Talk:Girly girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm. Are you actually talking about women? If so, the word girl shouldn't really be used (except in the title and the phrase). How about "Girly girl is a derogatory slang term for a young woman" etc...?

Unless the term really is used only for adolescents? Evercat 12:59 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually I think it's almost always used for adolescents only. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever met an adult who behaves this way. LordK 09:39 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've heard the term used for young adults too. And I think this kind of behavior is not uncommon at any age. The term girly girl (or perhaps femme) would only be used in contexts where more masculine behavior is expected or norm (eg. among lesbians). -- Kimiko 11:52 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Adolescents, young adults - pretty much the same thing. I know we like to think that everybody grows up at the age of eighteen but many people continue to behave like children until 30 or beyond. Also, the phrase is not used only by lesbians but by anybody who disrespects traditional stereotypes (which is a lot of people of both sexes these days). LordK 12:03 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think Kimiko was sort of on the right track. Girly Girl is typically used when it's the exception. I mean, most third person identifiers are used that way, but this term is very subjective and largely dependent upon the surrounding circumstances. Both adolescents and young adults called girly girls would be those seen as MORE stereotypically femminine than their peers. As for the term being aplied to lesbians, I haven't heard it much, as femme (opposite of butch, a lesbian who adopts traditional female gender role) seems to be the preferred term. In fact, I haven't heard the phrase used much at all since the Riot Grrrl days. And if you really don't think you've met any adults who match this description, I can tell you that in the fashion world they are the norm (so the term isn't really used there). Paige 14:54 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but describing the average fashion model as an "adult" is stretching the definition somewhat. LordK 15:40 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd second that, based on my experiences, but I'm also very jealous of some of them and I don't want to be a hater. (:P) But it's not just the models, a lot of them are more conscious of the image they put forward, but it's common for women in fashion to be very girly. Paige 16:27 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well of course there is nothing wrong with being "girly" - its just that some girly girls - not all - take "being girly" to an extreme - though maybe its a reaction to the increasingly "unisex" lifestyle/behaviour among females - girly girls just want to stand out and be less like boys and there is nothing wrong with that. PMelvilleAustin 15:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much is reactionary as opposed to those women simply identifying with the traditional gender role, for whatever reason. Everyone, male and female, fits in on the gender spectrum at a different point with regard to behavioral, social and psychological traits. If you put 100% stereotypically female on one end and 100% macho man on the other, most people are somewhere in the middle. Personally, I think that for women in th middle to point fingers at those women who are further toward the female side of the spectrum (ie girly girls) is just as bad as transphobia. Prejudice is prejudice, right? Paige 16:27 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is more complicated than a single spectrum, for instance I am nearly 100% rational (stereotypically male) but 0% macho - which would contradict each other if it was a single spectrum. I think the finger-pointing is not due to the position on the spectrum but more to do with the fact that extreme girliness involves deliberately conforming to stereotype, which is considered shallow. LordK 18:25 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

LordK, Maybe macho was a poor word choice. Sorry, I should have said manly man, maybe? I think rationality, though, is a separate personality trait, even though certain enneagram types or whatever seem to correlate to each gender, you know?

Unless you're comparing rationality vs. emotionality, in which case, isn't that very much a masculine trait then, "trouble with your emotions?" Just because you may not act like a jerk, that doesn't mean you do not identify as very male and fit a typical male gender role, right? (Even I wouldn't say male and misogyny are synonymous!)

I was comparing rationality with emotionality, my point was that it is possible to exhibit some very strong male traits while exhibiting a complete lack of the other ones (such as aggressiveness, competitivity etc.), therefore suggesting that there is no single spectrum of maleness-femaleness on which every individual can be placed. Incidentally I do not consider rationality to be "trouble with emotions" but rather emotionality to be "trouble with clear thought", although this is slightly offtopic.

Well, seeing emotionality as trouble with clear thought is one viewpoint. I think it's always going to be a mixture of the two though. For instance, when you're really mad, doesn't rational thought go out the window? Or if you're trying to look at everything based upon logic, don't you think you'd miss the emotional side (ie hurt people)?Paige

Perhaps there should be some expansion of gender, or gender role maybe, to deal with different traits more precisely as far as what traits and characteristics are perceived in which way and linked with which gender or role. What do you think?

That sounds like a good place to put it, I recall that gender role did have some examples.

As for the girly girls being called shallow, this is from that article: "A person is shallow if they are perceived to lack emotional or intellectual depth." Below that it points out, highly erroneously I think, that shallow people will tend to cling to traditional gender roles simply because they lack originality. It's a separte situation from most girly girls though. No one is saying girly girls are "ditzy" or "airheaded." In fact, isn't their preoccupation with relationships probably based on their inherent emotionality and a sign of their emotional depth? Paige 19:32 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There does seem to be a consensus that "girly girl" and "bimbo" are not equivalent, although it is not clear to me why this is as I have difficulty conceiving of an intelligent stereotype-follower. As I wrote the article on shallow I am interested to know why you think the assertion was bogus - maybe the presence of the word "emotional" in the definition is misplaced as I was writing mainly about intellectual shallowness (which goes hand-in-hand with social roleplaying IMHO)? In fact I might remove it as I'm not sure what the hell emotional depth is anyway. LordK 19:50 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to tell anyone how to write an article, but I personally think the assertion that all people who seem to match preconceived or stereotypical roles are shallow is highly POV. Isn't that just an indictment of gender roles altogether? I think emotional depth, or maybe even emotional maturity, is required not to be "shallow." Your article attempts to completely separate the intelectual form the emotional, which I think is kind of impossible, you know? If you can't handle your emotions, either by giving in to them completely or trying to block them out completely, then you lack depth. In short, I think the presence of "girly girl" under shallow is derisive and conflicts with the definition used here. Isn't that kind of POV? Paige 20:40 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, perhaps having girly girl mentioned in shallow is POV, I can remove that, although I think a general indictment of gender roles would be fairly popular since such roles are not considered to be liberating. LordK 21:14 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, please don't take this the wrong way, just trying to play devil's advocate, but is it really the function of an encyclopedia to either endorse or indict any topic? I mean, are Wikipedian only supposed to do what is popular? Perhaps it could be said in the article that some disagree with such roles, however, that is already covered under gender roles. I'm still not sure I see the conection between shallow, which means lacking depth, and wanting to be a housewife for instance, but I'll admit to being incredibly biased on this topic and stop being a pain in the butt! Hugs, Paige 21:39 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think girly girl necessarily refers to all aspects of the feminine gender role. A woman can be a university professor (inconsistent with a female stereotype), dress in a very feminine fashion (as described in the article) and behave towards others in a feminine way (concerned about emotions and relationships) and still be called girly in comparison to others. -- Kimiko 21:01 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I just reverted the following edit because I can't figure out what it was supposed to mean and some of these words aren't even words:

However, opposers to this term argue that many women, as well as men, still contend much of the traditional stereotypes (gender roles) associated with their gender, regardless of choosing to act or dress in a more, or less distinguished manner to exhibit that.

If anyone can clarify this and make it grammaticcally correct, we should place it UNDER the current text, rather than deleting the current text. Thanks, Paige 16:35 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I meant to say that many women and men may still have internalized conceptions of "how a woman should behave/dress", or "how a man should behave/dress" regardless of how they actually behave or dress.. When putting it like you did, I doubt whether it was an argument or mere speculation or some generalization, I retract. If anyone understood what I tried to say and wants to reword this, then you can.. -- Rotem Dan 16:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But all of my words were actually "words", throw this into a spellchecker like http://www.spellonline.com and see.. :) -- Rotem Dan 17:02 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Another thing, I think a professional psychologist can give benefit for these type of articles.. -- Rotem Dan 17:04 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Rotem Dan, I'm really sorry if I sounded harsh (I totally didn't mean it that way, didn't think before I wrote it, just had waaaay too much coffee this morning). Anyway, I do think I understand what you meant now, and I think a bit of discussion of that train of thought might fit in better on the page on gender roles. What do you think? Paige 17:10 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I now think that professional treatment of psychologist/sociologist is preferred, we shouldn't be developing new theories here.. (though it happens occasionally...) RD does not equal Freud :)

I personaly think the whole idea of trying to figure out or adopt stereotypes suggesting "how I should behave" rather than "how I want to behave" is waste of time. But that's me... -- Rotem Dan 17:27 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll check out the article on gender roles (I've already worked on housewife and tomboy, you should check them out too).. -- Rotem Dan 17:31 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Rotem Dan, are you saying you think girly girls should see psychologists? I'm not sure I follow you.

No, I'm saying that theories that try to explain behavior, and social concepts such as "girly girl" ,"masculinity" etc. are studied psychologists and sociologists, so it's preferable that experts will write about such subjects. (As with any article on wikipedia that is not too general) -- Rotem Dan 18:34 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Also, I really do think the type of things you're discussing belong under gender role, rather than the term girly girl. And as for tomboy and housewife, to be perfectly honest, it seems like both are going off in scattered directions right now. I've been watching them and the latest revisions are not only confusing terms, but have little to do with the topics. I was just about to post something to the tomboy discussion... Paige 17:46 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree that should be discussed on gender role. As for the housewife article Its content has alot to do with the topic. I think (and many will agree) that the idea of a "housewife" has a lot to do with patriarchy. -- Rotem Dan 18:34 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Can somebody describe their typifying speaking manner? It's really "sweet" and maybe raise their tone-pitch regularly at the end of each sentence like what a Brit would consider to be a sentence seeking approval or expressing uncertainty. The way "girly girls" talk is quite obvious and different from "normal average" young women. --Menchi 09:58, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think a phonologist, or even a speech therapist, might disagree with you, and besides I cannot possibly think of an NPOV way of adding anything like that, especially not any comparrison of girly girls to "normal average" young women. That certainly implies that girly girls are not normal, which is of course POV.

The info your describing, though, is a stereotypical adolescent female speech pattern, that is, a higher pitch, tone of voice, and an upward inflection at the end. Some interpersonal communication theorists have suggested that many adolescent girls unconsciously adopt these speech patterns for the very fact that they do imply a non-threatening, passive, even questioning nature, which is what some cultures see as the proper traits of a young woman's gender role. Either way, I'm not sure it fits here because that is definately a Western view of a girly girl, since entire lanuages like Mandarin are based on tonal comunication. Paige 15:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In Mandarin and Cantonese teenagerese, I cannot detect the sentenece-end voice raise in English girls. Chinese girly girls really speak "sweet", i.e., to speak with a nasal sound and sounds to pretend in a voice like girls younger than they are. Over in all, they sound like unprofessional Chinese opera songtresses, who were traditionally played by men (only male actors were allowed in the Empire). Contradictory, I know.

Of course, such manner of talking alone doesn't typify a girly girl, they sometimes walk publically like stereotypical gisha, i.e, footsteps close together and somewhat swift (but overall slow) -- like the feet are bound by a tight long skirt. They act secretive/ultra-shy (never ask a Q in class), and giggle (with or without palms covering open mouth) often on unamusing topic. --Menchi 20:38, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Although the first paragraph is a good description of the term, I have some problems with the second, especially:

A point worthy of note is that "girly girls" are often more tolerant of diversity among men than their "straighter" counterparts and as a consequence tend to have friendships with gay men.

On what kind of information or arguments is this statement founded? There seems to be a suggestion that "girly girls" are not heterosexual (by comparing them to "'straighter' counterparts") but (at least to me) this seems to go against the 'traditional gender role' they supposedely follow.

Would anyone be so kind to explain this to me, or possibly clarify it?