misogynist | Bobbi Ann Johnson Holmes

The Beatles first appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show when I was in the fourth grade. I remember the clutching of pearls by some adults regarding the length of the band members’ hair and their disdain for how emotional fans reacted to the group. I recall my fourth grade teacher telling our class the Beatles were a flash in the pan, a momentary fad, and they wouldn’t be around long. We all know how that prediction worked out.

At the time, I was a Beach Boy’s fan. My older sister, then in junior high, often played Beach Boy records in her bedroom. But the Beatles came along, and my sister started buying their albums, even our mom liked them.

While I enjoyed their earlier music, I wasn’t a fan of the Sargent Pepper era. And I still preferred the Beach Boys.

Had the internet been a thing back then I can’t imagine myself commenting on the Beatle posts coming across my feed, telling the world their music sucked and then saying something nasty about one or more of the band members. Maybe if one of them had done something horrible, but not if they are just living their lives, making their music. Why be snarky about someone I have never met? Who never did anything to me, and as far as I know, never hurt anyone?

Disliking someone’s music—especially a successful musician—does not mean their music is bad. It’s a ridiculously arrogant take to assume your taste in music is the definitive critique. I’m an author and I have readers who love my books, and readers who don’t care for them. Heck, it’s possible some people hate them. But so what? Everyone has different tastes in books and music.

And just because I never cared for the Sargent Pepper era, I can still appreciate and respect the talent of the Beatles and recognize their enormous contribution to music.

This is where I come to Taylor Swift. Until about three years ago, I hadn’t paid much attention to Swift or her music. I was still listening to musicians like Elton John, James Taylor, and the Beach Boys.

But then I joined TikTok about three years ago, and I started paying attention to Swift and her music–especially the lyrics. While I won’t call myself a Swifty, I love some of her songs. I agree with the Swifties and many music critics, Taylor Swift is an extremely talented entertainer and songwriter. She’s also one hell of a businessperson.

She has also proven to be an exemplary employer, considering the significant bonuses she has given to her staff. To the communities who welcome her concerts, she leaves behind generous food bank donations. And to her fans, she sets the example of kindness, inclusivity, and community.

And yet, Taylor Swift has some of the most vitriol haters on the internet who love to leave snarky comments about her. It isn’t just anonymous trolls trash talking, its people like Megyn Kelly and Elon Musk. Why? What bad thing did Taylor Swift ever do to them?

Is it because Swift didn’t want to endorse an adjudicated rapist and felon for president? It seemed like a smart call to me, considering Trump broke his oath of office on day one, proving he has no business in the White House.

Is it because Swift ignored Musk’s offer to give her a baby? An utterly gross and disgusting tweet for Musk to have made.

Some haters take issue with her billionaire status and claim she doesn’t give enough, ignoring all she regularly donates, while at the same time defending Elon Musk for his lack of generosity, insisting he has every right to spend his money as he wants.

One criticism from haters is the claim she is only successful because she had help from a rich dad. While I’m sure her parent’s support helped her—as all of us creatives are helped by support given to us by families—it is her talent and hard work that propelled her career to the heights it reached. Even a favored child of Elon Musk could only go so far in a music career with limited talent. Ironically, someone whose career is not dependent on writing or musical talent, like Trump, would probably never have gotten rich without funding from a rich parent. But those haters of Swift ignore that truth.

An especially ridiculous complaint is that most of her songs are about heartbreak. According to Ai, 30-50% of pop songs are about heartbreak. So what is the problem? Is it just because it’s Taylor Swift? Or because she’s a woman? Also, they bitch that she only writes songs about her breakups, often claiming she’s self-absorbed, with a touch of slut shaming thrown in. I believe this bashing comes from a misogynist lens, as do many of the other negative things said about Swift.

Writers—including songwriters—typically find inspiration from their life experiences. And it may be something we write about decades later. One of Taylor’s gifts is the ability to write a song that her fans see themselves in. Her critics bitch Taylor is writing songs that are all about Taylor, yet Swifties see it different—Taylor gives them songs to which they can relate.

And where is the slut shaming for the male musicians?

Hey, you can hate her music, that is your prerogative. However, there are a lot of very popular musicians whose music I don’t care for, yet I don’t feel compelled to go on social media and leave trash talk comments in threads discussing those musicians.

And I am not talking about legitimate critical discussions about music—done without malice. There is a place for critical reviews. It is like book reviews. It is one thing to leave a negative book review on someplace like Amazon, and another to make it a point to trash talk an author or their books in every post that comes across your social media, letting the world know you hate their books and anyone who does enjoy them has no taste. Makes me think of the expression, “Don’t yuck someone else’s yum.”

It’s not just her music these haters have an issue with, it is the person. But what exactly has Taylor Swift done to deserve such vitriol hurled at her personally?

The truth is none of it is really about Taylor Swift; it’s about her haters. Their comments are not telling us anything about Swift, they are telling us about the person leaving the comment. And just what are they exposing about themselves?

I am a troll. I just like to talk shit, so people pay attention to me.

Successful women make me feel like a loser.

I want her.

Smart women make me feel dumb.

Talented women make me feel bad about myself.

It should be me, not her!

She needs to stop giving such generous bonuses to her crew, because I look like a jerk when I don’t do the same.

Successful, beautiful, unmarried, talented women irritate the hell out of me.

I’m so jealous of her I could scream.

Her success threatens me.

I hate women.

Her success makes me so angry!

Meanwhile, Taylor Swift is out there living her best life, doing what she loves, spreading kindness, bringing joy to millions of fans, and positively contributing to society. Heck, maybe I am a Swiftie after all.

I write about ghosts, but sometimes I write about witches.

While historians once claimed the estimated death toll for people (mostly women) convicted and executed for the charge of witchcraft over the centuries was in the millions, recent studies have brought those numbers down to about 60,000 with 80% being women. While not in the millions, it’s still chilling.

One of those infamous Witch Judges—the one whose ruling set the foundation for the Salem Witch trials—was Sir Matthew Hale, a 17^th century jurist. As a judge he had two innocent women executed after he charged them with witchcraft. How do I know they were innocent? Because there are no such things as witches.

While people today may claim to be witches, the witches Matthew Hale went after were the ones he believed were in league with the devil, cast spells, and could visit people in their dreams. (Or as Danielle of Haunting Danielle calls it, dream hop.)

How did Hale help set the foundation for the horrifying Salem witch trials? They used his legal opinion which recommended allowing spectral evidence. That’s basically when the witness says they had a “dream” about the accused cursing them.

I suspect if one looks up misogynist in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Hale. He condoned marital rape, basically claimed the husband owned his wife’s body. Hale also encouraged husbands to beat their wives. He said they needed it.

Why am I bringing up Sir Matthew Hale? It’s because our SCOTUS seems to think his legal opinion has value.

The “eminent common-law” authorities cited in the SCOTUS recent draft to overturn Roe VS Wade includes Hale. They are using the opinions of some 17^th Century misogynist who participated in witch trials to help justify their ruling. Seriously? Is this where our supreme court is headed?

The fact Hale openly based his legal opinions on his religious beliefs should be enough for our SCOTUS to toss out anything Hale had to say. After all, isn’t our First Amendment supposed to keep the church out of our government? I guess not. Not with this court.

Those two women Hale had executed—during the trial he reminded the jurors that witches existed—the Bible told him so. It’s also his interpretation of the Bible that led him to condone marital rape and encourage beating of wives.

I find it appalling that when justifying their ruling, the SCOTUS majority believed it acceptable invoking the opinions of someone who not only based his legal opinions on his religious beliefs, but someone who clearly hated women.

Oh, I forgot to mention, and this has nothing to do with witches. But the draft had another disturbing passage that jumped out at me.

“…the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

My first response, WTF? Are newborn infants now a commodity? And do they seriously expect women who don’t want a baby to act as brood mare and supply the shortage? Sounds a little like human trafficking to me. I don’t know why they included that bit of information in the report unless they do believe vulnerable women, such as those brutalized, traumatized, and pregnant from rape, can now be forced to fill this shortage. Like I said, sounds like human trafficking to me.

Considering we have over 400,000 children currently in foster care, shouldn’t we be getting them adopted?

Rather than looking for who leaked this chilling brief, I think we need to have a closer look at what our justices are basing their rulings on. From this brief, it seems they find it appropriate to use someone who clearly loathed women and who was willing to execute a woman because her neighbor had a bad dream about her.

Archives

Taylor Swift Hating is Just Pathetic

We aren’t going back to the 1950s; it looks like we might be heading to the 17th Century…