She maybe America’s sweetheart but Taylor Swift is complicit in setting herself up as the eternal victim

NYT opinion piece on Taylor Swift’s work and sexuality is reductive but it raises the question — was it tailor-made for someone like Swift to make the argument that she is oh-so-oppressed to be able to speak for herself?

In this world, few people reach celebrity so massive, that “larger-than-life” seems to be an underwhelming description for them. In India, we have Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan. In the West, there is Beyonce — and then there’s one Taylor Alison Swift.

In this era of Internet Wars, more than ever before, celebrities find themselves at the sharp end of the pitchfork. Swift is no stranger to controversy. From the Kanye-Kim-Tay drama to the many ups and downs and “cat fights” in the Tay Girl Gang, Swift has been at the jagged end of many a pitchfork, over and over again, through the years. The latest in a laundry list of wrongs Ms Swift has faced at the hands of the world is a New York Times “opinion” piece. Titled Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, the article is a reductive, speculative exploration of Swift, her work and sexuality. It has drawn widespread flak from Swift and Swifties alike.

To be fair, this speculation around Swift’s work being “queer-coded” is not new, not even in the TS camp. Remember the Lover and Folklore eras? The “Gaylor” factor was all over. The song ‘ME!’ was read as a coming-out anthem, with Taylor surrounded by rainbows, pride parades and the openly queer Brendon Urie. Folklore was giving “cottage-core” — a sub-culture queer and lesbian women often identify with. Somewhere in there ‘You Need To Calm Down’ came out and there was a hot-button debate on whether Swift is a well-meaning straight ally co-opting the LGBTQ+ community’s space or if this may be her “coming out”.

From reading the piece, it is abundantly clear that editor and writer Anastasia Marks is also a Swiftie. She uses ‘You Need To Calm Down’ and ‘ME!’ as references to allude to the idea that Swift isn’t straight despite quoting the artist talking about how she is an ally. Marks has the same tone of chronically-online-speak that so many in internet fandoms do (This writer too enjoys the occasional foray into Swift-land). In essence, the article reads like a Twitter thread put together by a teen fan during their summer break with too much time on their hands. Who else could be that invested in labelling someone else’s sexuality? (Interestingly, the same author wrote a similar article speculating on Harry Styles’ sexuality not too long ago.)

Her team and fans have directed criticism at NYT on Swift’s behalf — and not for the first time. One member of her team said, “This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.” And this may well be true. There are no two ways about the fact that there still exists rampant sexism and double standards in the American music industry and everywhere else.

That such intrusive and unfounded commentary is in bad taste does not even need saying. Many in the public eye have had to face this scrutiny, sometimes from homophobes and sometimes from well-meaning gays trying to find ways to connect with celebrities and each other through a language and culture they foster so they have support as minorities. Mendes, Harry Styles, Kit Conner, Billie Eilish — and so many others have had to deal with it. This game of “picking up on gaydars” and “looking for Easter eggs” and reading between the lines to “decode” somebody’s sexuality, regardless of intent, is a dangerous one. Is there any one way to be gay?

It’s true no one can take girlie pop stars away from their rabid teen and gay fanbases. But this isn’t Swift’s first rodeo. It beggars the question: How complicit is Swift in the making and remaking of her persona? Time and again, from when her career first took off, Swift seems to think and convince fans that she is uniquely discriminated against. Her fans, contemporaries, agents, managers, and the industry — have all wronged her and she has done nothing at all to deserve it. She postures herself as a “virginal” (a descriptor the NYT opinion piece uses) manic-pixie-dreamgirl who can do no wrong and to whom all injustices are meted out.

At the same time, she actively encourages fans to read between the lines in her lyrics and albums. These “easter eggs” she drops make for a big part of the PR that goes behind promoting each album and project she undertakes. Because of the Scooter Braun row (he purchased her masters, allegedly without her consent), she has now re-recorded and re-released four albums (Taylor’s version) and went on a worldwide tour that has raked in millions for her. She claimed Braun “bullied” her. Braun has stated that Swift was aware of the purchases happening behind curtains before the deal was finalised. The Taylor-Kim-Kanye drama had a similar trajectory. Swift says no consent was taken before her name and reference was used by Kanye in a salacious song and music video. Swifties went ballistic on the internet, and Kim released evidence that Swift had consented. And yet, fan sympathies stay with the doe-eyed country singer with “Shirley Temple curls”.

The premise of the opinion piece that has drawn such severe backlash from Swift is based precisely on this image she has projected over the years: “Taylor Swift is oppressed. And that is why she cannot come out.” The author claims that because of her country music background, and her all-American appeal, the artist just does not have any agency to be out and proud of her identity (womp-womp).

Swift is America’s sweetheart. The blue-eyed, blond-haired girl next door, despite being a literal billionaire, at the top of her industry, somehow still seems to be the victim. It is a narrative that she peddles with excellent marketing, one that America and Swifties the world over buy because of the whiteness of it all.

So while the NYT article must be called out for the cheap shot that it is, the emotional core of the argument there echoes the one Swift makes for herself every time a controversy pops up. The question must be asked: Was this article possible to write about Shawn Mendes? Or did it require someone like Swift, one who projects herself as a victim, to make the argument that she is oh-so-oppressed to be able to speak for herself? For someone whose celebrity is beyond comprehension, perhaps, some perspective might be prudent. She is not a victim. Yes, Taylor, if you were a man, you’d be ‘The Man’. But let’s stop pretending you aren’t the moment right now anyway.