It may be more than a year later, but feminists are still angry that pop songstress Taylor Swift refused to endorse Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign — and worse, they're still writing about it.
Marie Claire magazine — of course, a publication right near the top of everyone's list of resources for all things political — slammed the singer on Tuesday, branding her a coward for staying mum on the subject of Trump, and then failing to address her political apathy on her new album, "Reputation."
The magazine, which, on the same article, advertises a story about what happens when regular women dress in Kim Kardashian-esque skin tight clothing (spoiler alert: they look stupid), demanded Swift address the "controversy" during her promotional tour.
If Taylor thinks that her public fallout with Kimye was the most damning public relations nightmare she endured last year, then she should probably expand her news diet. Fall of 2016 saw a slew of celebrities become outspokenly involved in the political process, as they should have.
Should they have? Really? Most Americans were probably just fine before Mark Ruffalo began lecturing them on environmental policy on Twitter, and Debra Messing started pushing her pro-Clinton politics on her social media audience.
Taylor most likely kept her politics to herself because she's a good businesswoman. Why alienate half of your fan base and guarantee your next album flops? If most people aren't going to be swayed to a candidate by a pop star, it's not worth the potential fallout. Heck, look at Katy Perry; after endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton, Perry announced that she was becoming a new-and-improved socially aware version of herself.
That album (not shockingly) tanked. But Perry did get a live lesson in woke-ness, so at least she got some personal fulfillment.
Not content with merely calling Swift out for her apathy, Marie Claire goes on to express a second opinion that literally no one shares.
Whether she likes it or not, Taylor's politics (or her perceived political apathy) are a part of her reputation, and a song addressing or at least acknowledging that (even if the song did not address her personal politics) would have been welcome.
Taylor voted. She said nothing. And she still sold more albums in a day than the previous recordholder sold in the first week, so clearly no one's begrudging the poor woman her privacy.
Once Marie Claire has finished admonishing poor Taylor for being un-woke, it goes after her for being "unfeminist." Apparently, one can't simply call oneself feminist and then fail to fully endorse the Democratic Party platform. Since Taylor stubbornly refuses to get arrested protesting for Planned Parenthood, or sport a pink-knit "Pussy Hat" in public, her commitment to women's empowerment is as fake as her hair extensions.
Perhaps the strangest part of the Marie Claire article isn't that it's angry with Taylor Swift, but that Marie Claire's editors are still angry with Swift one year after the election. They should take some advice from Taylor and "shake it off."