It's Not About Being Politically Correct

In the frenzy of media coverage about Perez Hilton's question to Miss California’s Carrie Prejean during the Miss USA contest, it seems so many news stories are missing the point.

Not surprisingly, the incident is often framed as a contest between Prejean and her honest beliefs against same-sex marriage and Hilton as an out gay man unhappy about her discriminating beliefs.

Let's call things what they are, okay? Prejean does not believe in extending civil rights to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples have long had--this is in fact, denying same-sex couples their full citizenship, and is discriminatory. The fact that she believes, this, though, does not make her a bitch, a cunt, or any other misogynist names that she's been called by Hilton (and others, I'm sure). To attack her anti-gay discrimination with misogyny is simply fighting one discrimination with another.

Does Prejean have the option of being homophobia and heterosexist? Yes. Does Hilton have the option of being upset that Prejean is homophobic and heterosexist? Yes. Does Prejean's heterosexist thinking excuse Hilton's sexism? No.

Would we want a Miss USA who is homophobic and heterosexist? Depends on which "we" you mean. Do we want a beauty competition judge who is sexist? Depends on which "we" you mean (some would say beauty competitions in and of themselves are sexist).

I'm disappointed, though I can't say entirely surprised, at the absence of a queer feminist analysis of how Prejean has been depicted as a victim of Hilton's liberal extremism, and Hilton has been depicted as a vicious attacker in ways that elicit people's compassions for Prejean, and by extension her discriminating beliefs--to the detriment of both feminist and queer movements! This is why feminism and queer movements need to work in coalition with one another.

Even more so, however, I'm disappointed at the lack of focus being paid to the quality of answer Prejean gave. The negative response to her anti-gay answer has almost made it untouchable to critique, especially since the terms of critique get molded into either a pro-gay vs anti-gay dichotomy, or a freedom of speech vs being politically correct conundrum.

Let's take a look:



Hilton asks, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not."

Prejean responds, "I think it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman."

Aside from the fact that we do NOT live in a country where everyone can choose equally between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, no where in her answer does Prejean explicitly say what she thinks "every state" should or should not do. She makes clear her personal belief (which she is more than entitled to) that she is not in favor of same-sex marriage because "that's how [she] was raised," but fails to make the connection from her personal/individual opinion to state law.

In my eyes her answer was a bad one because it failed to address the question!!!

Hilton had a point when he made a vlog suggesting that she could have answered that it should be up to states to decide for themselves (as they have been this past decade!). However, because of the misogynistic epithets he hurls at Prejean, his focus on the specificity of his question, and the lack of specificity of Prejean's reply is lost.

Well, and I'm not entirely on board with Hilton's explanation that Prejean, in competing for Miss USA should be politically correct and not make her biases known. I think that covert discrimination is potentially more harmful than overt discrimination and hate. Being politically correct does nothing for getting at the root cause of discrimination, but rather presents another layer that actually protects getting at the root causes. If people believe discriminatory things and don't ever have the opportunity to examine those beliefs because they know not to show people that side of themselves, then how will those trying to end discrimination ever have a real, meaningful conversation about oppression with them? Being politically correct is an ugly thing that keeps real dialogue from happening.

Prejean could have better answered the question by saying that the citizens in Vermont and a few other states might have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage, but that she doesn't think that all citizens in the other states would choose the same thing, because in fact she wouldn't, and that the decision should go to the people living in each state (which has been the case in the 42 states that have either constitutional amendments or other laws which restrict marriage to one man and one woman). This way, she gets to state her heterosexst belief, and also give a reply that actually answers Hilton's question.

Then we could enter into a more meaningful discuss of systems of oppression (like heterosexist state laws), rather than getting wrapped up in ad hominem attacks of either Hilton or Prejean. But, then again, the former isn't nearly as sensationalist as the latter, or as apt to boost readership for media!