In a series called Mondo Ironico, let us discuss how fucking antithetical something in pop culture is.
For anyone who witnessed the rise of Britney Spears that truly began in 1999 (though her illustrious debut single, “…Baby One More Time,” was released in 1998), it’s impossible to forget that the number one criticism lobbed against her was being “too sexy” for the demographic she was theoretically “geared toward”: little girls, tweens and teenagers. As many pop stars after her would learn (including the likes of Miley Cyrus and Olivia Rodrigo), the pressure to remain “Disneyfied” was constant, even after Spears herself was no longer in her teenage years.
The condemnation surrounding what she wore as her success amplified got so out of hand that, after the 2000 VMAs—during which she wore one of her then most scandalous outfits to date (a sheer bejeweled bra top with matching low-rise pants that made for a shimmering nude effect [with help from a coordinating nude thong, naturally] which presaged her literally nude look in the “Toxic” video)—MTV thought it would be a cute idea to make her sit down and watch some of the hot takes from people on the street about the way she dressed.
Some of the comments included, “If I had a little girl, I wouldn’t want her to emulate Britney Spears, you know, if she’s like twelve, thirteen, anything like that,” “Think about those twelve-year-olds that listen to your music and think about the twelve-year-olds who saw you on the VMAs. Think what they’re thinking. They’re probably thinking that it’s okay to dress like that, which it’s not.” To this particular criticism, Spears responded to the screen, “I’m not their parent, man.” Another commenter added, “She’s a role model to little kids and she doesn’t need to dress like that.” The furor surrounding Spears’ body and how much of it she chose to reveal as the 00s went on reached another crescendo when, during her now infamous 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer, the latter knife-diggingly mentioned how Kendel Ehrlich (the wife of then Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich) said, in reference to the way she dressed/was a “bad” role model for her young fans (not the male ones, mind you), “You know, really, if I had an opportunity to shoot Britney Spears, I think I would.” Naturally, it came as no surprise that Ehrlich would later serve in the Trump administration.
Conversations around Spears’ body and being “too sexy” gradually began to taper off after 2008’s Circus, when, conveniently, a new batch of pop stars began rising to prominence—including Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift (even if then still in “country” form) and Katy Perry (who didn’t know her peak would cease with Teenage Dream). This wasn’t just because the media was trying to be “nicer” to her after contributing to her very public breakdown in 2007 through early 2008, but because, by pop star standards, she was finally considered day-old bread (she turned twenty-seven the year Circus came out). In the time since then, it has also become less acceptable to make comments about a woman’s body or how she dresses—and now, perhaps even unacceptable to be anywhere near the realm of what Eminem would call a “stan.”
By the same token, female pop stars have seemingly decided to “cover up” in general (with Billie Eilish being one of the first to set this trend during the teenage years of her initial stardom). This phenomenon was crystallized in a 2021 Salon article titled, “From Britney to Lorde: Young women shift from embracing body positivity to body neutrality as teens.” Which, of course, only adds further insult to Spears’ injury—as she seems to be positioned as some “relic” of what pop stardom used to mean when, in fact, she was arguably the last great show(wo)man.
All of this is to say that, after everything Spears endured in terms of the venomous rhetoric about what she chose to wear (or not wear) during the first eight-ish years of her career, some of those formerly salacious looks are now being deemed perfectly suitable to be turned into Fisher-Price Little People. Specifically, Britney Spears is becoming part of the Little People Collector editions that have also extended to the likes of The Beatles and E.T. Obviously, compared to those two, Spears’ Little People renderings are patently more “controversial.” Except that we’ve now entered an epoch where there is really no such thing. In fact, it’s more controversial to be conservative in the present climate than it is to be “liberal” (mind you, if you tear the mask off a liberal, you’re likely to find a conservative). Thus, the ease with which Fisher-Price opted to make miniature versions of Spears in some of her most “notorious” looks is but par for the blasé-about-sexuality course.
Among the looks selected to immortalize in “Little People” renderings is a version of Spears in her “…Baby One More Time” schoolgirl outfit, her “Oops!…I Did It Again” catsuit, her 2001 VMAs “I’m A Slave 4 U” costume and the flight attendant getup from “Toxic” (apparently, they had to stop short at choosing her naked-save-for-some-glued-on-diamonds look from that video)—and yes, these variations of Spears have already been rendered in Funko Pop! form. Her “toy-ification” knowing no limits, which of course has plenty of symbolic implications.
Another irony about the whole thing is that it is precisely because of the decreased interest in sex (all in keeping with George Orwell’s 1984 predictions) that Spears’ formerly “overly provocative” looks are no longer a source of such frenzied “hullabaloo.” In short, no one is really “that interested” in the voyeuristic sensibilities Spears once stoked at a time when the internet’s sexual scope was far more limited. Thus, the sudden “no big deal” aura surrounding Fisher-Price’s decision (or rather, the millennial in charge of said department who likely made it) to turn these erstwhile “scandalous” instances in Spears’ career into toys suitable for “children ages three and up” (a very big range, obviously) is not just a sign o’ the times, but yet another slap in the face to Spears.
Though, hopefully, at the very least, she 1) sanctioned the use of her image for this product and 2) will receive the majority of the money it rakes in. Though that still feels like a small token of “justice” for all the suffering she underwent for her “too sexed-up” persona before it was deemed suitable for distilling into a collectible toy.
+ There are no comments
Add yours