John Mac Ghlionn has a doctorate in psychosocial studies, and works as both a researcher and essayist. He specifically writes articles about social issues, technology, and the impact of media manipulations. Recently he wrote an editorial piece for Newsweek, and it looks like he really stepped in it this time. His article is entitled Taylor Swift Is Not a Good Role Model.
While the title of the article definitely puts a negative slant on Swift, Ghlionn is not all in on the negativity. He also gave her some pretty good props. He began the article:
Taylor Swift is not just a pop icon; she’s an economic powerhouse of epic proportions. When Taylor Swift comes to town, excitement grows, and cash flows. In fact, Swift is so influential that she has even birthed a new branch of economics called “Swiftonomics.” Her current tour, the Eras Tour, has proven to be a veritable goldmine for host cities around the world, generating hundreds of millions in revenue and creating thousands of temporary jobs.
But then Ghilionn goes on to question whether or not that kind of impact is enough to give her a pass on another part of her life that is, perhaps, not quite so wholesome. He writes later in the article:
Swift’s highly publicized romantic life has been a source of prime tabloid fodder for years. She has dated numerous high-profile men—at least a dozen—including the singers Harry Styles and Joe Jonas, the actor Jake Gyllenhaal, and, more recently, the American football player Travis Kelce. This revolving door of relationships may reflect the normal dating experiences of many young women in today’s world, but it also raises questions about stability, commitment, and even love itself. Should we encourage young girls to see the “Swift standard” as the norm, something to aspire to? Or should we be promoting something a little more, shall we say, wholesome? Would any loving parent reading this want their daughter to date 12 different men in the span of just a few years? This is not an attack on Swift; it’s a valid question that is worth asking.
Well, you would have thought he was advocating for baby killing. The haters literally came out of the woodwork. Former tennis great Martina Navratilova wrote on X:
A massive pile of misogynistic bull …This guy should be ashamed of himself and I can’t believe he writes for Newsweek…and they printed it.
(It should be noted that Navratilova has, herself, had numerous relationships over her lifetime, both with men and women. She currently identifies as homosexual and is married to another woman.)
But many others have also jumped on the bandwagon saying things such as:
- (he is) “attempting to “undermine a woman’s success by questioning her role as a ‘good’ role model.”
- “Is this satire? I cannot believe he is actually serious. It’s 2024.”
- “Mac Ghlionn’s opinion is that of a misogynistic man.”
- “And yet another attempt to undermine a woman’s success by questioning her role as a ‘good’ role model.”
- “If my three adult kids are still unmarried and childless by the time they hit 34, I will have done my job of teaching them to build their careers, experience all kinds of life and relationships so they can better choose a long-lasting partner, have a stable home environment … and THEN they can think about spawning.”
And on and on it goes.
What we have here are two very different visions of morality from two different worldview platforms.
One platform is the one that currently dominates American society. Naturalism is atheistic, so it has no objective means for determining what is moral and immoral. People have to make up their own moral beliefs and standards, and those who have the power to dominate society are the ones who get to impose their beliefs on everyone else. The commenters above have decided that having serial sex partners, making a lot of money, rejecting biblical sexual morality, and having all kinds of experiences are the most important things in life.
The other platform looks to the Bible as its moral authority source. It accepts biblical morality as an expression of how reality is structured.
These two worldview systems literally contradict one another. It is impossible to hold both. That being the case, and since a person’s worldview is the very foundation of their identity, neither side can accept the other’s moral standards. It is certainly possible to be civil to people who hold other beliefs (something there is way too little of these days), but it is impossible to believe both sides.
And this is the source of America’s 21st century culture wars. The only way to win the battle is to win people over to our side. And for Christians, that is our commission from God – to share with them the truth about Christ, and lead them to receive Him.