Oh, brother.
It should speak volumes that music superstar Taylor Swift — no friend of conservatism or NFL fans — actually comes out looking somewhat sympathetic in this story, thanks to the insipid agenda-pushing from The New York Times.
An NYT opinion piece titled “Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do,” author and editor Anna Marks wasted over 4,700 words speculating about Swift’s sexuality and her role in the larger LGBT movement.
The piece vacillated between feeling sorry for Swift (“If country music hasn’t changed enough, what’s to say that the larger entertainment industry — and, by extension, our broader culture — has?”) and seemingly trying to guilt trip the 34-year-old singer/songwriter:
“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,” Marks wrote.
And that second quote is really the crux of the entire opinion piece.
Marks begins the piece wondering aloud if Swift — currently dating Kansas City Chiefs star Travis Kelce — is actually a deeply closeted lesbian, before spending the back half of the piece arguing she probably is one.
It’s a shockingly tactless ploy to guilt someone, made so much worse by the fact that it was published (opinion or not) by the Gray Lady.
Just look at this drivel from Marks, explaining why Swift should come out as a lesbian: “The difference between any person coming out and a celebrity doing so is the difference between a toy mallet and a sledgehammer.
Do you like Taylor Swift’s music?
Yes: 13% (7 Votes)
No: 87% (48 Votes)
“It’s reasonable for celebrities to be reticent; by coming out, they potentially invite death threats, a dogged tabloid press that will track their lovers instead of their beards, the excavation of their past lives, a torrent of public criticism and the implosion of their careers. In a culture of compulsory heterosexuality, to stop lying — by omission or otherwise — is to risk everything.”
Marks further argued that Swift’s grand coming-out party was being held up thanks to misogyny.
“A woman who loves women is most certainly a monster to a society that prizes male power,” Marks said. “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.
“The Sapphic possibility of her work is ignored, censored or lost to time. If there is queerness earnestly implied in Ms. Swift’s work, then it’s no wonder that it, like that of so many other artists before her, is so often rendered invisible in the public imagination.”
To the surprise of nobody who is aware of Swift’s carefully manicured and crafted public image, people close to the situation were none too thrilled with this “invasive” piece from Marks.
“Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics,” an anonymous person “close to the situation” told CNN. “This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.”
The source added: “There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is — all under the protective veil of an ‘opinion piece.’”
And if you needed any further proof that The New York Times was in the wrong, even CNN tacitly called out their establishment media allies.
“It is highly unusual for a reputable news organization like The Times to publish an article speculating on a person’s sexuality, let alone a figure of immense cultural significance who has previously denied the insinuations,” CNN wrote, unprompted. “Such pieces are widely considered to be inappropriate, and The Times received some criticism from readers for its decision to publish its piece on Swift.”
Indeed, given the highly unusual nature of the piece, it’s hard to read Marks’ opinion piece and not come away thinking that the LGBT movement is only getting more desperate and blindly flailing out.
Apart from the desperation smacking from Marks’ words, her opinion piece comes off as someone who doesn’t necessarily want Swift to be a lesbian, but someone who needs it for reasons that appear most aligned with self-preservation.
And one last bit of food for thought: Taylor Swift may not want to talk about her sexuality, but has long made herself out to be an LGBT ally. Paying lip service to the LGBT movement is never enough for the left, as evidenced by this bizarre NYT piece.
What’s that saying about giving a mouse a cookie?
