So Miley Cyrus said her Wrecking Ball video was inspired by Sinead O’Connor’s Nothing Compares 2U. And Sinead was contacted by all kinds of media asking for comment. She decided to write Miley an open letter instead. You can read that here.
Miley responded on Twitter by comparing Sinead to Amanda Bynes, posting Sinead’s old tweets from two years ago during which she appeared to be having a mental breakdown.
Sinead answered back with another public letter and threatening to sue.
Miley returned to Twitter to tell Sinead that she was too busy hosting Saturday Night Live to deal with her drama but “if youd like to meet up and talk lemme know in your next letter. :)”
Sinead replied on Facebook, or whatever social media, who can keep track at this point?, by insisting that Miley apologise, “in between g-string changes”, and that she wouldn’t waste her time meeting her.
In other words, they’re both f-cking assholes.
Sorry, does that disappoint you? Am I supposed to be pro-Sinead just because Miley’s all about her body and her tongue these days? Look, Miley was a dick, a total dick with the mental illness shaming. It was a low, LOW blow.
But it wasn’t the first punch, was it?
An open letter isn’t exactly kind. Especially not when variations of the word “prostitute” are used five times in the post. Sinead’s calling Miley a whore and she’s telling Miley not to be a whore for male record executives getting rich off her tits. Fine.
Guess who’s going on tour next week?
Oh, hi Sinead O’Connor.
And who’s using Miley now to generate publicity? Who’s gaining from exploiting Miley? Not just male record executives. Not anymore.
Because there were other, more private ways to reach out to Miley, non? Don’t tell me an open letter was the only method. But slut-shaming is best performed with an audience, you know? Otherwise, these awesomely misogynistic phrases could never be enjoyed. Like when Sinead tells Miley that:
“You ought be protected as a precious young lady…”
“Your body is for you and your boyfriend.”
Again. Sorry. I can’t support that. I can’t support language like that. Miley’s mockery of Sinead’s mental health struggles was a c-nt move, yes. It was one c-nt move in a series of c-nt moves that both of them are throwing at each other.
Is Miley’s recent behaviour concerning? Sure. To me though, it’s no less concerning than the fact that she was allowed to become a star when she was a child. THAT has to be just as concerning as all the photos you’re seeing of her shoving her various body parts up on the camera. I’ll say it again – it is JUST AS CONCERNING as Hannah Montana. Letting her become Hannah Montana, and boxing her into an image that society considers “safe” for young girls, under a spotlight, constricted by fame, is tantamount to child abuse.
And what’s confusing about it all is that the reason why she’s so offensive to so many right now is because she was expected to stay trapped in the wholesome f-cking coffin of the all-American sweetheart. If Sinead O’Connor doesn’t think the “new” Miley is the “real” Miley, the truth is, the “old” Miley wasn’t the “real” Miley either.
What is Miley now? Who is Miley?
Miley is wrong to associate “adult” with “sex and nudity”.
Or Miley is taking ownership of her own sexuality, and controlling it for her own gain.
Or Miley is confusing control with exploitation.
Or Miley’s agency over her own body is empowering.
Is it sexist to assume that just because she’s not wearing much clothing that it’s not of her own will? That’s an interesting feminist debate I’d love to have at the Faculty of Celebrity Studies. Because right now there is no consensus.
Here’s Miley in New York last night. And the t-shirt. She’s a scrappy one, right?