In 1990 I was still an American Culture major in college, but I was getting ready to jump ship for sociology. That’s when Madonna’s “Justify My Love” video was banned by MTV, which was a thing people used to use to watch videos. And network TV used to be a major source of exposure.
I was watching when Madonna went on Nightline for an interview. The correspondent intoned:
…nudity, suggestions of bisexuality, sadomasochism, multiple partners. Finally, MTV decided Madonna has gone to far.
They showed the video, preceded by a dire parental warning (it was 11:30 p.m., and there was no way to watch it at any other time). In the interview, Forrest Sawyer eventually realize he was being played:
Sawyer: This was a win-win for you. If they put the video on, you would get that kind of play. And if they didn’t you would still make some money. It was all, in a sense, a kind of publicity stunt. … But in the end you’re going to wind up making even more money than you would have.
Madonna: Yeah. So, lucky me.
The flap over Miley Cyrus completely baffles me. This is a business model (as artistic as any other commercial product), and it hasn’t changed much, just skinnier, with more nudity and (even) less feminism. I don’t understand why this is any more or less controversial than any other woman dancing naked. Everyone does realize that there is literally an infinite amount of free hardcore porn available to every child in America, right? There is no “banning” a video. (Wrecking Ball is pushing 250 million views on YouTube.)
No one is censoring Miley Cyrus — is there some message I’m missing? When she talked to Matt Lauer he asked, “Are you surprised by the attention you’re getting right now?” And she said, “Not really. I mean, it’s kind of what I want.”
I think the conversation has slid backward. In Lisa Wade’s excellent comment, she draws on a 1988 article, “Bargaining With Patriarchy,” which concluded:
Women strategize within a set of concrete constraints, which I identify as patriarchal bargains. Different forms of patriarchy present women with distinct “rules of the game” and call for different strategies to maximize security and optimize life options with varying potential for active or passive resistance in the face of oppression.
I think it applies perfectly to Miley Cyrus, if you replace “security” and “life options” with “celebrity” and “future island-buying potential.” Lisa is 1,000-times more plugged in to kids these days than I am, and the strategies-within-constraints model is well placed. But that article is from 1988, and it applies just as well to Madonna. So where’s the progress here?
Interviewed by Yahoo!, Gloria Steinem said, “I wish we didn’t have to be nude to be noticed … But given the game as it exists, women make decisions.” That is literally something she could have said in 1990.
The person people are arguing about has (so far) a lot less to say even than Madonna did. When Madonna was censored by MTV, Camile Paglia called her “the true feminist.”
She exposes the puritanism and suffocating ideology of American feminism, which is stuck in an adolescent whining mode. Madonna has taught young women to be fully female and sexual while still exercising total control over their lives. She shows girls how to be attractive, sensual, energetic, ambitious, aggressive and funny — all at the same time.
When Miley Cyrus caused a scandal on TV, Paglia could only muster, “the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms.”
Madonna was a bonafide challenge to feminists, for the reasons Paglia said, but also because of the religious subversiveness and homoerotic stuff. Madonna went on, staking her claim to the “choice” strand of feminism:
I may be dressing like the typical bimbo, whatever, but I’m in charge. You know. I’m in charge of my fantasies. I put myself in these situations with men, you know, and… people don’t think of me as a person who’s not in charge of my career or my life, okay. And isn’t that what feminism is all about, you know, equality for men and women? And aren’t I in charge of my life, doing the things I want to do? Making my own decisions?
And she embraced some other feminist themes. When Madonna was asked on Nightline, “Where do you draw the line?” she answered, “I draw the line with violence, and humiliation and degradation.”
I’m not saying there hasn’t been any progress since 1990. It’s more complicated than that. On matters of economic and politics gender has pretty well stalled. The porn industry has made a lot of progress. Reported rape has become less common, along with other forms of violence.
But — and please correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t see the progress in this conversation about whether it’s feminist or anti-feminist for a women to use sex or nudity to sell her pop music. As Lisa Wade says, “Because that’s what the system rewards. That’s not freedom, that’s a strategy.” So I would skip that debate and ask whether the multi-millionaire in question is adding anything critical to her product, or using her sex-plated platform for some good end. Madonna might have. So far Miley Cyrus isn’t.
Cross-posted at Family Inequality and Pacific Standard.
Philip N. Cohen is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, and writes the blog Family Inequality. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook.
Comments 37
Danna Waldman — October 19, 2013
Yeah. Maybe. Maybe not. Keep in mind that Madonna's wealth is based on shaking her butt and boobies in front of a camera. A Camille Paglia endorsement looks a little differently when you consider the waves of young girls who hyper-sexualised themselves after Madonna's model, are the same girls who did the same for the Spice Girls (girl power, my ass) and who will do fashion themselves after the examples of Miley Cyrus. Female pop stars are no more than commodities. They have never been otherwise. Just because a once popular radfem theorist prefers Madonna's body instead of Miley's is irrelevant and without much meaning or significance and does not suggest any deeper sociological importance. It can be successfully argued that selling product on the naked bodies of beautiful young women is no more than what it is and has always been. There is no genuine social, political, sexual, and/or gender legitamacy to be found in this practice no matter how many PHD's line up to approve. Nope. Not buying it. And I have read Paglia. She talks a good line, but it's the same old whine in an upscale bottle. And as far as being a PHD goes, it is a piece of paper given to someone who agrees with what other PHD's say.
Danna Waldman.
Anna — October 19, 2013
"The flap over Miley Cyrus completely baffles me."
"I don’t understand why this is any more or less controversial than any other woman dancing naked."
I get that this was not the main point of your article, but the fact that you keep repeating this is confusing to me. To claim not to understand the whys of the controversy renders one very limited in understanding the criticism (and praise) surrounding Miley Cyrus. Her entire schtick is about capitalizing on an extreme juxtaposition to her previous public image. Miley Cyrus' highly public FUCK YOU to her Disney persona via raunchy sexual expression, unapologetic drug use, and sleaze-tinged hedonism, all deliberately filmed, styled, and choreographed in an amateurish, sloppy format, is what makes her controversial.
Perhaps you are not aware of what a massive cultural phenomenon Hannah Montana was. I was aware of its popularity, but was too old to understand the absolute magnitude of it, until I got to spend time with a girl who was right in that marketed age range, who grew up idolizing Hannah/Miley (a conflation which was actively encouraged by Disney marketing tactics). Madonna's controversy was born out of very different circumstances. Personally, I find Miley rather tame in comparison to Madonna circa Erotica (aren't most performers?) and several other female performers before her. More nudity, skinnier, with less feminism? That's selective memory, further dredged down by subjectiveness.
Jacqueline — October 19, 2013
WOW,
is this pedantic and insulting. To have a man talk of feminism, and
slut-shame like WHOA, is something I wouldn't expect to be given space
on this site.
"So
I would skip that debate and ask whether the multi-millionaire in
question is adding anything critical to her product, or using her
sex-plated platform for some good end. Madonna might have. So far Miley
Cyrus isn’t."
OMG thank you for your DUDE OPINIONS. Women need more criticism and scrutiny; yeah, that's missing...
This is baby feminism.
mimimur — October 19, 2013
Miley isn't integrating the sexual stuff with anything substatial so far, but I have a feeling that there is something else under there that might evolve if we give her time. There is so much focus on the nudity of wecking ball that noone has even mentioned the direct stare into the camera and the (compared to the chorus) musically interesting verses. So far, she's mixing it up with the nudity and flat choruses that make an easy sell, What will beinterestig the the months and years to come is to see wether it's the creative or the calculated part that will dominate her performance.
also: uuugh, the constant assumption that nudity/skimpy clothing is somehow connected to sexuality in any meaningful way
Andrew S — October 19, 2013
First, I'm male, and my views are valid even of that fact.
Madonna's quote above is very similar to many women who are into bondage or S&M or actually ENJOY the sex work they do. (Yes, many are force, coerced etc, but not all). For them, nothing is degrading.
But for those looking in who wouldn't have made that choice, they are degrading themselves.
So really the question is "why do we care?" That is, if indeed the women are making their own choices based on what they want, then to say, "You are degrading yourself" is to suggest that they #1 feel degraded and if so, #2, are OK with it and it's a bad thing (or #2b, are not OK with it but aren't in control, in which case, we shouldn't be mad at them, but rather at the controller).
But if the Miley Cyrus is in control, and doing what she's doing because she wants to, and doesn't feel harmed by it, then who are we to say it's anything but a "Good" thing. It is for her. And while it may not be for me or you, we aren't her.
That being said, I kind of feel there will always be someone society will be mad at. Madonna, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus... did the parents of the 1950s/1960s ever question why the sex symbols of their day acted the way they did?
Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks | Bitch Flicks — October 20, 2013
[…] Does History Repeat Itself, But With More Porn? by Philip N. Cohen at The Society Pages […]
James Magnus Johnston — October 20, 2013
"Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up" - Ronald Wright
Thursday Wrap Up | Sex with Timaree — October 24, 2013
[…] Is Miley Cyrus the new Madonna, but more porn-ish? […]
Vince — October 30, 2013
I don't have a problem with the theory behind what Miley Cyrus is doing. Many celebrities have done far worse and got a pass. The real problem is that she is so incredibly bad at it. She looks uncomfortable in her own skin. Anything that comes within a six foot radius of her head, she licks. She's trying to be sexy but coming off as incapable, and the fact she can't see that earns her the ridicule.
The solution? Learning to play to her strengths, or start hanging out with more porn stars.
Jeff — October 30, 2013
Didn't read the article, but yes. History repeats itself, with more porn. End of article.
Andrew Payne — October 30, 2013
I think equality for men and women would be called humanism not feminism. Somehow Miley Cyrus having tongue spasms doesn't seem to contribute to anything at all.
Does History Repeat Itself, But With More Porn? | Betteridge’s Law — November 11, 2013
[…] Does History Repeat Itself, But With More Porn? […]
Does History Repeat Itself, But With More Porn? — December 23, 2013
[…] post originally appeared on Sociological Images, a Pacific Standard partner […]