Can anyone figure out what this Guardian writer means ?

[EtiennePalmiere]

Maybe it's because I've not had my coffee but what are her conclusions ? The first half seemed promising, and this writer has said something before that was very subtle but made me think she was GC. Then the second half says it's ok as long as men call themselves girls not women ? Leaving out the questions of toilets and sport of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/dec/02/how-the-world-turned-girly

No. I tried very hard but couldn’t make it to the end. Sorry.

I'm also 50 so I took from that, that if I don't proclaim myself a girl, I should f off and die. Same old, same old.

My husband told me yesterday that men are the oppressors because men look out for other men, whereas women fight each other instead of working together. I sulked then agreed.

It's a classic kind of guardian article where no real statement or stance is taken, just a load of quotes.
I'm in my 30s and reject the world girl. I think the word woman comes with a sense of power that is frightening to both men and girls, and so both reject it.
I don't really care what the younger generation think, to me they are a lost generation. They're the generation that normalised filler in their teens while clamouring for the dismantling of the male gaze, they're the generation that preach gender fluidity but never have short hair. I think they're a joke personally and I'm not surprised they don't "get" the word woman.

No, because as a pp has said, the writer has assembled a lot of quotes but not assembled them to demonstrate anything -- except that a lot of people talk about, write about, girls in different ways. DNRTWThing (got bored).

Are you sure ZeldaFighter?

Perhaps men are the oppressors because they make shit up and women believe it.

(Not to mention beating them up)(and other men)(and building a power structure that it then serves some women to support)(and nice red uniforms)

In answer to your question OP... the only thing I can figure out is the writer was initially annoyed and has now been brainwashed into not being sure despite having all the information.

"A big tent of girlhood in which everyone is welcome can be a way of allowing more of us to align with all the positive associations of youth – being fun, being attractive, being vital. Who knows? Maybe girlhood-for-all can be both an infuriating symbol of our ageist culture and a well-meaning gesture at the same time."
I know thanks. I don't need to align with "girlhood" to feel attractive or fun or vital in my 40s.
And yes, girlhood sells, that is the only point. And no I'm not going on tiktok so that I can also indoctrinate myself.
Oh and guess what? Research says girls pick up new language faster than anyone else? And look who is most in danger of the viral idea of being born in the wrong body.... And look which group is fighting it?
Urgh. Nonsense article.

@CuriousAlien "Perhaps men are the oppressors because they make shit up and women believe it."

Oh so much this! If I hear one more time about women "tearing each other down" I will commit a murder.

@CurlewKate if you do then make sure it's not a woman otherwise you'll be reinforcing their point...

@CuriousAlien Believe me I won't waste the opportunity....

As if men don't tear each other down all the time! It's essentially about physical strength and not bearing children that makes it easy for men to oppress women.

That was like tryng to read through treacle. I gave up before the end as it was such waffle.

I think she’s saying that identifying as a ‘girl’ is more fun than having to think about boring stuff like feminism.

"Girlhood sells"

The whole article is a demonstration of how the 'pink tax' is now on steroids, and includes men too.

Basically, patriarchal structures can't make money out of women's bodies now (having kids to do the labour) so it's making money out of the idea of being a woman (but you're a 'girl' because girls wanna have fun) and selling it back to us in a never ending circle that generates a lot of profit.

Except the author is part of that cycle so can't see it for what it is.

LOL same I firstly began to read it, then advanced to skimming it, then scrolling it, then lost the will to live.

I think the point being badly made is that although using the term 'girl' could be derogatory to grown women, especially if men use it, that women should use it and feel powerful.

I don't agree. I'm sick of women my age (50s) being 'girly' we're grown damn women and actual girls are being abused by being sexualised as if women when they're infants. It's all bizarro world stuff.

So if ‘girl’ has this whole new stupid meaning (and yes, I do think that women calling themselves girls is cringey), what are we calling female children?

Pleased so many others didn’t read it. I only got a few lines in and was so bored of the bullshit that I gave up.

Complete waffle. The article goes all over the place and does not seem to make any kind of relevant point.

I gave up on the Guardian a few years ago though. Their writers/columnists have become bland, shallow and completely unable to write anything of interest.

As a 'lefty' Londoner I should be part go their target audience but I just find them irritating and irrelevant.

My husband told me yesterday that men are the oppressors because men look out for other men, whereas women fight each other instead of working together. I sulked then agreed

Except that transwomen cliam that they are so scared of other men that they want to hide behind us.

Except that my dd has wonderful female friends, as do I

Just off the top of my head

Same here @Startingagainandagain

I used to practically run to the shop to buy the Saturday Guardian when I was younger.

Now I can't even glance at it. It's seemingly a lot of wishy washy hand wringing white saviour trans pandering champagne socialist posh people type talk these days. They've departed the real world long since.