This feed is from the NEW There's Something About Harry Website at

Miley Cyrus Photos: Which Offends You More?

Apr 29, 2008

Hey thepete,

I think there is a place where we disagree. In striving to identify the point at where we disagree without trying to get into an argument but just to explore the point where something about this goes wrong in the general scheme of things, I'd suggest that the issue here is not what she is wearing nor how the pictures are taken nor even what her parents allowed or did not allow. (although that last point about her parents is a lot different when it becomes an issue of them forcing her to work too much)

The issue with Miley Cyrus is not with Mile Cyrus at all. I think the point where this goes wrong happens when 'she becomes a role model'. She's not a role model.

She is an entertainer.

There is less wrong with her picture than with the marketing campaign where she has agreed to write a book of her life story (at 15!).

She's not a role model. Parents that are worried about how she dresses are in the wrong if they have not already taught their kids that she is not a role model.

Our kids (the kids that we each individually have and will have) will be much better off if they learn that an entertainer is not a role model choice option. This is so much more true even when that entertainer is a minor.

Role models are people that we individuals choose as someone that we would like to emulate or follow their example. They key here is that 'WE' including our kids (they) have the choice.

So when we, whoever we are, make the choice not to choose Miley Cyrus as our role model. When our kids make the choice to not choose Miley Cyrus as a role model, then this issue becomes a non-issue.

The problem here is not Miley Cyrus. The problem is all the kids out there that have chosen Miley Cyrus as a role model as opposed to enjoying her songs, music or acting as an entertainer.

I ran through this logic train wreck about role models about 5 months ago with the Michael Vick debacle. There was a slight difference in that issue however.

Michael Vick as an adult chose to market himself as a role model and to amass major contracts with Nike and others where he promised to uphold the image of a role model to kids.

Now in that case, he was an adult, contractually promised to be a role model, and then went and immediately took actions that were contrary to his adult contractual choices.

When he kills a dog, he's breaking his contract to a corporation and his social contract to his fans and kids that look up to him as a role model.

When Miley Cyrus as a minor chooses clothes to wear or not wear, she is just being a teenager like any other and not wearing clothing that is very different than most teenage girls now, or 10 years ago with Britney and Christina(almost identical skirts with panties showing on purpose) or 20 years ago when I was a teenager.

Now, even though I may disagree with the amount of work and scheduling that her parents put her through and allow her to endure (different issue and none of my business), if her parents are able to help her be comfortable enough with her body as it is then more power to them and her. Too many parents are completely unable to do this and their daughters end up paying a price for a long long time.

If Miley goes out and gets breast implants at age 16 or 17, I'd say they goofed, but hey so does every parent.

BTW on the Bratz vs Barbie issue. I think they are both evil. Barbie has a lot longer history of harming women dating back to the 60's. Bratz are just starting to get going on this and were ripped off (intelectual property) from Barbie anyway.

Mobile post sent by brettbum using Utterz Replies.

WooHoo ed by Brett Bumeter at 10:23 PM  

0 Gabbles(comments):

Post a Comment

ss_blog_claim=aa66f58cff59464a2b565a453e7059e2 ss_blog_claim=aa66f58cff59464a2b565a453e7059e2