to most...but just because he's "speaking his mind" doesn't automatically mean that he's not a bigot/sexist/misogynist or that his comment is free from any bigotry.
Ask a white supremacist what they think of blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, etc...the person says something along the lines of "whites are superior to everyone else, anyone who isn't white doesn't deserve any rights"...Again, that would be considered racist to most people, and just because that person is "speaking one's mind" doesn't mean that what was said is free from bigotry.
I guess my question is, why exactly do you believe that Ms. California is NOT being discriminatory/hypocritical/bigoted/etc with her opinion. I happen to think a person who doesn't believe that I deserve the same rights as every other American is being discriminatory. I think that they are discriminating against sexual orientation. But that's just me. But honestly, I don't really understand your argument here. It seems to me that you are saying, that because she is simply speaking her mind that automatically makes what she is saying free from discrimination/hypocrisy/and bigotry? I'm not trying to be rude or make any accusations here, but I also am aware that some people who aren't exposed to certain types of discrimination on a regular basis (i.e. racism, homophobia, sexism) will claim that something is "not really discriminatory and bigoted" but many times it's just their own privilege which allows them to easily ignore stuff like that. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but it would be nice to hear some clarification, because honestly I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. (unless you are just being the "devil's advocate"?)
We all seem to agree that we're for gay marriage--so that's not the issue. And I think we all agree that it's a controversial issue worthy of discussion.
I guess my question is: When you ask someone a question, do you want an honest answer? Should she have answered with a lie?
Personally, I would want to know if a person (or group of people) is against gay marriage SO I could convince them (with Biblical passages that might support extending human rights, with a legal explanation as to why this is a human rights issue, etc). If we don't know the actual opinions of others, how on earth can we inform and educate?
And yes, I would much rather know that I'm dealing with a racist OR a misogynist OR an AM talk show jerk. Especially if I flat-out asked them a question about their belifs. Would you rather the people with the opposing views fly under the radar, quietly vote on issues, and then -SURPRISE!!!--there's legislation passed. And, you thought everyone agreed with you! You didn't see an opportunity to open up discussion. Why, you didn't even know there were people who thought differently than you and your friends.
The problem with so many forms of discrimination is that it's illusive and subtle. It's so hard to detect that it's difficult to find strategies to combat it.
We know who Carrie is...
Tabitha,I think meeneecat was mainly responding to you stating that it what Carrie said was NOT bigotry. And yes, you are right about knowing who has these opinions so that we can better educate people and encourage them to have more compassion for fellow human beings. Absolutely. We just cannot go around passing off hateful speech as "ok" because it is an "opinion"... though I too believe everyone has a right to their opinion. The problem with publicly expressing hateful opinions is that it reinforces the hate and defines a minority group as the "other" and maybe even the enemy.
As a gay person, I get so frustrated that so many people don't fight as hard against discrimination against us as they would for other groups of people. I can't say that I know the plight of African Americans (or any other minority groups) but understand what it is like to be hated for who I am, and I would fight tooth and nail if anyone were to attempt to strip them of their rights.
Kelly Jean, yes, thank you...you got what I was trying to express (I thought I was pretty clear, but sometimes things don't always come across as intended).
Tabitha I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding what I said or not. I truly have no problems with people expressing their opinions. I never said that Ms. California should lie about her beliefs. Nor did I say that I would want people to lie to me when I ask them a question. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't go around passing off hateful and bigoted speech as "okay" just because it is "opinion". "opinion" doesn't automatically mean something gets a free pass. And believe me, I've been in the situation many a time, where people have used this "personal opinion" rational as an excuse to be bigoted and hateful towards me, i.e. saying something utterly and unabashedly bigoted & homophobic or even threatening and engaging in violence, and then saying to me "well it's just my personal opinion (therefore it's perfectly okay)". It's total and complete BS. Sexism is sexism. Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. Discrimination is discrimination. Like Kelly Jean said, it baffles me that some people can recognized other forms of discrimination but then will seem completely oblivious to discrimination towards LGBT people (and yes, this happens with other types of discrimination as well, i.e. people being oblivious to discrimination against people with disabilities, Muslims, immigrants, etc.)
Again, I am honestly (still) confused by the logic and your reasoning for using the "opinion/personal belief" rational. I won't beleaguer the point anymore, but it seems that I didn't get any further clarification regarding your original comment from of your response...I'm also confused by the characterizations you made about how I "don't seem to realize that there are people out there who might disagree with me"
"And, you thought everyone agreed with you! You didn't see an opportunity to open up discussion. Why, you didn't even know there were people who thought differently than you and your friends.
Again, I don't understand why you say this. I am most definitely NOT surprised when anti-gay legislation is passed. Disappointed and angry, Yes. Surprised? No. Because: Hellooo, I'm a gay person and most of us are perfectly aware that there are people out there who don't agree with our very existence. So again, I don't really understand the points of your response, and I still don't really understand your original comment either...I'm not trying to be rude, but honestly, I don't want to beleaguer the point or get repetitive here, so I guess, we can just leave it at that: agree to disagree.
Just to clarify....
The word "bigot" carries a connotation of a pattern of hateful, intolerant behavior. I don't think Carrie's opinion quite meets this standard. Like I already said, she's young-she may change her mind--especially if people stop throwing around labels like "bigot" and actually inform and discuss.
I don't think it's very productive to dismiss Perez as "scum" either.
Also, I think Cattrack's remarks express my stance as well.
Remember Obama's speech about race? He commented that although his grandmother loved and raised him, he knew that she held some racist attitudes.
People are COMPLICATED! Labels, for the most part, are dismissive- not helpful.
I know everyone on this site fancies themselves as open-minded and progressive but I bet, if we're honest, we all harbor some stereotypical notions about some group of people....
I've been following the comments on Ms California since the last post on her breast implants, and I am quite frankly shocked at some of the comments being made here.
What she said, first of all, was bigotry- we're all aware of that. However that does not mean that she didn't have the right to say it, unfortunately. In North America we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, for better or worse. When someone says something we don't agree with, we have the right to challenge them. But we also need to acknowledge that they have the right to say these things in the first place. Maybe more effort should be spent on educating people like Ms California, instead of shaming her.
I also have to agree with Jessica, this is slut shaming. And are we surprised that the pageant contestant with fake breasts also modeled nude? Or surprised in her hypocricy? I was raised in a Mennonite community (although I personally am not religious- not do I discriminate against religious people), and I can't say that I know any Christians that follow the bible word for word. Human beings pick and choose which values and morals they would like to follow, the same applies in Christianity. And moreover, that's okay. We can't all be perfect, and we can't expect Ms California to be either.
This is a great comment. It gets to the heart of the issue. You said everything I was thinking!
It's funny how non-religious people (like myself and I've been guilty of this) are often so quick to stereotype religious groups and judge them. Being a Christian doesn't necessarily mean you follow the Bible word for word. Being a Christian is a different identity for everyone. Being atheistic doesn't mean that I have the exact same values as another atheist. Many Christians believe that being a Christian means striving to be Christ-like - accepting, tolerant, loving.
So my point is that we shouldn't judge her for her supposed "un-Christian" behavior because religious beliefs are personal and, frankly, irrelevant in this case.
this is true. however, on the today show, prejean told matt lauer that she was concerned with making she her answer was "biblically correct".
no one (sane) would have ever accused her of being "a sinner" if she hadn't said *herself* that she aimed to follow the bible.
The truly insane thing is her answer wasn't bibically correct.
i know. among her other flaws, she's not too bright.
To be fair, bright or not, lots and lots of people misquote and misinterpret the Bible. Which doesn't excuse her mistake, but should steer us away from the assumption she's not smart.
I agree with your whole comment except the "unfortunately" -- I think it's very fortunate that there is a protected right to say whatever you want despite the fact that millions (rightly) consider your comments heinous. Because the alternative is far worse for supporters of gay marriage.
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your use of unfortunately?
Well, let's define Christianity. Christianity is the belief that Christ, the son of God, fulfilled God's law by sacrificing his life. And what is God's law? It is the Torah, or Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible, one of which you quote from. Much of the Torah, in fact most of it, deals with the practical law of day to day life 2,000 years ago -- which should bring in to focus why, yeah...it might not be a good idea to eat pork and circumcize a boy child.
So the banning of flesh from cloven-hoofed animals, eating scaled animals, sowing mixed seeds, weaving mixed fibers, the bathing rituals for menstruating women, hair length -- not required of Christians by definition of their faith. Following the Bible to a T? Jews do (have). Christians don't (have to). Blunt, but that's the nutshell.
Even your own ignorance of what the Bible means to Christians undercuts a fabulous point that could be made from the "cherry picking" argument. There is not a lot said about homosexuality in the New Testament. So little is said, in fact, that defending homophobia from a Christian perspective is almost indefensible -- because the focus must, from a Christian perspective, be made from the New Testament and not the Old.
Too bad very few Christians adhere to the actual teachings of Christ.
--How right you are. I don't think most Christians would think Christ was a very good "Christian."
Shit, sorry. This was in reply to a post way above by Kelly Jean. Ignore at will.
Ronin, I understand fully what you are getting at. I know many Christians who do not take the Bible literally and are focused more on the good apsects of what is taught in the New Testament.
Yes, I may be somewhat ignorant on the Bible, being that I am not a Christian. My point was ever to only point out that fundamentalists will use a (most certainly) outdated law to defend their position, just as many defended slavery way back when. Of course promoting having "full Quiver" in ancient times was logical in ancient times given the high infant mortality rate as well as needing more children to help with work, while today it can be highly destructive to our environment to procreate uncontrollably. Therefore, these laws do not apply to modern society. However, the religious right keeps going back in time to defend discrimination and down right hatred. Imagine for a moment if a group came out to defend reinstating slavery... people would be jumping all over that including yourself I am sure. Promoting this idea that we gay people are the "other" , sinners and a threat to society is wrong no matter how one defends it.
That was my point. No offense intended towards those of faith.
No offense was taken. And on the flip side, I totally understand where you're coming from. The "cherry picking" Christian, the dominant force in the faith I think, is an illogical force of nature.
The reason I went off a bit was because such an argument emphasizes the hypocrisy of the Christian (or religious). Hypocrisy is totally wrong. And cherry picking, by extension, is wrong. But hypocrisy is an inherent element of belief, and is (I think) an individual thing. So it's not the hypocrisy we should be concerned about as a society, it's the logic. The cherry picking is hypocritical, but it's also totally illogical when explored from the tenants of the Christian faith. That's the point of origin of a winnable argument against faith. Maybe. I'm still working it out in my head.
Promoting this idea that we gay people are the "other" , sinners and a threat to society is wrong no matter how one defends it.
--Damn straight.
Again, no offense taken. In fact, I feel like a bit of a dick for the overuse of the ignorant terminology. Sorry about that.
Well I am glad that we can see eye to eye on this and engage in a civil conversation despite slightly differing views.
I have hit so many roadblocks when discussing the issues with the Bible and discrimination that it gets rather frustrating. I will try to employ to logic argument more often, because you are right, it is best to point the irrational parts of the Bible. The only problem I may face, however may be that many who are Bible literalists have a huge problem with logic, hence the argument of Creationism vs. Evolution.
Civility is indeed nice :)
And just to clarify the point. It's not that I think parts of the Bible are irrational. Rather, I think the majority of religions (more often than not, Christians) use the Bible irrationally. Hell, the Bible starts out with God poofing everything into existence and walking on the earth with his nude creations -- it's gonna get a bit irrational. Incest, men endowed like donkeys, an entire book praising sex, God and the Devil bitching over some dude -- hairy stuff, and that's just the Old Testament.
Now, with existence itself and the Creationism vs. Evolution argument -- it's a sticky situation. Since Biblical literalists distrust the science behind evolution, I don't think a winnable argument exists. It's all about one's perspective. And I think the literalist's perspective is such that anything "of man" is necessarily "not of God," and is therefore inferior. There's no arguing with that kind of perspective.
Not to get off the original topic, but in regards to the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, I just feel that since there are sooooo many creation stories in various religions it is not fair that one be taught over the other. Nobody knows how we got here, all evolution covers is what creates the diversity we see in life, not whether god exists or doesn't...nothing more...nothing less. A lot of Christians see their faith to be very compatible with evolution. If creationism is going to be taught it should be in a philosophy class not science class, as creationism cannot be tested through the scientific method, therefore cannot inherently be a "theory." But, I digress.
I sincerely hope one day that all people can be accepting of the fact not everybody has the same ideas on faith (or lack thereof) and that it's ok. I think it is incredibly arrogant to think that anyone knows the all the answers of the universe. Why don't we just accept each other, because we're all in this together and came from the same mother Earth.
That last line was cheesy, I know. :)
Cheesy but righteous :)
I disagree that this is slut-shaming.
The reason why I dislike Carrie Prejean, is not because she is anti-gay marriage, or even the fact that she procured her breast augmentation surgery on the pageant's dime.
It's because she defended these photos by claiming they were released by gay-friendly people in order to smear her public image, and then even went so far as to claim that they were taken when she was 17.
Victoria's Secret, the creators of the panties that she is wearing in the photos, have fired back and said that the line she is wearing wasn't produced until 2006, and Ms. Prejean was 18 in 2005.
Do the math.
As a Catholic who is pro-choice and pro-gay, I feel that I am swimming against the tide most of the time with my morals and values and the morals and values of my church; however, when I see people like Miss California out in the public eye, "representing" not only my state, but my religion? It makes me sick and ashamed to lump myself in the same religious organization as her.
I say call her out on her hypocrisy, and let her continue to dig herself into the hole she has created, but not for one second do I feel that we are branding her a "slut" based on the release of these photos
In addition, I have learned that the ones who preach the fire and brimstone the loudest have the most to hide.
This is exactly how I feel. Thou doth protest too much, you know? Also, Dan Savage likes to say that if you dump the open foot fetishist, you'll get the secret necrophiliac. Well, to make it somewhat metaphoric and stretch it to hell, I think that if you shame and preach against foot fetishism, you'll repress that harmless foot fetish into compulsive, uncontrollable necrophilia.
One more thing re: breast implants. I think there is absolutely a conversation to be had about the pageant paying for her surgery and what that says about the industry and the way we commodify women's bodies, etc - but that is NOT the conversation that's been happening in the mainstream media. It's all T&A sensationalism.
Agreed. That "scandal" is just another version of the slut-shaming. "She posed for nudie pics... and she has fake boobs too! OMG!"
I understand a lot of people don't like her because of her views or because she's a hypocrite. Hell, I think she's a bigot. But does that excuse our own behavior? Do we really think Perez Hilton is a feminist role model?
i concur with those who say this is hypocrite-shaming, not slut-shaming.
carrie prejean dug herself in this hole herself. when she went on the today show, she told matt lauer that she was most concerned with making sure her answer to the now-infamous question was "biblically correct".
now, many commenters above have noted there are LOTS of bizarre and conflicting guidelines in the bible. in many christian denominations, there is a recognition that the bible was written a long time ago in a completely different society, and that the bible itself has been changed throughout time. therefore, many denominations try to interpret the guidelines and understand that, in today's society, many of them don't apply. God endowed us with reason, and we can figure this stuff out for ourselves.
but when dipshit mcbigot said she wanted to be "biblically correct", she opened herself up to this criticism; now all of her actions can be viewed through that lens. i have ZERO sympathy.
i don't give a flying fuck about her boobs, but the fact that she was willing to get them displays pride (deadly sin) on her part. it says more about the pageant and how THEY are also complete hypocrites…scholarship opportunity, my ass. but the pageant isn't espousing the denial of rights to anyone. prejean is.
hypocrite-shaming isn't sexist. larry craig, david vitter, ted haggard, anyone?
there's NO ONE pure in this scenario…prejean, hilton, the pageant. can they all disappear into perpetual obscurity now?
Here's a question: if a woman is being a hypocrite about sex, how do you "shame" her for her hypocrisy while avoiding "shaming" her for her sexual behavior?
(I'm undecided on the entire issue so far, I can see both sides. I'm curious what other posters think.)
Avoid the hypocrisy-shaming as well. Why should we shame anyone?
I agree. I mean, why should we complain if she's a hypocrite? Do we really think that gay-bashing would be okay if only the bashers were consistent in adhering to biblical morality? Of course not.
I think it is important to point out how many people do pick and choose which parts of the Bible/the Constitution/whatever they like and which parts they don't like. However, this should just be a starting point in any argument against this kind of bigotry. You can't just say "Ha! Hypocrisy! I win!"
i would agree with you if we were talking about a decision that affects only one's personal life. if carrie prejean had never made her comments against gay marriage but then we found out about the fake boobs, i would seriously not bat an eyelash. getting fake boobs might be against the bible, it might be against my moral code, but who cares. she can do what she wants with HER LIFE.
but when she enters the public sphere and endorses denying equal rights to OTHER PEOPLE, she has earned herself some SHAME for her cruelty. (i believe there's a difference between criticism and shame.) this country has a long-standing tradition of rationalism and secular government, and when she proves herself incapable of fighting on that playing field, which she did by not providing any legal/non-religious justification for her viewpoint, she therefore earns the right to be called on her hypocritical BS.
if she said that she aimed to be "biblically correct" and then, say, coveted something, i would probably call her inconsistent. no big deal. she's hurting herself and no one else. but when she actively advocates hurting people, she deserves all the public shame we can muster.
I understand the point you're making. But I think it's the wrong idea to present a viable opposing argument by first shaming by exposing hypocrisy. This for the simple reason that it ultimately ignores the hateful bigotry and instead castigates the hypocrisy. It's as if we were presented with a totally pure, unhypocritical bigot and had no response. The problem is NOT the hypocrisy. It's the bigotry.
Calling them on their hypocrisy is like playing into their hand by tacitly acknowledging that moral superiority really does matter.
And it doesn't!!
Exactly
you're right that moral superiority doesn't matter here.
the point of exposing hypocrisy is to destroy someone's credibility so other people are less tempted to be swayed by what that person says. to me, destroying someone's credibility is shaming.
therefore, i think shaming is appropriate here.
You say that "the point of exposing hypocrisy is to destroy someone's credibility so other people are less tempted to be swayed by what that person says."
But the problem is that exposing Ted Haggard or Carrie Prejean as a hypocrite won't make their former admirers question their arguments! No one said, "Gosh, well if Haggard thinks it's okay to s*** c***, then I guess I don't have a problem with it!"
When someone's exposed as a hypocrite, their followers will almost always write off the person, not the principle. Haggard's followers turned on him -- I doubt very much that any of them softened their views on homosexuality as a result.
Even if Prejean were to come out as a lesbian and/or start clamoring for marriage equality, I don't think gay marriage opponents would suddenly change their minds just because their point of view lost a prominent spokesperson.
I mean, why should we complain if she's a hypocrite? Do we really think that gay-bashing would be okay if only the bashers were consistent in adhering to biblical morality? Of course not.
You know, I think this is a key point. I don't think we can win an argument on gay marriage by pointing to all the things wrong with the opposing individual. There are many people who I'm sure DO NOT have semi-nude photos or breast implants, and are more strictly adhering to these Biblical "morals"...those people aren't any more "right" than she is. Homophobia is homophobia. And that's the important part of this.
right on!
It's not shaming someone to point out that an individual fails to live by the moral standard by which they expect society to abide. In Prejean's case, she cites Old Testament law as a reason to deny people the right to marry. If she can do that, I have all the right to point out her egregious violations of Old Testament law. If she claims to represent the Old-Testament-thumping family-value-claiming Right, then why not hold her up to the standard she expects others to follow? If she expects people who don't even follow Rightist Christianity to submit to its laws, it isn't too much to ask that she, as self-identified one, do so as well.
But she's materially, logically wrong when she cites the OT law as a mandate for the Christian rejection of gay marriage. Proceeding to target supposed hypocrisy assumes that she's correct in her citation, when she's most emphatically wrong. We're putting the cart before the horse here.
You're missing my point. She might be wrong inciting OT law, but she does implicitly cite it. What I'm saying is that she's wrong BY HER OWN LOGIC.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...Fighting someone on their turf, as you're doing, is unlikely to work & you're just about guaranteed to offend them in the effort. The Biblical injuctions against homosexuality are clear, precise, and in both the Old Testament & the New Testament. I'm sorry but if you're looking for a Biblical support for homosexual marriage there simply isn't any. Moreover the Bible is merely the starting point for most Christians (liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist) and so using it as the fulcrum of your argument is bound to lead to incorrect conclusions...and offensive ones.
Frankly, you're missing the primary argument, which is a POLITICAL one. Based on the First Amendment, NO ONE's RELIGIOUS beliefs should determine anyone else's POLITICAL rights. End of story. Full stop.
>
Not what I was saying or implying at all. Of course there are plenty of political arguments, and good ones, for same-sex marriage. I know this. I worked on No on 8 in California, which is where I have lived my whole life.
>
As an atheist who works against the flow religious tyranny in the US, I am the last person to have missed this.
You're mistaking my small statement in this context for a blanket statement on the entire situation of Prop 8 and Ms. Prejean. Please don't take a single comment I make and imply that I'm ignorant of the situation. I am not. And there's no need to shout.
All I was saying is that if she's going to cite Verse to spew her hatred upon the entire population of California, than maybe, just maybe, she should be consistent? That's all. Goodnight.
Additionally, I must say that Ms. Prejean is missing the point you so emphasized: the separation of Church and State. If we can't argue on her turf, as you think I'm doing, we can't argue on ours either, because she doesn't believe in Church/State separation at least when it comes to this issue. So what do we do?
Second question: is shame ever compatible with feminism? Shame has a long history of being used against women in a variety of contexts (sex, food, mothering.) Can we sever that history and use shame as helpful rhetorical tool, or do we just create another reason for women to be ashamed? (Honest question, not baiting anyone.)
Finally - the nail is hit on the head. Shame is not a concept we should be embracing. By all means let's criticize decisions that inflict harm on others, let's call out bigotry when we see it, but shame is at the very root of patriarchy's power structure. At the risk of careening into an abyss of cliche - the master's tools are very unlikely to dismantle the master's house.
While I think it's wrong in this particular case, I think shame can be a legitimate tactic in certain cases.
There are individuals who recognise the value of something but are weak and [mildly] shaming them can be a tool for getting them to do the right thing and recognise the fact within themselves. I can probably think of some examples from my life where some shaming did me good.
But these instances are few and far between and we should think it 1000 times over before shaming someone.
I'm glad for this article the tactics used against this woman have really bothered me. And really the more they do it the better she looks. You don't get to spit in someone's face and claim moral righteousness. And please "homophobia" has been used so much that it has lost all meaning. If you want to argue with every major religion on the face of the earth good luck with that, if you want to argue we have a democracy and not a theocracy I think you have a better chance.
Even though I support gay marriage, I find myself having rushed to defend Prejean because of the tactless, classless, frankly misogynstic attacks on her by permanent fame seeker, Perez Hilton. Calling her the "B" word & "C" word is akin to using the "N" word. I think having asked Prejean a personal question on a sensitive subject Perez should've been prepared to hear an answer with which he disagreed...since after all 52% of Californians disagree with him.
We don't really expect beauty queens to wade into such divisive issues, nor should we heap such scorn on them when we let liberal politicos like Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton get away with the same answer...Or do we expect a woman attending San Diego Christian University to speak with greater eloquence than those two Ivy League standard bearers of the Democratic Party??? I appreciate Feministing's rushing to her defense now, but it should've done so when Perez dropped the B and C bombs.
perez is a misogynist toolbag, and i completely agree with you about his comments.
that said, is it really too much to ask her to have a coherent answer to the question? she doesn't have to speak like hillary clinton to answer with like, common english words ("opposite marriage", really?) i also saw a posting somewhere on the internets where several other beauty pageant types were interviewed and a couple of them said they had been asked similar questions in other pageants around the country and didn't prejean at one point even admit that she HAD prepared an answer to this in her pageant rehearsing process? it's a hot topic these days. i don't think it's crazy to expect a coherent response, even if her ultimate view on the issue is the same.
i'll also take issue with your assumption that san diego whatever university can't produce brilliant people like the ivies. sorry, but it's just a little snooty for my taste. i've never heard of her school either, but lots of people end up going to universities that aren't "prestigious" because they get a scholarship, or because certain programs there are good, etc. just saying.
One of the truest thing my mother ever told me: "The first thing [men/people] do to shut a woman up is call her a whore."
I've found it to be true in my own life, and this is certainly a mega-example of it as well. Completely unfair.
So true. So true. I have seen feminists do it, too, sadly.
I think that you definitely have a point about silencing women by shaming them, and I'm actually glad that we're able to have a serious discussion over this here. Even so, I'm not sure how I feel about it applying to this situation.
On the one hand, if there had been an uproar immediately after Prejean's statement in which basically people claimed, "Don't listen to her, she's just a slut, what does she know?", I think the situation would be easier to recognize.
In this case, though, she decided to bring issues of Biblical morality into the equation, which opens a whole other can of worms when you factor in the ways she, herself, has technically violated the Bible. Suddenly, words like "hypocrite" are getting thrown into the equation, words that don't necessarily depend on her sex.
It's a fairly complex situation, I think.
I don't like pageants any more than the next feminist. But this girl is allowed to have her opinions and shouldn't be called out or shamed every five minutes just because she's in the public eye. It's not her job to know what a civil union is or to support gay marriage. Her job is to walk around like a zombie and look purty. That's what she chooses to do. As moronic as I find her, she's still allowed to be a moron.
As a feminist how can you support a girl's right to contribute and reinforce the patriarchy? Anyone who participates in a pageant is agreeing to be judged (have their value determined!) on appearance, that's a basis of the competition! She's actually giving everyone permission to objectify her by entering, and by example supporting the idea that a woman's value comes from her appearance. How is supporting that choice any different to saying a man has the right to objectify a woman?
Wouldn't it be better to not support her choice but defend her from being shamed anyway?
So, is Barack Obama a bigot and a homophobe, too? Because his stated views on gay marriage are virtually identical to Ms. Prejean's.
Can't wait to hear the rental cartwheels on this one...
mental, that is.
Okay, I'll bite. Personally, I wouldn't call Prejean a bigot or a homophobe -- I'd say that she holds bigoted and homophobic views. This may seem like splitting hairs, but the point is that no one is born a racist, a sexist, etc. and people's views can change. I did state earlier that opposing gay marriage is always a bigoted position, and I stand by that.
So does Obama, then, hold bigoted views/positions? Well, first of all, we have to recognize that Obama is a politician and an attorney, and therefore it's hard to separate his opinions from the political entanglements involved in this issue. If Obama really believes that gay couples should not have the same rights as straight couples, then yes, I would say he has a bigoted view of the matter in that he's upholding heteronormativity and privilege. If, on the other hand, he's simply caving in to the bigotry of the American people, well, that's not much better, obviously.
Of course, I would hate to see Obama lose his reelection to, say, Sarah Palin based on voters' irrational fears of gay marriage. But we can't just compromise ourselves to death. I could go on and on about what I'd like to see from Obama/politicians in general on this issue, but I'll shut up unless someone wants to follow up on this.
The (Shock! Horror!) semi-nude photo of Prejean looks like an underwear ad. Porn it ain't, nor a "dirty photo shoot". The website that published (read created) this 'scandal' is just trying to jump on the Prejean bandwagon. And they've succeeded: more people know about their site; page-views are up.
"You know, there are plenty of ways to fight back against discrimination and hypocrisy - sexually shaming women isn't one of them. Not only is it intellectually lazy (really, there's no other way to show that Prejean's comments were terrible?), but fighting homophobia with misogyny pretty much reeks of hypocrisy itself, no?"
No, not hypocrisy. But it is equally reprehensible.
I wrote a blog post about Perez Hilton's misogyny, citing the recent situation with Prejean as a primary example, and attempting to point out that "slut-shaming" is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot if you care about gay activism.
It's here: http://hipsterette.com/blog/?p=334
OK, my $.02.
It's not just that her answer was bigoted, it was stupid. Had she said something like "I know there are many views on this issue but my belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman" there might have been a few rolled eyes but no more. But she was totally stupid - she said it was wonderful to be in a country where we could choose same sex marriage or "opposite marriage" then said in her country and her family marriage was between a man and a woman. Added the non-apology "sorry if I offended anyone" and said it was how she was raised. I mean, we live in a country where we can choose (not true in most states) but in her country we can't? What the hell does she mean? And her sister is pro-equality so clearly that is not "in her family" and saying that's how she was raised is essentially abdicating responsibility. It's not my reasoned view, it's what I was told.
Even then, it would have blown over but Ms. Prejean chose to become a public spokesperson for bigotry. And no, you cannot oppose equal rights on any grounds other than prejudice.
I agree calling Ms. Prejean "bitch" or "cunt" is inexcusable. No more OK than calling Clarence Thomas the n-word.
As for the fake boobs, it says more about the pageant. They used to be grounds for dismissal from pageants, now they are standard. The photos actually show less of them than the pageant "swimsuit", about as close to naked as a woman can get in public without being arrested.
Then she says she's a model & a Christian and poses in lingerie and swimsuits. I can see that a model poses in lingerie but what does Christian have to do with it? She also violated her contract with Miss California, which stipulates that personal and TV appearances and advertising must all be coordinated with them. And she violated her own pre-pageant statement (a ridiculous attempt to look relevant is having the women champion a cause or charity) to focus on Special Olympics. She's done nothing for them but instead put all her time into anti-equality.
To sum up this rather lengthy post, it would be absurd hypocrisy for Miss California to take away her crown because of the photos - about as hypcritical as Ms. Prejean claiming to be a moral authority while promoting hate. But they might take away the crown for violating her contract on appearances and on reneging on Special Olympics to promote bigotry instead. And they would be right on that, although no doubt Ms. Prejean would be presented as a Christian martyr. You know, teh gays only get fired, evicted, lose their children, kicked out of the military, beat up, raped and murdered but po' l'il Miss California lost her tiara!
Hey, if the people who are making accusations that she "violates biblical morality" are people who know about -- and BELIEVE IN -- that standard she both espouses and supposedly violates, then they are welcome to it.
I just find it amusing that the people discussing her "violation" are the same people who reject that standard altogether. As said above by other people (and better, too): Don't reinforce the patriarchy to hurt her.
And don't talk about hypocrites if you don't believe in the stuff they are supposedly not supposed to be doing.
Yawn. The core of her hypocrisy IS the fucking picture---how can it NOT be shown? Why do I get the feeling that if this involved a racial comment there wouldn't be such "outrage." I understand yer argument, and it's legitimate---but it also reeks of the formulaic. Stuffy. Touchy. Tired. Lame. Plus, I must admit that defending an anti-gay rights fundamentalist Christian bigot who promotes horrible body standards with fake boobs and "beauty" pageants for air headed Republicans RUBS ME THE WRONG FUCKING WAY!
Fighting back against discrimination and hypocrisy through slut shaming and sexism is the norm in liberal communities (I say this as a liberal). Let's fight for the rights and equalities of all people, but fuck women.
Let's try to find common ground here. We may all have differing opinions on religion but we are all feminists in a common cause to help other women.
In an ideal world I'd like to be able to say that I am accepting of all people of all religions. The rub is when a person interprets their religious text to be discriminatory whether that was the original intent of the author or not. People have a right to believe whatever faith they wish, just as they have a right to be not-religious.
However, because there have been many religious people who have interpreted their text(s) as license to be hateful and discriminatory, people have suffered and so this is going to be an emotional topic.
Each side has good reason to feel positively or negatively towards religion and should not be criticized for it.
Now about Christianity. I read half the posts, so I don't know if this was covered, but:
Yes it is true that it is the New Testament that matters to Christians because according to the New Testament, the old laws were fulfilled through Jesus, and no longer needed to be followed. So the Christians who use Leviticus to argue against gays are mistaken. Just as the non-Christians who use the other Old Testament books since Christians don't have to follow those laws. Additionally, the most important thing to Christians, is what Jesus said. Jesus has never spoken against same-sex marriage, same-sex orientation, or even same-sex acts.
There are two really great books that try to bring both sides of the same-sex marriage divide together: "What God Has Joined Together: The Christian case for Gay Marriage" and "Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality."
According to David Meyers and Letha Sanzoni of "What God Has Joined Together,"
"In the New Testament, four passages are usually cited in discussions of same-sex acts. None are from the Gospels, because, according to these recorded accounts of Jesus's life and ministry, he never discussed the topic. Even when Jesus talked about Sodom, he spoke only about its sins of inhospitality to strangers (Matt. 10:5-15; Luke 10:10-12). The passages that are sometimes used in discussions of homosexuality are all from the Epistles, the letters written to local gathered groups of Christians or to particular Christian individuals and later deemed by the church to be worthy of inclusion in Scripture. After extensive study of the Greek language in which these New Testament books were originally written, many biblical scholars are convinced that these passages have nothing to do with homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships as we know them today."