taylor swift and the patriarchy
a brief note about the patriarchy, "frivolity," and "seriousness"
a long while back my friend alaina (a romance novelist with several offerings on amazon) posted a provocative thought on her newsletter:
“Beats me how I never truly listened to [Taylor Swift] in my youth when I was all about the emo scene butttt I have a sneaking suspicion it has something to do with the patriarchy. Which I also blame for never appreciating Taylor Swift’s genius before folklore.”
at the time i sort of chuckled at this. honestly i probably only chuckled because to be honest i am not a huge fan of taylor swift (she’s fine but there are many many other women artists i enjoy more!). but then i thought about it and kept thinking about it.
is there not something about the patriarchy that just basks in…. seriousness??? and is there not something about the whole taylor swift cultural aesthetic that is not only unabashedly feminine but also, in many ways, unabashedly girly? and under the patriarchy, is the girly not basically as unserious and as unadult and as immature as it gets? there is something about the patriarchy that is just so obsessed with art needing to showcase some deep serious message: it’s clear how the patriarchy has selected predominently men for its canons: those who put these canons together have taken men more seriously: the masculine element for the patriarchy somehow makes art a bit more serious, no? at least it seems so to me. maybe that’s why so many of the critics close in on taylor swift for daring to write a large number of songs about something as supposedly “frivolous” as painful experiences in romantic relationships. but what is so fivolous about shattered romantic relationships?
i think about this especially in the context of her new album the tortured poets department. critics focus on the frivolity of releasing so many songs so quickly and with so little attempt to condense the selection to the very best and most polished pieces. she is doing nothing, some suggest, but trying to maximize her streaming income by spamming tracks. but to me this criticism comes from an underlying assumption that the critics do not often interrogate: art must be serious and polished
taylor swift’s supposed “frivoloty” comes from what? let’s be honest, so much of her “frivolity” is linked to her “femininity” and her “girlyness.” so much of her fans’ supposed “frivolity” as “art consumers” is linked to their own femininity and girlynesss. i just keep thinking about how deeply linked are “seriousness” and “masculinity,” “unseriousness” and “femininity,” over and over these two relationships seems to appear in our world. the feminine is so degraded!
it makes me think of what marisa dabice from the band mannequin pussy once said in an interview: “to be feminine is profane” (i got heaven is SUCH a good album!!!)
thank you so much for reading my diary!! please consider subscribing below for updates direct to your e-mail! it makes me feel great to get new subscribes :-)
for 5 dollars a month, upgrade to paid and gain access to:
frequent photography posts (likely 4-5 paid per month - most of these will be paid)
occasional paid subscriber only specials
occasional video / audio posts
and more to come 💖
20% of all revenue i raise per month after fees will go to LGBTQ fund of the Grand Rapids Community Foundation, an organization in my community. 💖
i consider your contribution to be support for my writing, which i want to mostly keep free here, and these extras are a token of my thank you 💖
all other content will remain free! 💖
