Reading Salon’s vacuous interchangeable 20-something “music writer”, who seems to be encountering a bit of cognitive dissonance over the runaway success of Taylor Swift:
Feminism is confusing sometimes! As I’ve lamented before, it occasionally compels me to defend the anti-feminist likes of Sarah Palin and “Twilight,”
(Note to conservatives, who actually will get this: Palin is “anti-feminist”. No extra points for guessing what this writer’s sine qua non of feminism is, now, is there?)
and if that weren’t bad enough, now I can’t figure out what to make of this year’s platinum success story Taylor Swift, recently nominated for eight Grammys. I haven’t thought much about Swift, but I’m generally inclined to agree with ladybloggers like Amanda Hess and Sady Doyle, two smart writers in their 20s who have concluded that the 19-year-old’s songs reinforce some not-so-woman-friendly stereotypes in extremely annoying ways. But today, with a typically excellent post about pop culture’s promotion of patience as a girl-powerful virtue, Hess got me wondering — not that she meant to — about whether there might be a legitimate feminist argument in favor of Taylor Swift.
Let’s see; she started writing music when she was a pre-teen, actually worked on being able to sing without the miracle of Auto-Tune, play an instrument or two, and build a career at an age when most of her peers are, well, writing dreary politically-correct drivel for web-zines.
First, let’s acknowledge some major points in the Not Feminist column. As Hess says, “Taylor Swift sings songs about waiting around, being a princess, and crying for her ‘Romeo’ to rescue her from her dad, who is so mean. Then, she makes videos for these songs where she is literally waiting in an ivory tower for her prince to come.”
Goodness. Indulging in fairy tales. A form of “literature” that’s been around for thousands of years, for good reason; people like ’em. Hence they’re popular. And what, homophonically, is the goal of writing and performing “popular” music?
I don’t wanna keep seeing the same hands, here.
And that brings us to the crux of the “Is Taylor Swift good for women?” debate, which — exceptions like “White Horse” aside — really comes down to Taylor Swift, lyricist, vs. Taylor Swift, public figure. It’s her superstardom (and apparent business savvy) itself that provides the most compelling pro-Swift argument. As music critic Ann Powers wrote in the L.A. Times last year, “Swift might play a princess in many of her songs … but in the studio she’s her own boss, writing and producing those fairy tales.” Hess is unconvinced: “This is the Sarah Palin theory of feminism. If she’s a woman, and she does stuff, it’s feminist…”
Well, of course. Being a woman and doing stuff isn’t as important to “feminism” as being a woman and believing all the same stuff, word for word and note for note, that the modern, academic notion of gender-identity feminism tells women to believe.
It’s why a Sarah Palin, a Michelle Malkin, a Michele Bachmann or a Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter or Katherine Kersten or even a Taylor Swift – women who’ve actually accomplished something without having to either demanding allowances for their gender or, for that matter, losing any ground due to it – can be called “anti-feminist” with a straight face, while mainstream, academic gender-identity feminists can wipe out decades of “workplace equality” and “no means no” rhetoric overnight on behalf of, say, Bill Clinton.
Because the fact is this; to a modern, academic gender-identity feminist, a “feminist” who’s never amounted to anything outside of a make-work pseudoacademic university “Women’s Studies” program, but who supports abortion without question, is a feminist, while a pro-life women who’s moved mountains through skill, determination and the force of her own merits who is pro-life is not.
Put another way – it’s “framing the argument” for the not-so-bright.
Mitch, you had a great piece going about how people like Palin and Bachmann get pigeonholed and sterotyped by the left as being anti-feminist. You had some good points and some fair comments.
Then you ruin it in two lines by completely pigeonholing and sterotyping all liberal women as successless and ignorant.
I don’t have a problem with you taking shots at the left. I don’t have a problem with you complaining about shots that the right takes from the left. I don’t even mind so much when you write about how bad the right gets it in one piece and then turn around and take the same shots on the left in another piece. But to do it in the same piece is just sloppy.
Yo Mitch, I’m really happy for you and I’ma let you finish, but Eva Young has one of the best Taylor Swift blog posts of all time!
AB,
I’m not stereotyping all liberal women, or even all gender-identity feminists.
Merely the ones who work in Womyn’s Studies departments and produce nothing but further victymhood theories.
A broad brush, yes, but not nearly as broad as you credit me with.
Did you just say “broad brush”?
😆
AB,
Have you ever thought it would be fun to fight fire with fire?
Reread Mitch’s post with that in mind.
“Then you ruin it in two lines by completely pigeonholing and sterotyping [sic] all liberal women as successless [sic] and ignorant.”
Yeah, I’m sure they keep the likes of you enraptured with their scary smart philosophical worldviews, a-
holeboy.Mitch: Fair enough. I had initially misread you as meaning otherwise.
Badda: If fighting fire with fire is what Mitch intended then the inevitable result should come as no surprise to anyone.
Swiftee: who writes you? Are you aware that successless is a real word? Just because conservatives are anti-college doesn’t mean you have to be anti-education altogether.
Mitch wrote: “while a pro-life women who’s moved mountains through skill, determination and the force of her own merits who is pro-life is not”
I’m presuming a typo with ‘a pro-life women’, but who are you referring to that has moved mountains with their skill and determination exactly, and which mountain(s)?
With respect, I think you are – again – confusing conservative culture war conformity with merit, which is not a valid correlation.
I have a problem with Ms. Swift promoting a fairy tale ideal of women sitting around in a tower, helpless to do anything and making no effort to get themselves out of their situation, as part of her public persona, while pursuing the opposite. Great that you pointed out that she is an effective woman, both as an artist and businesswoman.
But I would contend that you do not address the contradiction adequately that exist between the reality and the promoted images. I think there is a legitimate criticism for promoting the ideal of women waiting for men to make the events in their lives happen for them. She could as easily ‘sell’ the idea of her own actions.
“conservative culture war conformity”
DG, what do you think you are talking about?
…. …. …. ….
A problem with fairy tales you say?
Hmmmm….
Death to all Unicorns!!!
Suffocate them with pixidust!!!
…. …. …. ….
“…legitimate criticism for promoting the ideal of women waiting for men to…”
How closed minded of you, DogNagIt. Not sure why you think courting a male is just simply waiting around.
You are right, in that, you certainly do have a problem.
I don’t have a problem with a woman having the goaland desire to subtly courting her soul mate and raising a family… with a white picket fence…
I think Dog Gone was trying to erect a strawman, K-Rod. It wouldn’t have lasted very long anyway. It’s hard to say that conservatives are trying to force women into a barefoot-and-pregnant stereotype when Bachmann, Coulter & of course Palin are heroines of the right.
There is no more truth to the notion that conservative woman are passive cows than there is that liberal women are bitter old spinsters.
Say A-
holeboy? Why not try “unsuccessful” on for size. Syntax counts, college whiz. pffft.I’m presuming a typo with ‘a pro-life women’,
Yeah, it’s supposed to be “pro-life women”, as a subset of conservative women.
but who are you referring to that has moved mountains with their skill and determination exactly, and which mountain(s)?
Every conservative woman fights against not only whatever gender bias may naturally exist, but against the biases that institutional feminism has against any dissent, which the media dutifully parrots.
Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Laura Ingraham, Linda Chavez, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Ann Coulter, Katherine Kersten, Laura Brod…you name the female conservative, at any level. Every last one of them has to fight against whatever gender bias there is, AND against the media-cultivated notion that they are crazy/uneducated/ugly/”extremist”/”Popsies”/boffed their way up/unqualified/underperforming/stupid – all the usual stuff that was deemed unacceptable to say about women thirty years ago. Unless they were conservatives. Every one of the women above sweats out more talent and qualification in a day than Stephanie Miller or Arianna Huffington or Rachel Maddow ever had. But they get a layer of depraved ad-homenem that nobody else, of either gender or either political persuasion, has to put up with.
With respect, I think you are – again – confusing conservative culture war conformity with merit, which is not a valid correlation.
No, I’m talking about merit. That they happen to agree with my politics shouldn’t be held against them, unless their politics is the sole point being judged.
I have a problem with Ms. Swift promoting a fairy tale ideal of women sitting around in a tower, helpless to do anything and making no effort to get themselves out of their situation, as part of her public persona, while pursuing the opposite. Great that you pointed out that she is an effective woman, both as an artist and businesswoman.
And I, in turn, have a problem with filtering an artist’s output entirely through an ideological filter. Can one separate what an artist (or businessperson, for that matter) produces with what they actually are? I think you pretty much have to.
But I would contend that you do not address the contradiction adequately that exist between the reality and the promoted images.
That’s correct. I don’t.
Since the interpretation of all art is in the eye of the beholder, it is thoroughly subjective and utterly un-testable.
On the other hand, the qualitative fact that Ms. Swift has made herself a success pretty much entirely on her own terms IS a pretty black-and-white, ironclad indicator of what she’s actually about. The contradiction is only in ones’ interpretation of a transient and subjective product; Ms. Swift’s life and career are not.
Nothing to misinterpret.
I think there is a legitimate criticism for promoting the ideal of women waiting for men to make the events in their lives happen for them. She could as easily ’sell’ the idea of her own actions.
And I don’t agree that art necessarily “promotes” whatever you interpret it as saying. On Nebraska, Bruce Springsteen sings about a guy who killed a convenience store clerk (“Johnny 99”), and about Charles Starkweather (on the title cut); does it mean he’s promoting killing clerks and going on murder sprees? Of course not. It’s observational.
Can one write about something that one has observed, documented, lived among, seen, heard about or imagined, without being seen to “promote” it?
Gender-Identity feminists are more concerned with stamping out ideological dissonance than in making life better for women.
“Promotion”
I think a better word here is “glorify.” I’m with DG in that there’s a difference between art that reflects a sedantary lifestyle and art that glorifies a sedantary lifestyle. You could equate Ms. Swift to a Phillip Morris markerter, someone who makes a living selling something that is legal but dangerous when they would not want their own kids partaking in it.
But in this case I believe that would be unfair to Taylor. Entertainment has always been a form of escapism, predating the Gutenberg press. It gives people time to pretend and daydream about easier and/or more glorious lives.
The fact that Taylor is a positive and inspiring role model for young women through her life and work outside the stories she sells (which I do not particularly enjoy, although there’s no accounting for taste) should be enough to demonstrate herself as an artist and not a merchant of sedantry.
“Gender-Identity feminists are more concerned with stamping out ideological dissonance than in making life better for women.”
Okay, now you’re stereotyping gender-identity feminists. All feminists want to make life better for women, to include Bachmann and Palin. However the validity of each of their methods can be debated on the basis of their own merits (also to inlcude Bachmann and Palin).
AB:
“If fighting fire with fire is what Mitch intended then the inevitable result should come as no surprise to anyone.”
What inevitable result are your suggesting?
Hey, remember the “I Am Woman” ’70s, hard on the heels of those consciousness and equality raising ’60s, when one of America’s sweethearts – so wholesome as to be the iconic face of a healthy breakfast drink – expressed a wholesome philosophy about a political issue and became so mocked and toxic to sponsors that her career and persona were wiped out. What was done to Anita Bryant worked so well that’s it been the model for the left and the media ever since. As long as it works, why change? There are signs, however, that its effectiveness may finally be wearing out.
When has it ever been OK to burn an athletic supporter?
I’ll bet you guys were all OVER Murphy Brown for glorifying and promoting the ideal of single motherhood when the reality is that single motherhood is the absolute greatest predictor of child poverty. TERRIBLE role model, she, and thank GOD that Dan Quayle nailed her on it.
Right?
.
My God!! Until today, it never occurred to me that these people were imbeciles and hypocrites.
Okay, now you’re stereotyping gender-identity feminists. All feminists want to make life better for women, to include Bachmann and Palin.
You lose a lot of points there, Young Apathy Boy. You shouldn’t follow a statement accusing other people of stereotyping by a statement that begins “All feminists . . .”
Especially a statement that is rhetorically tautological. Can there be a feminist who does not want the best for women? I don’t think so. Then you make an unsupported move from the aggregate “women” to the specific “Bachmann and Palin”. There are certainly many, many self described feminists who did not want to see Palin in the White House and do not want to see Bachmann re-elected. Wouldn’t becoming VP (Sarah) or being re-elected (Bachmann) make their life better, wouldn’t it empower them? Both Palin and Bachmann are under constant assault by self-described feminists who demean their intelligence, their looks, even their family life.
“Okay, now you’re stereotyping gender-identity feminists. All feminists want to make life better for women, to include Bachmann and Palin.”
A candidate to challenge Feckless Jeffy for the honorary uterus club! Honestly, you leftist tools are just too frickin’ much to take all in one sitting.