On social media, archetypes are often created to depict niches and trends. Terms such as “iPad kid”, “colouring book kid”, “clean girl aesthetic” or “soft girl aesthetic” bracket individuals off into certain categories. This categorising terminology is unsurprising in an age where social media offers a way to find communities and relatability to others. But it is riddled with patriarchal language and biases. Instead of embracing and celebrating the complexities of women around the world, they are defined by an archetype. Infantilised by reducing their perspective of the world and limiting women to one singular identity.
This resonates in the increasing use of the word “girl” on social media to describe all women and girls, and has begun to imply its own singular archetypal image. “Girl” has been used for centuries to minimise and infantilise women, but on social media, it has been (to an extent) reclaimed. Terms such as “girl dinner”, “girl maths” and “I’m just a girl” were developed by young women to represent a new approach to living and working. A way that implies minimal effort with maximum results.
...these phrases expose a concerning undertone which damages the progress which feminism has made over the centuries...
But these phrases expose a concerning undertone which damages the progress which feminism has made over the centuries, as this language decreases women’s expectations and ultimately limits their realities. They reflect a mindset which encourages women to be more reliant on others and accept less for themselves by glorifying laziness. It is a smaller version of the concerning rise of “trad-wife” culture in which women are referring back to traditional gender roles, aligning with the patriarchal structure which feminists have worked against for so long. Women are being positioned to have lower aspirations through a disguise of some sort of freedom. Freedom from the higher expectations and potential which feminists have fought for them to have for centuries.