It is that deep: A Dive Into “Girl Trends”

When I scroll TikTok, one narrative stalks me from post to post.

“I’m just a girl.” 

“I used cash so it doesn’t count, it’s girl math.”

“Connect with your divine feminine and your silence will speak for you.” 

This infantilizing rhetoric is often framed as silly, spiritual or even feminist — a way women can bond over shared exhaustion under late-stage capitalism. 

However, irony doesn’t detract from harm. When trends rely on gendered assumptions for a punchline, they require examination. 

These posts signal a familiar pattern — they assume that women are naturally indecisive, naive or incapable of serious agency.

In other words, these “girl trends” frame women as naturally weaker, dumber, softer and less autonomous. 

Beneath the guise of reframing habits with humor, lies an ancient, insidious dark horse: gender essentialism.

Gender essentialism is a theory of gender which defines men and women as being intrinsically and inextricably different from one another. This theory was defined and critiqued in the second wave feminist era.

Gender scholars Candace West and Don Zimmerman, authors of the article “Doing Gender,” argue gender essentialism views gender divisions as natural and rooted in biology. 

For instance, women aren’t better cooks. No infant emerges from the womb instinctively knowing how to run a kitchen — ask the microwave I blew up when I was thirteen cooking ramen. 

These skills are produced socially — girls are praised for helping, positioned near older women and rewarded with praise. Kitchens become spaces of assumed safety, then expectation and obligation. 

Over time, repetition hardens into “talent,” and conditioning is mistaken for nature.

Posts that frame women as confused, silly or incapable outside of domestic tasks under the guise of relatability rely on the dangerous assumption that women are naturally less rational, less competent and better suited to obedience than autonomy.

The “just a girl” trend becomes troubling when viewed through this lens. Often, these posts repackage such gendered assumptions as irony, in turn reinforcing hierarchies feminists have long fought to dismantle.

As feminist philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft asserted over two centuries ago in the book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” the infantilization of women masquerading as praise must be rejected. 

“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone,” Wollstonecraft wrote.

Contemporary gender scholar HJ MacArthur reinforces this idea through a more modern lens, providing evidence for women in their twenties and thirties experiencing reduced perceived competence and authority when labeled as “girls” in professional settings. 

“Being referred to as a ‘girl’ carries connotations of immaturity, playfulness, and dependence, which can weaken confidence and contribute to self-doubt, especially during formative career stages,” MacArthur wrote. 

Both Wollstonecraft and MacArthur warn against the ramifications of labeling women as delicate, soft and unintelligent, claiming the infantilization oppresses rather than praises.

Wollstonecraft takes it a step further, arguing traits such as “susceptibility of heart” and “delicacy of sentiment” are treated as virtues precisely because they justify women’s exclusion from power.

What’s framed as affection is, in reality, social control.

When popular culture familiarizes statements denouncing women’s essential ability and intelligence, it allows the patriarchy to persist. 

In “The Politics of Reality,” Marilyn Frye writes for oppression to function effortlessly, people must believe it’s natural. If hierarchy appears to stem from biology rather than institutional design, it becomes much more difficult to contest.

Subordination when rehearsed often enough begins to feel natural.

While these “girl trends” are severely problematic, the apparent motivation behind them is

understandable. As West and Zimmerman argue, gender isn’t just performed for society — it’s constantly being assessed by that same audience. 

Individuals are held accountable to normative expectations of femininity and masculinity, with social consequences for deviation. 

Within this framework of constant gender accountability, phrases like “I’m just a girl” can function as a defense — a way to soften one’s presence and signal compliance with femininity. 

Gender performances do more than mirror Western social structures — they actively reproduce them — both being influenced by the political movement and continuing its reign into the future. 

The American political reality devalues female-dominated fields, strips abortion access and disproportionately violates marginalized women. 

This isn’t about individual women or personal intention. It’s about the repetition of these narratives, the infantilization of women, the normalization of diminished agency and the power they quietly reinforce. What we practice begins to feel natural, and what feels natural becomes difficult to challenge. 

Socially speaking, nothing about “girl trends” are incidental.