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.
