Taylor Swift and the Dream of Being a Whole Person
Integrating the Divided Modern Self
Love her or hate her, Taylor Swift is everywhere. In this week's FD original, Phil Jeffery explains why critics should stop looking for "hidden layers to justify our disdain." Swift's work is remarkable precisely because it simply and honestly expresses her full personhood. In doing so, it gestures toward a more integrated way of living.
Fairer Disputations
Taylor Swift and the Dream of Being a Whole Person
PHIL JEFFERY
Girl media hit new highs last year by making clear that it understood something about the contradictions—the fundamental lack of integration—that characterizes modern life. At its best, it declared that girls had all along been on the front lines, embodying these contradictions. By saying so, it articulated a break with the version of feminism that had prevailed when millennials were growing up. And, at the center of it all, Taylor Swift played with the possibility of life beyond our familiar alienations.
This Week's Links:
First, at Public Discourse, Rachel Lu considers the appeal of anti-feminist versions of "the counter-factual fantasy."
Lu engages with the work of Carrie Gress (whose book was reviewed by Nina Power here at Fairer Disputations last week and by Beatrice Scudeler at Current this week). For more on the recent resurgence of anti-feminism, also check out Valerie Hudson's essay on why women's rights and the good of the family go hand in hand.
Public Discourse
The End of Feminism
RACHEL LU
In reality, the initial question of “Should we reject feminism?” is reductive to the point of making little sense. It invites no clear “yes” or “no” answer because the term “feminism” has no clear and consistent definition, and “feminism’s” effects have been both good and bad in ways that are now deeply intertwined.
As modern nations became wealthier and more democratic, embracing advanced education and the rarefaction of labor, it was inevitable that they would find themselves grappling with difficult questions about women’s appropriate role in society. Feminism, by any reasonable definition, was a part of that process of adaptation and renegotiation. While it may be convenient for rhetorical purposes to see (or define) feminists exclusively as perpetrators of error, this tendency actually inhibits us from understanding our present situation. Anti-feminists are eager to identify an enemy that they can rush forth to defeat, but the likely consequence of their advocacy is the chilling of valuable lines of inquiry. It may be difficult to sustain a serious conversation about the better and worse aspects of contemporary social mores if that conversation is continually drowned out by the reactionary demand that we exorcise all remnants of feminism and return to a romanticized traditionalism.
Next, Erica Komisar argues that it's time to rethink our reliance on institutional daycare and shift government funding into helping parents care for their infants and toddlers at home.
Institute for Family Studies
Government Policy Should Enable Mothers to Care for Their Young Children at Home
ERICA KOMISAR
But for so many families in 2024, theoretical arguments about what babies or mothers might want will be irrelevant. Whatever families wish for in an ideal world, in the real world parents must feed, clothe, and provide for their children. And, over the last 30 years it has become increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet on one full-time income, driving an increase in the number of parents of small children in full-time work and consequently more demand for formal childcare.
It is absolutely right for policymakers to seek to relieve pressure on family budgets. But instead of competing to offer more and more state-funded childcare as a sticking plaster on cost-of-living challenges, we should be addressing the structural reasons why family finances have become so stretched.
Finally, Kara Dansky asks why any questioning of "gender identity" is verboten among her fellow political progressives.
Substack
KARA DANSKY
Almost no one on the political Left will allow women’s concerns about our sex-based rights to be heard. Why?
I have a theory, and it’s pretty straightforward: If the leftist feminist critique of “gender identity” can be heard by members of the general public, we will win. Polling consistently shows that American voters across the political spectrum understand that women are female and men are male, and they agree with us that men should not have access to women’s single-sex spaces or sports, that children should not undergo invasive and harmful medical interventions if they are unhappy with their sex, and that lesbians and gay men should have the right to date only members of their own sex.
Most left-leaning voters share these views and concerns, but they are afraid to speak out because all opposition to “gender identity” seems to be coming from the political Right. This is understandable, but it’s not true.
Calling Single Londoners
Looking for (sex-realist feminist) love? On February 19th, Fairer Disputations featured author Louise Perry is hosting a second round of Maiden Mother Matchmaking. Space is limited, so if you're interested, get your application in today!
Write for Us
Fairer Disputations happily accepts pitches and submissions for publication on our site. Email us at info@fairerdisputations.org.