Sinead O'Connor threatens to sue Miley Cyrus

In the same manner that cats and whales are the same…
and water and ice are the same…
and Hitler and the Pope are the same…

1 Like

actually, more like how Christians and Satanists might be the same. Or rather more specifically , people who will worship “anti-christ”. That might mean that they actually believe there’s Christ to be anti- about in some sense. Maybe in practice and philosophy, this is untrue- but on the surface, they sound like people who believe in christ’s existence.

Women can’t win on this ground. If you look too sexy, then you are just playing into or buying into one idea- if you go against it, then you are just not yourself because you are only expressing retaliation to something. that thing is making you who you are anyway while men are still respected in the entertainment industry if they are overweight, and celebrated when they are sexy. I really say leave women to be.

Yep - Miley invoked the spirits of pop music past, she played with the ouija, and now she’s in a battle she can’t … oh wait.

She’s lost hands down to anyone reasonable or grown up. But her money-makin’ audience are sub-intelligent, juvenile, and get a kick out of her apparent disrepect towards O’Connor. And they love it.

She doesn’t really get what she’s doing, but the money people do. Invoking Sinead was more than likely their idea.

2 Likes

But I think on a fundamental level, Sineads point was really about the music industry and how it gives young women bad advice about how to run their careers. She was pointing about something specific based on what Cyrus said. I didn’t read it as “slut-shaming” so much as pointing out how Cyrus’ sexuality is being used and abused to sell records. She’s being told, most likely, that this is a good idea, “use it while you got it”. Moreover, this sort of thing is regularly being positioned as “empowering” for women.

And I agree, 100% about how we can’t win. But there are plenty of women who completely embrace sexiness and their own “imperfect” bodies. I didn’t see Sinead calling them out in the same way. Jennifer Lawrence, Amanda Palmer, Beth Ditto, etc, regularly make light of the standards women are held to and talk about it in terms of being happy with their bodies and how they look. It fundamentally comes down to the message we are sending. Frankly, the notion that displaying our bodies for the purposes of making others rich is probably a notion we can all do without.

saying " don’t prostitute yourself" is slutshaming. The language is vile . I am sure Cyrus will have no complaints about the money she is making. I agree much more with Amanda Palmer, speaking of http://amandapalmer.net/blog/20131003/ I don’t understand what you are saying - you should only be criticized for being sexy if you are conventionally beautiful? That women are allowed to be sexy without harassment only if they are considered somewhat “imperfect”? who is deciding these things?

For the record, ANYTHING we work for is making the men rich. that is the very nature of corporate capitalism that we live in. This is not an exclusive issue to women’s bodies. It’s everyone’s bodied that does anything.

I don’t agree that what Sinead did was slut-shaming, though it can be read as such, so fair enough. But I think you’re making the assumption that all decisions about how to present yourself and your body within the corporate capitalist system is the same/morally equivalent and doesn’t matter as long as it’s the woman making the choice, but that ignores the fact of pressure from outside to act in certain ways. No one is calling her a “slut” or a “prostitute”, or at least I didn’t read it that way, but Sinead is pointing out how she is being exploited for the profit of others.

I find it highly unlikely that, given the way the industry functions, that Cyrus is seriously making all her own decisions, with no input from a team of industry guys that her father probably made sure were in place as she became an adult. I don’t think she should be less sexual provocative, or dress like a matron, or shave her head like Sinead… but to think that she is somehow a completely independent actor, with no input or pressure from outside, is I think a bit naive. I also think that she might be a in a position where her financial house is secure, due to her father being a part of the business before her, many other young people come into the system with no idea how it operates, and get royally screwed. Or maybe her father is just using her to make a fast buck, too. Wouldn’t be the first time parents exploit their children for cash. I can’t say that either way, though. I’d like to think he does have her best interests at heart. The industry tends to treat artists as disposable, and gives them contracts which give them no protection, and keeps the products for sale in the hands of the corporation. The number of people who ended up in abject poverty after what seems like a long and lucrative career due to these sorts of contracts is numerous and rather legendary.

I agree its not just about women’s bodies, but all of us and our horizon of choices in the corporate/capitalist structure, which in terms of choices that matter (rather than a set of choices premade for us and sold in your local mall–how is Hot Topic different from Gap? It’s not! and We all know it). But we aren’t completely free on our choices. We don’t have real endless choices, here, but a set of choices, which are less and less depending where you fall in the privilege hierarchy.

As for AFP… I love her and am proud of how she presents herself and her art to the world. Her music means a lot to me. She does it on her own terms and I find it something to be celebrated and applauded. Yet, that doesn’t mean I don’t have a critique for her or think she’s some sort of prophet of an iron clad feminist reality. She is making truth-claims, just like the rest of us, and as such, she is open to debate–just like you and me (I do think she opens this stuff up, not to shout at us, but to open a dialogue, so I love that about her, too). My argument about Palmer is that she is buying into the post-fordist, individualists, neo-liberal new vision of capitalism–that there is no outside and it is only via individual work can one be independent (kind of Randian, but with a soft, punk ideological underbelly). Fair enough, she is working within the system for her own benefit, as are millions of others who do contract work in creative fields every day. It’s this sort of thinking that, while freeing the individual, limits the choices available to the vast majority of people–in the case of the music industry, the idea of setting up a label for work that you find important, and giving those artists a fair cut (Mute, K Records, Alternative Tentacles, etc) are quickly dwindling, after a rather high point in the mid-80s, where there was an honest to god viable alternative that knit together artists, independent merchants, and fans into a community. Not that AFP has “brought that down”… lots of other indie artists have been working this way for a while now and for good reason, as the “indie community” route has been seriously gutted since the “Nirvana boom”. This is not about Palmer, per se, but about showing how the post-90s boom put the final stake in the heart of independent music.

Addtionallly, I’d argue that AFP has been and is in a privileged position in life. I’m sure she realizes that, nor do I think that this makes her a “bad” person or whatever. As I’ve said before and again, I love and support her work and give her my money as a result. But I think it’s a fact. So was/is Cyrus, for that matter. These are bourgeoisie women, with privilege. I don’t mean this as a criticism of Palmer, really. It’s just a fact. Sinead comes from a completely different social/political/class background and had a different trajectory around her career that informs her world view. She is of working class stock and frankly, that matters. She was not given the same advantages Palmer and Cyrus had in their lives. So what tends to get glossed over is that they had access to things that Sinead and other artists did not (I could make a similar argument about, say, Kate Bush, whose background is also middle class in origin). This is probably why they see the deployment of sexuality differently, given that the exploitation of working class women’s sexuality is pretty evident. I am sure Sinead had a much closer view of the real violence done to women sexually speaking. That’s probably given her a different perspective, because she sees that as a destructive force. I’m sure that is pretty common for working class women to think. It’s not a “horizon of choice” for millions of women around the world, but a forced condition. Rightly or wrongly, Sinead has connected, in her mind, the inner workings of the music industry with women being sexually exploited. I can understand why she’d do that.

Okay… I think I’m rambling at this point. All I can say, is I don’t think all choices to present yourself in a certain way are the same and are equally defensible. I don’t think Cyrus is making her own decisions, even if she thinks she is doing so. I generally agree with Palmer, and get her point, but I think it’s off the mark. And I can understand where Sinead is coming from. I don’t think that she is “harassing” Cyrus, nor do I think she should be shamed for her choices, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say we think they are wrong and why we think they are wrong…

Does that make any sense, what so ever? I hope so… Again, I’m not discounting anything you are saying, as I see this more as a dialectal discussion of these issues. I think you are bringing up some important points. But this is how I see this debate… :smile:

1 Like

At this point, it seems that people are arguing about their differing perceptions of various celebrities. Miley Cyrus is a canny, cynical media manipulator; Miley Cyrus is a helpless waif being exploited by the bad mens in her life. Sinead O’Connor is a fearless truthteller; Sinead O’Connor is a messed-up self-appointed slut-shamer. AFP is, well, who and what she is. In the meantime, the government shutdown continues, and the people responsible for it are trying to pretend that it’s all about Obama keeping vets out of memorials and military chaplains from saying Mass. But by all means let’s continue worrying about the fallout from a third-string awards ceremony that most people didn’t even know was going on, let alone bother to watch.

I get your point, but assuming that culture has nothing to do with the real world and how it functions is ignoring how culture shapes the real world. How women are perceived in our culture might not matter to you, but I assure you it does matter to those of us who are women–it might not seem that way to you, but attitudes formed in and by the elites shapes how society as a whole views women as individuals, meaning it can affect the day to day realities of our lives. If a boss say, thinks that women are the sum of their sexuality and that is shaped by mass media depictions of women, then it will indeed have an impact on the people he hires and works with. See what I’m saying?

But of course, the fact that we have the time (well, maybe not…) to sit around debating this stuff on the internet does betray a level of privilege to do so.

2 Likes

And yet here you are…

AS I said before, pressure from people like you to be politically correct is no different than any other outside pressure. We simply don’t need it. It is not any more welcomed than any other types of pressure put on to women.

The only reason why you don’t think it’s slut shaming is because there’s virtually no sex work right activists in USA- you guys are terrible with sex workers. Put them in jail, or only treat them as victims. Here in Australia, we have the most progressive laws in decriminalising sex work in Sydney and legal in most states. My friend is a CEO of the national representative body of Sex Work (peer only and funded by government - something far far from reality in minds of people in USA) . Using the word prostitute in derogatory matter is definitely slut shaming and whorephobic. My friend is of the same opinion and many other activists that I know in Australia. I am not saying to condone ANY industry- I am saying you don’t also have to make people look a certain way or act the way you want or what you feel comfortable with so to be against the industry. Ultimately, what people decide to do , is theres to do . I am sorry you can’t respect other women’s choices and believe that it ISN’t their choice because you hate their decisions and or because they are lower class then you, that they are incapable of making up their own minds and have no autonomy so that their opinions must be dissected and looked upon patronisingly- it’s really the last thing they need from you. AS I said, to do something else because they make a choice based on pleasing people like you is still the SAME THING as church telling them they can’t wear short skirts or masterbate- it’s still just all about control of women.

Sinead did not make these comments because she is “working class.” She made these comments because she is still stuck in era of generation of feminism that restricted women and claims any penetrative sex is violence against women and that any women that enjoy sex HAS NOT MADE A CHOICE because of outside influence. This , they call “false consciousness”. I do NOT support this view at ANY level. I also do not believe in this happy neo liberal empowered choice thing. I think people make the choices they make out of few choices and options they have. And we need to respect that - not make them feel shit or patronize them.

and I agree with Halloween_jack. I can’t understand what was such a big deal in the first place.I think Miley wins this one - she really WOULD have not had ANY attention from the public otherwise.

this is exactly the kind of argument that says asian women , from poor countries- do not get to have sex with who ever they want because they are lower class. All it does is take MORE rights, choices, and autonomy from people that you claim to support. As an Asian women, I see it only as classist and yet another patronizing opinion trying to control our sexuality and to point out how much privilege you possess in comparison to the “poor” others who can not make their own choices.

Smug mockery is what you want to be famous for?

1 Like

I’m sorry… You clearly are not understanding my position. I do not want to “slut-shame” Cyrus, but that doesn’t mean I have to celebrate or even support her choices, or even think that she is making them completely on her own. I do think she is most likely being, if not manipulated or led, at the very least given bad advice that plays on her youthful instincts for fun and excitement. Or maybe she is calculating enough to make these decisions on her own. I do not think in the long run that that is how you build a successful career in music. If this is all about short term attention to boost sales, then maybe…

I do not think that all choices are equal. And for the record, I do not necessarily think sex work is a bad thing. But saying that it is a choice, even a limited one, ignores the very real fact that millions of women were not give a choice, or their choices were so very limited that it didn’t even matter. If someone chooses to go into sex work, that’s fine with me and I do not think it is necessarily a bad choice. But what about the women who don’t? You seem to be ignoring them. I do not think we should shame them for what they have had to do, but if they are being forced, why shouldn’t we pay attention to that. Australia may be some sort of progressive utopia on women’s issues, but most of the rest of the world is not.

1 Like

Sorry if you feel patronized, because that’s not what I meant. My point was that poorer women and women of color tend to have a smaller horizon of choices than rich, white, elite women. Miley Cyrus and Amanda Palmer had a much wider horizon of choices because of where they were born, their skin color, and class status. I don’t really see where you got this notion that because of that poor women and women of color do not get to make choices about who they sleep with. Of course, that is a problem. I wouldn’t disagree. But my point was that different women have a different set of choices they can make. I don’t see how that is a privileged or patronizing opinion that is trying to force you into some little box where I am telling you that you can’t dress as you see fit or sleep with who you see fit.

Anyway… clearly I’ve touched a never and I’m sorry for that. I’m sure you won’t accept my apology since you’ve made your assement of me, that I am an overprivilged person who wishes to slut shame everyone who acts differently from me, but I’m sorry all the same.

1 Like

No-one will ever be famous for mocking you.

3 Likes

Miley’s comment about Justin Bieber in her Rolling Stone article:

“He’s trying really hard,” she adds. “People don’t take him seriously, but he really can play the drums, he really can play guitar, he really can sing. I just don’t want to see him fuck that up, to where people think he’s Vanilla Ice. I tell him that. Like, ‘You don’t want to become a joke. When you go out, don’t start shit. Don’t come in shirtless.’ But the thing is,” she says with a laugh, “I think boys are, like, seven years behind. So in his head, he’s really, like, 12.”

She does not think it is okay for Bieber to be walking around shirtless, but it is okay for her to pose topless? She thinks he should work to make sure the world focuses on his talent, so how do her actions (naked music videos, singing about doing Ecstasy (and possibly cocaine), twerking at every moment) showcase her talents?

The problem is the industry. It deals in such deep psychological areas that it will never be a nice, open industry like coffee retail.

I knew an ex porn star, and she now campaigns heavily against all porn - her spectrum goes right from thin revealing shirts on TV through to hardcore this and that. She does it because when she entered the industry, by persuasion and misdirection, she was naive and hopeful. She came out a total mess, and cannot connect with her prior self.

Regulate it all you want, liberate it all you want, but it all ends up with people wanting to fuck people, likely in a frame of mind or manner that they’re not allowed to at home. Enticing youngsters into that, giving it legitimacy, is akin to throwing them a rope to hang themselves.

Cyrus isn’t “sexually liberated” (have a read up on how women actually felt during the 60s), she’s leveraging the media’s salacious appetite for sexual display. And by encouraging the entertainment industry that profit lies in that direction, she’s both inviting young women into the fray, and providing a rational, if in my eyes unfit, justification to have more of it - thereby shoring up the culture, and ultimately, ensuring that my young girls grow up in a sexualised media environment, and themselves have greater risk and pressure in their relationships and sexual encounters.

It isn’t about control of women. It’s about making sure people are safe and can develop freely without undue pressure from any quarter.

The sex media industry, from thin shirts to hardcore, demolishes those prospects - all so that investors get rich.

That doesn’t seem like a right-minded balance to me.

1 Like

they way you are putting it states other people should not be respected for their choices .

The problem is that these so called " anti-porn " campaigner speaks for ALL sex workers- completely ignoring the voices of many workers who likes to work in the industry. Your view demolishes prospects for women who does enjoy exhibitionism and hard core sex AND it also makes their jobs more dangerous by inviting false ideas about it - giving criminals the idea to abuse workers. In Australia where the stigma is less so due to progressive decriminalization, there are MUCH MUCH less violence against workers- first of all, there are less myth that sex workers get abused or is there to be abused AND the workers are protected by law like any other citizen. This is the right-minded balance.

In US, all you see are propaganda and crusade to stop sex work- while putting them in jail and patronizing them. There’s TONS of money in that. While in real life, sex workers around the world fight for their right , the right to have safe working conditions, and the right to not be criminalized. Youngsters are not “enticed” into that, lot of teen sex workers I have seen are actually run aways that are escaping abusive situations at home - often queer teens whose parents are religious and will not tolerate their sexuality. The last worry in their mind is if they should have to suck a stranger’s dick or not. - That is usually the LEAST of their worries. Often times, it is the police and condescending people who will only feel sorry for them when they have escaped a bad situation that are more of an issue. Like I said, in US- you only have criminalisation, stigma, and untruths about sex work. In Australia where it is decriminalised, peer based sex work organizations are respected and consulted when making policy and even for media for REAL collective decisions and experiences about sex work and what workers need- rather than over dramatised version that is sold for Non-Profit Orgs to make money off of the public. In Sydney, they have been effectively leader in STI prevention- research showing that they have less sti then the rest of the population when in decriminalized non-regulated environment. They are vocal, and inclusive of all sex workers .

The idea that women are nothing but sexual victims needs to stop. Casual sex for money should be accepted for both men and women - no one should be criminalized nor shamed for it.

Most of the anti-porn said (ex-performers) or (ex - sex workers) are born again Christian. I wouldn’t have anything to do with the lot. If you are looking for feminists in sex work in USA, you can see Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartly or Scarlet Harlot. But they are all over shadowed by Christian attitude of USA. Annie called the latest anti-trafficking tactic the "worst war on sex workers " that she has seen over decades of her activism. I agree.