I apologize in advance for two posts in a row about the pop music scene.
After reading a few well-written critiques of Monday night's VMAs, I was struck by the fact that every mention of Britney Spears' disastrous performance took a job at her weight. She was fat? Really? Click on this story to see a photo and read someone validly question the fat jabs at last (fair warning -- I am just linking to national news Web sites here, but they do contain photos of a scantily-clad Spears).
Two kids and five years have changed her physique. So what? I realize her appeal has always relied more on image than talent, but what went wrong with her performance the other night was not her appearance. The whole production was awful. Perhaps writers who love the idea of Britney thought her current shape added insult to lip-synching injury. Would they have railed on her physique so harshly if her song was a hit? Who's to say. I just feel bad for the teenage girls who read the stories and were told this is fat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Thanks for visiting my blog! I appreciate your comments and replied to them on my comments page.
Btw, I appreciate this post. You are dead-on and it's no wonder our girls have such a narrow definition of beauty to live up to.
How funny for you to mention this! I missed the performance but saw it later on some celeb gossip show. And thought out loud, shes not fat, just bigger than she was before 2 babies back to back! Good thing no one can see me after my 3rd child! Its only natural things are not in their original place, they should cut her some slack in that area.
Post a Comment