In an analysis of the movie “Blonde”, Jornal highlights that Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana and Britney Spears are on the same scale of Obsession and Vouyerism

[Headed Peckerhead]

 “Britney Spears, in particular, stands out as someone whose story is always being told by others”

The depictions of these women then force us to ask: are these really their stories, or are they the stories we want to tell about them? And then: why are damaged white women, in particular, the only ones deemed worth memorializing so much? Moreover, they’re templatized as icons, rather than people, who check three boxes: mental illness or substance abuse, challenging ***ual mores, and some form of exploitation by families or partners.

Public hunger for the stories of beautiful, blonde, and “damaged” white women continues to thrive even today, with respect to people who are still alive. Many of them now have redemption arcs that allow them to subvert their own images from the past: Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Pamela Anderson, to name a few. Britney Spears, in particular, stands out as someone whose story exists in the archive as always told by others — and what makes it so remarkable are the same checkboxes that Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe ticked.

As Britney’s story continues to be told despite her newfound voice and agency, the narrative of tragedy and voyeurism continues to define who she is to us. While we reckon with the legacies of women, simply telling their stories isn’t a way to humanize them unless we turn our gaze back to ourselves and ask: are we really doing these women justice, and are we interested in the same kind of justice for all women?

🔴Source

[Tetris]

I mean, I believe this is the point Britney’s been going for when she lashes out about the documentaries.

As an audience, we have our own gauge for what we believe is and isn’t exploitation (especially since both the NYT & Netflix docs fostered a lot of public empathy and expanded understanding about the machinations of the situation surrounding her).

But when you’re the subject - the real-life person being discussed by everybody else - that dynamic & interpretation of what constitutes exploitation is inherently going to be quite different (regardless of whether what’s being said comes with supportive intent or not). 

It’s interesting: generally when we discuss “objectification” as a culture, it’s about a person being unfairly ***ualized - their body; but dissecting somebody’s life and attempting to then speak for them to convey a narrative objectifies so much more about a person - their thoughts and feelings about their unique life experience.  

I really hope this book makes Britney feel both like she’s said what she publicly wants to say as well as how she wants to say it. After reading it, I hope to feel like I can walk away having truly learned something FROM her, not just ABOUT her. 
 

Thanks for sharing OP!

[One More Time]

Not Britney or Diana are or were damaged woman. They are strong woman portrayed as damaged, with mental illness and moral problems. These woman are and were so strong, incredible intelligent and kind. People don’t want to remember them as a damaged woman, there are bigger influences of authority that want them to be seem like that. It’s awful what is happening. When I thing of Diana I think of someone that had more power than queen Elizabeth herself and more humanity, she was a powerhouse and still is. nobody stopped her power even after dead. And Britney is also just a normal person with a kind heart but with a magnetism that absorbs every soul out there and with her art, her ***uality and her persona conquered more than some people wanted. 

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

Is the Blonde out yet?

[DollyParton]

3 hours ago, FreeBritBrit said:

Is the Blonde out yet?

Google says no.