These two old-fashioned gals are dragging us back into the Dark Ages.
Madonna shows women how to be sex tools. Martha teaches us how to fulfill our potential as kitchen utensils.
Get a job, Martha! Nobody in the 21st century has the time to shellac acorns and weave twigs into centerpieces. And we’re supposed to feel bad about ourselves if we can’t?
Madonna–puh-leeze! She made it on her back.
At 19, slept with her twice-as-old dance teacher who was already living with someone else (how do I know? I was at that studio) and got club dancer gigs.
Slept with well-known club DJ (Jellybean Benitez) and got her record played in the clubs.
Slept with famous actors (Sean Penn, Warren Beatty) and made Hollywood movies despite complete lack of acting ability.
Slept with famous director and—oops, Madonna, what happened? Didn’t get a payoff?
What’s feminist or cutting edge about posing for anatomically correct photos? She’s selling sex, like it’s been sold forever–only her price tag has more zeroes. Great role model for pre-pubescent girls wanting to be popular: show your underwear and spread your legs! Remember those department store Madonna boutiques in the ‘80s?
But have you noticed you never see them together?
Why is there not one photo of Madonna with Martha Stewart?
Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Let’s review the evidence:
1) Both are in show business, with no justifiable reason that I can see.
2) Both are blondes. Sort of.
3) Neither of them can sing.
4) Madonna spends her life acting like she’s always in the bedroom.
5) Martha spends her life acting like she’s always in the kitchen.
Does the name ‘Clark Kent’ ring a bell?
Madonna and Martha Stewart are the same woman--the double-barreled incarnation of the forces of darkness, out to annoy smart, sane, self-respecting, busy women everywhere. I say, unite against the enemy–and her name begins with an M!
4 Responses to Madonna and Martha Stewart
I have a soft spot for Madonna. She’s always been open about using her sexuality – she said, of losing her virginity, that it was ‘a career move. The casting couch has been in use for centuries – Madge subverted convention by being open about it. I also get the impression that she wouldn’t have shagged anyone she didn’t want to.
Sometimes her overt sexual cavorting on stage is a little OTT, but I’d rather see her, totally in control and enjoying her sexuality, than a girl-band manufactured by a middle-aged man. Men have been allowed to enjoy sex outwardly for years but women have always been hampered by the notion that ‘nice girls don’t’. Madge showed her disdain for those double standards. Good on her.
Plus I enjoy her shows. I like her music a lot, think she’s physically agile and fit enough to put on a good show, and her back-up dancers are always of a high standard. She’s never twee like some female performers, batting eyelashes and pouting seductively for male viewers. She’s in control and proud of it.
She’s never sold herself as a feminist but by way of the fact that she’s independent, massively successful, and doing what she wants to without being told what to do by a man, she’s attained many of the feminist ideals. I think she’s a pretty good role model – get out there and do it, girl. Of course for little girls, aspiring to be a pop star is unrealistic,and they should be encouraged to have confidence in their intellectual abilities as well as their looks and voices, but for those determined to pursue a career in showbiz, given a choice between being, say, a Pop Idol wannabe who ends up with 15 minutes of fame and an empty bank account or a confident autonomous woman who’s achieved everything on her own, I’d say the latter, embodied by Madge, is the better role model.As for Madge’s forays into acting and so on, rather than sneering at her for not being a great actress, I applaud her for trying. She can’t be accused of being unambitious.
I also think she’s been treated badly by the press re wanting to adopt the little African orphan girl. It’s easy to interpret her action as ‘rich imperialist white thinks she can march into poor African village and take what she wants’, but as far as that little girl’s life is concerned, the difference between being brought up in an orphanage and being adopted by a loving and wealthy superstar are like night and day.
But Martha! She’s a different story. Slag her all you want as far as I’m concerned.
I know; everyone thinks Madonna’s “up front” about sex. “Upfront?” No: exhibitionist. Janis Joplin, Genya Ravan, Millie Jackson, Tina Turner, and others before Madonna were upfront about sex—they just didn’t feel the need to prove it by publicly removing as much clothing as possible or posing in porno gear.
The sad thing is that Madonna (or anyone) doesn’t value her own body more than as currency. Talk about low self-esteem! That’s not being in control of your sexuality. That’s saying, “I’m worth nothing to me, but I’m worth a lot in the marketplace—show me the money!”
She hires the best dancers and choreographers because they make her look good. Her “music” is the result of talented producers, engineers, and musicians. Her voice is not good. Madonna Unplugged? There’s a show you’ll never see, because it would suck, bigtime.
As for being “independent, massively successful, and doing what she wants to without being told what to do by a man”, so was Joan Crawford, who got there through sex, stepping on people, putting out a completely fake image, and being a monster behind the scenes. Not the definition of “successful,” in my book. And no one who’s addicted to publicity and money is independent.
“She’s attained many of the feminist ideals”?? Honey, you must be mighty young if you think that’s what feminism is or ever was about. One basic principle of feminism is to take control of our sexuality and NOT have it be a sideshow for public or media consumption; to be taken seriously WITHOUT exposing our bodies. The next line I invariably hear from Madonna fans is some variation of ‘she’s exploiting herself’. Well, that’s just dandy: she’s so bought into the idea of appealing to distorted male sexuality that she pulls her own puppet strings. She’s still the puppet for sexual stereotyping of women. That’s not progress. Here’s the thing: the motivation isn’t what people see; all they see is the image, the result. And that result is the same as if she were a Hustler pin-up paid by Larry Flynt for posing.
A role model? You’re joking. Madonna didn’t achieve everything on her own. She slept with men to achieve everything, starting as an ambitious 19-year-old. Someone who trades her sexuality for money is, um, what do they call it again? Oh yeah: a prostitute. So what if it’s millions of dollars instead of $100 a throw?
I’ve got a beautiful teenage niece who can act and has writing talent. If she wants to be a performer or a writer, should I encourage her to fuck some man to help her career? “Look what Madonna did; you can do it!” I think not.
A pop idol wannabe and Madonna are hardly the only options for girls who want fame. If a girl has confidence in her brains and/or talent, why would she need to screw her way to the top or even in the door? Get out there and do it, girl? Try Jennifer Hudson, Chrissie Hynde, Annie Lennox, Aretha Franklin…not to mention Nobel Prize winners, brilliant journalists like Christiane Amanpour, and loads of women in professions other than show business.
As for adopting children of races different from one’s own, especially children from a completely different culture and continent: no matter who does it, they’re creating a terrible emotional conflict for a child that will manifest as the child grows older and becomes conscious of being an “outsider.” Anyone who’s adopted interracially can tell you that. Better to spend her millions on helping the orphanage; for instance, launching a campaign to get the children adopted by Africans who can afford to do so. As for Madonna’s motivation: it’s not about love. She wants the publicity, and Angelina Jolie’s getting it all.
And what on earth makes you think Madonna’s “loving”? She doesn’t even love herself, or she would’ve found another way to “express herself.” Underneath all the tough glamour is the abused girl who ran away from home and, like many abused girls (and boys), traded sex for what she needed.
That’s the only note of sympathy I have for Madonna. Sadly, her kids are going to be the ones hashing it out in therapy—if they don’t go down in alcohol and drugs first.
Kris, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Madge. I do think, though, that you’ve misconstrued some of what I’ve said. You say:’A pop idol wannabe and Madonna are hardly the only options for girls who want fame.’ I didn’t say they were. Here’s what I wrote:
‘Of course for little girls, aspiring to be a pop star is unrealistic,and they should be encouraged to have confidence in their intellectual abilities as well as their looks and voices, but for those determined to pursue a career in showbiz…’
And I speak as someone who slogged her way through medical school to become first a hospital physician and then a consultant anaesthetist. But some girls are determined to make it in show biz. Most will, sadly, be disappointed, but I’d hate to see any girl I knew be exploited by the likes of Simon Cowell. Better for them to try and make it on their own – without making use of Madonna’s jump-start of course. Then, when they’ve made it,it’s up to them to dress as they want to on stage, as long as they don’t shack up with a manager who beats them like so many female stars have done before, or jump through hoops imposed by others, or give up most of their earnings to the ‘guru’ who discovered them, like most of Cowell’s bright young stars do.
As for the inter-racial adoption, I’m no expert but I know that in the UK, adoption authorities refused to allow white individuals to adopt black kids for ages because of an emphasis on the child being brought up knowing his or her culture. This led to thousands of black kids who could have had loving adopters growing up in institutions, being abused or ignored, and growing up alienated and unloved. Many of these kids ended up in borstal and then prison, with sky-high recidivism rates. Some of them have spoken out against this misguided political correctness – one was behind a series on adoption on C4 here a couple of weeks back, actively encouraging any loving adopters to come forward for kids in care – and now common sense has taken over in that if suitable black adopters can’t be found for black kids, they’re placed with loving white ones.
With the best will in the world, giving millions to an orphanage would be beset with problems. In a country where so many are starving, corruption is rife. Many African countries have a rich, corrupt elite of rulers who live in decadent luxury and take money from their people. They also sideline much of international aid. So a million bucks given to an orphanage would probably be diverted from those that need it. As for encouraging locals there to adopt, look at the way Madonna’s first adopted kid’s father tried to milk her for money. When people are so deprived, offering money as an incentive to adopt would attract many on the make. They might even dump the kids a year or so down the line. The people who truly love children have never needed financial incentives to adopt – and how could those genuine people be found in the scrum of those clamouring to adopt for money? Some poor people will do anything for money – a woman was jailed here months ago for plotting her own child’s kidnapping and incarceration in order to attract a lucrative reward when she herself found the child weeks down the line. Luckily, her plan was thwarted.
As for the feminist ideals Madonna’s attained, I specified her independence, success and lack of dependency on a man. No bloke’s pulled her strings since she was a teenager – she may have made a couple of dodgy choices about who she slept with when she was trying to make it, but she hasn’t done that since she was a teenager. Having sex with guys in power as a career move wasn’t her finest moment but as far as I know, she hasn’t done that since.
Many female rock singers use their sexuality onstage. Siouxie Sioux parades about in thigh-high stiletto boots and corsets, it doesn’t make her a whore. Debbie Harry was candyfloss sweet and a sex symbol, ditto. I have no problem with them. The kind of sex symbols that do make me uneasy are those entirely styled by a venal male manager, or designed to appeal to some men’s less than healthy fantasies. Claire Grogan of Altered Images was older than I was when I reviewed her gigs and LPs, but sang in a baby voice, gurgled and dressed like a pervert’s paedophile fantasty in baby dresses and giant bows. In British shops you can buy baby shoes that come with a heel, and some six year-olds are dressed in midriff-baring t shirts that are emblazoned with the word ‘sexy’. These are what I see as harmful. Not an adult young woman making her own choices – some mistakes (and who doesn’t make mistakes as a young person) and others not.
I completely agree that Simon Cowell is a pig without any basic human decency. I’d like to see him get up there and sing every different genre, then be critiqued not only on his singing but also on his looks and his performance.
The girls who get disappointed that they didn’t “make it” in show business possibly were lacking one of the crucial ingredients: talent, drive, an understanding of the business, opportunity, and a realistic sense of what “making it” means. All Madonna has is drive, an understanding of the business, and opportunity (which usually seems to mean the guy to screw to get her to the next level or the next opportunity.) Sometimes “making it” means being a working actor, not necessarily a movie star.
Now I know that’s gonna cause a shitstorm amongst also-rans, because they all feel they tried their damnedest, but in reality, did they lay everything on the line?
Perfect example: Bruce Springsteen. He bucked constant negativity and ridicule from classmates, parents, and locals, left community college to follow what he believed in, refused to settle for “a little something” like his parents wanted him to, worked his ass off playing under all kinds of circumstances in all kinds of joints, because, as he said, “What they didn’t understand was that I wanted it ALL.” And after all these years of being on top, does he slack off? NO. In fact, he’s putting out just as much, maybe more, for his audiences. Not to mention the enormous amount of time, energy, and money he puts into helping people—in ways the public doesn’t even hear about, much of the time.
Madonna wanted it all, but she didn’t want to put in THAT kind of effort. And she has no compunction about who she uses to get it all. Since 1975, when I first met Springsteen, until now, I’ve heard nothing bad about him in the music business, apart from his perfectionism in rehearsal and in the studio. Having worked in the same recording studio during “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” can vouch for that side of him. I cannot count the number of “Adam Raised A Cain” playbacks I heard. I’m sure he can be a pain in the neck. Hardly as bad as screwing his way to the top.
Sorry to hear about the extreme adoption situation in the U.K. Clearly the authorities are out of ideas if they can’t come up with a better solution. What I was suggesting was not to hand money to any government or local authority and hope it gets to the orphanages. I’m talking about direct action like Richard Branson took: airlifted supplies directly into villages and literally handed them to people in need. No middleman. The same could be done with orphanages. Get their “laundry list” of what they need, and deliver it directly, whether it’s rice or clothes or cash. And monitor its use.
I didn’t suggest that Africans adopt children and be paid for it. I said “Africans who can afford to do so.” Economically successful, stable, normal Africans might be able to adopt a child; obviously a screening process is always necessary.
But back to Madonna: Making a youthful mistake is one thing, but deliberately repeating the behavior of trading sexual favors for financial gain is no mistake. And men ARE still pulling her strings, because she’s fulfilling the stereotype some men have of what “sexy” means. They invented the sex object role, and she’s accepted it. So have all the so-called “women” you mentioned. They’re even going one step further and acting out pedophile fantasies in their desperate efforts to be shocking and avant garde. And the designers and other “image makers” are right in there, supporting the perversion of making children into sexual objects. THOSE people should be arrested for child pornography.