I know that last post was LONG. I might break it into smaller pieces later. So I’m going to try to chunk this one into very small bites so you can get to the end 🙂
The connection between the song and my research snippets will become more and more apparent with each post.
Paris
…I’m so in love that I might stop breathing/Drew a map on your bedroom ceiling/No, I didn’t see the news/‘Cause we were somewhere else/Stumbled down pretend alleyways/Cheap wine, make believe it’s champagne/I was taken by the view/Like we were in Paris/Like we were somewhere else/Privacy sign on the door/And on my page and on the whole world/Romance is not dead if you keep it just yours/Levitate above all the messes made/Sip quiet by my side in the shade/And not the kind that’s thrown/I mean, the kind under where a tree has grown…/…I wanna transport you/To somewhere the culture’s clever/Confess my truth/In swooping, sloping, cursive letters/Let the only flashing lights be the tower at midnight/In my mind
Draw the cat eye, sharp enough to kill a man/You did some bad things, but I’m the worst of them/Sometimes I wonder which one will be your last lie…/…I don’t dress for women/I don’t dress for men…/…Ladies always rise above/Ladies know what people want/Someone sweet and kind and fun/The lady simply had enough
The poetry nearly killed me. So I understand this song is closely related to Emily Dickenson’s life and sapphic lover, but you’ve probably heard it. And I just… Can’t. I went in a different direction, of which I’m not certain if it was Taylor’s intent or Emily’s. But there is a lot of language that had me thinking of the Gnostic Gospels. Disclaimer: I’m not a theologist. This is a very surface-level gathering of information pertaining to the song.
I did this one in several segments so you can see the connection between lyric and Gnoticism better.
Ivy
How’s one to know?/I’d meet you where the spirit meets the bones/In a faith forgotten land/In from the snow/Your touch brought forth an incandescent glow/Tarnished but so grand
Where the Spirit meets the bones:
Faith Forgotten:
Incandescent Glow:
Tarnished but so Grand:
Oh, goddamn/My pain fits in the palm of your freezing hand/Taking mine, but it’s been promised to another/Oh, I can’t/Stop you putting roots in my dreamland/My house of stone, your ivy grows/And now I’m covered in you
Hand…Promised to Another:
Dreamland:
House of Stone:
Your ivy grows and now I’m covered in you:
I wish to know/The fatal flaw that makes you long to be/Magnificently cursed/He’s in the room/Your opal eyes are all I wish to see/He wants what’s only yours
Fatal Flaw… Magnificently Cursed:
Opal:
He wants what’s only yours:
My house of stone, your ivy grows/And now I’m covered/Clover blooms in the fields/Spring breaks loose, the time is near/What would he do if he found us out?
House of Stone:
Clover Blooms in the Fields:
The Shamrock Principle: Mystery, biblical Trinitarian Monotheism and resolving the Problem of the One and the Many
What would he do if he found us out:
The parable of the weeds (Matthew 13: 24–30, 36–43)
In this allegory, the sower is Jesus and the enemy is the Devil. The good seed represents people who listen to and respond to God’s word. These are the people who belong to the Kingdom of God and who will go to Heaven at the end of time. The weeds represent those people who do not listen to God’s word, they are “sons of the evil one” who will go to the fiery furnace of hell at the end of time. The harvest workers are the angels and harvest time is the end of the age.
This means that on Earth, good and bad people will grow and live together. The Kingdom of God will be present amongst the evil of the world. At the end of time people will be separated into their eternal destiny.
How’s one to know?/I’d live and die for moments that we stole/On begged and borrowed time/So tell me to run/Or dare to sit and watch what we’ll become/And drink my husband’s wine
So yeah, it’s a fire/It’s a goddamn blaze in the dark/And you started it/You started it/So yeah, it’s a war/It’s the goddamn fight of my life/And you started it/You started it
Goddamn blaze in the dark:
You started it
It’s a war, it’s the goddamn fight of my life:
Oh, I can’t/Stop you putting roots in my dreamland/My house of stone, your ivy grows/And now I’m covered/In you/In you/Now I’m covered in you/In you
–> if you made it this far, good for you! But don’t worry after my Gay Moments series I’ll publish this in smaller pieces and maybe put together a TLDR
I’m about to finish up the evermore album for my series Taylor Swift’s Gay Moments. Followed by Midnights Gay Moments. The last song is Ivy.
You might be wondering how Taylor Swift’s Ivy relates to Gnosticism relates to queerness. In my main post I’ll show the many connections between Ivy’s lyrics and Gnostic tennants.
Here, I’ll try to convey how Gnosticism, at the very least, can be interpreted through a queer lens.
Gnosticism through a queer lens [III]
-Sophia begets the demiurge who creates the world & humanity
-Sophia tricks Yaldabaoth into passing wisdom to Adam
-Wisdom is Eve and she wakes Adam from his stupor
-Balancing the masculine and feminine within ourselves is required for divine illumination
-Gnostics reject binary, black & white thinking and encourage questioning authority and the status-quo
-The Gnostics gave women a place, where they were sidelined by the orthodoxy
Sophia gives birth to a bunch of bad boys, demigods called archons, including the worst of them all, the demiurge who becomes the creator of this world, infecting it with pride, ignorance, fear, and his lust for power and pleasure.
Finally, Sophia breaks free and ascends back up to the true light of life. Back up in the celestial realm of spiritual light, Sophia rediscovers Gnosis by joining her twin brother in a “marriage” of reunification, balancing the masculine ego of unrealized potential, and uniting it with the sacred feminine – made ever more powerful by adversity – into an androgynous whole. A complete person, full with the knowledge of the transcendent, unified light.
But she refuses to abandon the sad world of humans. She remains present, and in her resurgent power she brings great beauty and spiritual potential to the Earthly realm and its inhabitants.
Witnessing the irresponsible creation of the world by her errant offspring, she divides herself, keeping a part below, ever present and available for the enlightenment of all. Sophia conceals Consciousness in the body of the demiurge’s first man, “Adam,” and then brings it into the world as “Eve.”
For it’s only in the feminine–the channel of creation into the world–that humanity finds the power and compassion necessary to overcome the darkness of ignorance.
Here’s part II (2.5 hours after I initially tried to post it). WordPress pulled a Myspace on me and erased everything when I pressed “schedule” and it was NOT cool. So I don’t know if it’s all here, but I’m tired of messing with it.
Gnostic Creation Story [II]
-The True God
-Aeons
-demiurge (Yaldabaoth/Ialdabaoth)
-archons/rulers
-Adam, then Eve
-the material world, then humanity
Disclaimer/Trigger Warning:
There will be discussion about religion. I am simply reporting facts and history as I found them (through very cursory online searches) so please don’t @me with theological debate or complaints.
The deficiency of the demiurge is that he lives in ignorance of this fact. He created the world and formed all matter under the presupposition that he was doing it of his own accord. He did not perceive the invisible forefather working through him. Truly we all work with these archangels as at our core we are the invisible forefather and all of our thoughts stem from a higher angelic power. Higher as to say that they are from higher plane than the matter that we perceive ourselves to be. But truly we are not the body, we are the spirit that has been manifested into the bodies that we occupy. And we have a soul that is the mediator between the two. The Soul is our field for planting the seeds which we wish to grow in our kingdom and the archangels that we wish to have serve us are what we choose to grow. So be a farmer in the service of the good and the fruits that your kingdom will bear will be of the good.
Betty, I won’t make assumptions/About why you switched your homeroom but/I think it’s ’cause of me/Betty, one time I was riding on my skateboard/When I passed your house/It’s like I couldn’t breathe…/…Betty, I know where it all went wrong/Your favorite song was playing/From the far side of the gym/I was nowhere to be found/I hate the crowds, you know that/Plus, I saw you dance with him/You heard the rumors from Inez/You can’t believe a word she says/Most times, but this time it was true/The worst thing that I ever did/Was what I did to you/But if I just showed up at your party/Would you have me?/Would you want me?/Would you tell me to go fuck myself?/Or lead me to the garden?/In the garden would you trust me/If I told you it was just a summer thing?/I’m only seventeen, I don’t know anything/But I know I miss you/I was walking home on broken cobblestones/Just thinking of you when she pulled up like/A figment of my worst intentions/She said “James, get in, let’s drive“/Those days turned into nights/Slept next to her, but/I dreamt of you all summer long/Betty, I’m here on your doorstep/And I planned it out for weeks now/But it’s finally sinkin’ in/Betty, right now is the last time/I can dream about what happens when/You see my face again/The only thing I wanna do/Is make it up to you/So I showed up at your party/Yeah, I showed up at your party/Will you have me?/Will you love me?/Will you kiss me on the porch/In front of all your stupid friends?/If you kiss me, will it be just like I dreamed it?/Will it patch your broken wings?/I’m only 17, I don’t know anything/But I know I miss you/Standing in your cardigan/Kissin’ in my car again/Stopped at a streetlight/You know I miss you
Sometimes, lesbian poets who were not out tried hiding their poems of intense love for women as romantic friendships or sisterly bonds. This sometimes forces historians (and us) to “queer” the poetry and call it lesbian poetry.
Other times, lesbian poets attempted to veil a sapphic inspiration under the guise of writing from a male’s perspective.
This will be long. If you’re interested in specific, females writing under pseudonyms, that are somehow associated with queerness read on. If not, you’ve got the gist already.
[This makes me think of Lavender Haze, bearding arrangements, needing a man to legitimize talent and succeed in business. Think Dorthea = Taylor’s reluctance to marry a man. Karlie wanting a comfortable family life and ending up with a Ku$hner.]
Trigger warning: Poaching
[read her entire Wiki, she was in the Air force, CIA, and instrumental in 2nd wave feminism (among many other things.]
This is why I think writing from a male perspective is inherently queer (whether the writer identifies that way or not). It’s kind of a queer tradition to deviate from gender norms and heterosexist traditions. As you can see a lot of queers (used as umbrella for lesbian, bisexual, NB, unlabeled, fluid in this instance) use male pseudonyms for various reasons. Two of those reasons: Obscure same sex attraction in the book or remove oneself from the narrative within the book. And the other is to embody the opposite gender in the text without tipping off the audience. Taylor might have written James “from a male perspective” within the song Betty for these very reasons.
What did you think I’d say to that?/Does a scorpion sting when fighting back?/They strike to kill and you know I will/You know I will…/…Every time you call me crazy/I get more crazy/What about that?/And when you say I seem angry/I get more angry/And there’s nothin’ like a mad woman/What a shame she went mad/No one likes a mad woman/You made her like that/And you’ll poke that bear ’til her claws come out/And you find something to wrap your noose around/And there’s nothin’ like a mad woman…/…But no one likes a mad woman/What a shame she went mad/You made her like that
Visibility is imperative. Pushing norms is progress. But disguising the objectification of women for the male gaze as empowered feminism is super-problematic, and that’s what is happening here. Cardi b and Meghan Thee Stallion’s Grammys 2021 performance was supposed to push boundaries, and shock. And it did! Madonna pushed boundaries of female sexuality with her cones and simulated sex scene prior to this. But I see the Miley Cyrus/Robin Thicke twirking on all the negative YouTube videos for ‘top 10 cringe moments’, ‘celebs that are problematic’, ‘people who got cancelled’, etc, etc… And let’s not forget how Janet Jackson was ENDED over a fraction of a sec of nipple pasty action at the Superbowl. Can you say, double standard?!
Anyway, I keep seeing a lot of arguments for the merits of this song/performance because it matches what men do. Men have scantily-clad women on their videos, demean women as “bitches” (and far worse) in their lyrics, talk about sexual acts in explicit detail, and are “pimps” when they rack up the number of women they conquer. So people are arguing it’s cool that now women can do that too.
Except here’s the thing:
Feminism isn’t doing whatever you want or being as disgusting as men, it is breaking away from objectification, truly empowering the individual self and collective group of women.
Joining in on objectification of women is not empowerment!
em·pow·er·ment (N)- Authority or power given to someone to do something. “individuals are given empowerment to create their own dwellings” the process of becoming stronger and more confident, especially in controlling one’s life and claiming one’s rights.
This performance isn’t about women owning their bodies, sexuality, or controlling the narrative. This is women selling their image in a package that men like in order to make money and gain fame in the small niche that female rap artists have carved out.
Women in this patriarchal society have to fit in a box–the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Women in music, already in that narrow box of patriarchy, have to fit into an even smaller box of being a role model to girls while having sexual appeal for the general public. The rap category is an even teenier box a couple of select women have to fit in to keep going. In the end, the box is so small and limited, there is no space left.
People online are praising the performance as visible female sexuality, black women owning their own bodies, and empowerment. Which, I agree might be present (though in this writing, I’ll argue it’s in diluted form). I felt the performance was harmful to women’s progress. What I don’t want to do is add the the terrible narrative that black women’s sexuality is wild/animalistic/scary/out of control that colonialism, racism, sexism, and patriarchy has painted it. I find the performance harmful because it is misogyny in feminist clothing, to borrow the sheep expression.
I know there’s a whole song, and the music video that goes with it. I don’t know much about either so my critiques are based solely on the following video of the 2021 Grammy performance:
My racap of the action:
-A stripper pole-references the men’s domain of the strip club where women take off clothes and dance suggestively for men’s entertainment. -Cardi B backs up and puts her butt-crack on the pole. Side-note: Butt implants are for men. A women can die getting plastic surgery to enhance her body. Her clothes will fit differently. She will have to move differently, walk differently, lay down differently than she did before putting plastic in her butt. And she may have complications later. Leaking, autoimmune issues, cancer… This is not for a woman’s pleasure–women’s butts are not an erroneous zone, or secondary sex characteristic. A big butt is for men’s pleasure. -In case the viewer couldn’t put it together, a giant, clear plastic stripper platform shoe flanks the stage. The type of shoe men like to look at, but women have trouble walking effectively in, and certainly running from danger is out of the question in such a shoe. It shows the power dynamic–females are weakened by such a shoe but men get pleasure from them wearing the shoe. Men are in power here. The women are just props for them to use to achieve sexual gratification. -Other suggestive moves that drive home this is a performance to cater to men’s sexual desire: Splay legs, she grabs/rubs her puss, gyrating hips and doing suggestive humping dance moves. Cardi B elevates and licks her own leg. Countless squats split legged. Laying with legs far apart on the bed. Crawling on the bed. Split legged humping. Laying on her back with split legs. The two women crawl toward each other on bed. They scissor their legs together. [Pet-peeve] this is NOT a thing! I mean, it might technically exist in the way the pile-driver is a thing, but not used in real life, it’s only for porn. This scissoring maneuver is performative and it’s is ignorant/Lesbphobic. As a matter of fact, if two out, butch lesbians did the same move, I’ll bet the reaction would be totally different. Then to finish the show, more split legs.
Here’s the test to know if it’s empowering feminism or if it’s misogyny:
a) if this is two women owning their own bodies, displaying confidence and empowerment
OR
b) this is a sexually suggestive performance for the male gaze
In the above video and descriptive paragraph, trade out the women for men.
Have you seen men doing a similar performance before? Does it seem like the same type of performance? Would it garner the same reaction?
I’d say fail.
You do not/would not see two men: Dancing on a pole. Licking their own leg. Crawling toward another man on a giant bed. Or scissoring legs together with another man…
This is not women owning their sexuality. This is objectifying & commodifying women for the male gaze.
Research by Calogero has shown that the male gaze can have detrimental effects on women’s self-esteem and self-objectification, leading to increased body shame and a worsened mental state. The male gaze creates a power imbalance. It supports a patriarchal status quo, perpetuating women’s real-life sexual objectification.
So that’s why I don’t like it. I’m not even going to mention being role model for girls, b/c the conservatives always trot out “save the children!” to shame women. But I will say it would be nice if society was better at recognizing misogyny. I can understand why it’s difficult because it’s ubiquitous and pervasive. But we need to educate ourselves a lot better, because things are still BAD for women. And I would love to see women being successful by truly own their own bodies and sexuality in an empowering way. I hope it happens.
Do I think this album has some catchy (old term) radio-worthy songs? Indeed. Does it deserve Grammy nominations? MMm, I don’t know if anything here was substantial enough to warrant that. Do I think Taylor Swift was featured on one of these songs? Yes I do. I don’t care what anyone says, I can hear it. Maybe someday the truth will be revealed.
Never Really Over: Perry really knows what she’s doing when she picks (does she write her own stuff?) her songs. This first track immediately grabs the listener by the ear and pulls them into the album. It’s got that hook. Masterfully catchy.
Cry About It Later: That gallop beat! It makes it exciting, it makes the song good for dancing and running alike. And it’s a cool thought to have fun now and feel pain later. The guitar interlude in the latter part of the song took it into retro territory, which I think was unintended.
Daisies: Did Taylor Swift write this, did she sing at all, and is she credited? It has her stamp all over it. I am pretty sure that’s Taylor’s voice, like you can especially hear it come in on 0.26 sec. And blended with Perry’s voice on 0.44. And on 0.52. Also 1.20 and 1.34. After 2.16, it’s an obvious duet, so I don’t understand why she’s not credited… Other than Kaylor reasons… You can hear it well at these time stamps: 2.32, 2.37, 2.42. Or if it’s words that are easier for you to hear: “nowhere” “ cover me in daisies” too. Daisy is a decidedly Kaylor symbol. Lyrics like, “put our hopes in a box in the attic” and “take those sticks and stones, I could build a house” and “tell me that I’m crazy”
Resilient: The optimism in this song rings genuine, which I like. Perry can easily veer into the superficial, and that didn’t happen here. The imagery of a flower growing through the cracks of concrete is both nice, and holds up. And she sticks with the metaphor throughout the song (other than one gold reference), so that’s good.
Not the End of the World: Gosh, how many ways can I say that Perry knows how to pick material that is a catchy, ear-worm? This is too. Nice fast speed, some neat background tricks (ghost laughter) with the production. A sample phrase, but blended within the song beautifully, so it’s meshed, not separated. Gets stuck in my head every, damn, time.
There were several bland love songs in between.
Harleys In Hawaii: I am not a fan of the lyrics. It’s cheesy drivel. But the song got points for production value and that sustained note Perry sings toward the end.
Only Love: Has some nice choral backing, and a pretty acapella outro.
What Makes a Woman: I think it’s good to ask what makes a woman. So that society at large, can realize a lot of it is performative, and not the characteristics that actually define the female. Women can be anything. And Perry ( clumsily) points this out. Hair length, softness of skin, and makeup really don’t matter. I’m not a fan of bringing up bitch to describe women, nor do I like the over-the-top compliments to women, for biological things beyond control. Perry gets halfway to a feminist perspective, in challenging factors that define the traditional feminine. But she also misses the point that women are also no better than men. That’s not what feminism is going for. We just want to be treated as people, no worse, but also no better. So C+ for broaching a stigmatized subject, but points off for not entirely understanding the goal. Also, that last line is a rhyme cheat, “turnin” and “woman” do not rhyme.. But good overall effort. And thanks for the bravery for putting this out there when our patriarchal society makes feminist a bad word.
kit10phish.wordpress.com 
Catty Remarks