She is not speaking her mind -- there was no original thought in her answer at the beauty pageant nor in her role as spokesMAN for the National Right of Marriage Organization-- she spoke what she was taught to believe.
She obviously has done what she has been told her entire life. She gets air time because she parades around with bleached hair, slathered on make up with fake breasts looking just like the boys tell us all women should look.
Don't attack her looks, you say. Not feminist, you say. SHE MAKES HER LIVING BY REFLECTING THE MALE STANDARD OF HOW ALL WOMEN SHOULD LOOK. Therefore, her looks are an issue. Not only that, but she is given a platform to defend the right of organized religion to rule in this secular country because she accepted a sexist command to look a certain way to win her "crown". HER LOOKS AND THE REWARDS SHE GETS FOR THEM ARE THE ISSUE.
Women who remain natural, who do not alter their looks to fit some porn standard, who are independent, who think for their self, do not get equal time, fame or money.
This woman is not Palin or Hillary with a record of achievement.
I am told I have to defend this woman because she is a woman and I am a feminist. No, I do not. I wouldn't defend a female abuser and I don't defend Prejean's right to join men in oppressing other women and gay people.
The whole pageant crapola is a pedophilic training ground for girls, starting as babies, groomed by their unfulfilled mothers seeking vicarious male approval through their children. In a sexist world, women who are exploited in the workplace and are reluctant to appear in porn are given a pseudo-legitimate stage in "beauty" pageants. Artificial, man made beauty pageants.
Pageants, along with Hannah Montana teen video creations of sexualized children, encourage young women to try to look and act like whores for men. Pornography, prostitution, rap, sexualized teen exploitation videos and movies, beauty pageants all equal = women to sex objects .
Women are praised and rewarded for being male created obedient sex objects. Do you see anything like this extravaganza for women who actually make something significant of their lives??
No, I am not going to join with the cult of the religious right to elevate their soft porn media queen to the status they desire for her. A role-model for speaking her mind? Not one original thought came from her mind or mouth. In fact, she was just barely coherent with the propaganda she had been spoon fed.
The right wing wants us to ignore the porn aspects of what this woman does and what Trump profits from, because they want all women to humiliate their selves and parade provocatively in front of "judges". It makes the Right hot and they do not have to apologize because some how they have sold this slave ritual as "wholesome"
You all need to read "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer. It was a great book and opened my eyes big time. Shave your legs, arms, vulva, for men who want children or boys; buy breasts, starve yourself for men who want to screw their mother; -- accentuate the differences between male and female as much as possible to encourage role playing --- look helpless and show blind obedience to the word of your fathers and you shall receive your bread.
In other words, reward comes from arousing men sexually, playing to their fantasies. That is what women are elevated and rewarded for doing. If you do not arouse men your life and achievements will not be admired or celebrated. You could be the butt of jokes and jeers when you appear in front of your peers. Better to be a Queen with a crown.
I would not parade around 3/4 naked in front of Judges in a manufactured body to make money for pimp Trump, but if I HAD been asked the question, this is how I would have answered it.
I believe that religions should be allowed to marry whoever they choose and such marriages if they conformed to secular laws against polygamy and age requirements should be recognized by the secular state.
However, the secular state should not discriminate in conferring benefits because of marital status or relationships. The federal and state benefits should be awarded to individuals regardless of marital status. All tax categories should be equal. No special deals for married couples, only for those individuals with dependents.
In a secular state "marriage " should be a contract. Such contract of shared rights and obligations should be available to any relationship. Civil unions can be created between sexual partners and non sexual relationships.
Where the government and private employers now allow a benefit to be shared by a spouse or child, that benefit should be allowed shared by all individuals with whomever they designate. Thus a single woman such as myself with medical benefits from an employer could designate my niece or an unrelated child to receive benefits under the family plan. People living together could designate each other. I believe social security and other federal benefits should be so treated in a secular society which would not discriminate on the basis of marital status. A benefit that can be given to "a wife" should be conferable on any individual designated by the benefit holder including any related or unrelated individuals.
That would be all the time allotted to answer but I could go on and on -- They would have to cut off the mike.