This week, singer-songwriter Sinead O’Connor ranted on Facebook, referring to Kim Kardashian-West as a ‘cunt’ and blaming Rolling Stone for the death of the music industry in response to placing Kimmy K on the cover of the prestigious magazine.
The post read:
What is this cunt (“I don’t smile much because it causes wrinkles”) doing on the cover of Rolling Stone? Music has officially died. Who knew it would be Rolling Stone that murdered it? Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh can no longer be expected to take all the blame. Bob Dylan must be fucking horrified.
Kim Kardashian-West has nothing to do with the so-called ‘death of music’ nor is she ‘a cunt’.
Unless you consider a hard-working, extremely successful businesswoman who speaks out against genocide, works with dozens of charities, opens up about race relations and LGBTQ+ rights to be the C-word.
Neither Kim K nor Rolling Stone are strangers to a controversial cover; in fact both of them trade off it.
O’Connor’s expletive filled rant is playing into the hands of the Kardashian Klan and Rolling Stone, both who trade on controversy to get people talking.
Remember that ‘World’s most talked about couple’ Vogue cover, which had hundreds of people complaining? Well, Kim and Kanye were the first interracial couple ever featured on the cover, and it sold over 500,000 copies.
And let’s not forget the ‘Break The Internet’ naked Paper magazine cover, which increased the website’s traffic by 25,500% in a day. Kardashian is a PR genius.
The idea that Kim Kardashian-West shouldn’t be on the cover of Rolling Stone because she’s ‘not a singer’ is bizarre.
Dozens of non-musicians and actors are regularly featured on the cover of the magazine.
Did O’Connor complain the nine times when Obama was on the cover? What about The Pope? George Bush? Jerry Springer? Pamela Anderson? What about the cast of the Hills, Snooki from Jersey Shore, or the Osborne’s? They’re all famous for the same reason as the Kardashians, reality TV.
Oh, and you know, the Boston Bomber was featured on the cover too. Is Sinead O’Connor’s logic really that Kim’s worse than a terrorist?
You see, that’s the thing, Rolling Stone has never been exclusively a music magazine, it’s primarily about culture, politics, TV, film and sports, all bar the latter Kim K has dipped her toes into. When you’re talking about 21st century culture, ‘hashtag fame’ and social media stars, Kim Kardashian-West epitomises it.
Women in modern society are taught from a young age that their worth lies in their appearance.
Kim K and her family are masterminds in the ‘selfie era’. Instead of being victims of a materialistic, misogynistic society that exploits women for their appearance and sexuality, Kim, and the rest of the Kardashian’s milk every inch of their media frenzy.
She makes millions from Generation Y’s obsession with her booty, beauty and banal day-to-day activities, wouldn’t you do that if you could?
Kim today, is what Sinead O’Connor was in the eighties.
While, I’ll be the first to admit O’Connor has more obvious talent, paparazzi are obsessed with what Kardashian will say next. Today’s ‘it-girls’ are the 1980s rockstars.
While, some may say it’s a shame that the Kardashian’s are famous for being famous they are merely being scapegoated. Sinead O’Connor hasn’t said a word against Terry Richardson, the photographer, which shot the cover. Richardson is a renowned creep, who’s had a myriad of sexual assault and coercion charges against him.
It’s a sign of a horribly regressive society when a woman’s expression of sexuality is used against them. It’s even worse that Kim’s only seen as a pair of tits and a huge arse when she owns multiple shops, an international clothing business, and a few hair and make-up lines. She’s the second most goggled person in the world, and one half of the most talked about couple.
Oh, and an advocate for human rights. She’s surely worthy of being on a magazine that is, you know, all about culture.
Isn’t it interesting that Kim gets accused of killing the music industry the same week her sister, 17-year old Kylie Jenner was accused of ‘cultural appropriation’ for wearing cornrows in an Instagram picture? Despite dozens of white celebrities, David Beckham, Justin Timberlake, Gwen Stefani, Cheryl Cole to name a few wearing them without a dickybird said against them.
Why? Because, it’s so easy to have an opinion about the Kardashian-Jenner family, but the anger hurled at them is misplaced. Kardashian flips society’s patriarchy on its head. Isn’t it just as sexist to tell a woman to cover up as it is to tell her to take her clothes off?
In 2013, following the release of ‘Wrecking Ball’ O’Connor wrote an open letter to Miley Cyrus, saying “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. The message you keep sending is that its somehow cool to be prostituted … I would be encouraging you to send healthier messages to your peers … Kindly fire any motherfucker who hasn’t expressed alarm [about you taking your clothes off], because they don’t care about you.”
What O’Connor doesn’t realize is shaming an adult woman for using her sexuality is vile.
In a society where women are constantly judged by her appearance, calling them by the most offensive word in the English language isn’t going to help issues. If O’Connor wants to attack society, she should blame the environment that encourages patriarchy, a magazine that rehires a photographer who’s had dozens of accusations of sexual assault, not a women who’s profiting from it. Feminism has never been about telling women to cover up, or to shut up. But Sinead O’Connor, who openly declares herself ‘not a feminist’ thinks it’s okay to shame women for no good reason.
I’m not saying we should look to the Kardshian clan as role models, when there are incredible icons for young women to look up to. Of course, we should encourage young women to be the next Malala, Arianna Huffington, or Sheryl Sandberg.
We live a society that names Kate Middleton and the Queen Mother as ‘fantastic role models for young women’, for marrying princes and living off tax-payers money.
That same society simultaneously trashes a self-made millionaire, brand, icon, businesswoman and tech mogul, just because a sex tape – that was released without her consent – launched her career. Is it just me, or is that disgustingly hypocritical? Kim Kardashian is a financially stable, independent woman, who’s turned something that would destroy most people, into a career not only for herself but her whole family (reportedly worth upwards of $300million/£192million).
Kim Kardashian works her giant arse off , working around 13 hours a day, 6 days a week – oh and add to that she’s pregnant and has a young daughter to look after. Whatever you think of Kim K, you don’t build an $85 million dollar industry from a leaked sex-tape alone.
Oh, yeah, and let’s not forget she’s a tech mogul too.
Do you know how few women there are in Silicon Valley? Her app makes $700,000 (that’s around £430,000) a day.
O’Connor’s rant was nothing but mundane, something you expect to hear in the comments section of a tabloid, not from a political activist who has the ability to use her voice for good. Recently, while speaking at an event about the exploitation of women Kim herself said:
“Absolutely [I think the media exploits women]. But I also think that if you have the power… because I think women do themselves [sic]. But I think you can take that power and put out there something you want people to look at and that you feel beautiful in. I guess people would call me a feminist… I love supporting women in business and in life.”
Kim, her sisters, her mother, and step-father probably know a lot more about the exploitation of women than the average person. But she’s taken a problem, and turned it on its head.
Who’s being exploited? Kim, who earns hundreds of thousands of dollars daily or the millions of people that are obsessed with her?