The Future of Girlhood

“Kim grew up with a taken-for-granted notion of gender equity. Being a girl has not been experienced by her as a barrier to education or aspiration” are the comments of Mary Jane Kehily about the experience of a girl in the post-feminism era (p. 65). Based on this comment, one can innocently think that women’s position in these days is equal to men’s; hence girls don’t worry about feminism like women in the past have done it. However, Kehily in her study adds that this same girl who has not experienced the gender barrier is a young single mother who depends morally and economically on her parents and is “unlikely to achieve independence in the near future.” Unfortunately, this is the dilemma of the teenage girls of today. Girls are facing a society that has increasingly “hyper-sexualized” the image of young women converting them into mass consumption subjects. What does this mean to the future of girlhood? Unless there is a change from consuming to producing in girls’ culture, the future of girlhood looks very similar to that of the 60s and 70s where many young women believed that feminism consisted of being free to express sexual desire and pleasure –note that girls’ sexy image is clearly connected to the same beauty/decoration image that women of centuries ago had—.

Girls are more educated and visible than ever, then why does popular culture –with all its beauty standards— still seems to have a powerful grasp on girls’ identities? Are pop culture and media doing a better job than us parents? These are questions still unresolved. Kehily accurately indicates that family and parenting need to be part of the equation of girlhood studies. Socio-economic status stands out as another key factor in the future of girlhood. And although we have seen different forms of girls’ resilience, there is more to do to instill further resistance in young women; this is where the future of girlhood resides.       

Nora

Girlhood in the future

I was curious if the mores of American culture take precedence over the mores of the culture and community that you live in. That is to say that we all live under a different set of rules depending on the community that we reside in, if we live in a large city like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago then we have to look at the mores of each of the different sub cultures. Our immediate society will often dictate what is moral and acceptable first and then the mores of the next level and so on. As I was reading about the “ladettes” and how the surrounding society was concerned about their behavior I began to question how females are positioned in regards to mores and the society and culture or sub culture that they live in. I would like to further explore whether young women like the “ladettes” view their standing in their communities, whether they feel as if they are merely carving out their own paths or whether they know or feel as if they are purposely being deviant in order to affect social change with regards to gender roles. I have seen women come from a place of complete oppression and objectification and from a place of being considered chattel, to being respected, independent, and productive members of society. But it has not been easy road and there has been much resistance, even from our own sisters. I have seen this through my own eyes and for every step that I took it seemed as though I was pushed back 2 steps. I see girlhood studies taking us to a place of acceptance and equality without question and without the constructs of our societies and cultures.   

Moving Forward

As we move forward in feminist studies I think it is important to recognize the multitude of changes in girls and women that will take place at the collective level. While each of us has an individual experience, collectivity is a vital element of developing identity in a shifting society. With increasing feminist awareness and freedoms for women, there is also more responsibility for those of us invested in the progressive movement to commit to making sure we do not regress into comfortable practices from the past. Progress can be scary and if we are not careful we can lose the great gains we have made. One of the ways I see this manifesting itself was in today’s reading that “emergent codes of sexual freedom and hedonism associated with new femininities should be understood as new technologies of the self rather than celebratory expressions of changing female subjectivity” (60). While I don’t necessarily disagree with the statement, I see this as a way in which collective ideas can be construed in a way that constructs sexuality and femininity and feminism out of the control of girls and women and puts it in the hands of others outside of the experience. If we are able to reject societal and collective representations, we can embrace and control the “greater degree of fluidity about what femininity means and how exactly it is anchored in social reality” (55) ourselves and on our own terms. Thus creating a collective reality of our making, one that is truly representative of our reality.

Thoughts on Girlhood Studies

Some thoughts …

I wonder how long the Pink Think mentality will persist in our culture.  Despite women’s advancements since the 1960, Pink Think is still going strong – just flip through the pages of a girls’ magazine or stroll down the girl aisle at your local Toys R Us, and you will be inundated with pink and with toys focusing on girls’ appearance or their role at nurturer.  I don’t necessarily think this is pernicious, but I believe it does set them up to be more passive as adults.  But what will it take to change -- anmd will it *ever* change?  I am reminded of some Laurie Anderson lyrics (from the 80s, so the figures have changed I am sure): “For every dollar a man makes, a woman makes 63 cents.  Now, fifty years ago it was 62 cents.  So, with that kind of luck, it will be the year 3,888 before we make a buck.”  Pink Think maintains the status quo.  I wonder, in my lifetime, how Pink Think will evolve and where it will lead.

I am also interested in the psychology of Pink Think, and the psychology of Western girlhood in general.  Girls are taught to be passive, but at the same time extroversion is preferred in our culture over introversion (interestingly, in the East, the opposite tends to be true.  As you can tell, I am pretty fascinated by the introversion-extraversion spectrum).  So, girls have to walk a fine line – they have to be extroverted, but not *too* extroverted or they might be perceived as aggressive / abrasive.  Interestingly, when I look back on my grade school and high school experience, I think the girls who were bullied / ostracized tended to be introverts.  I guess this speaks to a larger phenomenon: it seems the further a girl falls from the traditional, “girly girl” definition of girlhood, the more likely she is to be ostracized by her peers.  I guess this is true of boys, too – children have an acute sense of normalcy and tend to punish any form of eccentricity.  Not that Pink Think is responsible for every ill that girls experience – I mean, some girls will *always* be ostracized, it’s just an inescapable social dynamic – but … Pink Think is not entirely innocuous, either.

Also, I would like to do more research on the experience of minority girls, particularly, African American girls.  Generally speaking, they are not taught passivity to the same degree as Caucasian girls.  (I remember reading somewhere that black women experience abuse at the hands of their mates at the same rates as white women, however, black women are twice as likely to fight back.)  How does Pink Think affect these girls? They are given conflicting messages from their culture and from society at large.  Also, I would like to look at body image issues among African American girls, and how they resist (or not) the stereotypical white ideal of beauty.

So I guess I am most concerned in how Pink Think affects girls as they mature into adults, and I would be interested in studying this in greater depth, especially from a psychological angle.

Thoughts on “Taking Center Stage"

In her essay, “Taking Center Stage?: Girlhood and the contradictions of femininity across three generations.” Mary Jane Kehily summarizes the different ways of feminism well. She writes this important sentence “Women appear to take center stage in the reconfiguration of labor patterns, consumption practices and gender roles.” This rang true with me. Within my generation I see girls who are keenly aware of their portrayal to those around them. But they also have a strong sense of self portrayal and many have a confidence and a strong sense of identity. Not only that, I think several feel they have an obligation to share their “reconfigured”selves and philosophies within their own communities so as to educate those around them about what girlhood means to them. Some of these things may be; acknowledging self-acceptance; accepting one's sexuality without worrying about the repercussions of the male gaze; exercising the right to enjoy yourself socially even if this means being a “laddette” and drinking too much; setting high goals for yourself in the workplace (perhaps there is a girl out there who would like to be the head of Apple one day, for example). In this way they become active producers of their own culture. In the future I see this type of active production only increasing. I think for sure an e-zine could be launched online for example. In any case the Internet will be the key to this wave of positive mass production in the name of girlhood. Without a doubt, technology will be the key to spreading new notions of girlhood. This is one reason the girlhood remixed camp was such a breath of fresh air; these young women present at camp are starting to think in this type of empowering way now.

"The Best of Times"

I always revert back to Charles Dickens and “A Tale of Two Cities.” His quote, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” reverberates in the many conversations that were opened in this discussion board. It also reverberates in the many research studies that I have plowed through for my final proposal. The consistent theme of binary, dichotomy, either/or thinking always shows through. This comes through once again in the stories of three generations of women. What was interesting was the fact that Nancy lived a life of privilege until she married. The story does not tell us much about Nancy’s personality but it does tell us that she married a man strong and controlling. Why did Nancy let this man take her children?

Gillian is brought up during 2^nd wave feminism but it seems that both gender and social class interfere with what is defined as having agency. Where did this agency come from? Was it self- defined? I did not see any kind of subjectivity except her eating disorder (an attempt to have some control over her life in some small sense?).

Kim’s “taken for granted notion” of feminism also suggests that she too has agency. What is missing from these stories are the essence of subjectivity and agency.  These girls grew up with the skeletal idea of feminism and tagged onto the “ideal” of what feminism might mean. However, unless this notion of “being all that one can be” is actually taught and girls are socialized into a culture of equality, subjectivity and agency will always be illusive. Possibly that is the consequence of social movements, the skeletal framework is put into place but it isn’t enacted upon until there is more meaning, understanding, and dialogue to build upon the framework. What is missing perhaps is the “resistance” that was mentioned in yesterday’s blog. These women resisted in a sense some of what was told to them but in a sad defense, they acted as culture dictated to them. Definitely, the consequences of difference also comes into play. Social class affects gender. Gender affects social class. It is intersectional and important not to dichotomize the two.  “According to what Walkerdine et al. suggest, working-class and middle-class girls become ‘each other’s Other’ (2001) existing as cautionary examples of what you could become by transgressing the regulatory framework” (55).

Therefore what I read from this is that there continues to be that sinister regulatory mechanism regardless of time.  For instance McRobbie mentions “that there is a “new sexual contract” taking shape in which women conform to the regulatory powers of the fashion and beauty industry while simultaneously renouncing any critique of patriarchy. Has the experience of being a girl seemingly changed while the regulation of femininity takes on newly pernicious guises or has feminist scholarship come full circle” (61)? This is a strong statement and I can’t agree with it more. Are we in “the best of times?” Yet once again there is the stranglehold that overcomes or subdues even the strongest of personas. I firmly believe that girlhood is on a positive path, but it needs to defy or resist objectification by consumerism and introduce agency in the form of understanding economic power and be willing to accept the responsibility of that power. Unfortunately, I have to end with this question. Can we teach our girls that responsibility? "The best of times" are still to come, I think.

The Future of Girlhood Studies

Girlhood studies and identities will be more focused on education and technology.  Educational researchers who subscribe to postmodern feminist theories stress that the female’s position, in reference to culture and class identities, is not homogeneous.  Feminist educational theorists believe that education’s role is to provide an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within patriarchal society.  Socialization through education is the way social and cultural identity is attained.  Accordingly, the concept of cultural transmission (how culture communicates values) shows how culture, and in particular expectations of the genders, can be transmitted from one generation to the next.  Student cultures act as they have been taught.  Schools are instrumental in solidifying this identity formation, and resistance to school is a resistance to oppression and restricted life opportunities.  For the some girls, education is seen as a means to save them from the lower class lifestyles.   

The ideology that identity is formed within schools is the culmination of what is happening to adolescents who find themselves racially and ethnically marginalized.  It is very possible that in the future, girl studies’ will investigate adolescents and how they assert their voices in resistance to cultural and ethnic social categories.