True Life: I Just Fell in Love with a Pop Album

(I did warn you this blog was eclectic.)

I'll preface this by saying that no, I don't listen to a lot of pop music. I don't drive, and when I do listen to radio it's usually in a gym or bar, where I have no control over what I'm hearing. That said, I've heard enough snippets of Ariana, Iggy, and Katy to know that there's not a lot of substantial stuff in Top 40 pop right now.

At least, that's what I thought prior to spending this past week streaming "1989" and finding that I couldn't stop listening to it. I've been wandering in a fog of infectious tunes for seven days, unable to get the words out of my head (though to be fair I haven't been trying that hard).

I was embarrassed to admit it at first, but now I'll say it for god and everyone to see: this is a fantastic album. I'm not being ironic; I truly like the music, and I like Taylor Swift herself a lot better having listened to it.

It's not that I've ever harbored a particular dislike for Swift, I just thought a lot of the hype was unfounded. Sure, her previous songs have been catchy and cute, but they just weren't for me (probably because I'd long since left my tweens by the time she arrived on the scene). The most notable memory I associated with Taylor Swift was the media circus a few years ago when she was releasing an album and the blogosphere devoted a significant amount of time and research to figuring out exactly which celebrity fling each song was about. Cue exaggerated eye roll.

But "1989" is different. It's a full pop album, for one thing - and I think the best decision Swift and her team made on this record was to lean into that 110%. Every song has a catchy, current hook, and I have no doubt that any of the tracks would fit in just fine with the current fare on the radio. But what sets it apart from the bunch is what Swift brings to the mix: not just the palpable sincerity she brings to each song but the lyrics themselves.

If you've been waiting for this record in the hope of more sappy ramblings about various celebrity boy toys, you'll be disappointed. Sure, some have combed the songs for hints of this, but I think to approach the album this way is to miss the point. To put it in a very simplistic way, this is a much more mature album. Sure, a lot of the songs still have that trademark romantic overtone, but even the ones that are most reminiscent of Swift's earlier work have a new layer to them, an acknowledgement that sometimes you make mistakes in love, and sometimes relationships have to end, and both of these things are okay. Apart from finding this refreshing myself, I love the idea of 15-21 year old girls hearing these kinds of things, and hopefully taking their cues from them.

As for Taylor Swift's "scandalous" love life? Don't worry, it's addressed on this album in a way I don't think she's ever done before. Don't get me wrong, the record is far from being a "fuck you" album, but the way Swift handles it is almost better, and certainly classier. She faces the popular perception that she's boy-crazy and confronts it head on, namely in the track set to be released as the album's second single, "Blank Space". The lyrics to this track (possibly my favorite on the album) are sharply sarcastic, and it really gives a great insight into how Swift has decided to handle her media-imposed identity. She's done pretending it isn't true that she's dated around, and she's done trying to apologize for it. Taylor Swift knows she's a player, and she's openly mocking our singular fascination with that aspect of her life. That kind of empowerment is something I can't help but applaud.

I think the other misconception about Swift is that she's somehow less intelligent than other musicians, perhaps because of the themes she tends to write songs about. While that not only seems like a ridiculous generalization (I do hate the idea that being smart or "worldly" means wholly dismissing notions like romance), you only have to listen to "New Romantics" to see that Swift is smarter than most people give her credit for. The song is a ridiculously danceable commentary on the Millennial generation, and one of the better commentaries I've seen to boot. The titular comparison between the current generation and the Romantics of the 19th century, angst-ridden and eager for stimulation, is astonishingly apt and I could probably write another several pages on that, but I won't.

I guess what I'm saying, and why I felt compelled to write this when I usually stick to literature and politics, is that I think it's time we give Taylor Swift the credit she deserves. By that I mean not just giving her our money or our ears, but giving her actual respect as a feminist, as an artist who has come into her own and made the praiseworthy decision to use her staggering fame to really make a mark rather than simply searching for the next big hit. She knows that there are literally millions of young girls out there being inundated with competing narratives of what a woman should be, and she's choosing to wield that power in a deliberate, responsible way. In my opinion, that's a pretty big deal.

People, Not Property: Why Clicking That Link Makes You Part of the Problem

Maybe it stems from the mythology of Adam and Eve -- Eve was produced from the rib of Adam, and therefore was an extension of him. Maybe subconsciously men still think women are theirs to create, theirs to control. It wouldn’t surprise me, given this latest scandal.

Since I read the first post about this latest celebrity photo leak, I have felt absolutely sickened. I wasn’t thinking about the men who are trying to profit off the photos, or the many voices that have chimed in across the internet arguing the semantics of what it means to put a woman’s nude photo on a public forum without her consent. I was thinking about the women in question, whether they spent the weekend hiding under the covers, afraid to leave their houses and go out to face the world; or even worse, if they have to go to work today or tomorrow and wonder if their colleagues - people they know and trust - looked at the photos, if they’re thinking about them, if they shared them with other strangers.  The mere thought of that level of humiliation makes me want to curl into the fetal position, so I cannot possibly imagine what they are going through.

Even if you think of yourself as a person who would never end up in this situation (although this belief in itself smacks just a little bit of victim blaming), think for a minute about your own life, your own embarrassing moments, of things out in the world you know could one day come back and haunt you. Think of a photo you took because you wanted to spice things up with your significant other, or even just a photo you took because damn, your ass looked really good that day. Think of the silly text messages you send to your friends which, taken out of context, could easily be misconstrued as something bizarre or even mean.

Because the problem is that yes, these women are in the public eye, but that in no way means they’ve surrendered their right to privacy when it comes to this. The point, and the reason many women across the world are appalled by this leak and the way it’s been handled, is because those photos were never intended for public consumption, much less public judgment. These women were taking photos intended for their partners, or maybe even just for themselves, and to think that you, the anonymous masses of the web, have somehow earned the right to invade that personal, private space, is both delusional and cruel.

The issue in this particular case comes down to body autonomy, something all people are entitled to, but which women in our society are rarely granted in full. Members of the female gender should have just as much freedom as men to make choices about their bodies, whether those choices emerge in the arena of reproductive rights, sexual activity, or merely the ability to choose who does or does not see them naked. Maybe these actresses take pride in the fact that they haven’t done a nude scene in one of their films or tv shows; maybe they just don’t care to become another body for the world to pass judgment on. The point is, it’s their choice, and when people commit acts like this, when other people conspire and spread access to photos like this, they are actively and maliciously taking that choice away. It might be well-disguised by the sleek veil of modern technology, but this photo leak is essentially no different from taking an upskirt photo on public transit, or peeping in someone’s bedroom window in the hopes you’ll get to see them changing clothes. You wouldn’t hesitate to call a person who pursues those sorts of things a creep (or worse), so it begs the question: if you were one of the people who clicked over to look at these celebrity photos, if you were one of the people who used them in some manner for your own enjoyment (or even just to attract traffic on your own media platform), what exactly does that make you?

Women's Month 2014: Banning Bossy, Finding Role Models, and Shaping Our Future

By now you've probably heard about the Ban Bossy campaign, an effort launched this month co-sponsored by the Girl Scouts of America and LeanIn.org. The campaign is an attempt to subvert the ways we as a society regard young females who show an interest in leadership. 'Bossy' in and of itself isn't a negative word, though; the problem lies in how it's used. Bossy has come to serve as a stand-in for words much worse, a seemingly innocuous pejorative that in fact discourages and intimidates girls who might otherwise speak up. It's one of the myriad tiny ways we instruct young women to be seen and not heard, to be submissive and gentle rather than brave and outspoken. And it has to stop.

Naturally, there's been a bit of pushback against the campaign by those who would continue to adhere to the status quo, casting Ban Bossy as an overreaction or exaggeration on the part of women. The prevalent argument among men, however, smacks simultaneously of laziness and ignorance--something along the lines of 'oh what, now there's another word we can't use? Where does it stop?!'

Here's the thing about that, though:  thinking twice about the words you use before you use them is literally the least you can do in the fight for gender equality. No, you're not being oppressed when we ask you to consider that maybe conditioning little girls to view themselves in such a negative light isn't the most positive way to introduce them into grown-up society, especially when that society will graduate into referring to these same little girls as "bitches" and "cunts" when they attempt to take on leadership roles as adults.

If you're really adamant that dropping one word in a singular context from your vocabulary is too darn difficult, fear not. There are other minute changes you can and should make in the way you speak, the way you interact with other humans and the way you see the world that can make things better for women, which will ultimately make things better for everyone. These are little ways that sexism has become ingrained in our society, and the only way we'll ever dispose of them is by policing ourselves first. And don't go thinking this is simply a list of tips for men--ladies can be equally and occasionally guiltier of committing these crimes against the female gender.

1. To quote the fabulous Tina Fey: "...stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores." Now, while Tina and I may differ on this premise of it ever being "okay" for men to call women these names, the larger point is that we need to seriously reconsider the language we use when we talk or even think about women. I challenge you, as I've challenged myself, to take a tally of the number of times you mentally call a woman who has vaguely slighted you (or who is simply wearing an irritated expression) a 'bitch.' Count how many times you make a split-second decision that some girl is a 'slut' simply because she dresses less conservatively than you do. Ask yourself, and answer honestly, if you've ever shamed another female about her body, her assertive personality, or her sexual activities. If you're like me, you haven't been perfect on this front. You've transgressed perhaps more times than you'd like to admit. But awareness is the first step. Ask yourself why you jump to using these words, and try to justify why they're necessary (spoiler alert: they're not). It'll take awhile, but eventually these words won't be the first ones that spring to mind, and if they aren't in your thoughts, they won't be on your lips.

2.  In a similar vein, think about how frequently we as a culture choose to insult others, but most especially women, based on their appearances rather than on the situation at hand. If I hear one more criticism of Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama that discusses their clothing or hair rather than their accomplishments, I will scream. I'm appalled to say that I've literally (and more than once) heard arguments settled with the words "yeah, but (s)he's fat" as an explanation for not respecting someone. No, women are not the only targets of these types of attacks (the endless onslaught of Chris Christie fat jokes also springs to mind here), but it cannot be denied that when the person being discussed or criticized is a woman, people are much quicker to go to the appearance-based insults well. Stop being surprised that Melissa McCarthy is funny despite her full figure, that Sarah Jessica Parker is wildly successful despite her "horsey" face, that Lady Gaga is talented despite dressing unconventionally, and instead appreciate the work they do. Just because someone's appearance doesn't fit your narrow frame of beauty doesn't make them ugly, and it has nothing to do with their ability to excel in their field.

3.  Quick, think of someone whom you believe encompasses an "empowered female role model" in current popular culture. Did someone like Katniss Everdeen or Arya Stark spring to mind? How about Leslie Knope, or Liz Lemon?  Katy Perry? Ke$ha? How about Honey Boo-Boo, or the Kardashians? What if I told you every single one of these answers is the right one, and that there are infinite others you could've given that would have been just as correct? It's true--empowerment is one of those qualities that never looks identical on any two people. All of these fabulous ladies are brave, intelligent, ballsy, and kind; the difference lies simply in how they meet those criteria. The picture of an empowered woman comes in myriad forms (even ones you may not recognize at first) and is as ever-changing as our modern culture. We need to stop pigeonholing the idea of female role models into rigid parameters that can't ever be re-negotiated. Katniss is allowed to fall in love and still be badass; Ke$ha is allowed to sing party songs and still be intelligent; Kim Kardashian is allowed to be US Weekly's favorite subject while simultaneously being one of the more charitable celebs in Hollywood. These women are all to be admired, and I'd be willing to bet that they've all been referred to as "bossy" (or worse) at least once.

I could continue this list for days, cataloging all the baby steps we can take to make things better for women. I could tell you that in the grand scheme of things, banning 'bossy' is something that stands to reap a huge benefit at the cost of almost zero effort on our parts. The Ban Bossy campaign, like most feminist campaigns in this vein, isn't asking you for much at all:  they're simply asking you to think before you speak. And that's something we could all stand to do more often.

Hermione in the Movies: Too Glamorous to be a Role Model?

This is a very interesting article looking at the evolution (or de-evolution, depending on how you see it) of Hermione Granger’s character in the Harry Potter films.  It argues that writers and directors have given her too much of the typical “girly” quality and have minimized her braininess and logic to an unacceptable degree.  Of course, as a devout loyalist to the books, I cannot earnestly argue for the virtue of "film Hermione" over "book Hermione", but I do think some of the accusations made here are a bit inaccurate and unfair.

While I agree with some of the points made, most particularly the fact that yes, Emma Watson has grown more physically beautiful with each film and in the world of Hollywood/starlets/etc there is no way filmmakers would hesitate to use that to their advantage, I would argue that the film’s depiction is not quite as evil as The Guardian seems to believe.  They take issue with the fact that Hermione hesitates to destroy the horcrux in the final film, saying that she “can’t.”  The author asserts that the “real” Hermione would never say such a thing, and I wholeheartedly disagree.  Hermione Granger as we know and love her from the novels is very very intelligent and her ability to think critically under pressure saves many lives over the seven books, but she knows her limits.  Hermione is very dismissive of and at times insecure about her own bravery, particularly as compared to Harry and Ron’s more obvious boldness.  She has several significant moments of insecurity during the series, and those moments serve to not only teach her a lesson about herself but to show us as readers that she is not, in fact, superhuman.

I don’t think we can dismiss Hermione (even film Hermione) as a feminist character simply because she is physically attractive and occasionally doubts herself.  It’s what she does in the face of those doubts that really counts— she ultimately does destroy the horcrux in Deathly Hallows, not to mention kicks ass in the Battle of Hogwarts. And in the film Hermione’s bravest action comes later, when she sends Harry, her best friend and pseudo brother, off to die for the cause, something she has long suspected he would have to do.  Anyone who can take that kind of emotional blow in the midst of everything else going on is absolutely strong in my book, perfume and tight jeans or not (though for the record, I do think the perfume thing was a silly and unnecessary addition).