Pink Think and Mean Girls

In regards to girlhood, these articles do not necessarily provide definitions but instead illustrate what our society has deemed valuable. Which, in many ways is more powerful than a simple definition. What our society values, what we think is appropriate, acceptable and inherently expected creates a (invariably impossible) standard for girls. I feel like these articles are just reiterating the fact that girls are each other’s worst enemy. We are our biggest critics. And despite what Arlene Dahl says, I think the way girls dress and behave, when in order to meet societal standards they must act as feminine (which, after Pink Think I no longer have any idea what this means) as possible, is absolutely done for other girls. The article on Meanness by Chesney-Lind and Irwin states, “that girls are socially competitive creatures” (p. 49). I do not dispute this. Girls are expected to out-girl the other girls. In regards to why the academy should care, I think the changes in societal behaviors as well as relational experiences are important to our understanding of how people ‘work’. Learning how and why things are people are the way they are, and especially how they got that way is important because that is only way to make progress. Change what doesn’t work and keep what does. And I believe this should be done to help us be happier, more conscientious and forgiving of others and ourselves.