Thursday, October 04, 2007

My theory on Britney

At the risk of sending a collective groan through every person reading this blog who is no doubt sick-to-death of hearing about her, I'm going to throw out my theory about this whole Britney Spears debacle.

I was watching headline news this morning, befuddled at the prominence of this story above serious major news issues, and it hit me: I think she wanted the court to take away her kids.

I mean, let's look at this with a little logic. She may be an psychological mess and not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she's not entirely dumb. If a judge warns you that you're going to lose your kids unless you do x, y, z, and if you want to keep your kids, firstly you do those things.

Secondly, the things that she did (or in this case didn't do) were pretty stupid and petty: she failed to produce a California drivers license and didn't show up for a drug test. It's almost like she was trying to strike a balance between not out-and-out defying the court but at the same time daring it to punish her.

Next, when the judge issued the order for her to hand her kids over to KFed at the next court hearing, she didn't bother to wait - she handed them right over without a fight and without delay.

Finally, she didn't even bother to show up at the hearing yesterday to contest the decision and fight to get her boys back.

Does this sound like the actions of a woman who wants to be a mother right now? I think not.

I think she's a 25 year old girl who never had the opportunity to grow up properly. Instead, since the age of 19 she's been living a surreal life of money, parties, and celebrity; showered with adoration, coddled, and no doubt given everything she's asked for when she asked for it by a team of people hired to do just that.

And then she became a mother and even though you can hire a nanny to look after your kids, let's face it, your kids want you as their mother. Kids equal responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice and I just don't think Britney was/is ready for it (her actions clearly demonstrate that this isn't a point under dispute.) And you know what? I think she knows it.

I think she wanted to court to take away those boys. Whether her motivation was selfless ("They're better off without me right now") or selfish ("I just want to party and have a good time!") that's my theory.

Of course, whether she chooses to use this court-given "freedom" to clean up her act and get her boys back or kicks off her heels and goes into high-gear partying, is something that is yet to be seen and will probably peel off the onion of her motivations.

But that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

1 comment:

caw said...

I completely agree with your theory, it's spot on in my book. I mean, she had so many, many chances and she blithely let them cruise by. I don't believe she's done anything with malicious intent (except maybe to self destruct) but those boys represent a whole bunch of responsiblity that the little girl in a grown up woman's body just can't deal with.
She's been singing her entire life.
Entering singing comps. Making TV commercials. On telly with the Mouseketeers, etc. Had her own television show (read: horror smash) and has had to outperform the competition since she was 10 years old.
I think she is still a child herself, trapped (partly by choice, partly by necessity) in world that she cannot get out of because she doesn't know how ... and even if she DID know how, she wouldn't escape anyway because it's all that she knows.
The whole situation is very sad for everyone involved but let's hope those children are able to live a half-way normal life dominated by love and care. Oh, and routine. Oh, and no nekkid people cavorting about. Oh, and no Columbian marching powder.
You know. A normal life amongst people who really want to care for them and who really want to have them in their lives.

Related Posts with Thumbnails