I know the Swifties have moved on to talking about Taylor Swift and the Golden Globes, but I have to take a sec to detail the epic battle that happened over the weekend when the NYT pushed a piece saying T-Swift is queer.
Not that I'm an avid Taylor Swift article reader, I mean, it's just the angle The New York Times takes in this opinion piece — it just kinda blows me away. The author actually attempts to argue that by way of her music, Taylor Swift is actually coming out as a queer person because she doesn't follow all the rules of the patriarchy. This tells us a lot about what this new "queerness" really is, which is an attempt to defeat Western culture by not fitting into categories such as wife, mother, daughter — essentially anything that labels her a woman.
This is an actual line from the NYT piece:
A woman who loves women is most certainly a monster to a society that prizes male power. She can fulfill none of the functions that a traditional culture imagines — wife, mother, maid, mistress, whore — so she has few places in the historical record.
Honestly, this queer stuff isn't about being gay or whatever the cool kids are calling it these days; it's about tearing down the patriarchy by refusing to fit the categories the patriarchy "created." "Man," "woman," and the nuclear family itself are all products of this patriarchy.
Getting back to T-Swift, here's the paragraph in that gigantic New York Times piece that Swifties are all up in arms about (though the implication of her being queer is evident the entire way through):
Whether she is conscious of it or not, Ms. Swift signals to queer people — in the language we use to communicate with one another — that she has some affinity for queer identity. There are some queer people who would say that through this sort of signaling, she has already come out, at least to us. But what about coming out in a language the rest of the public will understand?
Bro, they called Swift queer!
And then they went on to mention how hard it must be for a celebrity to come out, and that probably that's why Swift is still in the closet and using Travis Kelce as a "beard" to cover up her gayness.
WOW!
See, told you this was the strangest Taylor Swift article I've ever read. But what else can we expect from The New York Times?
Anyhow, this has made some queerphobic Taylor Swift fans pretty upset. I say "queerphobic" to be funny, by the way, so don't quote me in earnest there.
Yes, the Swifties are mad. How dare The New York Times label their darling powerful woman as "queer."
She ain't no queer!
So it's time for a boycott.
The New York Times is bearing the wrath of "Swifties" after the paper published an op-ed that questioned world-famous singer Taylor Swift's sexuality.
As a result, Swift's fans and friends have launched a boycott campaign against The Times and are calling on individuals to cancel their subscriptions. They allege that the article suggesting that Swift might be "queer" is both "sexist" and "grossly inappropriate," claiming that male singers would never receive the same treatment.
I'll consider the vast majority of Swifties to be lefties politically, so in this case,
For real, you love to see it!
Like, for no reason at all The New York Times attempted to "out" Taylor Swift as queer. Actually, there is a reason: The New York Times will always do whatever they can to push queerness on our society, even if it means bumping heads with some Swifties along the way. As I said before, this queer stuff is in no way sexual, it's simply political, so any time they can get something published about queerness it's a step in the right direction for the takedown of the patriarchy. Though it looks to me like the lefty Swifties aren't really having it with the queer stuff.
Now back to that Golden Globes joke!
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
