By stacy lee kong

Hi! This is the last regular newsletter of the year and as usual, I’m looking back on the writing I feel most proud of. Of the 41 newsletters I published this year, these are my favourites (in chronological order): the one about the politics of Rihanna’s pregnancy reveal, the one about NOW magazine’s irresponsible coverage of trans issues, the one about Beef’s David Choe, the one about media coverage of Jordan Neely’s killing, the one that argues the future of journalism is independent, the one about Jonah Hill, the one about the men’s loneliness crisis, the one about Joe Jonas waging a PR battle with his ex, Sophie Turner—and losing, the one about the manosphere and the one about Beyoncé, plus, of course, the writing I’ve been doing about Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine. I also feel really proud to have published guest posts from some of my favourite culture critics, including Niko Stratis, Ishani Nath and Russ Martin. And, not a newsletter, but this year’s gift guide was super fun, if I do say so myself.

But, there were a lot of things I didn’t write about this year, for various reasons. Sometimes there was a bigger story that week, sometimes I needed to think a bit longer before I could come up with a take, and sometimes notable things happened on weeks where I wasn’t planning to write a newsletter. I think it can be interesting to look back on those ideas, though, because they’re often still relevant, or at least interesting, even if they’re no longer trending. So, here are 5 (yes, and a half) things I didn’t write about this year, but wish I had.

Remember when Jennifer Aniston accused Jamie Foxx of antisemitism?

In early August, some entertainment news outlets reported that Jennifer Aniston had liked an Instagram post by Jamie Foxx that some people were interpreting as antisemitic. The post, which Foxx soon deleted, said, “They killed this dude name Jesus...what do you think they'll do to you???! #fakefriends #fakelove.”

According to A Wider Frame, a Jewish news outlet, this was an example of deicide, an antisemitic trope that blames all Jewish people for Jesus’ death. There’s just one thing: among Black Christians, it is super common to reference Judas’ betrayal of Jesus when talking about disloyal people—which is what Foxx was doing. (The #fakefriends #fakelove hashtags were a good context clue here.) Of course, Aniston didn’t know that either, and she responded by rushing to social media to proclaim her innocence. She posted an IG Story that said, “This really makes me sick. I did not ‘like’ this post on purpose or by accident. And more importantly, I want to be clear to my friends and anyone hurt by this showing up in their feeds — I do NOT support any form of antisemitism. I truly don’t tolerate HATE of any kind. Period.”

What happened next was very predictable: the story went viral, with many headlines proclaiming that Foxx had made an antisemitic post. He deleted and apologized, and eventually the discourse died down. But this was, as the Times of Israel pointed out at the time, a culture clash that raised important questions: “When should audiences read prejudice into ostensibly anodyne statements? How should advocates react when they detect signals of hate? How should the public judge apologies against the statements they have come to apologize for? How much does context matter — and which context counts?”

I think a conversation about how words and phrases can mean different things to different communities, and an honest reflection on whose interpretation is perceived as valid, is especially relevant post-Oct. 7, when accusations of antisemitism have been leveraged against people calling for Palestinian liberation, especially if they use the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s actions. (Ask me how I know.) As I’ve noted before, Canadian media critic Jesse Brown has made these exact allegations about the Toronto Star’s Shree Paradkar because she has cautioned against taking the Israeli government’s version of events at face value without independent verification, criticized its treatment of Palestinian people and called for a ceasefire. We’ve also recently seen similar conversations about words like ‘martyr,’ ‘intifada’ and ‘jihad,’ which have long been decontextualized and assigned terroristic overtones in the West as a way to demonize Arab people, as language rights advocacy group Respond Crisis Translation pointed out when CNN’s Abby D. Phillip did exactly that. Some pro-Israel organizations also say slogans like “from the river to the sea” are inherently genocidal, and therefore antisemitic (though that doesn’t seem to apply when Israelis say it). Simply wearing a keffiyeh can be perceived as antisemitic! But none of these examples are antisemitism, and in fact, it is dangerous to characterize them as such.

At the same time, non-Palestinian allies are sometimes using inaccurate or antisemitic rhetoric, as theoretical cosmologist and particle physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein pointed out in a November 22 Twitter thread about Susan Sarandon being dropped by her talent agency after her statements at a pro-Palestine protest—comments that did downplay the reality of being Jewish in the West right now, for the record. “One of the things I know that I and others are finding hard is that sometimes non-Palestinian allies are saying shit that is at best inaccurate & at worst antisemitic because they think it is pro-Palestine and since worse things are happening now it can be hard to raise the point,” Prescod-Weinstein said. “I hope we can hold all of that at once and not be distracted from the need for a long term ceasefire and ultimately justice and liberation for Palestinians[.] I also hope that all of us allies are thoughtful about what rhetoric we attach to this movement for Palestine.”

I don’t have a tidy conclusion to this, except to say that, as always, multiple things can be true—and parsing these truths can be complex and contradictory, so we have to have these conversations with sensitivity. The only way we actually get to a united and equal society is to be very intentional and careful not to bring injustice with us. So, we have to call it out when it comes up, even unintentionally. (Which is also why we can’t allow antisemites to gain a foothold in these progressive spaces under the guise of pro-liberation politics.)

Pop culture is full of important labour stories, and Lizzo’s lawsuits are proof 

Like a lot of people, I was super disappointed when a trio of Lizzo’s former dancers (Crystal Williams, Arianna Davis and Noelle Rodriguez) filed a lawsuit against her, her production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, and her dance captain, Shirlene Quigley, alleging they were exposed to a hostile work environment on tour, including weight shaming, as well as sexual, religious and racial harassment. And that feeling only intensified when other former employees who were not involved in the lawsuit came forward to support the plaintiffs, and the singer was named in a second lawsuit in September alleging bullying, harassment and racial discrimination.

But even more than the sadness fans are feeling over seeing Lizzo’s message of positivity and self-love become tainted by her own alleged behind-the-scenes behaviour, and what she allowed from her team, I think it’s important to remember this is, at its core, a labour story. In creative industries, labour violations are super common because the type of work, and the way that work gets done, tends to lead to blurred lines between employer and employee, as well as personal time and work time. ‘Professionalism’ doesn’t mean the same thing as it might at an office job, which sets the scene for exploitation to occur. And that’s especially troubling when the alleged victims are young, Black, fat women—people who face multiple marginalizations, lack job security and are often denied professional opportunities—because they are incentivized not to draw attention to this type of behaviour. This should raise questions about other artists and other tours, and perhaps more importantly, about how we can ensure works are treated fairly and feel safe, even in demanding and ‘non-traditional’ work environments.

We don’t know how this is going to go for Lizzo; she has requested the initial lawsuit be dismissed, but as far as I can tell, the judge hasn’t (yet?) granted that request. But even if she’s successful, I hope that we’ll remember the labour aspect of this story, and not just the hypocrisy.

Jonathan Major’s lawyer clearly tried a Johnny Depp-inspired strategy

I mentioned the allegations of domestic violence against Marvel actor Jonathan Majors in April in a larger piece about Ezra Miller and The Flash, but I didn’t go in-depth on the story at the time. In the months since, though, I’ve been paying close attention to his legal strategy and it has become so, so clear that his lawyer is trying to emulate Johnny Depp’s playbook from his defamation trial against Amber Heard, which relied heavily on DARVO, which is an acronym for “deny, attack and reverse victim and offender,” and a common tactic among abusers.

A not-so quick recap: in March, Majors was arrested after an incident involving an unnamed female victim, who has since been identified as his ex-girlfriend, Grace Jabbari. The next day, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office charged Majors with three counts of assault in the third degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, three counts of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. Majors’ lawyer, Priya Chaudhry, went on the offensive early on, releasing a statement saying Jabbari was actually at fault, was in the middle of an emotional crisis and had recanted her testimony in writing. A few weeks after that, Chaudhry released texts that she seemed to think would vindicate her client, but for many people did the opposite. (As Gwendolen Wilder, a domestic abuse expert and a survivor of abuse, told the Daily Beast at the time, “the text messages… appeared to be sent by someone who ‘may have experienced a possible trauma-based response, gaslighting and victim blaming due to the incident in question.’”) In April, Chaudhry sent a video of Jabbari at a nightclub on the night of the alleged assault to a New York court, saying it proves she was uninjured, and therefore lying. In June, Chaudhry blamed racism for his arrest; that same month, he filed a countersuit against Jabbari, claiming she had actually assaulted him.

It seems clear that Chaudhry’s goal was to paint Majors as the victim, both to the courts and to the public, specifically by crafting a narrative that places Jabbari in the role of abuser and taking legal action against her. (The DA’s office officially declined to prosecute Majors’ countersuit in October, saying it “lack[ed] prosecutorial merit.”) She made two major missteps, though: she underestimated the role race and gender would play in this case, and she overestimated the power of Majors’ brand. He’s just not a powerful white man with decades of celebrity under his belt, nor does he have legions of long-time fans who will defend him in every comment section and on every social media platform. Instead, he’s a Black man who wasn’t ever going to get the same presumption of innocence as someone like Depp, especially in the face of damning text, audio and video evidence—of which there is plenty, as we saw during his trial, which wrapped up yesterday. (The jury is deliberating and is expected to deliver a verdict on Friday afternoon.)

That’s not to say he’ll definitely be found guilty; as legal experts told Insider last week, the case “is not a slam dunk” because it’s quite difficult to prosecute domestic violence cases. But despite some Depp stans’ support, this was not the easy win that Chaudhry seemed to expect (and which some news outlets seemed determined to give her; please can we have real court reporters on these major celebrity trials?!). And to understand why, we only have to look at how power works in white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist systems. To be clear, that’s not a defence of Majors. Even just listening to the audio of how he spoke to Jabbari was chilling; it’s so clear that was not a loving or safe relationship for her. There are also important differences between these cases, including that Depp filed a civil suit against Heard while Majors’ case is criminal. But I do think it’s important to note how compelling the Depp school of public relations seems to be for men who are facing abuse allegations—enough that a racialized lawyer and Black man thought it would work here, despite knowing all they must know about social capital, and how race plays into that.

The girlies’ troubling adoption of bioessentialism

This is definitely something I need to think more about before I actually tackle it in a newsletter, but I swear there is a connection between this tweet about the rise of influencers whose content leans “into bioessentialist differences between sexes” and this one about how beauty standards are moving away from prioritizing skill (see: the IG baddie aesthetic) toward prioritizing ‘natural’ beauty—or at least the perception of it (see: ‘good’ skin, hair, lashes, etc.).

The implications of each idea are fascinating (and troubling) on their own, but I think there’s also something important about how these ideas interact when it comes to our definition of femininity, especially for Black, Indigenous, racialized, queer and trans women. I’ve been thinking a lot about a Cut feature I previously linked to about cycle syncing, the idea that we can strategically plan our lives based on the hormonal peaks of our menstrual cycles. The idea is that cis women have more energy during the follicular phase, so they should book workout classes and brainstorming sessions then, while giving themselves permission to rest during their luteal phases. There are just two problems: first, there’s no data to support any of this. And second, as writer Lindsay Gellman points out, this idea “traffics in biological essentialism, holding up the ‘natural’ hormonal cycle as the epitome of womanhood and the locus of feminine power.” This is particularly troubling considering the rise, and mainstreaming, of anti-trans sentiment—which is not just harmful to trans women, but also to any cis woman who doesn’t fit into the white supremacist, Western idea of womanhood.

What ended up happening with Scooter Braun after so many of his big-name clients dropped him?

No analysis here; I’m just wondering.

Confirmed: Taylor Swift is a marketing genius

Which leads me to Taylor Swift. To be fair, I did write about Tay Tay this year, back in May when she was rumoured to be dating Matty Healy. My take at the time was that Swift’s politics remain firmly in the realm of White Feminism, which is why Healy’s racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, misogyny and propensity for extreme porn that degrades women of colour, and especially Black women, weren’t deal breakers for her. I also argued that it’s not unfair to ask what she sees in someone so problematic, because romantic relationships are so often where people’s stated values and actual behaviour diverge.

But the thing I’ve been wanting to write for a while (and which I still might, tbh) is about her marketing prowess. I did touch on the way she controls her image earlier this year, but now we have even better—or at least funnier—examples: namely, her friendship with Sophie Turner and all those hilariously petty memes about how she supported Turner through the latter’s divorce from Joe Jonas (who she’d also dated in 2008), as well as her relationship with Travis Kelce, which feels a little bit like the “You Belong With Me” music video come to life. It’s so fascinating to me that Swift has emerged totally unscathed from the Healy controversy, thanks in large part to the way she delivered news outlets, internet commenters and fans new narratives to run with via photo opportunities and a few judicious interviews.

It's also this marketing prowess that made her Time Person of the Year profile so unsatisfying to me, I think. (Even though I get the argument that she’s actually the perfect person for this honour because she represents the American ideal.) Hearing Swift talk about how Kim Kardashian releasing recordings of her conversations with Kanye West constituted “career death” with no pushback from the writer was so annoying, because while Kardashian’s behaviour was legitimately inaccurate, cruel and illegal in the state of California, and it may have felt terrible to be the main character of the internet during that time, Swift’s career has never actually been in danger of dying. So, wouldn’t it be so much more interesting to unpack how she’s managed to amass the power and influence she has, what she’s using it for, and what her popularity says about Americans’ ideas about American-ness? Maybe I’m just a huge nerd, but I legitimately think the answer to that question is yes.

And Did You Hear About…

On Palestine: Luke Ottenhoff’s excellent piece about how journalists in Gaza and the West Bank are doing their jobs. CNN’s horrifying report from Gaza, published after Clarissa Ward was able to get into southern Gaza to visit a newly built Emirati field hospital. The Breach’s reporting on how Canadian media is suppressing Palestinian voices and perspectives. This really important thread about the assertion that the rate that children are being killed in Gaza is unprecedented, which isn’t accurate and erases the genocide currently underway in Tigray.

On 2023: Rolling Stone’s round-up of memes that defined the past 12 months. (If you also forgot that those big red boots happened this year… same bro 🫠.) NPR’s Best Songs of 2023 list, which allows you to choose a song from the list and get a mixtape of seven more songs. Mashable’s smart analysis of the girl trends that dominated 2023. The Cut’s ranking of 2023’s weirdest, most wonderful (… this might be an overstatement) celebrity meal deals. Also: my recent interview with CHCH about the biggest pop culture moments of the year.

What happens when you try to return something you bought online.

Scaachi Koul on the Housewives franchise, or more accurately, on the ethics of consumption.

The Cait Corrain controversy, which first came to my attention via Xiran Jay Zhao’s TikTok.

This really thoughtful piece about the moral math many women are doing about whether to have children in light of the climate crisis. (Which I think applies to other crises, too.)

Some delightful seasonal Twitter threads: this perpetual fave, this very gluttonous vacation and the 2023 update.

Thank you for reading this week’s newsletter! Still looking for intersectional pop culture analysis? Here are a few ways to get more Friday:

💫 Join Club Friday, our membership program. Members get early access to Q&As with pop culture experts, Friday merch and deals and discounts from like-minded brands. 

💫 Follow Friday on social media. We’re on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and even (occasionally) TikTok.

💫 If you’d like to make a one-time donation toward the cost of creating Friday Things, you can donate through Ko-Fi.