Conspiring OpheliaEvaluating the newest threat to girlhood: other girls.
Updated Monday, June 10, 2002, at 6:13 PM ET
The first 178 pages of Rosalind Wiseman's describe girls torturing each other, sabotaging friendships, and betraying the deepest confidences. And yet on Page 179, the author urges girls to have sympathy for boys because boys can't talk to their best friends about important issues or get emotional assistance from them. Similarly, in the early pages of , Rachel Simmons testifies to the "endless understanding" that "ever compassionate" girls bring to bear on "human mistakes." But the remainder of the book is full of examples of the most wretched kind of bullying, teasing, and put-downs.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponYou might question these contradictory characterizations of girls—as giggly proto-nurturers on the one hand and bitches in training on the other. But Wiseman starts her book with an extraordinary pre-emptive warning, aimed primarily at parents who may not see their daughters the way these books paint them. She tells us that if something in her book strikes us as wrong, we should stop and wonder why: What nerve has she hit? "Ask yourself why what you read bothered you so much. … Acknowledge the pain you feel, but don't let it stop you from learning." It's the old Freudian trick: If you think I'm wrong, it's because you're suppressing the painful truth. At other points, parents who doubt are told they are in denial or that perhaps their daughter is lying.
In fact the book isn't painful at all: It is upbeat, interesting, and down-to-earth. There are convincing-sounding bits of wisdom: lists of what boys and girls want to know about each other, a plan for how to react if you walk in on your daughter having sex. The trouble lies in the long, attention-getting, media-friendly section on girl-girl relations. Wiseman classifies every one of her young subjects as one of a set of fixed types: Queen Bee, Wannabe, Banker, Messenger, and so on. No one is exempt, no group of girls immune, and the girls' whole lives revolve round the cliques they are in. Wiseman only grudgingly acknowledges that a girl may, on occasion, change roles; most of the book assumes that girls play static roles throughout their entire adolescence. A recent Newsweek article about these books has an extraordinary graphic/chart showing Alpha, Beta, and Gamma girls and explaining what music they like, which actresses they resemble, and what they eat. It's as filled with rigid, airless, self-perpetuating classifications as a Cosmo quiz.
Simmons' book has a more overwrought and tragic tone than Wiseman's. Although she does offer advice for parents and girls, hers isn't much of a how-to book: She is setting out to describe what she thinks is the underreported phenomenon of girls' "relational aggression" to each other. The phrase covers exclusion, negativity, using body language against others, spreading rumors, and so on. She doesn't help her case when she makes rather wild claims, like, "Ours is a culture that has ignored the closeness of girlfriends"—except for the ways it is endlessly celebrated in movies, magazines, and Hallmark greeting cards.
Both books recount long, long stories of girls' relations with each other: "and Erin said … and then Michelle said. …" Wiseman endearingly says that she sometimes gets exasperated with some of the boring stories girls tell. I kept wishing Simmons would ask tougher questions of her subjects, and I badly wanted to hear from the other person in each quarrel, who might have a quite different version. (Simmons' reporting problems might not stop there; click here for a more serious critique of her interviews.)
There's an awful lot of hurt feelings, and the girls are not able to confront each other for fear of hurting yet more feelings. (This happens constantly: Obviously someone is willing to hurt feelings, but not anyone who is interviewed.) This is recognizable but doesn't sound too serious. In fact, these girl-girl tempests sound a lot like romantic relationships—girls make overtures to each other, arrange outings, get dumped, are disappointed, feel manipulated. It seems strange to be worrying more about these than about similar boy-girl bust-ups, which provoke sympathy but also a sense that the hurt party will bounce back soon. Of course, truly pathological bullying can be a terrible, life-scarring event. But the books don't give much sense of the ratio of highly toxic bullying to the mildly poisonous variety.
Meanwhile, any smart bitchy teen-ager is surely scouring these books—they are perfect primers on how to bully your neighbor. If anyone hadn't heard of three-way calling (Girl 1 remains silent, while Girl 2 encourages Girl 3 to discuss Girl 1) or petitions (everyone in a class signs his or her name to a mean statement about one girl)—well, they certainly have now. If you continually tell fifth-graders that girl-on-girl bitchiness is going to happen, surely you're legitimating it somewhat.
Mean teen-agers might also like to prepare themselves for apology sessions: a wonderful recent profile (here, but you have to pay) of Wiseman in the New York Times Magazine describes this technique, which is dealt with only briefly in the book. A girl gets the chance to stand up in front of her peers and her victim and say something like, "I compared your face to a minefield … I'm sorry." Isn't this grossly humiliating for the victim, pretty good fun for the aggressor, and a chance to air the put-down in front of a few more people? There's a big distinction between "I'm sorry I said X" and "I said X, and it is not true." The former sounds a lot like "I'm sorry I got caught."
We all want girls to grow up strong, self-reliant, and so on. But Wiseman and Simmons offer very little evidence that the bullying problem is as widespread as they allege. In fact, the books' tone is oddly reminiscent of a familiar teen-age chant: "But honestly, everyone else is doing it, absolutely everyone."
Why Reading the Senate's Health Care Bill Aloud Is a Waste of Everyone's Time
Should You Give to International Charities or Local Ones?
What the Washington Post Gets Wrong About Kids and Heroin
The Catastrophes That Befall Troy Patterson as He Tries To Cook Along With Gordon Ramsay
Can Video Games Make You Do Things You Don't Want To Do?
The Scottish Masturbation Club You'll Wish You Never Heard Of
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Moira Redmond is onto something when she notes the contradiction in portraying girl-on-girl meanness in great detail while also claiming that girls/women are/should be the natural nurturers of relationships with boys/men. But she does not go far enough in her reflection to note that this is actually a double-standard, not a contradiction. When girls/women are seen as nurturing (and encouraged to be nurturing) it is mostly in the context of men and children. Only one kind of meanness is acknowledged and therefore legitimated in women/girls--that which is directed towards other women/girls. This double standard breeds resentment and insecurity among girls/women in their relationships with boys/men (in which they are supposed to give and accommodate and nurture) which is then channeled as aggression towards other girls/women according to the prevalent acceptable standards for gendered behavior. What is actually a pathology of double standards is seen as a natural hatred of women for each other which is being suppressed into indirect forms.
--Tina
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
The fact is the evidence is not often documented. I believe the problem exists in some places more than is ever told. Some girls don't ever share what is really going on. Some don't have parents who understand or have time to be supportive. Some blow it off and never get to the real root of the problem and see that their daughters are really hurting. Those parents who do try to help are torn with how to handle the problem of their daughter being ripped apart by other girls. Do they become nosey moms who try to get involved in fixing their daughters lives and end up causing her more grief by exposing those who have harassed her. Do they just ignore it and hope it goes away? Do they lie to their daughters and tell them it's gonna be ok when they know how bad it really hurts?
--Taylor
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Ms. Redmond didn't take account that what is so awful about the fact of girl aggression is that women and therefore girls learn to make friendships with each other, bond with each other, by sharing intimacies with each other. That is what gives girls and women such awesome power to hurt each other. Most women have experienced betrayal by a close friend after sharing some particularly sensitive bit of information with her. However, this betrayal is usually when she is young and seems to be phenomenon of adolescence. Generally, as women mature they learn not to use these bits of information against each other. It violates the rules of female friendship…
--Kat Fletcher
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Why are we talking about this as if it's a problem just among schoolchildren? This exists among adults in the workplace big time. I've seen it in the offices I've worked in, and I've heard about it from my wife's descriptions of her work experiences. Women are capable of being so much more mean and vicious with each other than men ever could. I am constantly amazed at how I see professional women treating each other… If we want to teach our children to be better people, we need to be better people ourselves. Somebody has to find out why so many women are turning on each other in the workplace and do something about it.
And it better not have anything to do with us guys! 'Cause none of us have the slightest clue as to what or how to do anything about this.
--Otto
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(6/12)