Virginia Woolf would not have a positive reaction to this song due to the way it asserts a separation between men and women. The declaration that “this one is for the girls” does not contain the smallest hint of androgyny. It does, however, show a sense of sisterhood and female relationship, but even that relationship is one that patriarchy assumes exists. It does not open our eyes to the secret complexities in the relationships between women in the same way that the phrase “Chloe liked Olivia” might. The women in this song are reacting to the pressures to look good and be in love. The reactionary nature of this song about girls only perpetuates gender divisions.
Simone de Beauvoir would not appreciate that this song suggests that there is a female essence, especially in the lines “we’re all the same inside from 1 to 99.” Her existential might appreciate the focus on female experience, rather than essence for most of the song (even though that experience is very narrow) but it all gets undone in that line. Not all women are the same inside. It is fortunate that this song does not portray women as either irrational or mysterious. It shows a genuine experience of women in patriarchy, what it feels like for them to be a “second sex.” The lyrics of the song also focus on a woman’s dreams (when it says, “this one is for the girls who love without holding back, who dream with everything they have”), suggesting her transcendence rather than being pure immanence. Even that quote, however might suggest that part of a woman’s worth is in loving with all she has (a man?). There is not a hint of motherhood in the song. It could be a spinster song.
I was going to go about looking at the rest of our feminists, but that would be very long, so for those of you who love to comment, feel free to take on the other feminists too.
I would have to slightly disagree. I think the quote you mentioned ("who love without holding back") can and does apply to motherhood, although it might primarily apply to romance.
ReplyDeleteI also think some of our feminist critics (particularly Cixous, Wittig, and Rich) would not like how this song categorizes people into "women" (or "girls", rather) and "not women". Not only is it not androgynous as Woolf would want, but it is even working to confirm boundaries.
Well, if the bad rhymes and cheesy lyrics weren't enough, this song failed in pretty much every other way. I agree that from a feminist standpoint, this song should be outlawed, and I think that from a cultural studies perspective it also strikes out. She's very clearly engaging in the normal stereotypes of what a traditional female life "should" be: Getting abused at school, spending those precious 20's living off of canned soup (if spaghetti-o's count as soup, which I doubt, but I'm not sure how else to classify them), and then wishing to be young again once forty rolls around. Well doesn't that sound like a peachy life. But that's what we hear life is like all the time through other forms of media and even just daily life. McBride is doing nothing out of the ordinary with this song. She's just enforcing what society seems to have deemed "normal," or the "symbolic order" as Hebdige deems it (2483). I'm not arguing that McBride is creating "noise" in reaction to a subculture - I think she herself in this song is unaware of how much she's promoting social expectations. Even though she appears to be reacting against them by saying stuff like "you're beautiful the way you are" (I am cringing just typing that - can she possibly get more cliche?), she's really just enforcing the ideas that there are certain expected social stages. So ladies, have fun during these less-than-charming times, because that's what we're all suppose to live through, right? Oh but don't worry - Martina McBride will sing a godawful song for you and that will make everything okay.
ReplyDeleteGuys, I think Aubrey might not like this song.
ReplyDeleteWhat gave me away? Then again, I never actually stated I did not like the song, so perhaps you are just drawing out what you think is signified in the assumed signifiers of my rhetoric here, and perhaps you've completely misinterpreted the signs. Language is a tricky thing, after all.....
ReplyDeleteI don't think I misinterpreted the signs. I am fully confident in my ability to interpret your signifiers.
ReplyDeleteAlso: it was "godawful" that tipped me off.
ReplyDeleteThe "godawful" did it? Not the rampage against the cringe-worthy lyrics?
ReplyDeleteBut whatever the case on that, I still feel like the theorists would say a thing or two about this song....if they could be bribed into even listening to it. Just think of H&A: this song is exemplifying their idea that media imposes views on us, and mimics reality in such a way to confuse fiction with truth, and therefore forcing an idea on us. Not that I think McBride is smart enough to be actively doing this - she's just reacting to what she's heard in culture and parroting it. Fail for originality.
Yeah, I would agree. I think most country is doing this actually: attempting to uplift people, but really fairly obviously upholding cultural mores. Once, when I said I didn't like Taylor Swift-- even *gasp* Love Song, the girl I was talking with asked "but don't you like that part where he proposes?". I could not explain to her how the problem with the song WAS what was going on in the lyrics and not anything (particularly) wrong with the actual music.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not like the part where he proposes, if you were wondering.
Yeah, most radio country is pretty banal. Honestly, I've stopped thinking about it too seriously; it's really only meant to be background sing-along. That's not to say that background music can't have negative effects, but honestly, I have a hard time spending time analyzing what has had little intellectual development and even less serious listening over the past 60-odd years that it's been around.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, that's where some of the best critiques stem from, so maybe I need to rethink my stance. Maybe the problem is that I haven't seen this song quoted in a Facebook status yet...