Delicate is one of the Better Tracks off the latest album from Taylor Swift, but the Reputation Problem is still there

To be honest, I haven't quite enjoyed most of the tracks from Taylor Swift's Reputation album. Maybe it's a case of high expectations: Taylor used to be so cool, and her music used to be so good, a decade ago during the Fearless era. Truth to be told, once you've made an album as great as Fearless, it's difficult to come up with something better, so every following album could be in some sense a disappointment (even though Speak Now was a close second). Overall, I think that Reputation is mostly an average work. But Delicate still sounds quite special, in my opinion, even if it's still not as great as country Taylor could have been.

But there's still that problem: Taylor's obsession with her Reputation. I get that it's the title of the album, and these days artists like to insert the title of their album everywhere. But being obsessed with one's reputation is not healthy! Taylor appears very self-conscious that her reputation 'has never been worse'. I've got a suggestion for her: perhaps she should go back to being Fearless Taylor. Her reputation was quite good back then, right? (Not to mention her music was way better, or that she was actually, well, cool, and somebody people looked up to.)

Finally, let me say that I still think that Taylor is special, despite her current lacklustre form. So let me dedicate this song of mine to her:

Are Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift and Lena Dunham White Feminists?

In recent years, more and more self-identified feminists have condemned some fellow feminists as 'white feminists'. The precise definition of the term, however, is unclear. Does it mean feminists who happen to be white? If that's the case, then most of those doing the accusing fall into this category too. Therefore, this cannot be the real meaning of the term. Alternatively, does it refer to feminsts who are white and racist? Or at least white and don't care about non-white women?

Let's first look at who the term is actually being applied to. Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift and Lena Dunham would have to be three of the most common names I have heard in association with 'white feminist' in the past two years or so. First of all, there is no evidence at all that any of these three are racist in any way, quite the opposite in fact. Therefore, 'white feminist' can't be just referring to racist feminists. As for a broader definition of feminists who are white and don't care for women of colour, I don't get that vibe from any of these three either. Finally, are these three any different from other feminists in their feminism? Do these three share some particular characteristic that 'good feminists' don't share? I don't see any.

So there you have it. The 'white feminist' label is meaningless.

What's the opposite of 'white feminist' then? The standard answer is, 'intersectional feminism'. Intersectional feminism is supposed to be the 'good feminism', the kind that cares about the intersectional disadvantages that ethnic minority women and queer women suffer. So how do the aforementioned three supposedly 'white feminists' measure up here? First of all, all three appear to be very queer friendly. Hillary Clinton may have come later than Barack Obama to the marriage equality table, but at least she got there earlier than many other progressive feminists, including even former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Taylor Swift even made sure there was trans representation at one of her concerts; how many other musicians have actually done the same? As for caring about ethnic minorities, these supposedly 'white feminists' aren't deficient either. In fact, Lena Dunham in particular really, really cares about being sensitive to ethnic minorities, and I have even cringed at hearing some of what she had to say about cultural appropriation in food. If Lena Dunham isn't left-wing enough in this area, I don't know who is.

But then, intersectional feminism, as it is often practiced, is effectively GLIF (gatekeeper limited intersectional feminism), where self-appointed gatekeepers decide what's in and what's out, and perhaps just as importantly, who's in and who's out. I don't exactly know how the gatekeepers decide who is a good intersectional feminist or not, but it may have to do with their own political views or personal likes and dislikes. For example, Hillary Clinton has arguably become the most prominent representation of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and some socialists strongly dislike her. Taylor Swift is very, very rich, and again some socialists may not like that. Alternatively, her relationship history has made her unpopular with some women. As for Lena Dunham? Some people just strongly dislike her, for whatever reason.

In conclusion, if Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift and Lena Dunham are 'white feminists', then the label effectively means 'feminists that some other feminists don't like', and is therefore effectively meaningless. We should all probably stop using it.

Storm in a teacup: the Mystery of Who Bit Beyonce

This is how a storm in a teacup started. In a recent interview in GQ magazine, Tiffany Hadish revealed that she saw a unnamed female celebrity walk right up to Beyonce and bit her on the face, at a party she had attended. The female celebrity was probably on drugs. It is not even clear which event Hadish was talking about, but some speculate it to be a Jay-Z concert from late last year. Anyway, somehow people got interested, and media outlets have been asking celebrities and their representatives about the incident, of which most responded that they knew nothing about it.

Several celebrities, including Lena Dunham, even took to twitter to post their denial of being that unnamed celebrity or having any knowledge of that incident.

Which sounds like the perfect storm in a teacup. I mean, Hollywood has never been about serious stuff, but in a time when the world is facing multiple crises and there are lots of debates to be had on various issues, this is what you want to waste your time on? I mean, come on!

Taylor Swift can't seem to Shut Up about her Reputation in Endgame. It's really unhealthy!

Taylor Swift's evolution is getting weirder and weirder. Once upon a time, she only cared about making good music, she didn't seem to care about her reputation at all. I mean, this was the good old days of You Belong With Me. In those days, she actually had a reputation of being a good musician. Nowadays, I really don't know how I feel about Taylor's reputation. Not that I would naturally care, but apparently she really wants us to care! In her recent single Endgame, there really was a lot about her 'reputation'.

I get that her album and her tour are titled 'Reputation', and she probably thinks repeating the reputation theme over and over makes business sense. But I can't agree here. I mean, a good musician should care about their music, not their reputation. A focus on reputation cheapens the music. Moreover, confident, secure people don't tend to care about the judgement of others. Yet here is Taylor Swift, telling her millions of fans that she really, really cares about her reputation. What kind of message is that to send to our young people? I am really disappointed, Taylor. You really have gotten too involved in this game of celebrity.

Some may say that Taylor's reputation talk is just an ironic response to those who have been trying to damage her reputation over the years, citing her relationship history. But I can't agree here. If Taylor wanted to tell the world she couldn't care less, she could have done so more directly. Like this: