I think I understand what you mean, because I stopped reading the first letter when dj posted a link to it a couple days ago, and couldn't get past "this is written in the spirit of motherliness and love" which did come across as completely patronizing... (sorry, different spelling in the US!) - but the point seems to me to be valid in that this is deemed an acceptable way for a young, and I suppose talented, young artist to get ahead, change her image, whatever she's doing right now - I don't even know any of Miley Cyrus's music, so I have no idea what she's like at all- but from the angle that this is what's considered "feminist behavior" and as jorge says - she has 'agency' over her own body etc- this is what it feels like feminism is turning into, and (again, just my opinion, which I note because I doubt anyone will agree) it's largely because younger women have somehow missed the point about being feminist somewhere...Sarah. wrote:Well the implication is that she doesn't because she's 20 and not 40. Which the feminist in me finds really patronising and frustrating but the mother in me wants to agree with.theplatypus wrote:I don't know, it read like a whole bunch of sanctimonious slut-shaming to me. Why is Miley Cyrus without agency over her body?
I don't have a problem with young women or women of any age having 'agency' over their bodies or their sexuality, I do however have a problem with the idea that this type of use of either isn't degrading or contributing to the gender inequality issues of the world.
there are better ways of using her sexuality, her femininity, her body and her brains along with her talent that won't allow the rest of the industry, or the world to take advantage of her inexperience.
I feel like that's O'Connor's point.
