it’s like she said in her time interview. Being seen isn’t really not being private, it’s just not hiding. A lot of celebrities in high profile relationships have this same balance.

yep, and it’s working like a charm for her. said this back in december but i think for a long time it felt like taylor vs the world and now it feels like taylor in the world

this has been living in my draft for a while, but since it's topical again... why do people hand-wring about the "power dynamic" between female songwriters and their male partners? it's a multifaceted issue (right to privacy is one that i don't touch on here), but i genuinely believe A LOT of people are just uncomfortable that a man is "at the mercy" of a more powerful woman.

and no, this isn't some ~women can only chuckle~ kindergarten feminism idea. (as jaime said, i know swifties often weaponize misogyny for silly things.)

i think this concern is directly connected to how people see women in power (subversive, unnatural) vs men in power (normal, expected) and, as a result, how people expect them to wield it. taylor, as the more famous and wealthy partner, is expected to be twice as graceful/merciful at every turn - furthermore, joe is given double the sympathy, because not only is he less powerful than his extremely famous girlfriend, but he's also a man. it's embarrassing, awful, and painful for him that she now "controls" his reputation! he must be protected!

this situation is unique as well, because it's art. no one is accusing taylor swift of financially abusing her less wealthy boyfriend, or threatening his job prospects, both of which would be wrong. people are questioning whether she should be "allowed" to write about her side of a breakup or relationship, if it's about less powerful people, especially if they're men.

if we (big we) normally enjoy taylor's autobiographical writing, but start suggesting she shouldn't make it when it's about her male partners - because those male partners are defenseless, less famous, less wealthy - what are we suggesting? especially when some of those partners (jake, john) were older and arguably just as if not more powerful than her when the same criticism was made?

to me, it just means the gender is a huge part of the critique.

i genuinely believe A LOT of people are just uncomfortable that a man is "at the mercy" of a more powerful woman.

This so much!! And maybe this is cynical but there's something very sinister to me that people were okay with her writing love songs about him and how he was her world and he saved her life etc etc but take issue with her possibly writing him in a bad light. It's like deep down people are saying it's okay when she was boosting his ego and made him the hero and her entire world but if she turns on him then shes the bad guy! There's just something so evil about that and I don't think people are intentionally doing it, like I genuinely think some people are just in denial about him but their denial is kinda leading them down a very dangerous path.

yeah, i absolutely think it's worth asking, why did you believe the love songs, but resist the post-breakup songs (when we haven't even heard them)? is it, perhaps, because you actually think taylor isn't a trustworthy person when she's scorned? do you associate joe with helping her mature? and so on.

you know what's extra funny? this "scorned woman destroys hapless cinnamon roll's reputation" stuff played out exactly the same way with tom who was very famous, very wealthy, and a grown-ass man of 35

"where's an example of a couple with inverted roles, in which the male part is as famous as Taylor and the female part walks in Joe's shoes, where something similar happened and nobody criticised the superstar simply because he was a male?" Anon must know literally nothing about the history of uh, all art, because powerful men build their careers off sliming women literally every day. Justin Timberlake kicked off his enormous solo career with a song that makes Britney Spears out to be a cheating slut whose whorish ways ruined their relationship. Ted Hughes spent decades erasing the ways he abused Sylvia Plath and carefully framing her as a crazy little storm of her own making and became one of the most celebrated poets of the century. I can't even begin listing the Golden Age Hollywood break-ups that amounted to "man did heinous thing to woman, made woman out to be a crazy/stupid/evil bitch, her career ended, he became an icon" because I will never stop. (And none of those are even comparable to Taylor, because she literally only ever writes songs about shit that happened. But I hope you take my meaning.)

also to say nothing of the very powerful men who regularly use their power to control women in entire industries

It's because most people already made up their minds that Taylor is a witch who lures men in her web and chews them up and spits them out and uses her music as a weapon. Of course these people who never liked Taylor in the first place so it's even more disheartening to see swifties people who are fans falling into the same narrative the media painted her entire career!

you are right but i guess this also my plea for some people (not the haters, but the fans, i suppose) to question why they feel the way they do about her AND joe

Obviously this is going to suck for Joe on a personal level because having your personal business be discussed by the entire world is scary. I don't think anybody would want to be in that position. BUT this discomfort does not mean that it is morally wrong for Taylor to make art about this. We can talk all day about the power dynamics at play (e.g. Taylor's intense and partially vengeful fanbase), but ultimately Taylor is an artist creating art, not a politician who has to find The Most Diplomatic And Least Harmful Way through this situation. "Oh no will my fanbase attack him over this line?" is not a fruitful thought to have when trying to write a raw, vulnerable song. This is about art. Not about writing a tweet or Instagram Story statement.

yeah and that's why i did say in my post this isn't the only reason (the morality) to oppose it. the right to privacy is a really interesting discussion when we talk about artists who make art about their lives and it's not exclusive to taylor.

and taylor is unique in that she's SO famous, and her art IS extremely autobiographical, and about other celebrities, and that is part of the interest in her work (at least, some of what sets it apart.)

i also think it will probably suck for joe on a personal level. i mean, it must suck anytime someone moves on with a famous person. like, if my ex started dating taylor swift, i'd certainly feel A Certain Way about it (also because i'm a fan lmao what a betrayal!!)

While I totally understand the privacy argument, I just don't see how that only affects Joe (or any of the muses she sings about). Not that anyone here is doing it, I just meant in general people seem to forget that Taylor is also airing out her dirty laundry? Like I don't know has anyone consider that it's also embarrassing and horrifying for her as much as him. I know people are gonna say well she's telling the story so of course she gets to paint herself is a better light but like honestly when in the past 6 years of her music has she's paint a pretty picture of anything other than her love for him. Every awful thing has been related to something else meanwhile he gets to be her savior and her stars and moon.

i wonder what the venn diagram of people who believe taylor was always the source of her and joe's problems, and people who think she is always an evil scorned harpy when broken up with, looks like. just within the fandom, i mean. outside of stanning, people probably just don't even listen to her music that closely.

as if her music has not made her calling her a whore who has been dumped by multiple men,body shaming, slut shaming etc publically acceptable. her being vulnerable and open about her feelings has made people extremely comfortable to mock her in every way. there are dedicated hate forums on every platform for this woman. when she is going to release music a soft there is not going to be a push back and people aren't going to have a field day taking her lyrics out of context and mock her. these men eventually after a week of stupid immature comments are fine but taylor is the petty boy crazy woman forever for certain sections out for blood using poor helpless men.

also it was happening after britney had been sexualized from a young age, vilified by society for "letting" that happen to her, and also led into purity culture, where pop stars had to defend their virginity status on camera for years.... which leads us to how taylor grew up in the public eye LMAO (that is a cynical LMAO btw)

The number of people who seem to equate art with revenge porn is astonishing. Taylor Swift, date only your fellow songwriting billionaires (ha), or there is a power imbalance and you are evil. Or maybe you're just evil because we've internalized that women are not supposed to be the most successful creative genius on the planet. Signed, your loving stans.

also like, again, tom was very famous and very wealthy and older than her by a significant margin when they dated and the same arguments somehow apply to him and joe and john. why is that, what could it be...

My theory is that a lot of people thought Joe caused Taylor to “mature” instead of giving her the credit for her growth the last few years. It’s not coincidental that a lot of the critiques started happening the minute she wasn’t a settled women who quietly stayed at home.

So with him gone all the benefit of doubt she would get is gone so they’re going to treat her like she’s an immature woman hell bent for revenge like it’s 2012. And it’s only worse because for some god forsaken season going out and not hiding is a sign of being an immature attention whore.

Though I do think there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance around that. So you think Joe wasn’t controlling her but give him credit for all her decisions over the last 7 years?

well said!

The thing is, Taylor tends to be fairly truthful in her music. It’s not like she’s going to frame Joe for murder and tell everyone where he hid the body and cackle as he’s hauled off to jail. I just can’t take some of this pearl clutching seriously. If Joe has been an A list asshole it might actually make him more interesting. And he knows the deal…he’s been entwined with her art and is profiting from it.

i literally think some people think she's not truthful about the bad stuff lol or they think it "wasn't that bad" or "even if it was bad, not bad enough to warrant telling everyone about it" jfkaldsl which is just a weird stance for a taylor fan to take given the only reason we even know about joe is because of her

Not to generalize but I feel like a lot of this oh poor joe etc comes from people who became swifties during folkmore they never really liked her before but they liked folkmore and also she wasn’t explicitly talking about anyone so they could be like oh she “matured” so it’s acceptable for me to be a fan now but they don’t like the essence of who Taylor is which is what she will always return to so they feel the need to critique her over banal things

i have been saying this for months so i am glad to know other people have seen this to be true (for some fans) also! like, they want taylor to be a mature indie darling who is above it all.

Who do they think is a good role model of a mature indie darling? MH? Cause lol. I love folklore, but I don't understand how either she or her art is immature compared to anyone? She's basically the same style of writer as Noah Kahan and he is praised and she is questioned at every turn. It's maddening.

she should not make pop, she should make sad folky indie music, and never talk about her private life, and also hate the limelight. like i think that's genuinely it.

@ anon all i have to say is if you judge her solely by flaws, then... yeah, i see why you liked her during folklore, where she wasn't seen or heard from much lmao! i, for one, feel good about how i compartmentalize the things i dislike (about taylor, but also about celebrities in general) so it makes it more enjoyable to hang out here. but i also think some of your opinions are really myopic (like her "drug use" influencing young fans? thinking she believes nothing bad happens in america?) and it just sounds like you're kind of over her and reaching for more reasons to dislike her. which you don't have to do. you can just be over her, and move on!

the obsession ppl have with desperately needing the famous person they stan (lol) to despise the limelight/even the *concept* of fame..................

(i do think it's all related to an adjacent conversation on how some ppl equate the morality of the person they're a fan of with their own morality and use the goodness of that celebrity as a signal to display their own goodness, which is destined to fail for many many reasons, but that's a bit outside of the scope of this)

i think it's all circling around the same point: serious artists spurn attention, attention-lovers are superficial and not real artists because it speaks to lack of moral fiber. moral fiber being pretty vague, and really depends on everyone's personal values.

i dont think some people understand that they can like certain albums of an artist but that doesn't make them a fan of that artist and they don't have to be why force yourself to like someone who you don't actually like

idk maybe because celebrities are like political avatars for some people - ie, if you disagree with her strongly on anything, then you mustn't stomach her, or her music, because stanning and compartmentalizing is complicity in the crime itself.

i blame slacktivism and whatnot for this lmao