Talk:Girly girl

Untitled
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?

Image removed
I have removed the image from this article. There is no basis in which to believe that the children in this photo have even discovered their own gender identity, let alone that they are displaying it publicly. Both are young enough that the could have been dressed in accordance with parental preference. Further, the original photograph doesn't even confirm that the child identified as a tomboy is even female.

I am sure that, with some effort, one could find images of an adult "girly girl" who self-identifies as such, and is lesbian. This article doesn't discuss the fact that the term "girly girl" also applies to heterosexual women who prefer to present themselves in an archetypically feminine manner. Some consideration should probably be given to merging this article with Lipstick lesbian and redirecting this title to that page. Risker (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're overthinking it. It's not supposed to be reportage on an authentic individual, just a stock photo. The personal life of the model is beside the point. You're looking too hard for potential victims! 178.38.132.48 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would rather this not be a stub at all, but if we must address yet another derogatory term to describe women or girls, then I would say this article does a very poor job of doing so. First of all, it seems that a brief overview can not even be established without debate as to what should and should not be included. On the topic of "women verses girls" performing the role of girly girl, I believe it is irrelevant, obviously there will be exceptions to every rule, why not merely include both and drop the petty discussions. That way neither of the parties (those encompassing girls or women will feel neglected) according to the wiki definition

Noun girly girl (plural girly girls) A woman who behaves in a predominantly feminine manner (that is, who is not by any means a tomboy); a feminine woman.

Woman is used, therefore I believe it ought to be incorporated. Perhaps if there was more information besides just the brief summary, for example etymology of the word, where it is used most, by whom and for what purpose? are these not more important than the issue of girl or woman... (Amandamacumber (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

"traditionally" vs "especially" feminine style
"who chooses to dress and behave in a traditionally feminine style" or "who chooses to dress and behave in an especially feminine style"

IMO (and I believe the sources bear this out), traditionally feminine features include wearing pink, using make-up, dressing in skirts, dresses and blouses, and talking about relationships. By way of contrast, someone can certainly be seen as "feminine" with short hair, in jeans, etc. The haircut and jeans may be seen as especially feminine, though they certainly aren't "girly girl" feminine. Girly girl feminine (in the U.S. anyway) is far more likely to involve longer hair and a dress. Female leads in mainstream period dramas tend toward "girly girl"/traditionally feminine style.

Consider Exhibit A, Natalie Portman with short hair, wearing jeans. The "lad mag" blog this photo is from can't seem to handle it. She's "handsome" and looks like the author in elementary school. Not at all "girly girl". "Feminine"? You tell me. Whatever your opinion, she's clearly not channeling June Cleaver.

Consider Exhibit B, a google image search for "girly girl". The first thing I noticed here was that the pink receptors in my eyes had burnt out. Next was the prevalence of dresses and skirts. (To balance out the damage to your eyes, try searching for "tomboy" -- blues and greys.) Note that the "tomboys" are not merely "less feminine" in some vague kind of way. They're wearing suspenders, slacks and ties, dark blues and greys, heck, tuxedos. They are explicitly dressed in clothing that is traditionally male.

Other's thoughts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the question of what is "traditionally feminine" and what does it exclude that "especially feminine" wouldn't. The example in the lead of "talking about relationships"; compare what that means today and 50 years ago. Since it's not the same then it's not very traditional. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sissy talk
I am researching words and phrases that relate to sissy / girls talk such as:-

Isn't it cute How absolutely delicious Pretty Isn't it

Can you help me to expand this list, phrases or words will help, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.242.108 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvement to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

'Superscript- Bit C h Th Atis Youhoe 2600:1700:1976:E800:FC4C:53BE:F5EB:991D (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)