Since I wasn't a teen aged girl back in the 90's, the whole Britney Spears phenomenon doesn't make sense to me. I don't know that I've ever heard her sing without some kind of effect on her voice, and I have no idea if she writes her own songs or not. As far as I can tell, she's a marginally talented singer, whose managed to ride exploiting her looks and sexuality to a degree of fame that her talent might not otherwise justify.
Given that, I will say that I found the whole conservatorship thing problematic. From what I've heard it sounds like her dad was able to use her mental breakdown from a few years ago as a way to keep his hands on her money and support himself. I think that the decision to remove the conservatorship was the right decision and that an adult woman who made money on her own, should be allowed to make her own decisions. If she makes bad decisions, then she's free to do so.
What I really don't understand is how the appropriate response to her newfound "freedom" is to take to Insta and post naked pictures of herself. Maybe I'm old fashioned, maybe I'm to tightly wound, maybe I'm just old, I don't know. But I don't understand how posting naked pictures of oneself for public consumption is an appropriate response to regaining control of one's finances.
I understand that I could be wrong about this. It might be perfectly appropriate to post naked pictures of oneself for public consumption as a way to show that you are ready to take control of your financial affairs. Maybe posting naked pictures of yourself is the newfangled way to show how much maturity and self control you possess, I just don't know.
I do know that I won't be posting naked pictures of myself anytime soon, and thankfully neither will most of the rest of us.
2 comments:
It is a curious response to regained liberty. To be free to do what one wants doesn't necessarily mean that everything one wants is worthy of pursuit. That is, just because one can, doesn't mean one should. This is an example of what John Adams meant when he said our form of government was meant for a moral people..."moral" meaning morality according to Judeo-Christian tradition. Truly moral people, or those who understand what morality is and means, do not abuse their liberty to engage in immoral behaviors. That is, unless you're a "progressive" in which case anything goes, especially if your brand of immorality was clearly opposed in the past, because that;s "oppression".
Yes, the notion that freedom is best celebrated by objectifying oneself is strange at best. It's also not the first time this has happened.
Post a Comment