A Beauty Pageant for White Elephants.
I have boys, so we never followed who Ms America or Ms USA was or what they did. We were not interested. But I have heard that Miss California was runner-up for Miss USA this year. She apparently came in second for having an opinion that was unpopular with some judges. In other words, to be a beautiful and successful role model in our culture one now has to "toe the party-line." As I understand what happened, part of the contest includes an interview, and she was asked her opinion of "gay marriage." She said she thought marriage was between "a man and a woman" [Isn't this the way it has been since the dawn of civilization?] Two judges disagreed and disqualified her. One even excoriated her on his blog.
One judge later said that she was "shocked that Miss California had that opinion." I found her shock, shocking. The people of the state the woman represented, the state of California, have overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage. As a matter of fact every time gay marriage is voted on it fails. It has only advanced in the courts. It is very clear the American people do not support gay marriage. What is shocking is that a contestant would be disqualified for holding the view of the majority of the people she represents. Why is that insensitive? Who was offended, and if they were offended, why were they offended? Were they offended because a charming beautiful, competent, woman held to traditional views?
I would think someone representing the U.S.A. would reflect the values of the Constitution, the culture and the people of the U.S.A., and that includes the right to free speech, and the right to hold a controversial opinion. If she had won the contest, and a supporter of gay marriage had been runner up, do you suppose the judges would have been upset? I do not understand why women enter beauty contests, but I do seem to remember contestants who have held controversial views in the past. I thought it was about expressing your views with grace, and showing forbearance to those who disagreed. That is what Miss California did. How is that insensitive?
When winning a contest, or getting a job requires - someone to hold to a certain view because some might consider it insensitive or unpalatable, it ceases to be about political correctness and becomes discrimination. I am not very passionate about beauty contests (as I said my wife and I had boys), but this controversy shows the danger of political correctness. It is merely a euphemism for censorship.
Unfortunately this controversy also hurts the winner, Miss North Carolina. As it discredits her win, it makes those who voted for her, look like they voted for her for political reasons, rather than her qualifications. It discredits the whole pageant by making it a tool of one group of people's political agenda. In short the contest has become a joke. The person who should be disqualified in this are the two judges who have turned this contest into a beauty pageant for white elephants.
Every woman who applies for this contest from now on is going to have to make sure their opinions are more in line with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's than with Governor Sarah Palin's, who are both competent, attractive women who each have very different views on gay marriage. This contest will never again be about dignity, grace, charm and beauty, it has become a venue to advance a world-view. Conservative, Christian women, need not apply, by definition you are not beautiful and successful and should not be rewarded. If I had girls I would be upset about this, as a father of boys I am merely concerned about what this communicates to them about womanhood and manhood. It is pretty convoluted to suggest that a boy who thinks he ought to marry a girl is insensitive, or a girl attracted to a guy is bigoted. That's not insensitivity or bigotry. It is natural.
One judge later said that she was "shocked that Miss California had that opinion." I found her shock, shocking. The people of the state the woman represented, the state of California, have overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage. As a matter of fact every time gay marriage is voted on it fails. It has only advanced in the courts. It is very clear the American people do not support gay marriage. What is shocking is that a contestant would be disqualified for holding the view of the majority of the people she represents. Why is that insensitive? Who was offended, and if they were offended, why were they offended? Were they offended because a charming beautiful, competent, woman held to traditional views?
I would think someone representing the U.S.A. would reflect the values of the Constitution, the culture and the people of the U.S.A., and that includes the right to free speech, and the right to hold a controversial opinion. If she had won the contest, and a supporter of gay marriage had been runner up, do you suppose the judges would have been upset? I do not understand why women enter beauty contests, but I do seem to remember contestants who have held controversial views in the past. I thought it was about expressing your views with grace, and showing forbearance to those who disagreed. That is what Miss California did. How is that insensitive?
When winning a contest, or getting a job requires - someone to hold to a certain view because some might consider it insensitive or unpalatable, it ceases to be about political correctness and becomes discrimination. I am not very passionate about beauty contests (as I said my wife and I had boys), but this controversy shows the danger of political correctness. It is merely a euphemism for censorship.
Unfortunately this controversy also hurts the winner, Miss North Carolina. As it discredits her win, it makes those who voted for her, look like they voted for her for political reasons, rather than her qualifications. It discredits the whole pageant by making it a tool of one group of people's political agenda. In short the contest has become a joke. The person who should be disqualified in this are the two judges who have turned this contest into a beauty pageant for white elephants.
Every woman who applies for this contest from now on is going to have to make sure their opinions are more in line with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's than with Governor Sarah Palin's, who are both competent, attractive women who each have very different views on gay marriage. This contest will never again be about dignity, grace, charm and beauty, it has become a venue to advance a world-view. Conservative, Christian women, need not apply, by definition you are not beautiful and successful and should not be rewarded. If I had girls I would be upset about this, as a father of boys I am merely concerned about what this communicates to them about womanhood and manhood. It is pretty convoluted to suggest that a boy who thinks he ought to marry a girl is insensitive, or a girl attracted to a guy is bigoted. That's not insensitivity or bigotry. It is natural.
Comments
Post a Comment