London KATHY KIRKHAM and Rachel Wingfield (SO 2) show temselves to be remarkably intolerant towards alternative forms of sexuality enjoyed by many men and women.
What gives anyone the right to say that such enjoyment is wrong when practised between consenting adults? Masochistic sex is more likely to be practised by liberated women than by those who conform to accepted values. It should not be denounced.
When Madonna takes on the role of bimbo or virgin she is actually poking fun at these stereotypes and the aspects of male fantasy they 'pander' to. She does not glorify them any more than Jane Austin glorified women's role in society in her day. Social commentary is often most effective when it is not overt. Madonnabashing feminists should look beneath the surface and appreciate this fact.
Attila Hoare London W11 Page 12 June 8, 1991 No. 3 of the Madonna discussion in is the dismissive tone of the polemics.
Rachel Wingfield writes in a measured way, but says: 'it is a shame to see Outlook going in the same direction as other left journals of male dominated organisations... and demands the ›alance is 'redressed'. We should favour a broad expression of views on cultural topics. It is wrong for individuals to catma they speak for all feminists on these topics.
Rachel Wingfield and Kathy Kirkham argue that Madonna is a caricatured co-option and distortion of feminism by the capitalist entertainments industry.
They say that her cultural production represents no threat to capitalism or patriarchy. That society will not be transformed bv art, music or culture ın general is true. But Madonna is clearly perceived by the resurgent moral right in the USA as a threat to the familv and to the moral values of young people.
Her images of the family, gender roles, religion and repression, race and sexuality, provokeoutbursts of hatred and tionaries. This is certainly not 'predictably what woren performers have been doing for years'.
When millions of young women and men see her as a symbol of rebellion against authoritarian attitudes we should look more closely. Rachel and Kathy fail to recognise the ironies of Madonna's work.
She does not just repoduce fantasies and sexist stereotypes She investigates them, parodies them, and often mocks and subverts them. However I don't entirely agree with the focus of the original article, which looks at Madonna the person and not enough at her cultural production. But it does capturé the essence of the phenomenon.
Rachel says, 'Sexuality in our society is constructed in the context of male domination and women's subordination..! This is only part of the equation. The 'context' is the sexist, sex negative, repressive bourgeois family, school, church and state. Women as well as men are reared in this 'context'. In reality, sexist and aggressive male sexuality cannot be contrasted to the somehow pure and unsullied female sexuality. That's why Madonna strikes a chord with female as well as male fantasies.
Today's women and men can't fundamentally transcend the effects of the bourgeois family. As materialists, we understand they continually reproduce temselves, socially and in bed. Their worst effects can be challenged collectively and reduced to the public sphere.
But they will continue to reproduce hemselves longafter formal elements of the bourgeois family have hepn abolished. What sexual radicals like Madonna help us do, is develop our critique of bourgenis sexuality and possibly point to new directions.
Madonna's commercialisation, her bourgeois feminist and individualist attitudes in her work must be criticised. But her music and imagery allow us to explore the complexities of our sexuality. That's not so bad compared with most of the 'bimbos', male and female, in the entertainments industry.
Dave Packer London SE5
FILM