Hi there, everyone, my faithful audience, sorry for not having written for such a long time, though this particular subject has been haunting me since the hot and leisure days of summer, where one of my dear friends found this song, the Pussycat Doll's Hush Hush interesting enough to share it with us, helpless listeners, on a long journey towards water, pools, sun and bathing suits. Curious enough, these are the characteristics of a successful pop song as well. Let's take a closer look on these, apparently so harmless lyrics and see what they are saying about the "modern relationship".
The song starts with the powerful and representative voice of the group's main (and only, i might add) singer, who at that same moment begins to enlist the reasons why she doesn't want to be in a relationship with her partner. Even if the verses of this part aren't understood, the blissful ignorant can't enjoy the melody for too long, since the theme and effect of the song will develop sooner than expected: there comes the desperate, whining tone of the refrain, which none can be so fortunate as to mistake: it is a woman's last wish in a break-up, the testament of a dying relationship.
So why does she want to break up? First she's stating out what she, and let's be honest, all women detest about men, and that is: pretending they know best, and bragging about it, correcting the apparently false ideas the fair and gentle sex has about such brutal and non-ladylike things as life in general and business, money and human nature in particular. Yes, definitely, we could do without that. But then they creep in, all the other characteristics which women actually like in men, and for long centuries have valued their company for them: to be strong, to give help, to express certain things in words (as well), to be there everyday. So why are those things rejected? And isn't the whole relationship rejected with this? From an evolutionarily point of view, a study concerned with the survival of the race, there definitely is a need for couple life. The pair formed of the human male and female should stay together at least for the sake of the baby (that is: the next generation, the future of the race) for quite a long time, since not only the baby alone, but neither the mother alone is fit enough to provide for the survival of the child in the early ages.
The feminist movements, which protested about the too literal reading of this theory, indeed helped on the unfavourable status of women deserted to the kitchen and nursery by the industrial revolution's division of labour in the families. But please, let's be reasonable, we're light years form that age, if not in all the world, then on the parts where they dress as those in the video, and if not in all social classes, then most certainly in those which the singer(s) represent(s). Because in the time and place of primitive farming and grain cultivating, there were no unjust, sexist discrimination, which might excuse the fair sex from hard labour, just as there was no pretence that someone could "make it on their own".
So basically, this song expresses that its singer doesn't need any men, for any reasons there could be. Not rejecting them from a feminist point of view, refusing their unfair influence and power over them - no, this guy mentioned in the lyrics doesn't have anything on her. That's why in the extended version, the I will survive insertion seems so misplaced: that's a song about a person in love trying to break free of the unwanted relationship which still overpowers them - here there is no love, there are no bonds, nobody ever doubts that she can survive without him, so no point in proving it.
What this song seems to be saying is that there is no need for men for economic emotional or any purposes at all, and apparently no point in being together just for the sake of love, without ever wanting something from the other. I wander what this pearl of popular culture says about today's romantic relationship. Is it rushing to its end?
The song starts with the powerful and representative voice of the group's main (and only, i might add) singer, who at that same moment begins to enlist the reasons why she doesn't want to be in a relationship with her partner. Even if the verses of this part aren't understood, the blissful ignorant can't enjoy the melody for too long, since the theme and effect of the song will develop sooner than expected: there comes the desperate, whining tone of the refrain, which none can be so fortunate as to mistake: it is a woman's last wish in a break-up, the testament of a dying relationship.
So why does she want to break up? First she's stating out what she, and let's be honest, all women detest about men, and that is: pretending they know best, and bragging about it, correcting the apparently false ideas the fair and gentle sex has about such brutal and non-ladylike things as life in general and business, money and human nature in particular. Yes, definitely, we could do without that. But then they creep in, all the other characteristics which women actually like in men, and for long centuries have valued their company for them: to be strong, to give help, to express certain things in words (as well), to be there everyday. So why are those things rejected? And isn't the whole relationship rejected with this? From an evolutionarily point of view, a study concerned with the survival of the race, there definitely is a need for couple life. The pair formed of the human male and female should stay together at least for the sake of the baby (that is: the next generation, the future of the race) for quite a long time, since not only the baby alone, but neither the mother alone is fit enough to provide for the survival of the child in the early ages.
The feminist movements, which protested about the too literal reading of this theory, indeed helped on the unfavourable status of women deserted to the kitchen and nursery by the industrial revolution's division of labour in the families. But please, let's be reasonable, we're light years form that age, if not in all the world, then on the parts where they dress as those in the video, and if not in all social classes, then most certainly in those which the singer(s) represent(s). Because in the time and place of primitive farming and grain cultivating, there were no unjust, sexist discrimination, which might excuse the fair sex from hard labour, just as there was no pretence that someone could "make it on their own".
So basically, this song expresses that its singer doesn't need any men, for any reasons there could be. Not rejecting them from a feminist point of view, refusing their unfair influence and power over them - no, this guy mentioned in the lyrics doesn't have anything on her. That's why in the extended version, the I will survive insertion seems so misplaced: that's a song about a person in love trying to break free of the unwanted relationship which still overpowers them - here there is no love, there are no bonds, nobody ever doubts that she can survive without him, so no point in proving it.What this song seems to be saying is that there is no need for men for economic emotional or any purposes at all, and apparently no point in being together just for the sake of love, without ever wanting something from the other. I wander what this pearl of popular culture says about today's romantic relationship. Is it rushing to its end?
No comments:
Post a Comment