1989 World Tour Review

Last night I went to Manchester Arena to see Taylor Swift perform new album 1989 in her tour of the same name. The experience was unlike anything I had been to before. It was a concert-cum-feminist rally, rather than anything else.

There is no denying just how much Taylor has grown up since her previous albums, in every sense of the word. Musically, she writes with a new found articulation of maturity that means that her album packs more punch than ever. Gone are the days of teardrops on her guitar. One only has to listen to the first verse of 'This Love' to be converted to this regenerated, ultra-powerful version of Taylor Swift. "Clear blue waters, high tide came and brought you in / And I could go on and on, on and on and I will / Skies grew darker, current swept you out again / And you were just gone and gone, gone and gone". Her lyrics have an experienced, darker, poetic edge that can't be found in her other albums.

But even her older songs have been given an 80s make-over. The stripped back version of ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ was almost unrecognisable. With little to no accompaniment and a new, slower rhythm, the song has obtained a much deeper, field-holler resonance, a far-cry from the original 2014 pop-song version.

Not only are her songs well written, but clearly she clearly has a talent for set-design too. Or at least, a talent for picking people who have a talent for set-design...
Each song was staged differently, each style original but what was really impressive about last night was just how remarkably good Taylor Swift's voice is live. The only bum-note was a finger slip on a keyboard, balanced on the end of a rotating platform high up in the arena.

But that’s enough about the music (as much as I love it). I’ve realised recently that this blog has become less ‘How To Be a Teenager’ and more ‘How To Be a Feminist’ – but I’m okay with that. I really wanted this blog post to be about the feminist message Taylor is trying to convey to the legions of fans, who endearingly refer to themselves as, the Taylornation.

Taylor took a good ten minutes out of last night's concert to give her fans a couple of life lessons. She explains that, as much as she loves the internet, there are some pit-falls when it comes to our mental health. She explained to the audience that it's easy to see the "highlight reel" of other people's lives because of social media. It's easy to see somebody enjoying themselves on a great trip or going to an amazing party. But that's not the whole story, she says. You don't get to see what goes on behind the closed doors of their life. You don't get to see the moments they can't get out of bed and face the day. You can't see "behind the scenes" of their life, like you do in yours. Taylor Swift wants you to know that everybody has those days. Even her, she says, as she sweeps her blonde locks across her face on stage to demonstrate the 'bad hair day' scenario. "Let me tell you what you are not" she states forcefully. "You are not somebody else's opinion of you. You are not damaged goods just because you've made mistakes. And you are not going nowhere because you're not exactly where you wanna be in your life right now."

For 12 and 13 year olds everywhere, this is an incredibly healthy message that can only be achieved due to Taylor’s personal connection to her fans. One finds oneself genuinely believing that someone as famous and beautiful as Taylor Swift understands how hard-going it is to be a young girl (or boy) living in 2015.

I was going to put in a little disclaimer, and apologise for being presumptuous and paraphrasing Taylor's speech – but then I realised. I don't have to. This is exactly what she intends to do at her concerts: give all of her fans something with which to identify, and allow each of them to take what they need from it.

The message I want to convey, from Taylor Swift to everyone who couldn't be there last night, is this.

You can be whoever you damn well want to be. The person you end up with should and will love you because of all your mistakes and all of your life lessons learnt the hard way. They will love you for the person you are now and the person you will be with them. That's love. And yes it was clichéd and a more than a little bit cheesy. But hey, a cliché becomes a cliché for a reason. In this case, it's because we all need reminding sometimes about what we have to go through to find love, and how it should feel when we find it. Taylor Swift teaches the Taylornation a feminist message on an unparalleled scale - a message of self-respect, compassion and empathy. Yes, love is important and to deny that would be silly - the vast majority of people want to find someone to spend their life with, no matter their gender. But Taylor makes it clear to her vulnerable teenage fan base that it is never okay to stay with someone who doesn't treat you well as well as you deserve.

All in all, the concert was a great success. I think it paves the way for a new era of concert in some ways. A ‘higher truth’ of concerts, if you will, which not only includes music and song writing of the highest standard, but also a guiding hand for fans. She is in a position of enormous influence and power, and she’s not about to shirk her responsibilities. Everybody could learn a thing or two from the, somewhat unlikely, prophet of our times – because Taylor Swift is not just a musician: she’s a role model, and a friend.

P.S. One couldn't write an article about Taylor in the last week without a shout-out to her taking on Apple. Underestimate Taylor Swift at your peril - very few artists would have stood up to a corporate giant to fight for the rights of budding musicians. Even fewer would have won.

I Shot The Sheriff: Why do news stories focus on perpetrators rather than victims?

On Wednesday 17th June 2015, at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, nine people were shot dead. A 21-year-old Dylann Roof has been named as the perpetrator, with witnesses saying he spent an hour inside the church before opening fire. He then drove away.

Now, thanks to the media, we know everything there is to know about Dylann Roof: his birthday, his birthplace, his criminal record, his family members, even what he was wearing in his Facebook profile picture. This man is famous (at least for the next few weeks). Everyone knows his name.

But what about the victims? Mentions of them personally are few and far between. The lack of media coverage of the victims themselves seems to me to be, at best, inadvertent and at worst downright offensive. I couldn't name a single one of the nine victims from the Charleston Shooting, yet the man who started it all has his life-story splashed all over the cover of every major newspaper in the world.

What's more, instead of being referred to by name, many of the newspapers simply refer to the congregation of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as just that: victims. "Six women and three men were killed". Ageless, family-less, generic victims. No one knows what they were wearing in their Facebook profile pictures. Except their families, of course. Their loved ones, lying at home, devastated after having their family members massacred by a white terrorist America don't want to call a terrorist. Why do we continue to focus on perpetrators who committed appalling acts as opposed to those who have lost their lives?

Sadly, this issue is not limited to the Charleston Shooting. Back in 2012, Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people on Utoya island in Norway. For weeks, Brievik's picture was on front pages, starting with the incident itself and then moving onto his upbringing and life-style, all the way through to his trial and ultimate conviction. But it doesn't stop there. As recently as the 22nd of February this year, Breivik was the subject of yet another Guardian news story, as it was announced that Asne Seierstad, a Norwegian author, had written a book about the incident based on testimonies.

I am not saying that one cannot find the victims of any these crimes if they choose. Many of the national newspapers do eventually produce a comprehensive list of the victims. What is more, I fully support the argument that the victims' families, understandably, want privacy at the devastating time in their lives. One might make the argument that it is easier to refer to just one shooter, as opposed to the, sometimes huge, number of victims, but I believe this to be selective use of information. A counterexample is this: newspapers across Britain report the football scores every weekend, for every major club game. There are twenty Premier League clubs alone, which means that the media report on ten games of football a weekend (not including all other sports fixtures). And that's just a game.

Nor am I saying that newspapers shouldn't mention the perpetrators at all: one has to critically evaluate what went wrong in order to implement future change. However, there is no excuse for allowing the victims to be faceless.

So my plea to newspapers is this: please try and honour the wishes of the deceased's family. Privacy, if that is what is called for, means privacy. Parading the identity of Dylann Roof on newspapers every morning does not qualify. By all means, discuss how incidents such as these needs to security reforms, but refer to victims by name, not by insensitive generic statements that leave them with no identity and no dignity. Ask the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church or the families of the Norwegian victims what coverage they would like to see, and then honour those wishes. Let's make a concerted effort to stop focussing on the appalling acts of a terrorist, and turn our eyes to those who need our help and support. 

      _____________________________________________________________

For those who are interested, the nine victims of the Charleston Shooting, with their corresponding ages, are as follows. More information can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/charleston-church-victims-profiles

Clementa Pinckney, 41.

Tywanza Sanders, 26.

Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45

Cynthia Hurd, 54

DePayne Middleton-Doctor, 49

Rev Dr Daniel L Simmons Sr, 74.

Ethel Lance, 70.

Myra Thompson, 59.

Susie Jackson, 87.

50 Shades of Grey

Hi all,

Sorry it's been a little while. I'm sure lots of you were waiting with bated breath for my next post...


My article today is entitled 50 Shades of Grey. Unlike my previous posts with book titles as headings this is NOT a book review. I must make it very clear that I have not read that disgusting piece of garbage, or will I be any time soon. However, I feel I know enough about, certainly if not the book then the hype around the book, to make a judgement.

So, 50 Shades of Grey. Let's start with a question that I cannot even begin to answer: what on earth attracts women to it? I mean, it's rape, right? As far as I understand, she, Ana, says no to him, Grey, on several occasions, only for him to carry right on. So, women who have read it: what do you get out of it? Is that what you want your children reading?! You are, by extension, telling your daughters, it's perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even sexually arousing, for a man to carry on if you have said no. Rape is, contrary to popular belief, okay. And for your sons? If a girl says no, don't worry, what she really means is yes.

Because let's make no mistake. The moral of this story is not, 'she says no, he rapes her, there's a big law suit because she reports him and she lives traumatically ever after in years of therapy after being raped'. Rather, the moral is this: 'she says no, but what she really means is yes, and he knows that, so he carries on regardless, and eventually she falls in love with him'. Can anyone truly believe this message is acceptable? All this book does is systematically undermine all forms of sexual abuse in an unparalleled way. I can't even begin to imagine how hurtful this must be for all of the victims of sexual violence there are out there.

What's more, even the BDSM community want nothing to do with it. Many statements that representatives have made when asked make it very clear that the involvement of BDSM in any kind of sexual contact is based on mutual consent executed with care and intimacy, and, most importantly, with the inclusion of 'safe-words', in order to make sure all acts initiated can be stopped any time. There is a (not-so) fine line between BDSM and sexual abuse.

Whilst the content may be somewhat controversial, what is undeniable is the incomprehensible popularity of this franchise. E. L. James earned an estimated $95 in 2013, making her the highest-earning author of that year. Not everyone was a fan though. One of the articles written in the Telegraph about the book, back in February of this year prior to the film's release was entitled "Protect Britain's Women from this sick filth!". Although the sentiment is, on the surface, a well-natured one, I do have a problem with the word "protect". "Protect" implies that we, as the women of Britain, are unable to make our own choices as to whether to read this damaging garbage. "Protect" implies that it is inflicted upon us. It is not.

Not only the Telegraph has a problem though. Over the last few years, I have read countless articles about how the teenage population's use of pornography is disgusting. "Why do they do it?!" the newspapers cry, "what could possibly drive them to watching these abhorrent displays of sexual acts?!".
Let's just stop and think about that for a second shall we? Is there not some kind of phenomenon that actively integrated sexual abuse pornography onto our book shelves and our televisions? Is it not conceivable that through national and well-respected newspapers doing book review after book review and film review after film review of 50 Shades of Grey, a franchise ultimately built on rape porn (which by the way is illegal, E. L. James, in case you missed that memo), that we actually perpetuate this problem? This is a problem now endemic in our society. If you give it airtime, it will continue to spout offensive rubbish. Case in point? E. L. James, who has just released 50 Shades of Grey from Christian Grey's view point, a venture she is sure to make millions from.


So, to conclude, I have really only one message for readers of 50 Shades of Grey, regardless of gender, and it is this.

Congratulations. You successfully undermine victims of rape and all kinds of sexual abuse, and glorify it at the same time. I hope you're very happy with yourselves.

And to E. L. James: I don't really know what to say. You are clearly happy to earn your living from pornography and must be surprised that this particular piece has made it off the top shelf of the newsagents and acquired a bogus literary respectability. But do not deceive yourself; pornography it certainly is, and it contributes to the abasement of women just as surely as under-the-counter material in grubby shops.

               ________________________________________________________________

It is worth noting that in this article, I make very little mention of men who read 50 Shades of Grey, partly because I suspect they are few and far between. If you are a man and you have read the book (for whatever reason) do get in touch.

Lots of love,


Philly