As a young person living in a mediated world, you have likely encountered terms such as “girlification,” “I’m just a girl,” “girl dinner,” and “girl math.” While these terms may seem innocent and relatable, in reality, they are demeaning and reinforce cycles of misogyny and gender stereotypes. Now, large companies have caught on and are profiting from this.
Girlification as a movement began on TikTok; its meaning is to make an action “girly.” At first, it was somewhat of an ironic joke; however, it has since spawned a life of its own. It has now seeped into everyday social culture where it is expected to say, “I’m just a girl” or “Girl Math” in a conversation. This rise into everyday speech acts as a way to connect with people and make references that highlight you are ‘in’ on what’s being said online, like a badge of honour. Yet these phrases are demeaning and undermine not only the intelligence and capability of the woman saying them but women overall.
Girlification as a token of self-identification is problematic. It reinforces harmful stereotypes that women are less capable as leaders, poorer critical thinkers, physically weak, and less intelligent than men—they are “just girls.” This harmful reduction diminishes not only the woman herself but also the depth of who she is and what she thinks of other women. Not only is she putting herself down, but she is also undermining her gender.
It is not us as individuals who are the leading force in reinforcing cycles of misogyny. Larger forces harness these social concepts, profiting significantly by misappropriating these supposedly feminist ideas.
The Barbie movie is the best example of this. Released in July 2023, the film conveyed a strong message of female empowerment, raising awareness of double standards and gender injustice—which says something about our modern-day society when we rely on a Warner Bros. blockbuster to teach us about feminism.
The film encouraged mass consumption and a limited understanding of female empowerment. Limited-edition Barbie makeup collections, dreamhouses, curling wands, jumpers, nail polish, and water bottles are just some of the Barbie-themed products pushed on us before and after the movie’s release. The primary marketing strategy was to encourage women to revisit their “girlhood” by purchasing an overwhelming number of Barbie-themed products.
This revisiting of girlhood might be freeing or beneficial to some women—but what about all women? Many of these promotional items are produced in factories with poor working conditions and are made by underpaid and overworked women and children. Furthermore, this excessive consumption inevitably produces excess waste, often improperly disposed of, polluting water sources and soil in poverty-stricken areas, disproportionately affecting the lives and health of women. Feminism calls for equality between women and men—the stark contrast between those over-consuming merchandise from their favourite “feminist” movie and those who worked to produce these items is glaring.
This marketing phenomenon is not exclusive to Barbie movies. Taylor Swift, too, must be held accountable for her false feminist marketing strategy. Her extremely loyal fanbase is encouraged to consume multiple merchandise releases, different vinyl editions, cassettes, and clothing. In her recent shows in Dublin, Swift rented the 3Arena for several days to sell vast quantities of merchandise. Additionally, Swift has a massive carbon footprint, with estimates suggesting she released 393 metric tonnes of CO2 in February 2024 alone.
While her talent and popularity are undeniable, they do not exempt her from criticism for misusing “Girl Power” to push her sales and agenda. Swift is not the sole problem, but she exemplifies those falsely using their popularity and feminist messaging for personal gain.
Beyond movies and music, large fashion companies have noticed the resurgence of highly feminine and childlike ways of dressing and have created collections to profit from these trends. Bows on dresses, boots, tops, mugs, mirrors, even nails—if it can have a bow, it’s been sold with one. In the name of reclaiming femininity, brands such as Urban Outfitters and Bershka have produced numerous collections in short time frames to capitalise on this trend and encourage women to consume beyond their means. These fast fashion items are neither empowering nor a reclamation of femininity—they are made in poor working conditions and sold at a high profit margin, while labourers receive minuscule wages.
Post-feminist ideology is a complex and heavily debated concept that examines feminism from various perspectives and ideas. It seeks to move beyond traditional feminism, focusing on the more ambiguous and contradictory aspects of what it means to identify as a woman. There is an emphasis on individualism, centred on women’s empowerment in the modern world. Feminism is nuanced, and post-feminism may provide the framework needed to objectively and critically assess how the roles of women and femininity are being represented and understood today.
“Girlification” is not empowering, and bows are not feminist. This new era of “girlification” is not for us women or our further emancipation. It is for organisations and marketers who are profiting from reinforcing gender stereotypes, archetypes, and cycles of inequality—quite literally tied up in a bow.
By Charlotte Patten — Features Contributor
