Britney is finally free, but why does society wait for a hashtag before addressing misogyny?
Lucy Miles / Dec 21 / Media
#FreeBritney is the buzzword of 2021. After a lengthy legal battle and international outcry, Britney is now, finally, free. Following the release of the 2021 documentary Framing Britney Spears, and a rare 2020 interview from Britney’s brother, the fan-founded hashtag gained international notoriety earlier this year, and was the social media topic du jour; trendy London restaurant Circolo Popolare even named a starter after the cause. The supportive sentiment of #FreeBritney, which is feminist at heart, came as a refreshing change from the previous preoccupation with another iconic woman in the public eye: Meghan Markle, and her departure from the UK in the form of #Megxit. The furore around #Megxit erupted following Markle’s infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which she detailed her struggles with her mental health whilst with the royal family. The similarities in the experiences of both Britney and Meghan, therefore, raises the question: why do we wait for a public cry for help and a social media hashtag before condemning misogyny in Western media?
With the privilege of hindsight, it is easy to spot the misogynistic overtones of the tabloids during Britney’s ordeal. Whilst Britney struggled under intense scrutiny, the media questioned her ability to care for her children and ridiculed her mental health. It is more than understandable that someone pitted against such misogynistic standards would act in desperate ways, but this does not mean she endangered her children. However, subjecting her to thirteen years under a conservatorship designed for the elderly suggests the dismissive way in which women are treated, even in modern society. The media peddled ruthless misogynistic rumours, and the male-dominated medical and legal systems responded with draconian restrictions and Victorian attitudes to women.
Historically, issues around women’s health, particularly mental health, were dismissed as ‘hysteria’ and neglected by male doctors, just as Britney’s ‘meltdown’ was ridiculed by the press and linked to her ability as a mother. Similarly, her legal rights to her money and even reproductive rights were taken, just as women throughout history have not had the right to control their money, or even been able to choose when to have children. In the male-dominated medical and legal sectors, Britney was dismissed as unfit to care for her finances, her children and even herself.
After thirteen years of conservatorship, public opinion is unanimous in their support of Britney. Public opinion surrounding Meghan Markle, however, is far more polarising. Having controversially spent £2.4 million of UK taxpayer money on redecorating Frogmore Cottage, before sensationally abdicating to her native USA along with beloved Prince Harry and their baby son, #Megxit left a bitter taste in many Brits’ mouths. However, following her hugely anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey, it has been revealed that Megah Markle was also suffering in silence under the control of another institution, the British royal family.
In many ways the misogyny that Meghan faces is more complex, due to her race and her involvement with the royal family; her testimony is questioned by the media, and she is portrayed as manipulative of naive Prince Harry, and a greedy, ambitious American. Meghan and Britney have faced similar persecution by the media, but in current times, Britney is martyred whilst Meghan is vilified.
From the moment Meghan’s relationship with Prince Harry became public, she has been portrayed differently from Kate Middleton. The difference in sentiment highlights the systemic racism that Meghan faces in conjunction with misogyny. This intersectional oppression that Meghan faced whilst residing in England was evident in the way she was talked about in the press. An example of this double standard is evident in the portrayal of the simple act of eating avocados: Kate was sympathetically praised for finding a cure for morning sickness, whilst Meghan was reprimanded for destroying the environment.
The intersectional misogyny against Meghan still lingers even now she has separated from the royal family. In her revealing interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan detailed mental health struggles and suicidal thoughts, yet this was widely dismissed on social media. This is similar to the quick public acceptance that Britney was a bad mother because of the tabloids. However, whilst Britney has since been internationally supported, the majority of the media representation of Meghan still paints her as an ungrateful American; a recent Telegraph article refers to her as ‘Duchess Difficult’. Such pieces carry innately misogynistic and racist undertones, which suggest that a woman, and furthermore a black woman, should be punished for rising above her socially approved station. Following #Megxit, the general sentiment is ‘good riddance.
The overarching commonality between the experiences of both Britney and Meghan is the persecution they faced by the media, whilst simultaneously negotiating powerful, male-dominated institutions which limited their personal freedoms: in Britney’s case, everything from her estate down to the colour of her Christmas tree was dictated, and in Meghan’s, she was silenced on the subject of her own mental health and was widely discredited in the aftermath. Although Meghan has plenty of fans around the world, her portrayal in the media is not comparable to Britney’s undivided support. This is perhaps a consequence of the intersectional misogyny that Meghan faces, or could be the sentiment directed towards an ‘ungrateful’ American, or probably a complex mixture of both. Whichever is the case, both women have faced misogyny at both a social and institutional level. Until social attitudes evolve, the ruthless media will continue to capitalise on misogyny, and women will continue to be silenced, dismissed and vilified. Change must be enacted at both social and systemic levels, to create a culture of trust and empowerment in which all genders can thrive.