Skip to main content

In Other News

A man does something, it's strategic. A woman does the same thing, it's calculated. A man is allowed to react. A woman can only overreact. - Taylor Swift
This November marks the moment Taylor Swift gained the right to re-record her first five albums after they were sold to Scooter Braun in June 2019. Swift says that this sale happened, "Without my approval, consultation, or consent, after I was denied the chance to purchase my music outright."

Evidently outraged, Taylor Swift has been very vocal about the right of an artist to own their own work. Writing on Tumblr, Swift explains that "This is what happens when you sign a deal at fifteen to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says 'Music has value,' he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it."

Swift claims she was subsequently told she could not perform her old songs on TV unless she stopped tweeting about Braun and agreed to not re-record her songs. As she remarks, "The message being sent to me is very clear. Basically, be a good little girl and shut up. Or you’ll be punished."

Taylor Swift's contract with Big Machine Records, who own almost all of her music, allows her to now re-record those albums and potentially undercut any profits Braun might get from the original masters.

For Swift, this is an issue of "toxic male privilege" in the music industry. I think it's more than that. Take these two headlines from the Guardian newspaper:



Why are two artists fighting on the same issue presented in such different ways? Why is Taylor Swift lucky, yet Kanye West a revolutionary? An artist as successful as Taylor Swift (the first woman to win two Album of the Year Awards at the Grammy's) choosing to re-record her albums is almost unprecedented in pop music.

Women are not thanked for offering an opinion. In the documentary Miss Americana, Taylor Swift describes how "Every time I didn’t speak up about politics as a young person, I was applauded for it. It was wild. I said, 'I'm a 22-year-old girl - people don’t want to hear what I have to say about politics.’ And people would just be like, 'Yeahhhhh!'"

Swift's current battle is a metaphor for the suppression of women's opinions everywhere. Women who express their opinions are seen as aggressive, irritable, oversensitive. People would rather criticize the woman than her opinion; we aren’t allowed to be angry. If we are, that must mean we are on our period, right? In Taylor Swift's single The Man, she sings that for men, "It's all good if you're bad, and it's okay if you're mad."
In the USA, you just got your first female Vice President. Congratulations. But the patriarchy starts in the home, and we better start changing the rhetoric around women offering opinions.

This article was originally published on TheLatest.com

Popular posts from this blog

We Need To Talk About "Bridgerton" (spoiler alert)

My social media has been spammed lately with fans of the programme Bridgerton lamenting the departure of the much-loved Duke of Hastings (Simon) played by RegĂ©-Jean Page. The seriousness with which people have taken this is what I am lamenting. No, @regejean ! You CANNOT leave me like that. I WILL NOT have it! @bridgerton !!!!!! — Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) April 3, 2021 I have an admittedly unpopular opinion on the programme Bridgerton, in that I think it is objectively bad. Bridgerton is a Netflix series based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn. The programme is set in London during the reign of King George III, and the first series followed the life of the upper-class Daphne Bridgerton, and her courtship with the aforementioned Duke of Hastings during her first season out. Daphne and Simon Bridgerton, Netflix I watched the first series of Bridgerton upon the recommendation of several friends, and I had (relatively) high hopes. I really like period dramas, and I am a fan of...

Power Play at the Olympics

I have really enjoyed these Olympics. We have been treated to new sports, surprise victories (naming no names, Italy), and the usual astonishment when humans achieve the impossible. However, there is always an extremely political side to the Olympics, and that's what I wish to analyse in this article. Superpowers wear gold The term “superpower” was first used in 1944 to describe the UK, US and the USSR. During the 20th century, Britain lost influence and, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US became the only superpower. This led Samuel Huntington to write : “There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar [rather] a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.” So what we can learn about the current world order from this year’s Olympics? It's no secret that sport isn't the only thing in play during the Olympic Games. Many will remember the US boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and medal races between Ru...

Down and Out in Paris and London

Take a look at these two graphs. Depicted on the left is the number of COVID-19 cases reported daily in the United Kingdom. The peak of the epidemic seems to have been in early April, with almost 9’000 cases on the worst day. On the right, we see France, whose peak came in late March, with almost 8’000 cases. I notice two things when I look at these graphs: Many more cases have been reported in the UK than in France, both as a daily average and in total; Whilst France had got through the worst of its epidemic by early May, the UK is still reporting well over a thousand cases every day, months after its first reported case. I don’t think now is the right time to try to draw complex comparisons between these two countries, but I do want to take a moment to write down my experiences under lockdown/confinement in Britain and France. At a time when the rest of Europe seems to be creeping back to normalcy, the UK is floundering. I cannot help but notice a stark difference between what I ex...