“His response was to fight it with the only weapons at hand—passive resistance and open displays of contempt.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
Miley Cyrus for Candy – Miley Cyrus: Her wildest moments – NY Daily News http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/miley-cyrus-attention-seeking-moments-gallery-1.1060696
Miley Cyrus nude is the product of some interesting social engineering. And, she’s the product of the “maternal gaze”.
In the last centuries “sex wars” many feminists and other lesbians, pansexuals, and ambisexual persons were influenced by CIA operatives like Gloria Steinem who posited that all images of women and girls were products of “the male gaze.”
This hypothesis gained currency because it was plainly, pruriently and purely profitable- to women, and blaming men, a form of classic Freudian projection.
Nancy Chodorow of UC Berkely particularly serves a dripping hot gravy plate of feminism and feminist female objectification of women, starting when they are little girls.
Chodorow, et al have created/birthed generations of children that embody, in Chodorow’s and others words, womens sexual “fantasies about female children,” as if each little girl somehow needs sexual liberation at the all-so- willing hands of gender feminists and Agency backed funding initiatives of political speech and action.
RELATED STORY: Maternal incest is legitimized in the media?
Objectification of girls and the embodiment- the literal creation and manipulation of them as hypersexualized beings by Chodorow and feminists in general, as a means of ‘liberating’ them is quite a profitable narrative, not at all like pimping.
“Ain’t no girl ever hit the street that wasn’t put on the block first by her mother.”- Anonymous old-school pimp phrase
In the words of one reviewer, this grooming, and then pimping for profit, by mothers, of ‘their’ children as posessions, and yours eventually because ” it takes a village” is key to creating these sex-performance-for-feminist-profit narratives.
“In her view, the female functions as object while the male functions as subject. This comes about, according to the author, because female development is more complex than male development due to the female’s prolonged, intensive and unconscious identification with her mother.”
Miley Cyrus in the nude is one such example, but there are many others where children are raised to derive profits for women- children to many of them are implements, and objects to be exploited at the personal and political level for literally billions and billions of dollars.
This is what I call the “maternal gaze,” which I theorize is at the root of every feminist discourse: at the base of every disgruntled woman who blames or shames men, is the knowledge that they are in some way beyond innocent narratives of idealized motherhood, and drawn to manipulate, build, enforce, or re-inforce the sexuality of their children, and then, the children of others.
The maternal gaze is at once “pure, nurturing, and innocent,” but on the other side, and in the Chodorow influenced dialectic, plainly prurient, and clearly predatory and capitalistic.
In fact, CIA influenced FBI narratives, NSA pretexts, and local police forces are in large part funded by this predatory form of female capitalism. Senate initiatives are designed to preclude insight to this collusion, and laws clearly obfuscate insight into this political human capital creation.
Put another way: Cyrus is a multi- billion dollar show that is allied with LGBTTVTS narratives, which are the product of feminist discourse, and her sexual antics are designed to derive profit from that crowd.
She performs, sexually, suggestively, with great accolades and awards for their gaze- that gaze from the aged and withered matriarchs of third wave feminism.
I have another theory too: it is quite possible in the modern discourse that “male gaze” is a code word- a euphimism-that signifies a collusion between state and women that birth for the state, and it indicates a willingness to eat children- to use them as collateral and capitalize them as assets, before they even fatten in the pen.
Have a look at the photos and decide for yourself. But clearly, it isn’t “men” – and certainly not fathers* using Cyrus for political or financial gain- it is a performance by and for the pleasure and political profit of the female gaze.
Sure, Miley- it’s “your” pussy- right? But- thanks for sharing anyways.
* Miley’s father is an entirely different essay.
KW: female gaze, maternal gaze, predatory feminism, feminist capitalism, prurient female gaze, big pimpin’ feminist style, prurient interest, sex wars, miley cyrus nude, miley cyrus naked, miley cyrus pansexual, miley cyrus bisexual, miley cyrus Candy, Candy Magazine, anti-male gaze
Further reading: Legitimising female pedophilia in the progressive, and feminist discourse.
Another attempt to say it plain, which is, even then not simple.