Taylor Swift New Music Rumours: It Sounds Really Wonderful

Swifties around the world are keenly waiting for Taylor Swift's new music, having been disappointed by her not releasing anything in the second half of last year, as per her usual schedule. But if these rumours are true, then Taylor Swift fans are in for a great surprise.

Firstly, there's been talk of a new website created specifically for Taylor fans, simply named Swifties. Rumours say it will have things like online tutorials, educational camps, and Taylor Swift branded musical products. Sounds like an interesting concept to me. I actually wonder why nobody else has tried this until now.

Secondly, there are also rumours that Taylor may try a new way of releasing music. In the internet age, releasing music online via both downloads and streaming has become commonplace, but all these models have been created by either computer companies or music labels. The idea that artists can be more creative about how they release music is certainly a breath of fresh air.

As previously said, these are just rumours, and they may not be true at all. Nevertheless, all these concepts sound interesting. So much that, even if Taylor does not end up doing it, I think somebody else should.

Scarlette Johansson, Saturday Night Live, Ivanka Trump, and 'Compliant'. Who's a feminist and who's not?

There's been a lot of talk about that Saturday Night Live skit. You know, the one where they dismiss Ivanka Trump's feminist identity, saying that she could have stopped men like her father but instead she's just 'compliant'.

I think it's just wrong on all sorts of levels.

Firstly, if somebody identifies as a feminist and does so seriously and not out of malice, nobody should be able to take their identity away. It becomes dangerous when we allow feminism to be defined by a group of social elites, who get to select who's in and who's out. Feminism is not like some exclusive clique, or a political party where you have to apply to join. It's simply a concept that people can choose to identify with if that's what they believe in.

Secondly, do you people think she can really change her father's ways completely, if she did try? I don't think so. Not being able to help isn't the same as being 'compliant', right? As for criticising her father, well, if your father was president and he acted like Donald Trump, do you think you would be out there criticising him?

Honestly, I don't know a lot about Ivanka Trump, but I don't see anything suggesting that she deserves this treatment.

If Donald Trump is where the problem is, then let's stick to talking about that.

Lena Dunham, Immigrant Women, and Keeping Things Separate

For the occassion of International Women's Day this year, Lena Dunham wrote an article praising the contribution of immigrant women to American society, and calling for the recognition of such women.

While her intention is good, and I get that any pro-immigrant sentiment is much needed and appreciated in the current climate, I think there's no point highlighting the contribution of immigrant women in particular, when all immigrants, men, women and gender non-conforming, actually contribute substantially and in similar ways. There is simply no rational case for singling immigrant women out for special discussion.

I am just concerned that creating a special category for women where justification for different treatment doesn't exist may actually lead to differential treatment by society in the longer run. Differential treatment based on gender is not only unfair, it usually disadvantages women, remember. As I previously highlighted, female world leaders who don't play the gender card have fared much better than those who do, probably because they receive less differential treatment in return.

Meghan Markle, India, Stigma, and Opportunity for Women (including in the West)

Meghan Markle, actress and girlfriend of Prince Harry, recently talked about her trip to India earlier this year, and remarked upon how stigma surrounding menstruation there has meant lack of access to proper sanitation for girls and women. This in turn means that their opportunities to undertake education and sport are limited, and their potential is often not realised.

It's an issue I think women in the West should pay more attention to.

It also highlights how important it is to remove stigma around things that are just natural, and just a normal part of life otherwise. Stigmatization is the path to oppression. Rational, taboo-free discussion is the path to end the stigma.

Once upon a time, there was strong stigma around the idea of women having careers. Working women who were married and/or mothers were particularly stigmatized. Luckily, waves of activitism, discussion and awareness has changed this forever, at least in the West. We do need to keep in mind that this situation still exists in many other parts of the world, and is something we should work to change. Coming back to the West, however, nowadays, we should probably be more concerned about the stigma surrounding stay-at-home mothers, and the false idea that they contribute less to society. Ideas like these have prevented many women, who would otherwise have taken up this option, from doing what they really want to, and the stigmatization has meant this issue is rarely even discussed or explored in our collective conversation, including in feminist circles. It's time this changed.

Anne Hathaway, Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave, and Gender Equality

Drawing on her own recent experience, Anne Hathaway gave a passionate speech on the need for paid maternity leave on International Women's Day last week.

As I have previously said many times, having a family and caring for their family is a high priority for many women, and any serious exercise in women's empowerment should throughly address this issue. For her effort, I believe Anne Hathaway deserves a 'feminist Oscar' or 'feminist Grammy Award' if there ever is such a thing. (Or maybe we could start something like that?)

But the thing I was genuinely (pleasantly) surprised by was that Anne actually gets the point that real gender equality and liberation can only come if it includes everyone. In her speech, she pointed out that paid paternity leave is needed just as much, as we need to avoid situations that "undervalue fathers and overburden mothers", as well as situations that leave minorities like gay parents behind. Furthermore, she pointed out that "in order to liberate women, we need to liberate men" too. This really contains a lot more understanding of the real world situation and needs than many self-professed feminists can claim.

Perhaps, one day, every feminist will understand that just supporting policies that allow women to 'do the things that men do', or even to only care about women's (and nobody else's) liberty and equality, will not bring us anywhere close to real empowerment.

Emma Watson's Beauty and the Beast Controversy: Does It Make Her Less of a Feminist?

Three years ago, as she stood to tell the UN how important it was for men to be supportive of women's rights, I was frankly surprised at Emma Watson's evolution into a feminist icon. I wasn't convinced at first, but I gradually became convinced of her sincerity.

However, Emma's sincerity about feminism seems to be under doubt again, at least among some observers. Her decision to play the Princess Belle in the upcoming Beauty and the Beast film is part of the reason. You see, Belle, and perhaps Princesses in general, are seen as weak and non-feminist. And maybe Emma even helped contribute to this view, when she once said something along the lines of rather identifying with the warrior than the fragile princess, if my memory serves me right.

But there's nothing inherently weak or unfeminist about Princesses. For me, the spirit that princesses embody is a strong one, something I celebrated in my Princess's Spirit Trilogy novels. And maybe, just hoping, now that Emma has played one, she would agree with me here. Princesses actually make fine feminists.

Feminists have been too hard on Princesses for too long now. This needs to change.

Jennifer Lopez Speaks for Many Women, I Think

In a recent interview on Today, Jennifer Lopez spoke extensively about her children, even getting emotional at the subject.

It made me think. Here was one of the world's most successful women, who had many things in life she should be happy about, yet the one thing she credited for making her life so much better was her children.

After all, many of us are family beings. No matter how much material wealth one may acquire, family is even more important, for many of us.

Which is why feminism should never let mothers, and motherhood, down, if it is serious about empowering all women, all the time.

Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom Never Meant to be Serious? Really Disappointing If So.

After Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom's recent split, there have been rumours that the two never intended this relationship to be serious.

I hope it's not true. I mean, we should all respect others' choices, but it saddens me that people choose to start relationships that can be disposed of whenever they want to. I know it's their freedom to do so, but I have to say that it makes me feel sad about the state of humanity.

In my humble opinion, it's no good for either party. Human beings are meant to live in committed relationships, I believe.

Next Hope for America's First Female President?

When Hillary Clinton's quest to smash the glass ceiling of the Presidency failed last year, quite a few were already wondering where America's first female president was going to come from now. The US stands alone among its peers in never having had a female leader now, with the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ all having had female heads of state.

I remember J.K. Rowling being quite optimistic about that it would only be a matter of time. And she had reason to be optimistic: her own country is now on its second female prime minister.

But perhaps we should think about it another way: maybe we should stop deliberately hoping for a female President, and let it occur naturally. Perhaps the reason why the UK was able to have a second female prime minsiter without much fuss was because nobody, including women, cared too much about it. Here is my theory: after the reign of Thatcher in the 1980s, British progressives largely forgot about wishing for another female prime minister, and British conservatives learnt that female prime ministers may actually serve them well too. Much of the UK hence became 'neutral' about the gender of their leader ever since. And this neutrality has helped, in the long run.

After all, the recent history of female leaders and potential leaders has shown that playing the 'gender card' is a liability at the ballot box. Successful and popular female leaders like UK Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are not known to play the gender card. On the other hand, the gender card has arguably poisoned the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, both who were known to champion their feminist credentials heavily.

I'm not saying that it's not important to stand up for our feminist values. But in politics, strategy is everything, and apperently de-emphasizing the gender aspect gets more votes.

What Will Donald Trump be like as President? Let's Look At Some Australian Parallels

In just a few days, Donald Trump will become President of the USA. What will the next four years be like? There's lots of speculation, but nobody knows for certain yet. But here's an interesting take on it:

Donald Trump's election last year saw the despair of many young and self-described progressive people, not just in the US but also around the world. But as a keen observer of Australian politics, I felt a sense of deja vu. Just three years earlier, when former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was elected, the situation was very similar. Young intellectuals were crying, protesting, saying that he was not 'their Prime Minister', even thinking of leaving the country. After all, Abbott was elected on a platform of securing the borders, repealing environmental measures, and making the government work again, whatever that meant. Sounds familiar? Should I also mention that Abbott didn't have a good reputation among feminists, and was opposed to marriage equality? Sounds familiar again?

In office, Abbott not only maintained his platform, but became increasingly nationalistic too, using the national security agenda to boost his polls. For many Australians, it was a really horrible time indeed. Yet his popularity went south and never quite came back again, despite all this. It appeared that people were not buying the nationalistic message anymore. Instead, when he moved to weaken Australia's government-funded healthcare system (another Trump parallel here?), people just lost faith in him, perhaps permanently.

Nationalism and 'border security' can only get you so far, bread and butter issues will count for much more in the long run. If Trump behaves like Abbott did, his popularity will not last.

In the end, Abbott's reign came to an end when his communications minister Malcolm Turnbull challenged him for the leadership, just shy of two years of the day he was sworn in. Of course, this kind of leadership change cannot occur in the US context. But there will be a mid-term election in 2018, and if that goes badly for the Republicans, there won't be a lot that the Trump administration will be able to do from that point onwards. (Think Obama's or Bush's last two years.)