What In The Gilead Hell, Newsweek?

 

The nerve of this article! Next stop, ladies: Gilead. And I quote:

"At 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless, a fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model. But, I suggest, it's crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift's musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it's a concern rooted in sound reasoning."

"Might" sound like pearl clutching preaching? Might?!?!? How about misogynistic, outdated and just plain rude?

Not certain how Newsweek got stuck in the 1950's, but I have news for the writer of this piece and his editors: he does not have the right to tell Taylor Swift how to use -- or not use -- her own womb.

What kind of role model is this to young girls, you ask? Might I inquire why you are asking if young girls are thinking enough about reproduction, instead of asking if they are thinking about their life dreams, their business plans, and their charitable donation goals in the future? Why aren't you celebrating a woman who feels strong enough and brave enough to create her own life story in the way she wants, that makes her happy, and that she chooses for herself?

Young girls' wombs are not your business, sir. Neither is Taylor Swift's womb. Clearly not your business.

She can decide for herself when, or if, she is ever ready to start a family. She can choose with her own female brain what she does with her own female body. How is that even your business, Newsweek, or anyone else outside of Taylor Swift's circle of family and friends, for that matter? Why is it Newsweek's business how any woman chooses to plan her own family -- or not? That's a bit personal, don't you think?

What about Elon Musk's twelve children by so many women I've lost count? Was that not a topic for discussion for you because you think he's a great example, or just because you thought Taylor Swift would provide you better click-bait traffic? Shame on you.

What the hell, America: women have thoughts, feelings, desires, and plans of their own. You do not own their wombs, nor should you ever even think you should. Motherhood and family matters are personal choices for individual families to make. Period. Full stop. Do you know if maybe she has reproductive issues, in which case perhaps the subject matter is incredibly painful to even discuss and you didn't bother to think about that? No, and honestly, outside of her family, her boyfriend and her friends, how would that be our business anyway? Does she want to wait until she's in a settled, monogamous, safe relationship before bringing a child into the world? Not really your business, either, is it?

How would you like it if people started publicly speculating about your wife or your daughter and their reproductive choices in a publicly printed magazine? Or speculating about their reproductive prospects in the town square? Some opinion writer who has never met you should not be opining about your personal, private, family and individual choices. How did this article even get past editorial meetings?

Excuse me, dude? How is her womb and the decisions she makes about it even your business? How did you even have the audacity to think that this was a good idea? How did your editors not understand that this was a horrible, invasive and completely rude concept for discussion in a nationally distributed magazine? The 1950's called, and they don't want you back.

On my daughter's behalf and mine, and Taylor's for that matter, I am beyond appalled at this ridiculously insulting piece of "know your place, ladies" buffoonery. Just appalling on so many levels at once, I honestly don't even know where to start. #taylorswift