Unclear On The Concept Of Feminism

No Retreat, No Surrender

WaPo commits a major Rule 15 violation:

Taylor Swift’s feminist doppelganger takes off on Twitter

Taylor Swift is not a feminist. But Clara Beyer is, and she loves Taylor Swift’s music and sometimes she wishes Swift would change her twangy tune and be a little more progressive.

On June 11, the Alexandria native, a rising senior at Brown University, tweeted: “Idea for a single purpose twitter: feminist Taylor Swift.”

Ten minutes later, Beyer’s friend and classmate Kevin Carty called her to make sure she followed through. So Beyer created a logo — a picture of Swift’s face photoshopped onto Rosie the Riveter’s head. (Conveniently, both female icons have the same red head scarf in their wardrobe.) She wrote a bio that played off the one on Taylor Swift’s official Twitter page: “Happy. Free. Confused. Oppressed by the patriarchy. At the same time.”


Swift, now 23, has become something of a polarizing figure as she shifts from teen country phenom to world-famous pop star. There’s the pro-Swift camp, made up primarily of young girls and the parents who are relieved their daughters have selected such a “good role model” to idolize: a talented woman whose face is far more likely to be seen in one of her many advertisements for Target or CoverGirl than in a mug shot.

On the other side are those who find some unsettling themes in Swift’s songs and question whether she’s such a great role model after all — whether she’s someone who perpetuates the belief that there’s only one way to be a “good girl”: to be passive and “pure,” to wait patiently in the tower for a prince instead of being her own hero.

Swift has done her best to kept her distance from all things feminist. In October, when asked by the Daily Beast whether she considers herself a feminist, Swift replied, “I don’t really think about things as guys versus girls.”

Beyer, sounding a bit exasperated, said to this, “I think not seeing things as boys versus girls is feminist.”

“There was definitely a time when I wouldn’t have considered myself a feminist,” Beyer adds. “But I’ve totally changed my mind on that. I’ll identify as a feminist any day.”

Somebody is unclear on the concept of feminism. It’s not all hairy-legged man-hating. They don’t seem very familiar with the details of Taylor Swift’s life and career either.

She writes her own songs. She manages her own business affairs. She’s wealthy, famous and keeps her clothes on. She’s never been arrested or in rehab. She is literally a self-made woman in an industry dominated by men.

This WaPo commenter said it best:

4:19 AM PST

With all the obnoxious, misogynistic rap lyrics out there, just ripe for the picking, this faux feminist picks Taylor Swift to parody and hold up to ridicule. Really? This is not what I burned my bra for so many years ago, this generation’s “feminists” have turned “I am woman, hear me roar” into “I am woman, hear me whine”.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Feminism, Feminists Gone Wild and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Unclear On The Concept Of Feminism

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I would much rather have my daughter and granddaughter grow up idolizing Taylor Swift than Rihanna, Beyonce or Miley Cyrus.

    • Is it the “keeping her clothes on” thing that has the neo-feminists panties in a bunch? Like; “How dare she be commercially successful without being exploited?”

      • Exactly. It’s almost like not being exploited/abused can be a choice in some cases, right? That definitely unsettles them.

        • wmcb says:

          Yep. If society benevolently releases a woman from her victimhood, it’s great. If a woman kicks her way out of victimhood with her own damn boots, that’s bad.

          It’s the same dynamic that happened with the guns/rape drama, and it is sick as fuck.

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Oh Yes me too. 🙂

  2. myiq2xu says:
  3. ytttik says:

    WTH?? This actually pisses me off! There really is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women. Maybe we should go kick some ass! Will that be feminist enough??

    • myiq2xu says:

      When did “feminist” become the opposite of “feminine?”

        • Here’s the first pic on her newer blog.



          summer makeup essentials with a dash of feminism

        • So if a woman doesn’t actually USE makeup, is she not feminine? Is that one of the requirements? I ask because in my distant past I knew a lady who didn’t, and she was naturally drop dead gorgeous. Wasn’t that the goal of makeup? To look “natural”?

        • Jadzia says:

          I have never believed that the goal of makeup was to look natural. Of course, I learned about makeup from my sainted grandmother, who slathered it on like a Vegas showgirl. What’s more, makeup is so damned expensive that you better believe I want it to be obvious.

          Topic? I would be quite pleased if my daughters admired a young and savvy businesswoman who keeps her clothes on as their role model. I’m not much of a fan of her music, but Go Taylor. Hell, it’s not as though I’m going to like ANY of my kids’ music when they’re teenagers anyway.

          • myiq2xu says:

            I’m not much of a fan of her music, but Go Taylor.

            She writes and sings sappy love songs. She was only 15 when she wrote Tim McGraw. Her music has changed since then even though she’s still very young (23). She doesn’t write political songs or participate in partisan politics. WTF can you expect of someone her age?

            I’m guessing that when she’s in her 40’s she won’t still be a pop princess, but she will probably still be a star.

        • Jadzia says:

          I’m not saying that she should be writing like, I don’t know, Richard Thompson or Bob Dylan or some other grizzled troubadour. It’s just a matter of taste, and I do find her admirable for other reasons.

          • myiq2xu says:

            I wasn’t talking about you specifically when I said “WTF can you expect”. There is a lot of music that I enjoy. There is some I can’t stand. Different strokes for different folks.

            The Beatles are considered one of the best bands ever, but their early stuff was insipid pop music.

      • ytttik says:

        When did “feminist” become the opposite of “feminine?”

        It’s not that, it’s that “feminist” must now mean, bitter, angry, and trapped. Seriously, I think that’s why Michelle Obama is such an icon. She can appear very feminine, but she just oozes bitterness.

    • votermom says:

      They are angry at Swift for not being chained in the same way they are by their ideology. How dare she succeed. It’s so counter-revolutionary.

    • Excellent point. Why is feminist define as being “mean?” I think that what gets the anti-Taylor Swift crowd hates her. She is genuinely likeable and is empowered. These characteristics don’t have to be mutually exclusive. She’s an icon and role model for little girls. Why does this bug them so much? Would we rather that these girls see only a women oppressed by the vestiges of male privilege so that girls feel discouraged and succumb to it?

      • OT. Thanks for posting about “male priveledge”. I was unaware of that concept but will explain it to my wife to see if she’ll be OK with me receiving it after all these years. But first I need to catch her in a good mood. 🙂

      • wmcb says:

        Yes, they would. The entire point is preserving the very real power of victimhood. Rather then rise up and find the power that exists outside of victimhood, feminists have largely latched onto what every person ever in a relationship with a professional martyr has discovered:

        There is a fuckload of power and leverage in victimhood, so long as you can keep convincing the other party to feel guilty.

        • Yep. We’ve gotten to know several Brits who immigrated there from various parts of Africa. They lack the slavery roots experience and are not “victims” of whitey. Interesing how they deal with life compared to the Sharpton-Jackson ilk.

        • Underwhelmed says:

          At least it’s backfiring Downunder. Our lamentable female PM tried to go the victimhood route recently and it’s gone wrong for her in all the very best ways. She keeps trying to go the divide and destroy US Democrat strategy route and can’t quite comprehend that the average Oz person really, really doesn’t like it.

  4. votermom says:


    • Jadzia says:


      And to take it even further OT, I am beyond unnerved every time I see his name on the French news. Because here they spell it “Poutine.” Anybody who has ever gotten drunk in Quebec will know why I instinctively start to drool at the sight of it.

  5. Pingback: Unclear On The Concept Of Feminism | You're Not 19 Forever – Pull Yourself Together.

  6. DandyTiger says:

    I suspect this is simply a southern, appearing conservative thing. It’s not about feminism at all, it’s about eradicating all things southern and conservative. That’s what Obots are about.

  7. ytttik says:

    You can make a valid feminist argument against Rihanna, Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, etc etc, and the values they represent. So why didn’t they? Why focus on Taylor Swift? Is it because she’s not exploited/abused enough, like Lola suggested above? Does the possibility that women may have some choices really threaten them? Perhaps they need victims so badly to justify their belief system, that anybody who doesn’t stay in their place becomes a threat?

    That really sums up my problem with the Dems, the left, feminism. People’s success is like a conflict of interest for them. If you aren’t poor, black, female, victimized, they have no use for you, so you become the enemy. Their goal is to create more victims, so they can “rescue” them, kind of like those firefighters who set fires so they can rush in and become a hero.

    • wmcb says:

      The entire left has morphed from fighting genuine oppression to a fetishing of oppression and helplessnes that is just sick.

      Every time I see the glee with which they create victimization out of whole cloth, I feel like I am watching a parent suffering with that particular psychosis called Munchhausens By Proxy.

  8. votermom says:

    No more GOP electoral wins

  9. Constance says:

    I love Taylor. Partly because she doesn’t prance and crawl around in her underwear (or less) and call it talent. But I don’t get the rant that she wants to be ” to be passive and “pure,” to wait patiently in the tower for a prince” accusation. It seems to me she runs through good looking men at an impressive speed for fun. She never seems too broken up about ending her flings.
    The music industry has been taken over by a bunch of female exhibitionists which is really sad because we have all been missing out on the good music that actual women of talent could have made for the last 15 years. And Taylor makes more money than the lot of exhibitionists put together.

    • swanspirit says:

      Taylor Swift is the antithesis of passive and pure . I am now absolutely certain Vile Progs and some so called feminists and libs are incapable of interpreting reality accurately .

  10. votermom says:

    On now

  11. votermom says:

    Some idiot named Brendan Loy went ballistic on me after I tweeted this

    • DandyTiger says:

      7 to 2 vote. They said the federal law already provides for this. Of course that’s a lame form that just lets you check a box and sign. You know, because people would never lie about such things. Here’s an article about it:

      Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law.

      The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

      • votermom says:

        “penalty of perjury” ooohhhh. Clapper was just shaking in his penny loafers at that one.

        • And Uncle Eric has such an excellent record of going after individuals who actually, ahem, perjure themselves using this form. Why, some say he’s almost batting 100%. WCPGW?

      • myiq2xu says:

        “Preemption” refers to state laws that deal with issues that federal law already covers. The issue has been “preempted”.

        Congress could fix the problem by passing the damn law.

        • votermom says:

          I can guess how that will work when they pass the amnesty bill.

          Federal form: “pinky swear that you are not a felon and you are not a terrorist”

        • votermom says:

        • Jadzia says:

          myiq, I was just about to make that very point. This was a pre-emption case, not a policy case, and although the result, well, sucks, as a legal matter I believe SCOTUS correctly decided this one.

        • wmcb says:

          SCOTUS was correct in deciding that the States cannot do the federal govt’s statutory job.

          The problem is, no one has a solution for what states are to do when the federal govt *also* refuses to do their statutory job.

          We have a lawless federal govt, who enforces the law or not based on their political preferences. If you are the political enemy, we can always find some rule you have violated. If you are a political friend, we will overlook even gross violations.

          We are living in an increasingly feudal society, where one’s rights and successes are largely determined by currying favor with the liege lord. And stupid idiots like OWS, instead of recognizing what is happening, waste their time decrying the logical fact that everyone who wants to succeed under feudalism is scurrying to DC as fast as they can to kiss some rings, swear fealty, and buy themselves a liege lord.

          “Stop these special interests from going to curry favor!!!” they cry. Fucking morons. The problem is not those bowing and scraping and getting dispensations. The problem is the dudes in the ermine cloaks with the power to dispense them.

  12. votermom says:

    I hate both parties

  13. votermom says:

    • ytttik says:

      Snowden just said that the reason he didn’t release this info prior to Obama’s election was because he believed in hope and change and thought Obama was going to deliver. He now believes Obama has not only failed to deliver, he’s taken it all a step farther.

      In other words, Snowden was slurping the kool aid and didn’t come to until after the election.

      • votermom says:

        That explains 2008 — but 2012?

      • votermom says:

        Snowden specifically calls Gang of 8 liars

        • ytttik says:

          I’m disappointed in Snowden. He’s still got blue kool aid in his veins.

          “This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous “State Secrets” privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency. ”

          Yeah. I’m sure he’ll get right on that.

        • Jadzia says:

          God, some people NEVER FUCKING LEARN. Exactly who does he think has been in charge for the last five years?????

        • DeniseVB says:

          We live in a military/industrial complex area, if I didn’t love my life so much, I could blast a sh*tload of friendly *cocktail party* leaks that would bring down DC to a quivering pile of poo. Oh, and the Tea Party is right, it’s both parties mucking things up. It’s like middle school on steroids 😀

  14. votermom says:

  15. votermom says:

    This tweet made me LOL

  16. wmcb says:

    From what I can tell, the main thing they are beefing about is that Taylor’s songs indicate she genuinely likes men. And that she views the prospect of being in love with one as a potentially deeply fulfilling thing. Taylor doesn’t do nearly enough bitter sneering at men for them. She isn’t flippantly proclaiming that love is a crock of shit.

    So to recap: Controlling your own sexuality to your own standards, being a massive financial success, exhibiting huge talent, maintaining your life in the cesspool of the entertainment industry without becoming a junkie, running your own professional affairs with smarts, etc. is totally not the hallmark of a feminist. Ya know why? Because this bitch said having a man to love and have a life with would be a good, happy, fulfilling thing for her. Burn her.

    They have fetishized victimization. They have spent so long whining about all women being victims, that when a woman stands up and says “Fuck you, I’m no victim” they react with rage even when it is demonstrably true.

    It’s why they hate Allen West. It’s why they hate Sarah Palin. It’s why they went spittle-frothing ballistic over the women who calmly told them they wanted to keep their guns and put several holes in any man who dared try to rape them. “What??? GET YOUR ASS OVER HERE, LIE DOWN, AND SACRIFICE FOR THE SISTERHOOD. HOW DARE YOU MINIMIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF RAPE BY DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM IT! TRAITOR. NON-WOMAN.”

    Their entire existence, worldview, identity, and political power is utterly dependent on one truth: That every member of designated victim groups are in fact victims, and always will be. That the only salvation from victimhood is collective, and even that will probably never ever happen, because until we can teach every man on the planet not to rape, we are held powerless in our victimhood.

    Feminism, like the civil rights movement, is dead, twisted, and gone. We’ve gone from Eleanor Roosevelt’s “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” to today’s whine of “I can never stop feeling inferior until every member of society is forced to be nice and affirming to me.”

    When I see feminist women get more emotional satisfaction out of finding ever more vague and esoteric examples of male privilege, than they do over the real life accomplishments of a strong, independent woman, then feminism is sick beyond help.

    • ytttik says:

      I agree, except male privilege is quite real. For example, Miss Utah’s disjointed and confused buzzwords about creating education, jobs, and equal pay, gets her labeled the dumbest beauty contestant in the world. It got Obama elected President.

      • Hafta agree wit dat.

      • wmcb says:

        That wasn’t male privilege for Obama, that was “duly authorized victim group” privilege. Dan Quayle got no such consideration, nor did George W. Bush. Obama also got it in the primary against Hillary, because in prog world, black is a more protected victim group than female is. There’s a hierarchy. Women who buy wholesale into the victim group worldview dynamic really ought not be surprised when that same dynamic sets aside their needs for a more victimy victim. In the competition to be more-oppressed-than-thou, women are not top dog.

        Note: I did not say that male privilege, or white privilege, does not exist at all, ever. I’m saying that viewing it as the amorphous boogeyman responsible for all the world’s ills, and even worse, trying to fix it by drowning society in permanent guilt, is a crock of shit that has proven remarkably ineffective.

        Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it. – Malcolm X

        ^^^The above^^^ bears no resemblance to “We shall whine and whinge until the privileged feel guilty enough to dispense carefully calibrated to be ‘fair’ justice upon us. And that will SURELY make them respect us.” No. No, it won’t.

    • Underwhelmed says:

      You are such a rock star, I can’t even stand it.

  17. votermom says:


    The Director Of The NSA Wants The Internet Under His Control
    Wired has put up a profile of Army General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA. The picture the article paints is kind of horrifying.
    Besides being leading the world’s largest intelligence agency, Alexander is also in charge of the Central Security Service, US Cyber Command, the Navy’s 10th Fleet, the 24th Air Force, and the Second Army. He basically controls his own military.
    His vision of cybersecurity boils down to putting the Internet under his personal control.
    Here’s a quick excerpt from the Wired profile:
    In his telling, the threat is so mind-bogglingly huge that the nation has little option but to eventually put the entire civilian Internet under his protection, requiring tweets and emails to pass through his filters, and putting the kill switch under the government’s forefinger. “What we see is an increasing level of activity on the networks,” he said at a recent security conference in Canada. “I am concerned that this is going to break a threshold where the private sector can no longer handle it and the government is going to have to step in.”
    While the concept of engaging in cyberwarfare seems like something out of science fiction, General Alexander has been preparing for such a scenario for nearly eight years. Stuxnnet, the malware developed by the NSA in collaboration with the CIA and Israeli intelligence, was used to physically damage centrifuges used in Iran’s nuclear program in 2007.
    That was only a first step. According to Bloomberg, Alexander has asked for nearly $4.7 billion in additional funding in 2014 alone to further bolster the United States’ “cyberspace operations.”

  18. votermom says:

    Sounds like
    a) Rubio is acting as the mouthpiece for Obama on amnesty &
    b) Rubio is also taking a page from Obama’s book by trying to grab the credit for the f-g bill

  19. Add this to the list of victimization status. How can coffee withdrawal be a mental disorder?


    • Didn’t post correctly. It’s the next video after the video on Attkisson’s home computer being mysteriously turned on by unknown parties.

      • ytttik says:

        Okay, I just increased the font on my computer. I really am going blind. I swear you wrote, “Atkisson’s home computer being mysteriously turned on by unknown panties” 🙂

        As to coffee with drawl, I promise you, I can go psychotic in a matter of moments if I don’t have my organic free trade fresh roasted beans ground and waiting for me.

        • LOL. But if you commit murder during that withdrawal stage are you going to be able to use the insanity plea? How about if you can’t do your work from 8-noon because the deleterious mental effects haven’t worn off yet?

        • ytttik says:

          Well, if I were on a jury and somebody explained that they had committed murder because they had been deprived of their coffee, I would totally understand. Sounds like justifiable homicide to me.

          But no seriously, I am sick and tired of every mental disorder in the world being used as an excuse for bad behavior. Tell that to some schizophrenic who really does have serious perception problems and has still managed to hold down a job and be kind to others.

        • yttik, my comments aren’t nesting correctly. Yeah, let’s give the real mental disorders the credence, but then, we’d actually have to address them. Wasn’t there some congressional Mental Health bill under consideration?

    • wmcb says:

      I wouldn’t know if coffee withdrawal is a mental disorder, as I never ever allow myself to withdraw. 😀

      • Jadzia says:

        Withdrawal is HORRIFIC. I was never addicted to coffee, but had a 6-can-a-day Tab habit before we moved to a country where it is Not A Thing. Awful headaches for a week to ten days bad.

  20. I can’t even think until my #3 cup’o’joe has been fully absorbed.

  21. myiq2xu says:

    One thing about Taylor – she may hook-up with bad guys but she doesn’t put up with them for long. She didn’t marry wealth and fame or sleep her way to the top. She earned what she has.

    How is that a bad role model?

    • ytttik says:

      I’m telling you myiq, she’s “bad” because she forgot her place. One must always be pissed off and powerless. That’s why I try to maintain a cheerful disposition. It drives both feminists and vile progs crazy. Ask Sarah Palin.

      • wmcb says:

        Exactly. We have entered backward world, where perpetual victimhood is lauded, strength and accomplishment of your own is a threat to the tribe.

        The suffragettes would slap these moron women silly.

        • ytttik says:

          Let’s also remember the elitist aspect to all this. You really have to be extremely blessed and have it all…..and than be pissed off and “powerless” and rebelling against something. Obama, leader of the free world, horribly oppressed by racism. The Occupiers, rebels without a cause, earning 100 grand a year under vile capitalism.

          For the most part, those who are truly down and out, don’t have the time or energy to obsess over male privilege. Male privilege, patriarchy, intersectionality, are all oppression games played by the well off and privileged.

    • wmcb says:

      She is a bad role model because they once asked her: “Tell us how you are a victim of the patriarchy”, and she basically responded “Fuck that shit, I’m focused on my own accomplishments. Now excuse me, I have to go make a buttload of money to pay my multitude of employees.”

      She refused to swallow their narrative whole. Even speaking out about actual sexism, oppression, etc doesn’t count. You have to accept the whole victimhood enchilada, or you are destroyed.

  22. foxyladi14 says:

    my comments aren’t nesting correctly But then they never do. 😉

  23. SHV says:

    ” where perpetual victimhood is lauded, ..”
    I was thinking about that yesterday while mowing the lawn. When did all of the “victim/survivor” self identity start? I don’t ever remember hearing anyone from my parents or grandparents generations every say that they were victims or survivors.

  24. 1539days says:

    I’m probably too late to comment, but I’ve been saving it all day.

    A female pop star of equivalent fame is Katy Perry. She is a less worthy role model than Swift. She already has one failed marriage, sang about kissing a girl, wrote another song using “gay” as a slur and used to be a Christian music singer. She’d be ripe for feminist outrage.

    But she supported Obama.

Comments are closed.