What if Miss Utah Gave the Correct Answer at the Miss USA Pageant?

|

Imagine if Miss Utah's answer during the 2013 Miss USA Pageant had been something much better than a series of awkward silences, punctuated by the vacuous desire to "create education better"?

Instead of primping and preening, imagine what would've happened if the lovely Marisa Powell had prepared for the pageant by, say, studying a relevant article about the gender wage gap at Politifact? If only Miss Powell had been a subscriber to Reason magazine, she would've been ready for "celebrity" judge NeNe Leakes' sneaky gotcha question!

Well, imagine no longer. 

About one minute.

Produced by Todd Krainin.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Matt Welch Talks NSA Programs on MSNBC Live

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "What if Miss Utah gave the correct answer?"

    She'd be accused of mansplaining.

    1. She'd be accused of mansplaining.

      I think you mean she'd be accused of toddkraining.

      1. Brandon. if you, thought Peggy`s artlclee is astonishing... yesterday I got a new Citro?n 2CV from earning $7189 this last four weeks and-also, 10-k this past munth. with-out any question its the most rewarding I've ever had. I began this nine months/ago and immediately startad bringin home minimum $79 per/hr. I use the details on this website..... wep6.com
        (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  2. That would just prove she was brainwashed by the Mormon/GOP patriarchy into hating her feminist sisters.

  3. OK, I started the vid ready to shut it down as soon as Miss Vapid started vapiding.
    Instead, pretty funny.

  4. I didn't wtfv. Is she as vacuous as she looks, if that's possible?

    1. Jesus H. Christ, she didn't get there on brain power.

    2. This is a beauty contest, not a brains contest. Why are these girls asked anything? With looks like hers, she can say anything she wants to and guys will just smile and nod while imaging pervy stuff.

  5. If women actually earned 77 cents for every dollar men earn, then the rational decision for any business would be to fire the men, replace them with women, and cut payrolls by 23 percent.

    1. Unless it is a commission-based compensation job. The sharpest disparities in pay "for the exact same work" are found in those.

      1. Is that true? I'd like to see the source on that.

    2. The answer, of course, is SEXIZMMMMMM!!!!ONE!@!!

    3. For what it's worth, I think the argument does sort of make sense in that regard: employers who wouldn't want female employees would have no interest in hiring them for less money, just as a racist employer in 1950's Alabama wouldn't hire black people even if he could maybe get them to work for less money. This is not to say that the overall argument isn't bad, of course.

      1. If you cede even an inch, the femnazis will smoother you to death with their ungroomed muffs.

        1. Where are these, ah, Feminazis located so I know, ah, where not to go?

      2. Except that the advent of minimum wage in the US was a reaction to the fact that employers WERE hiring blacks instead of whites because they would accept lower pay.

        See: The State Against Blacks, by Walter Williams

        1. Don't forget that there were industries that wanted to higher black workers, particularly the pullman car operators. It was often said that anyone who opposed Jim Crow and voiced favor of reform was in their pocket.

        2. So were the Davis-Bacon Act and its state equivalents.

      3. Jingles,

        The scenario that some businesses would still show discrimination even if it cost them money would not likely happen as you suppose. Why?

        Because other competitors and businesses who cared more about profits would hire women and put those that were not interested in hiring them (supposedly) for less out of business.

        It took laws back in the 50's for people to be rewarded to indulge in their racial preferences. So the 50's analogy does not fit since there are not "Jane Crow" laws etc to prevent women from being hired.

        The argument concerning employment is a very logical and good argument.

    4. If women actually earned 77 cents for every dollar men earn, then the rational decision for any business would be to fire the men, replace them with women, and cut payrolls by 23 percent.

      As the article states, it is really
      90 - 95 cents for every dollar a man makes.

      But there is a reason for that: women get pregnant, while men don't. And after the child is born, the mother is much more likely to stay home than the man is. Perhaps stay home permanently, perhaps temporarily, when the child is sick.

      For any jobs where replacing an employee either temporarily or permanently is difficult or expensive, women are thus more expensive hires than men. This results in a slightly lower wage for women for the same work.

    5. "If women actually earned 77 cents for every dollar men earn, then the rational decision for any business would be to fire the men, replace them with women, and cut payrolls by 23 percent."

      In the muddled brain of a leftist businesses exist to distribute paychecks and provide employment, and patriarchy.

      No self respecting greedy rich fat cat would dare do anything like that to maximize profits. Or something.

    6. Here is my latest insight on the plight of women and work. I wonder if anyone here has come across the same line of thought:

      A woman's greatest productive capacity - her most valued and indispensable contribution - lies in child bearing and raising. This is not rewarded in the free market. A woman can raise brood of children over her lifetime without receiving a cent in wages.

      Now, when a woman wants to receive wages, she goes to the job market and sells her labour, typically at 85 cents to a man's dollar. Why is her labour discounted? Usually because of her fulfilling her capacity as a child bearer/rearer: In the market place her greatest productive asset is transformed into her greatest liability when it comes to earning wages.

      She's double screwed is one way to look at it. Or triple screwed come to think of it.

      1. Except that is demonstrably untrue so you're fucking wrong. As usual.

        1. "Except that is demonstrably untrue"

          Except you forgot to demonstrate the demonstratable. Merely gainsaying my assertion only demonstrates your intellectual laziness.

          I'll put it another way that may have more traction with my audience here. I heard of a Australian who got a job with a professional American football team. His duties were simply. He was to kick the football as far as he could into the opponents territory, nothing more. But being an Australian, he was used to playing Australian football, and every Australian football player knows two things, kicking a football and tackling an opposing player. One day he was faced with an unusual situation. An opposing player with the ball was running towards his end zone, and there was nobody else to stop him. His Australian instincts kicked in and he tackled that player, preventing him from scoring a goal. Instead of being praised, he received a humiliating tongue lashing from his coach in front of millions of fans watching TV. I don't believe his pay was cut but this should give you an idea of how an asset in one place can be transformed into a liability in another. All you have to do now is imagine the Australian as a women seeking employment in the labour market. I hope that helps.

          1. There's a minute I will never get back.

            1. Although if that play is on Youtube it's worth finding. I'm not sure on his name (Darren Bennett?) but he played for the Chargers. But, it's an epic takedown.

      2. A woman's greatest productive capacity - her most valued and indispensable contribution - lies in child bearing and raising.

        Isn't this just as true for a man? You need two to tango and a woman can't have a child without sperm. So, I think that's irrelevant to any wage discussion.

        Why is her labour discounted? Usually because of her fulfilling her capacity as a child bearer/rearer:

        No, her labor is discounted for the most part, because she has less experience and she's not willing to work as many hours as a man. Granted, a lot of that is because of her choice to have children, but that's irrelevant to the employer who is going to pay according to expected value.

        She's double screwed is one way to look at it. Or triple screwed come to think of it.

        She made a choice. If I choose to obtain an Art degree vs obtaining an Engineering degree, I get paid a lot less. I am just as screwed because that was my choice.

        It's a freewill thing.

        1. "Isn't this just as true for a man?"

          Actually, no. Men don't bear children. That's why they call them men.

          "that's irrelevant to the employer who is going to pay according to expected value"

          You're probably right but so what, it's equally true that it's relevant to the employee, whose value in the market place is discounted because of her indispensable yet unwaged contribution to society as a child bearer. Surely you must recognize the shittiness of her situation, don't think it can be made any clearer on my part. Should society continue on to the next generation? Most will say it should. But to make our future dependent on women continuing to make the shitty choices seems unfair and foolhardy to me.

          "She made a choice."

          No woman chooses to be born a woman or born into a society that discounts the value of her labour in the market place or the kind of work she is constitutionally suited to.

          1. She decides, on her own accord, that having a child is better for her than getting a wage. Her value in the market place is discounted because she, at any time, can choose to have a child. This entails multiple complications on both the business and the woman, most of which cost money.

            No woman chooses to be born a woman or born into a society that discounts the value of her labour in the market place or the kind of work she is constitutionally suited to.

            No woman chooses to be born a woman just like no man chooses to be born a man. But a woman can choose to not have a child and not to take on maternal responsibilities in order to make a wage instead. A woman does have free will.

            1. "A woman does have free will."

              A free will is a fine thing to have, but it only takes you so far. In a society with hundreds of millions, your will is going to be contrained on all sides. A women goes for a job, and finds that her wages will be a fraction of that of a male counterpart. Why? Not because of her individual actions or choices, but because her employer discounts women's labour on account of his experience in so many of her sisters who are prone to go off and have children. Can her exercising free will change this? I don't see how it can. She is bound into a society whose rules were formulated before she was born.

              I always find this appeal to free will unpersuasive. It's grossly simplistic for one, and overly metaphysical for another. But the fact remains that people do have choices. I want to pull our heads from the philosophical clouds for a moment and look at incentives. With this 77 cent in the labour market issue, coupled with non compensation for child bearing/rearing, what choices are we incentivising?

              1) couples aborting girls
              2) smartest, most ambitious women avoiding motherhood
              3) widespread misogyny

              1. Hey now. First off, the 77 cent thing isn't true. When comparing the sex's with the same job, it's closer to 90-95 cents to the dollar.

                We need to get over this making an argument of attacking the other argument while having no solution.

                As far as free will goes. We have to understand that free will can take us anywhere. I say us and not me for a reason. Each one of us having free will can do whatever we want with it. But we must also understand that there are other people that we will have to work with through struggle, understanding that we as one or a small group of people does not have power over other equal human beings. If we understand that, that means, we can't get whatever we want. So, if we really want what we want for US and not ME, then I can support an opinion or a movement, and I have all my free will to do that in reality. Legally, not all the time. Laws may keep me from doing so. free will allows me to break them. So, I won't necessarily get what I want for myself. But, I can sure help out people who are and will share a similar situation if I can't help myself on this one.

                This may seem like philosophy, which by definition it probably is. But its true if somebody has those understandings put up there. Also, no need to take this comment piece by piece. Every piece works together to make the big picture. And there are of course the details inside each piece which I hope I did not dive into for overanalyzing and missing the point.

                1. Oh, and we're also restricted from having whatever we want by out physical world. You know, human limitations.

                2. "When comparing the sex's with the same job"

                  But what's the point of this empty exercise? The sexes are different and the work they are emotionally and physically suited to are different as well. This is not something new, it's been the case since men hunted and women gathered. Pretending otherwise won't get us closer to the truth. In fact, you seem intent on papering over the 77 cent truth.

                  "We need to get over this making an argument of attacking the other argument while having no solution."

                  If you've got a solution I'd love to hear it. I'm not sure there is one, myself. Just because I can identify a problem, doesn't mean have a solution at hand. It also doesn't mean a discussion of the problem is worthless.

                  Your discussion of free will did nothing for me. Still way too much head in the clouds for my vulgar tastes. It doesn't seem responsive to my post at all, unless I'm missing something. What exercise of free will is going to close that gap or gain compensation for child bearing. i said before, a society that intends to build it's future on half it's membership willingly and continuously taking the shittiest choice is unfair and foolhardy. Your idealistic enthusiasm leaves me cold. Substitute "revolutionary spirit" for free will, and it could have been Pol Pot writing here.

            2. This here is to finish off my thought on incentives. Excuse the length.

              Now, an employer who spends his time wringing his hands over next quarter's profits probably won't be too concerned over the long term implications. A drone is a drone and their duty is to focus on the task before their eyes. Us nondrones should concern ourselves with what we are incentivizing. I named 3 after a few minutes reflection. I invite my readers here to add to the list. There are no doubt other behaviours and attitudes this gender discount in the labour market on top of non compensation for child bearing/rearing is incentivizing.

              ...

              You say:
              "But a woman can choose to not have a child and not to take on maternal responsibilities in order to make a wage instead."

              But I suspect this women makes a discounted wage even though she is childless. Is that correct?

          2. A woman's greatest productive capacity - her most valued and indispensable contribution - lies in child bearing and raising.

            JW: "Isn't this just as true for a man?"

            Actually, no. Men don't bear children. That's why they call them men.

            That's simultaneously a snarky and a stupid rebuttal. Clearly men are involved in raising children and that's the longest and most time consuming part of the process.

            1. When I comment in these pages, my aim is to be provocative, original and amusing. I rarely succeed. My apologies.

              I did not mean to imply that men are not involved in child raising.

  6. I remember discussing this with a friend back in high school. At the time I wasn't aware of the much smaller gap when occupation is taken into effect (although I did mention the lack of a gap between men and single/childless women), but the number just reeked of bullshit to me. After all, blatant wage discrimination between two people working in identical positions at the same company just isn't seen very often, and if even half of women in the workforce had to deal with it, that'd mean that that half made 54% of what their male counterparts did. And if you shrink your guess at the number of women who are being discriminated against, it just means that their income level has to drop drastically as well.

    Her response? "Well, maybe employers are only discriminating against married women because they don't think that they should be out of the home."

    headtodesk.gif

    1. You know, the 77 cents sounded like crap to me, too - until I see that Reason is using Politifact as a reliable source to explain why it is crap.

      Yeah, I know, blind pigs and stopped clocks and all that, but still - if Politifact says something I believe to be true is true, it automatically makes me doubt myself.

  7. Anyone watching the Finals right now? San Antonio is fucking up royally.

    1. Right?? the last 10 minutes was me just going "oh, they're fucking it all up again!" who takes Duncan out and then doesn't foul when you're 3 up and no time left. It's like they didn't even want to win.
      I'm not even a spurs fan, I just dislike the heat more. The last 5 minutes is all you ever need to watch in a game...

      1. Leonard missing that FT was painful to watch. But Ray still got it.

        And what is Giflopli doing out there at all?

        1. Anyone who claims he got fouled doesn't know basketball.

          Also, he walked.

    2. You have Commish Stern to thank for that!

      1. While those last couple calls were fouls, it's not unusual for those to not get called at the end of the game, and in any case, San Antonio has no one to blame but themselves. Make one more freethrow, or get one more defensive rebound and you're NBA champions. And I say this as someone rooting for the Spurs in this series

        1. There is no way they are calling a foul on Bosh's block at the very end. Never. Ever. He got all ball, and they aren't going to call for the body contact in that spot. They are all about "letting them play" and will only call if it's straight ridiculous.

          It's actually more amazing that Wade got called for that end of the game foul against the Pacers. Of course no one remembers this because LeBron came back on the other end and made that amazing layup with Hibbert on the bench.

    3. If they make one of those two missed free throws or get one of those rebounds, they win the championship. Four chances to execute a basic basketball play for a title, and they failed each time. Unbelievable

      1. Yeah...it was like watching a Cleveland team.

    1. Pfh! You and your crazy fantasy scenarios. Let's stick to the real world here, with it's thoughtful, intelligent pageant winners.

    2. Reminds me of Magua in The Last of the Mohicans when he eats the Colonel's heart.

      1. You're one of my favorite posters, ASM, but I gotta Mann-splain it to you: Magua only cuts out Munro's heart, he doesn't eat it.

        1. My mistake, I looked up the scene on YouTube and he just cuts it out.

          Still a pretty awesome movie, gotta love Wes Studi and Russell Means.

      2. Magua rocks. Bringing hell to the greyhair and it's spawn.

  8. Completely OT: Supremes tell South Carolina and everyone else to stop selling drivers info.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4130.asp

    1. Ginsburg dissented. She of the living Constitution. I really don't like that woman.

      1. Ya she called it a tortured reading.

        Torture this, bitch

        1. Well it would take a tortured reading of the law's title alone, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, to reach the conclusion that the law was intended to protect the privacy of drivers. After all, just look at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  9. Women are always late and take too much time to complete simple tasks because they talk incessantly while they are supposed to be working.
    Paying women the same as men should only be done if they have nice tits.

    1. Paying women the same as men should only be done if they have nice tits.

      Reason #3523498 why there are no female libertarians.

  10. OK, that was creepy as shit.

  11. She made a porno.

    Also, the Spurs. I threw my slipper at the TV. Talk about giving things away.

  12. "Your math is bad."

    Takes one to know one.

  13. everyone are intered in jerseys can feel free to
    http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/ to us or go to our shop
    http://modernjerseys.org/ to know about jerseys details.
    1,nfl nike jerseys 1=22$,5=21$
    2,nhl jerseys 1=33.79$,5=32.9$
    3,mlb jerseys 1=17.3$/pcs,5=16.5$
    4,nba jerseys 1=19$,5=18.5$
    5,ncaa jerseys 1=17.3$,5=16.5$
    6,soccer jerseys 21$/pcs
    and other items price here.

  14. The chick is smokin' Hot. Who give a shit if she's brainless.

  15. Hysterically funny piece that makes its point clearly and concisely! Nice going!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.