opinion

Two celebrities are in crisis. One is running for president. The other can't leave the house.

Britney Spears is the most protected pop star in history.

Following her mental health crisis in 2007, Spears was placed under a conservatorship. For more than 12 years, the 38-year-old has been unable to drive, get married, have kids, spend money, see how her money is being spent, have any control over her career, go shopping, go for a walk, use her phone unmonitored or speak in interviews without her father's permission.

While she hires lawyers in an attempt to retrieve any sense of agency over her own life, a man named Kanye West is running for President

In 2016, the rapper and fashion designer experienced a mental health crisis which resulted in hospitalisation. West was reportedly paranoid, depressed, and in a state of "temporary psychosis". In a 2019 interview with David Letterman, West said he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and his wife, Kim Kardashian-West, has since said they can "definitely feel episodes coming, and we know how to handle them". West does not take medication because he feels it "stifles [his] creativity". 

And then, earlier this month, came that Forbes interview. According to the publication, the 43-year-old "rambled" for four hours, confirming he's running for president in 2020 under the banner 'The Birthday Party', "because when we win, it’s everybody’s birthday".

One of the most telling features of the interview was when West said: "So when they say the way we’re going to fix COVID is with a vaccine, I’m extremely cautious. That’s the mark of the beast. They want to put chips inside of us, they want to do all kinds of things, to make it where we can’t cross the gates of heaven."

Kanye West talks about his mental health with David Letterman. Post continues below. 


West is entitled to believe what he likes about vaccines. But it's worth reflecting on his own insights to Letterman just last year, when he said that during manic periods he suffers from racing thoughts, irritability, sleep loss, paranoia or psychosis. He added: "When you're in this state, you're hyper-paranoid about everything... Everything's a conspiracy. You feel the government is putting chips in your head. You feel you're being recorded. You feel all these things." 

By his own admission, it seems fair to assume that West is currently unwell. 

Then came his first ever presidential rally over the weekend. He spoke for more than an hour, and at times his speech was incoherent. He had no microphone. He wore a bullet-proof vest, yelled, cried, argued with people, reprimanded the audience for clapping and had 2020 shaved into the back of his head.

Let's not forget that when Britney took clippers to her head in 2007 it wasn't long before she spent a month in rehab. 

After telling the crowd that his own father had wanted to "abort" him, he began crying and announced, "I almost killed my daughter". 

He then stood on the world stage and divulged that he had wanted to terminate Kardashian-West's pregnancy with North, but a "message from God" changed his mind.

"Even if my wife were to divorce me after this speech, she brought North into this world, when I did not want to. She stood up, and she protected that child."

West's speech exhibited a lack of concern for both his wife and his now seven-year-old daughter. The repercussions of his words will extend far beyond a few gasps among a crowd in Charlestown, South Carolina. He appears unable to determine what is and isn't appropriate to share, and this poor decision making, talkativeness, distractibility and exaggerated self-confidence are all behaviours consistent with mania. 

Is there an action more indicative of risk-taking, hyperactivity, impulsivity and a heightened sense of importance than running for President of the United States? 

We cannot, of course, from the other side of a screen, diagnose West with anything. We can, however, listen to what he tells us about his own mental health. Leaks are seeping through the home of Kardashian-West, and it looks increasingly likely that his wife is concerned for his wellbeing. To ignore the clear signs that Kanye West is not a man in full health is a case of the Emperor's new clothes. The Emperor is standing on stage naked right now and the sooner we all acknowledge what we can all so clearly see, the better. 



It is an interesting contrast, that a man behaving like Kanye is able to hold a presidential rally, while a woman behaving like Britney can't buy herself a coffee from Starbucks. 

Does it say something about how we interpret women's mental health as opposed to men's? Are we more uncomfortable infatalising, patronising and potentially restraining men? Do we take longer to intervene when a man has a mental health crisis?

We discussed Kanye West's presidential campaign on Mamamia Out Loud. Post continues below.

The platform given to Kanye, and the freedom prohibited from Britney are both less than ideal. These cultural phenomenons taking place at the same time likely indicate that we, as a culture, still have absolutely no idea what we're meant to do in regards to mental health intervention. These are the two extremes. Neither appear to be faring well for the individual at the centre. 



On Tuesday afternoon AEST, West published a number of tweets to his 30 million followers. Broadly, they are difficult to follow. One tweet suggests that the film Get Out, where a black man is trapped by a white family, is about him. Another indicates that the Kardashian family have attempted to bring a doctor to him to "lock [him] up". 

West's health looks to be deteriorating, and the question resounding all over the world is: Why won't somebody do something? 

Someone must've assisted him in organising the South Carolina rally. He would have drivers. Minders. Managers. Assistants. Friends. Family. And yet, other than the Kardashians, his entourage appear to be making things worse. 

There are no clear answers about the best course of action. A broader conversation needs to be had about how to best look after each other, and what it might look like to protect a person from themselves. What we can control is how we respond to the onslaught of Kanye West headlines that continue to pick up speed. The answer to that is comparatively simple. 

Empathy. Compassion. Sensitivity.

There is a certain paradox in seeing Kanye West and Britney Spears - two of the most famous people in the world - so vulnerable. We imagine that with fame and money and power, your humanness gets left behind. 

Evidently, it doesn't.

Luckily for us, our suffering isn't broadcast to millions of people. No one profits off it. 

Just as we are asking why Britney is being denied certain rights, and in some instances been denied a platform, it's time to ask why Kanye is being given one.  

Because this story is much, much bigger than the two individuals at the centre of it.

Feature Image: Instagram.

If you think you may be experiencing depression or another mental health problem, please contact your general practitioner. If you're based in Australia, please contact Lifeline 13 11 14 for support or beyondblue 1300 22 4636.

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

mamamia-user-482898552 4 years ago 9 upvotes
"Does it say something about how we interpret women's mental health as opposed to men's? Are we more uncomfortable infatalising, patronising and potentially restraining men? Do we take longer to intervene when a man has a mental health crisis?"

Conflating issues here. The reason for the differences between Kanye and Britney is that the latter has been lucky enough to have a family that stepped in to get her help and keep her protected. She's under conservatorship. Similarly, Amanda Bynes is another woman who has been fortunate enough to be spared having her mental illness spewed all over the tabloids over the years because her family caught her as she fell all those years ago. Kanye, not so lucky. I would suggest he's being grossly exploited right now - does that suggest we are therefore more comfortable in exploiting the vulnerability of men who are mentally ill...? 

It's problematic when you frame things like conservatorship as "infantalising" or "patronising". It's an uncomfortable truth that people with mental illness often need ongoing assistance to protect them and keep them safe. Some only need this in the acute phase of their illness, but others are permanently impaired and therefore require long-standing assistance. Making those interventions out to be the enemy is pernicious. Legal guardianship and treatment orders are not put into place lightly, and are maintained according to information to which the public - including you and me - are not privy. Obliquely questioning them without the full facts at your disposal, and using emotive judgemental language to describe them, just serves to imply they are somehow unethical or politically motivated.
cat 4 years ago 3 upvotes
@mamamia-user-482898552 you raise some valid points about guardianship, especially since we don’t know the other side of the story here- she could be in a bad place because she’s stopped taking medication, not because she’s being controlled. One major issue is that Britney’s father was accused of abuse before it was put in place and they had a strained relationship, and it’s confusing that she is well enough to work in an extraordinarily high pressure industry but not to manage her own money. Conservatorships aren’t put in place lightly but it does seem like 10years is way too long between reviews when there’s so much potential for them to be abused. Just generally we need better systems to make sure families aren’t taking advantage of elderly people or those who need care, and it’s perplexing that even having millions of fans doesn’t mean Britney couldn’t be a victim. 
laura__palmer 4 years ago 2 upvotes
@cat "it’s confusing that she is well enough to work in an extraordinarily high pressure industry but not to manage her own money"
This. If she's so mentally unwell that she can't look after her own money, how has she managed to continue with her career?
mamamia-user-482898552 4 years ago 4 upvotes
The courts and treating team will be privy to information the tabloids and general public are not. Speculating, it's quite possible to be "highly functioning" whilst still having a background of chronically poor global mental health. This is particularly so if one's mental illness can wax and wane or be episodic in nature, with acute episodes occurring unexpectedly or at short notice. If someone has been particularly vulnerable in the past WRT financial dealings - for instance, reckless spending when in a manic phase, or having associations with people who seek to exploit the person when they are unwell - long-standing orders specific to finances may be in place as a protective measure. Contextually, it's worth noting that in Britney's case, her former manager Sam Lufti was likely was grossly manipulating both her and her financial position in the earlier 2000's, prior to and after when she was first brought under MH court orders (and a restraining order is still in place against him today). Additionally, her then-boyfriend and attorney both had similar restraining orders served on them for the same reason. Note, also: mental health court orders are routinely re-visited and revised accordingly. It's not as though they are put into place once, with no option to challenge or revise in the future (as fortunately many people manage to recover enough to regain autonomy in time). 

Compare and contrast celebrities who still managed to continue to work, despite considerable health issues, such as Judy Garland. She was a functional alcoholic with likely mental health issues, who was exploited and fleeced of most of her wealth during her lifetime - she died early, and in massive debt. Had someone taken a greater interest in keeping her safe (financially, mentally and physically), she may not have ended up in such a mess in the end. Though it indeed seems weird to us as non-celebrities that Britney is still working in such a high-visibility industry, being an entertainer is the only thing she is qualified to do. For her to have some semblance of "normal" (ie going to work and being "productive"), continuing her particular "job" is "normal" to her, if that makes sense. For many people, recovery or maintenance of one's mental health involves continuing to work if you can. 
cat 4 years ago
@mamamia-user-482898552 a 2 year residency in Las Vegas, performing 6-8 shows a week, is the extreme end of working though. It would be one think to make and release albums and do the occasional live performance, but she does world tours. 

I actually find Britney quite similar to Judy Garland, but in the fact that they were both manipulated from an extremely young age to make money for other people, and never managed to get out from under that hold. I’m all for people having checks and balances to keep them safe, but having to run everything you do on a daily basis past the father who has been managing you since adolescence just doesn’t pass the sniff test.