Why I Hate the Expression "Girl's Girl" (and What It Represents)

 There’s something about the term "girl's girl" that makes my skin crawl. It's not just a harmless phrase, but one that comes with an unsettling implication: women are obligated to automatically support or compliment other women simply because of shared gender. The expectation that we must be unfailingly polite or shower others with kindness just because we both have the same anatomy is patronizing, to say the least. 

Alright, let’s dive right into this dumpster fire of an expression: "girl's girl." Just hearing it makes my blood pressure rise. I’m not here to sugarcoat it—it’s a phrase loaded with nonsense, and it’s time we collectively throw it in the bin. Why, you ask? Because it comes with the ridiculous assumption that if someone has the same set of genitalia as you, you must nice to them, compliment them, and be their bestie by default. News flash: having the same reproductive organs as someone else doesn’t automatically create a bond of sisterhood. It’s not Hogwarts. There’s no magic sorting hat that says, "Congrats! You’re both women, now go forth and sprinkle compliments on each other like confetti!”. 

Honestly, it comes with the absurd assumption that if you’re a woman, you must automatically be kind and complimentary to other women—because, what? We both have vaginas? Sorry, but biology alone isn’t enough to earn my respect or friendship. The idea that we should bond over our shared genitalia is just lazy, and frankly, a little insulting. Not to mention, it puts us in this weird, contrived position where we’re expected to turn a blind eye to awful behavior just because it comes from another woman. No, thanks. If you’re being toxic, I’m not going to sit back and shower you with compliments because you happen to be part of the same gender.

This idea that if someone shares my genitalia, I must always be their ally—where’s the logic in that? It's a reductionist view of human relationships, turning gender into a default basis for connection. Instead of building bonds based on mutual respect, shared values, or actual merit, the phrase encourages a superficial unity rooted solely in biology.

But it goes deeper than that. The term "girl's girl" reeks of mild misandry. It suggests that while women deserve compliments merely for being women, men don’t deserve the same. Why is it that we must support women on gender alone, but men are conveniently left out of this social obligation? There's something oddly unfair about it, as if one gender is inherently more worthy of unwarranted support. That’s not empowerment—it’s selective sexism. It suggests that women should be praised simply for existing—because, hey, being a woman apparently makes you worthy of endless kindness, compliments, and back-pats. But men? Nah, they don’t need that. It’s a one-way street where women get all the goodwill, and men, well, they’re just expected to get on with it. How is that fair? It’s not. If we’re going to demand respect and compliments for no reason other than being women, then shouldn’t the same rule apply to everyone? You know, that little thing we call equality?

At the same time, the phrase is also incredibly misogynistic. Deeply stupidly misogynistic. Yeah, that’s right. It’s anti-woman in its very essence. "Girl's girl" reduces us to, well… girls. Not women. Not adults with brains, opinions, and actual personalities. Nope, just girls. The term is infantilizing. It’s as if being an actual woman with fully formed thoughts and ideas is too much, so let’s just dial it back and call each other girls because it sounds cute and non-threatening. Are we five? Do we all need to be tucked into bed with a teddy bear?  Reducing women to the status of "girls" rather than adults is infantilizing. "Girl's girl" takes away from the strength and complexity of women by portraying them as forever childlike, forever needing protection and unearned praise. It's as if we’re only deemed worthy of kindness because of our gender, not because of our qualities as individuals. I find it demeaning that women must be praised simply for existing as women rather than for their character, intelligence, or contributions to society. Girl’s girl” reduces us to girls. Not women. Not fully realized, intelligent, capable adults. Just girls. Little, unthreatening, always-pleasing girls. Can we just pause to consider how absurd that is? Women constantly fight to be taken seriously, to be seen as equals in every field, and then we turn around and happily slap ourselves with this juvenile label? How are we supposed to be empowered when we’re calling ourselves girls well into adulthood?

What truly baffles me is that many women who vehemently oppose being called “girls” will turn around and use "girl's girl" without a second thought. Do they not see their own hypocrisy? These are often the same people who champion women’s empowerment, yet they unwittingly use a term that strips us of our adult agency. It’s a blatant contradiction, and I can’t help but wonder why this hypocrisy flies under the radar. It drives me absolutely mad that the same women who throw fits over being called "girls" are the ones who will turn around and use "girl's girl" with a straight face. They’ll clutch their pearls at being referred to as anything but women, but the second it’s time to act all supportive, suddenly the phrase "girl's girl" rolls off the tongue without a hint of irony. Do these people not hear themselves? Do they not realize they’re contradicting everything they claim to stand for? It’s peak hypocrisy, and frankly, I’m baffled that more people haven’t called them out on it. Some of the most vocal advocates against calling grown women “girls” are the same ones proudly referring to themselves as “girl’s girls.” They’ll bristle at being infantilized in professional settings, but when it comes time to show some performative solidarity, suddenly they’re all about the “girls” again. Do they not see the glaring contradiction? How can you fight for being taken seriously as a woman and then turn around and use language that undermines your own adulthood.

Let’s also address the damaging stereotypes this term reinforces. "Girl's girl" upholds a very narrow, often dated vision of femininity—one where women are expected to be nurturing, endlessly supportive, and conflict-averse. It’s as if, by default, we’re required to fit into a box of politeness and inoffensive niceness. This robs women of the right to be complex, flawed, or even occasionally combative. It’s the same tired trope we’ve been trying to shake off for decades, and yet here it is, alive and well, disguised as a so-called compliment. Heaven forbid a woman be anything but a smiling, compliment-giving robot who’s ready to back her fellow woman at all times, no matter how awful she might be. No, Karen, I’m not going to pretend to like you just because you’re a woman. Shared anatomy doesn’t make me blind to the fact that you’re a terrible person

And yet, if someone were to praise a man for being a “man’s man,” it would be met with disdain. It would be seen as promoting toxic masculinity or reinforcing harmful male stereotypes. So why is it still socially acceptable to call someone a "girl's girl"? The double standard is glaring. Praising someone based on gender, whether male or female, reinforces the idea that our worth is primarily tied to our sex rather than who we are as people.

And don’t even get me started on how it reduces women’s worth to something as shallow as gender. The term implies that the only reason another woman deserves praise or kindness is because she’s female. Not because she’s talented, smart, compassionate, or funny. Nope, just because she exists as a woman. How is that even remotely empowering? It’s not. It’s demeaning. It reinforces the idea that women’s primary value lies in their gender, not in their actual character or accomplishments. This kind of thinking doesn’t elevate women—it traps us in the same old box of gender expectations we’ve been trying to break out of for centuries.

In the end, the expression "girl's girl" is a relic of outdated thinking, masquerading as female solidarity. But true empowerment isn’t about blind allegiance to one’s gender. It's about building genuine connections based on respect, kindness, and shared principles—regardless of whether someone is male, female, or anything in between. Let’s stop forcing women into these outdated molds and start treating everyone as individuals- the phrase "girl’s girl" is nothing but a relic of old-school thinking, wrapped up in a shiny bow of fake feminism. It’s all surface-level, feel-good garbage that does absolutely nothing to advance actual female empowerment. If anything, it’s holding us back. True empowerment means treating people as individuals, not as members of some genitalia-based fan club. I want to be liked—or not liked—because of who I am, not because of what’s between my legs. Is that really so much to ask?

So, to sum it up: stop using "girl’s girl." It’s dumb, it’s hypocritical, and it perpetuates everything we’ve been trying to move past for decades. Be a person’s person, if anything. solidarity. This “girl’s girl” expression is a phrase that keeps women in a box, infantilizes us, and sets a wildly unfair expectation of automatic loyalty based on something as arbitrary as gender. Real empowerment means treating each other as individuals—not reducing ourselves to a gender stereotype just for the sake of fake, performative unity. So, let’s stop using this term and start actually supporting women for who they are, not because they happen to share the same biology. That’s how we move forward

That, in my view, is real equality.