Blame my algorithm, but I’ve recently been seeing the same post pop up on my social feeds. It points out that the word ‘spinster’ once referred to a woman who had chosen not to marry and had a vocation (spinning) instead, making her financially independent and not reliant on a husband.
Someone should probably tell Newsweek. The magazine has just published an article explaining why ‘Taylor Swift is not a good role model’, the argument for which boils down to - and this is a direct quote - the fact that “at 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless.” A spinster, if you will.
Excuse me, while I just reset my phone calendar from 2024 to 1954.
The article was written by a man — those famous experts on good female role models — who argues that, having dated “at least a dozen men”, the singer isn’t “wholesome” enough to set an example. Basically, she’s a slut. I haven’t checked yet, but I assume there’s also a free chastity belt with every issue,
“While Swift's musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate,” writes John Mac Ghlionn, which astonishingly is not a pseudonym used by Andrew Tate.Phew. Thank goodness someone has finally said it. After all, what sane person would want their daughter or sister to be a strong, wildly successful, independent woman who doesn’t feel any pressure to have married by 34? Who has donated enough money to UK foodbanks to cover their bills for an entire year? Heaven forbid!
As role models go (and being on a pedestal is a tough gig) she's blazing a trail: standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, taking a man who groped her to court and winning, boycotting Apple Music until it agreed to pay royalties to all artists during the platform's trial period, refusing to be controlled by re-recording her own albums when she was refused to chance to buy the rights herself, speaking honestly about her eating disorder, condemning bullying, admitting she's been as insecure about female friendship as the rest of us. If that can't be filed under "wholesome", what can?
“This is not an attack on Swift; it's a valid question that is worth asking,” continues the self-appointed arbiter of women’s behaviour (funny how it’s always men who leap to take on that role). “This cycle of brief, intense relationships can unintentionally glamorise a type of romantic promiscuity where partners can be replaced as easily as toilet paper.”
Which, funnily enough, is exactly how I’d like to use this outdated, offensive piece of so-called journalism.
Some have called it desperate. I’d say dangerous. To claim that Swift’s power as a role model is diminished by those mediaeval metrics is pure misogyny. It positions a woman’s worth in terms of her duty towards men and sends us back to an era in which we were little more than walking wombs.
It positions a woman’s worth in terms of her duty towards men and sends us back to an era in which we were little more than walking wombs
All together now: under his eye.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that we’re still living in an era in which men are able to publicly chastise women for not being chained to the kitchen. After all, it was only in May that NFL player Harrison Butker gave his charming speech, to a room filled with female graduates, telling them to embrace being ‘homemakers’ and that being a mother was their most important role. Leave earning money to the man, there’s a good girl.
As a harpy who dared to have several different boyfriends in her 20 and 30s, and was “unmarried and childless” at 34, I’m nonetheless going to go out on a limb and say that domestic bliss isn’t the sole happily-ever-after we should be selling young women. And it is something that women specifically are told they should aspire to. Perhaps I’m wide off the mark, and Newsweek is at this very moment lining up an article on why Harry Styles is a terrible role model to young boys for exactly those reasons. But, somehow, I can’t quite see it.
And no doubt if Swift was married with children, she’d be criticised for leaving her family at home while she selfishly went on tour and accused of emasculating her husband by being the breadwinner.
The whole thing is from the same playbook that belittles Swift’s fans as though they’re in the grip of some Victorian hysteria; irrational and shallow. Liking her music is looked down on by those who consider themselves arbiters of what’s culturally ‘good enough’, in the same way as romantic literature by women is written-off as mere ‘chick lit’. It’s misogyny hiding behind having ‘good taste’, just as the Newsweek article is misogyny masquerading concern for the loss of some old-fashioned moral code.
Look, I’m sure Taylor isn’t exactly weeping over this drivel while counting the billion dollars she’s made from the Eras tour. But she and her fans deserve better than this retrograde rubbish. Because I can’t think of anything more “wholesome” than bringing together thousands of women and girls every night, united in joy, to sing songs about not settling for a life that makes you unhappy.
Taylor Swift not a good role model? She’s a bloody great one.
