Date: July 20, 2015
posted by Lee / Comments: No Comments / Tags: Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, Rolling Stone, SinĂ©ad O'Connor
Last week, former 90â€™s icon of rebellion, Sinead Oâ€™Connor dropped a ‘c bombâ€™ on a fellow famous lady for having the cheek to do her job. Kim Kardashian, irrespective of what you may think of her personally, is a pop-culture icon. As such, it is not unusual for her to appear on the cover of any magazine.
According to Oâ€™Connorâ€™s logic, ‘the music has officailly diedâ€™ due to the featuring of a non-musician on the cover of Rolling Stone. What about Miranda Kerrâ€™s cover in 2009? The band played on, right? I mean, people have been making music since then, right? Ms. Kerr has even less to do with music if you consider Kimâ€™s at least married to a musician. So by Oâ€™Connorâ€™s standards, how is her Rolling Stone cover in any way less offensive than Kimâ€™s? The reality is that since itâ€™s first publication in 1967 Rolling Stone has featured musicians, actors and models on its covers, so the idea that Kardashian as a cover model is somehow underqualified is rediculous.
Kim Kardashian constantly divides opinion, but love her or hate her, she can still stir up controversy. The irony of Oâ€™Connorâ€™s vitriolic comments is that her response is the very reason Kim continues to be booked for cover after cover and sell a hell of a lot of magazines. The fact that sheâ€™s never released an album is irrelevant. She could be on the cover of Monster Motors and sell millions and she doesnâ€™t drive a truck either.
I used to love Sineadâ€™s music. I respected her as an artist, a feminist and an activist, but sadly in recent years sheâ€™s become one of the prominent slut-shamers of our time. The three open letters she penned to Miley Cyrus were depressing. Here was a 20-year-old girl expressing her sexuality in one of her music videos and citing Nothing Compares 2 U as the inspiration. Instead of a ‘thumbs-upâ€™ from one of her mentors she was shot down and told, ‘None of the men ogling you give a s*&t about you either, do not be fooled. Manyâ€™s the woman mistook lust for love. If they want you sexually that doesnâ€™t mean they give a f*&k about you.â€™ Woah!
Be this sage advice or not, why make it so public? If Oâ€™Connorâ€™s intentions were truly noble, why not write Miley an email and express her concerns genuinely and discreetly? These lettersâ€™ intent was at least partially to humiliate Cyrus who being 20, responded in the way most 20-year-olds would and trolled her on Twitter. Iâ€™m not condoning her reaction, but a more considered retort would have been a total waste of her time.
I agree wholeheartedly when Sinead wrote to Cyrus, ‘whether we like it or not, us females in the industry are role models and as such we have to be extremely careful what messages we send to other women.â€™ So why then is she so happy to call other women whores and c*&ts? Is it not easier as women to be kind to each other; especially women struggling to occupy their place in such a ruthless industry? What would it take for us to lift each other up instead of tear each other down?
I was disgusted and disappointed to read Oâ€™Connorâ€™s comments about Kim Kardashianâ€™s most recent cover. If she wanted to spew venom why not at Rolling Stone? Surely it was the magazine that disappointed her by booking Kim for the cover and not some band sheâ€™d have approved of. Kim was just doing her job and is laughing at her slut shaming haters like Oâ€™Connor all the way to the bank.
This is not a piece in defence of Kim Kardashian. I am really quite ambivalent towards her, but I think itâ€™s irresponsible of us as women not to react when we see a well-respected woman like Oâ€™Connor speak so disrespectfully about another; especially when Kardashian has done nothing to Oâ€™Connor to deserve such public degradation. Shame on Sinead for behaving so poorly and calling women terrible names for simply daring to earn a living. #BoycottRollingStone? #BoycottSlutShaming.