Taylor Swift is No Longer My Bae, Here’s Why

I’ve written a lot about Taylor Swift on this blog (and on Elementary Politics) in the last couple of years. At first it was mostly complimentary as I defended her from angry feminists who despised her and rocked out to her music, but my thoughts of her of late have not been those of a worshipful fan.

I mean as a person in general she’s still very nice. She calls little girls with cancer and sends gifts to her fans with lovely personalized messages and gives to charity, but she’s made some especially stupid comments in the last few years and I have finally reached the point where I can’t ignore them anymore.

I could ignore her sudden decision to be a feminist (because she had clearly bought into the dictionary definition of feminism without realized 3rd wave feminism is anything but that), I accepted it when she pretended that criticism of her music was sexist (even though I pointed out most of the criticism came from feminists), I semi-ignored her decision to be friends with Lena “the mediocre actor with a disturbing sociopathic relationship with her sister that she molested” Dunham, and I even tried to be nice about her short sighted statements about how Emma Watson and Lena Dunham were the best thing to happen to Feminism in, like, ever. 

But here’s the thing Taylor. I can no longer live in the hope that you are a “feminist” in the 1st or 2nd wave sense. I can no longer hope that you think that modern feminism still falls under the dictionary definition. You’ve become, as I said on tumblr today, one of those obnoxious modern feminists that decides that everything that they don’t like and everything that inconveniences them is as a “reason we need feminism”.

Here’s what happened.

OK! Magazine

reason we need feminism bullshit

Here’s what Taylor clearly seems to be missing (and in missing, she’s relegated herself to my pile of “feminists who have watered feminism down so much that it means nothing”..which, to be honest, I should have chucked her there the moment she said that “misogyny is ingrained in people from birth”) is that this headline has nothing to do with misogyny.

It’s clickbait.

She’s a celebrity, OK! Magazine writes about celebrity news, they do their best to tweet out something in 140 characters (less actually, because they need room for the URL) that will make people click the link and go to their website because traffic is how they pay the bills.

If Justin Timberlake had held a baby shower for a friend the headline would most likely have read “Singer @jtimberlake has made a ‘pregnancy announcement’!”

Why?

Because the tweet isn’t about misogyny…it’s about calulating the best way to get fans to do a double take and say “WHAT! IS JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE/TAYLOR SWIFT/SELENA GOMEZ/TOM CRUISE HAVING A(nother) BABY!?” then they frantically click the link, see that the headline is about the celebrity throwing a baby shower/taking a photo for a pregnancy announcment for a not-quite-as-famous friend or a not-famous-at-all fan (who definitely would not have led them to have the same level of interest in clicking the link), they feel momentarily annoyed at having been tricked into clicking into a link that isn’t what they thought it would be, then they will probably share it on facebook anyway…because why not?

I mean it’s a cute story about Taylor Swift/Justin Timberlake/Selena Gomez/Tom Cruise doing something nice for a friend or fan. 

But it’s not sexist.

It’s shock value.

Every internet news site does it, some with more success than others (and some do it so much that people stop clicking links at all) and they aren’t likely to stop.

But in her misplaced outrage Taylor has managed to accomplish something none of my friends had ever thought was possible.

I can’t ignore the disfunction in this relationship any longer…

She’s no longer my bae.

taylor-swift-shake-it-off

______

You will note that my headline on this article is, in itself, clickbait.

A few people have noted that Taylor was also taking offense at the fact that the article describes her as “Calvin Harris’ rumoured girlfriend ” in the article. Again, this is typical reporting. They had already referred to her by name TWICE in the article, once in the actual headline and right at the top of the article.

Typically articles try to refer to people in various different ways so that they don’t repeat the name. In this case they referred to her so that they could link to another article about her that they had previously written.

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. I too used to like Taylor Swift years ago, but like you said lately she’s been spouting feminist BS and it’s getting very annoying. I honestly don’t know how she even thought that when looking at that headline…

  2. She was refering to them labeling her as harry style’s ex as sexist and complaining about the headline being misleading. Her wording was just unclear. Can she be your bae again?

  3. it is also ‘misogyny’ because why did they choose that SPECIFIC thing as clickbait…it is because it feeds on to that stereotype of her being a ‘obsessive ex girlfriend’ with many boyfriends or whatever…
    just think about it…would they have used the same way to address harry styles or Calvin Harris? they need ‘clickbait’ for those celebrity’s news too, but they wouldn’t use those kind of terms to address them. Furthermore, even if it is clickbait, it doesn’t take away from it being sexist. For example someone may address someone’s race in a headline or part of a news story and it could have ‘racist overtones’ or whatever..now just because they used it as ‘clickbait’ does not take away from the fact that it would be a ‘racist’ title and shows the racism of society.If something of this sort did happen but instead was ‘racist’ not ‘sexist’ everyone would cry out racism and no one would be here saying ‘ohh its just clickbait’ so why the difference when it comes to sexism? your article therefore in trying to show how the magazine article does not show ‘misogyny’ fails because your response shows ‘misogyny’ in it’s very purest state.
    I am sure your intentions are good…but just think about it.

    • This comment is so convoluted that I don’t even know where to start.

      First of all, the clickbait had nothing to do with referring to her as someone’s girlfriend or ex. You can see what the clickbait was right up there, where I screencapped the OK! Magazine tweet.
      I already went to extreme lengths to explain why “Singer Taylor Swift has made a ‘pregnancy announcement’!” was not sexist.

      Secondly, I also explained at the end of the article why referring to her as the possible girlfriend of Calvin Harris was not sexist, but in case you missed that, here it is again.

      “A few people have noted that Taylor was also taking offense at the fact that the article describes her as “Calvin Harris’ rumoured girlfriend ” in the article. Again, this is typical reporting. They had already referred to her by name TWICE in the article, once in the actual headline and right at the top of the article.

      Typically articles try to refer to people in various different ways so that they don’t repeat the name. In this case they referred to her so that they could link to another article about her that they had previously written.”

      I have absolutely seen male actors referred to in articles as being “so and so’s boyfriend” as well, so I fail to see how this is sexist…especially given the fact that before you get to that line Taylor is referenced by name 3 seperate times and there is a photo of her as well.

Comments are closed.