Of course with coverage like this (from the LA Times), I can understand why they don't advertise:
The Miss America contest is stupid and dated and we crowned a new winner in Vegas on Saturday night.
One of the big surprises to me the last couple of years has been the relocation of the Miss America pageant to Vegas. Why would you bring this antiquated event -- an Atlantic City tradition that had seemingly run its course there -- to Vegas? Vegas aspires not only to be hipper than Atlantic City, but also wants to be a city with a relevance to the 21st century. Miss America is even sexist in a dated way...
I see, however, that the the Vegas writer for the LA Times is covering the event (why write about it, if it's all so "stupid?"). I guess Miss Stam's platform of Community Service and being the goodwill ambassador for the Children's Miracle Network is tainted now because of how she was chosen for those positions. The writer calls the event 'sexist,' but the word doesn't apply, does it... sexism is discriminating against someone because of their gender... just how is that happening in the Miss America pageant? No, the writer is upset because the women are winning and losing based in large part upon their looks -- that is not sexist.
Leave it to the Los Angeles Times to say that a contest based on looks is sexist -- God knows, Hollywood isn't like that... it's open and welcoming to all women, who are generally cast in movies based on the quality of their acting skills and the content of their characters -- not on their looks.
Yeah right. Congratulations, Miss Stam and Seymour, IN!
No comments:
Post a Comment