On Tuesday (March 17, 2015) Mic.com published a salty review by Kate Beaudoin that delicately rips Trainor apart for reinforcing “retrograde relationship expectations [which] place heteronormative gender roles into inflexible molds.”

Woah. After your first listen to the song you may agree with that fancy sentence, which after reading several times I understood to mean the following: in telling us these old fashioned things she wants in a relationship, Meghan Trainor is doing a disservice to women, who should instead want and need things more becoming of a modern woman.

But while Beaudoin was clearly attempting to write as a faithful feminist, she ultimately undermines the very ideals of feminism she means to defend. The simple meaning behind (but not so far behind) the song’s lyrics and video narrative seem to be totally lost on her.

Simply put, the lyrics are about what Meghan (not any other woman) wants and needs in order to be happy; simple things like flowers on her anniversary, time spent together, dibs on the left side of the bed, a not-dirty mind, a ring, chivalry, etc. The worst we can say about these things are that they are traditional.

Meanwhile, the video narrative is about her rejecting the guys that try to give her things she doesn’t want like corny romantic outings, gourmet food, and virility.

(Just one example of Beaudoin getting it terribly wrong has her ridiculing Trainor for balking at one of her suitors’ weakness at the carnival’s High Striker. In fact, Trainor is balking at his very attempt to impress her with strength, something she could care less about. She’s disapproving before he even tries, and eventually tells him to stop. If that weren’t enough proof, in the end, it’s the skinny guy with the pizza that wins. How could Beaudoin have missed this?)

What it appears to come down to in the end for Beaudoin, is that Trainor’s wants and needs are too traditional, too stereotypical to be had or shared by any respectable modern woman. But this is terribly wrong.

True feminism is not about burning particular volumes of wants and needs from the feminine library. It is about empowering women to constantly expand that library with their own unique voice, and to insist that this library remains open to all women as it grows, so that their right to identify and perform in any area of society is protected.

Kate Beaudoin’s piece is clear evidence of how the basic tenets of true, original feminism are eroding. Suggesting that the items on any woman’s list are inappropriate for her to have or share runs contrary to the very core of feminism.

This erosion comes from the clumsy confrontation of damaging stereotypes and societal norms.

We notice that, like a pendulum stuck in mid-swing, things aren’t moving in the right direction, or at all.

So, as we dislodge the pendulum we become wary of it swinging into the area it was once stuck, even if that area of experience is legitimately and healthily shared by many!

The tendency is to say, “We’ve been stuck over here for so long, we need to make sure the pendulum stays way over on the other side and never returns.”

This is a great example of how the misuse of important liberal values such as protection of the weak can be dangerous. Because when the pendulum swings back into that sticky zone (and it will) we will marginalize those for whom a “traditional,” or “stereotypical,” or “inflexible mold” is a genuine, healthy experience.

This is what Kate Beaudoin has done to Meghan Trainor. Trainor’s song has brought the pendulum back over to the traditional, stereotypical, but genuine and healthy wants and needs of a woman, and Beaudoin is doing her best to push the pendulum away by ridiculing Trainor for all to see.

The evolution of social ethics requires that we keep the pendulum swinging in all directions, so that it covers the full spectrum of human experience, even that part of the spectrum where we were once stuck, but many still happily live.