The misogyny of the arts does not manifest itself in loud ways. Rather, it can be seen in the erasure of women’s history within the humanities and the subtle but strong exclusion within the industry. By learning the history and current statistics of women in the humanities, it is easy to argue that the humanities are almost as misogynistic as every other industry.

Women’s History in the Humanities

Legends are legends because they were able to define or redefine an aspect of life. What would Western philosophy be without Socrates? Would any classical music playlist be complete without Mozart? Could a class on American literature bear to mention F. Scott Fitzgerald? These men, among many others, have carved their name into history. Because history would be incomplete without them – or at least that is what the narrative tells us.

If legends are remembered because of their impact, then why is it that Aspasia of Miletus’ name has been nearly lost to history despite being the tutor of Socrates, who then tutored Plato, who then tutored Aristotle, and so on?  Why is it that even though her musical abilities were on part with her brother’s, Maria Anna “Nannerl” Mozart’s name is considered a cliff note? Or what about the women like Zelda Fitzgerald, the woman whose diatribes were what made F. Scott Fitzgerald’s writing career, but are only remembered as a wife?

None of this is to deny the skill or influence of any of these men. It is simply to question why their legacies can be taught as a degree while women of the same skill and influence are being lost to history with every passing day. By prioritizing the contribution of men and constantly – and intentionally – erasing the contributions of women, the art world is  disgracing the people it could not exist without.

​Side Note:

Here are some legendary but criminally underrepresented women within the arts:

Philosophers: Aspasia of Miletus [2] and Hypatia of Alexandria [3].

Authors: Sophia Tolstaya [4] and Alice Walker [5].

Painters: Sofonisba Anguissola [6] and Ma Xianglan [7].

Musicians: Maria Anna “Nannerl” Mozart [8] and Teresa Carreño [9].

Women in the Humanities Today:

Misogyny in the arts targets not only historical female artists, but also towards female artists of today. Famously, the Guerrilla Girls discovered that less than 3% of exhibited artists in museums were female, despite women making up 83% of all nude figures in art [10]. In 2024, only thirty-seven percent of artist that made the billboard for top 100 musicians were women [11]. As of 2023, women made up only seventeen percent of literature award winners [12]. These statistics, although shocking, are only snapshots of the current industry.

When Art Prof interviewed female artists about their lived experiences, many reported their art being pigeonhole into romance or motherhood, having job recruiters hire men who they saw themselves in, and having people be physically shocked upon finding out their favorite art was done by a woman. These experiences, amongst countless others, has caused female artists of today to feel like the boys-club that they are trying to enter is not barred by a glass ceiling but rather a brick wall.

Women’s Future in the Humanities

Having been erased from history and covered up today, and with the lack of recognition and support around this issue, female artists are left wondering when – or if – they will be able to make the equitable gains that women in many other industries have made. To support female artists, it is crucial to learn their contribution to art history and their current contributions to the art world. Even if it means knowing Natalia Sedova’s name rather than Leon Trotsky’s. And if you are an artist who happens to be a girl reading this: remember that your work is just as important, keep reminding yourself and the world of that. 

The post Misogyny in the Humanities: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

When isolated, these historical facts may seem trivial or even funny, but when paired with the hundreds of other examples of gendered expectations and stereotypes changing, it becomes clear that—contrary to common belief—there is no such thing as a hobby or skillset that one gender is inherently better at. In reality, the things that are considered either masculine or feminine are viewed the way they are because of socio-political misogyny. By analyzing the current treatment of “feminine” stereotypes, the degradation of “feminine skills,” and society’s overall disdain for any hobby or skillset an individual woman has, it is clear that skills are only considered valuable based on their dissociation from women.

The Irony of Feminine Interests

In and of themselves, stereotypical feminine interests—makeup, pumpkin spice lattes, the Pride and Prejudice movie—are generally accepted by and as mainstream culture. However, once a woman actually likes any of the above, both the interest and the woman are ridiculed. This scrutiny can be seen every time a male comedian makes a career off mocking women for fitting these stereotypes, or in every eye-roll a girl receives when mentioning an interest in these subjects. Iliza Shlesinger [3] pointed out the irony of men who rampaged through India and Southeast Asia for a taste of cinnamon mocking women for their occasional Instagram post featuring a pumpkin spice latte. This irony can be found every time a man is praised for keeping up his appearance and is called “well-groomed”; meanwhile, if a woman is caught putting effort into maintaining the flawless appearance expected of her, then she is vain.

While not as ironic, another double standard appears when men revere The Godfather and the film is immediately regarded as a cinematic masterpiece, but when women praise Pride and Prejudice, it is dismissed as a stupid “chick flick.” Society expects women to have feminine interests, but once they actually do, they are shamed. There is no inherent issue with effeminate things; they only become a problem when they are embraced by women.

The Reality of Feminine Skills

On the flip side, women are both allowed and expected to have what have been deemed feminine skills. Cooking, a sense of style, teaching—but these skills are considered fundamentally less skilled and important by society. This perception changes, however, when a man shows interest in these fields. For instance, the burden of cooking falls disproportionately on women because it is considered a natural feminine skill, yet men make up 94% of Michelin-star chefs [4]. Although fashion and physical appearance are considered natural feminine interests, men hold 86% of leadership positions within major fashion companies [5]. Even though teaching is considered a feminine job, men constitute 56% of college professors [6].

These dissonant facts prove that once separated from women, these skills become redeemed in society’s eyes and become high-paying and well-respected industries. The worth of these skills is not determined by their actual complexities or their impact, but rather by who is performing them.

The Trap of Femininity vs. Masculinity

Even though women will not get recognition through feminine interests or skills, they will receive an equal amount of mockery when engaging with ​“masculine” interests and skills. If a woman likes to play video games, she will be accused of doing so for male attention. And she may even be harassed out of the gaming community [7]. A woman who plays sports will not simply be called an athlete, but rather, “too aggressive” and “unladylike” [8]. A woman who engages with high fantasy literature or comic books will be dismissed with the assumption that her interest is based on attraction to a male character. And likewise, she may be harassed out of a fandom [9].

On the other hand, men’s interests are always presumed to stem from a place of genuine passion and talent. By embracing femininity, women are subjected to mockery. By embracing masculinity, women are ostracized; either way, this is a system in which women are designed to lose. Society created femininity and then ridiculed it and the women who participate in it. But  society betrays women who do not participate in it. This begs the question of whether it is femininity that society dislikes or if it is just women.

How to Win

When passions and talent are judged not by merit but by the subject, the real reward is not working for the praise you will never receive but allowing yourself authenticity. In a system that will judge a woman whether they conform to the system or rebel against it, then the only solution is to ignore the inevitable judgment of others and make yourself who you want to be. A world that will not validate you is not a world that should be allowed to control you.

Works Cited

Janik, Erika. “The Masculine Origins of Cheerleading.” WPR, 7 Sept. 2016, www.wpr.org/history/masculine-origins-cheerleading.

Little, Becky. “When Computer Coding Was a “Woman’s” Job | HISTORY.” HISTORY, Sept. 2017, www.history.com/articles/coding-used-to-be-a-womans-job-so-it-was-paid-less-and-undervalued. 

Wikipedia Contributors. “Iliza Shlesinger.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Feb. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliza_Shlesinger. 

Staff, Chef’s Pencil. “Share of Female-Led Michelin Restaurants Is Only 6%.” Chef’s Pencil, 20 July 2022, www.chefspencil.com/female-chefs-6-percent-reach-the-top/. 

Guest Contributor. “Women Are Finally Leading Global Brands. So Why Is Fashion Still Failing Them?” FashionUnited, 2025, fashionunited.ca/news/people/women-are-finally-leading-global-brands-so-why-is-fashion-still-failing-them/2025100742019.  

KLACZYNSKA, MIRIAM. “Gender Demographic Disparities between Teachers and Professors.” Berkeley.edu, 27 Apr. 2024, econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/gender-demographic-disparities-between-teachers-and-professors/. 

Fishman, Andrew. “Women in Gaming: A Difficult Intersection.” Psychology Today, 2022, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/video-game-health/202201/women-in-gaming-a-difficult-intersection 

Women’s Sports Foundation. “Do You Know the Factors Influencing Girls’ Participation in Sports? – Women’s Sports Foundation.” Women’s Sports Foundation, Women’s Sports Foundation, 2024, www.womenssportsfoundation.org/do-you-know-the-factors-influencing-girls-participation-in-sports/ 

Juliet Kahn. “Why Women in Comics Don’t “Just Report” Sexual Harassment.” Comics Alliance, 23 Sept. 2014, web.archive.org/web/20141210174642/comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-women-comics-games-fear-way-of-life/?trackback=tsmclip

The post Gendered Stereotypes and Women’s Place in Them: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

Disclaimer

Before beginning, I want to emphasize that this is not meant to serve as either a discouragement or encouragement for marriage, nor to judge marriage entirely as an institution. In the United States, marriage has made significant strides toward equality. Nevertheless, statistical evidence shows that there is still work to be done before full equality is achieved.

Historical Marriages

Marriage is one of the oldest practices in human history, with its earliest surviving record of marriage is approximately 4,375 years old, dating back to 2350 B.C. Mesopotamia. Across thousands of years and countless societies, it is impossible to fully cover the history of marriage. Because I am focusing on marriage in the United States, I will be primarily referencing marital practices in Western Europe over the past 500 years due to its direct affect on modern American marriage. 

Due to Hollywood and the patriarchal rewriting of history, when imagining historical marriages, many assume that it was between a young powerless girl and her all powerful older husband. While recognizing that marriage was used for hundreds of years to suppress women both legally and socially, the fact of the matter is that general marital practices in history weren’t what Hollywood has made them out to be.

Common Misconceptions

First of all, marriage was a private affair between two consenting individuals that involved neither the law, the church, nor parents until the mid-16th century [3]. Two individuals simply needed to agree that they were married, and then they were. Likewise, once they agreed that they were no longer married, they were no longer married. For much of history, marriage was not always the rigid, state-controlled institution that many assume it was. 

Second, during the pre-Industrial Revolution, the average age of marriage for both parties – especially amongst commoners – was typically in the mid-twenties [4]. In fact, between 1500 and 1800 in urban areas, many women didn’t marry until their thirties or even their forties [5]. In the majority of cases, marriage was, as it is now, between two adults. 

Third, the idea of the “traditional wife,” a woman who manages the children and household – basically never existed outside of the 1950s in North America. For most of history, a family was either nobility or peasants. Noble women did not raise their children and certainly did not clean up after anyone—they had servants for that work. In peasant families, every single member of the household worked. Women labored alongside men on farms, in domestic production, and later in factories, making economic dependence the exception rather than the rule.

These misconceptions are rampant but are based on a morsel of reality. Among the nobility, marriage did occur at alarmingly young ages, but these unions were based on power rather then affection. Marriages could be arranged before an individual was born and the of the marriage consummation wouldn’t happen until the late teens or early twenties. After a few children, couples would remained legally married while fulfilling emotional needs with extra martial affairs. This type of marriage applied to roughly 0.5% of the population, yet it has become the standard modern ideal of historical marriage. 

On a side note, if you want to know what people of the past would have actually thought of Game of Thrones–type marriages, look at how they reacted to Lady Margaret Beaufort [6].

Trigger warning:

The following paragraph discuss inequality, sexual assault, and abuse. If you don’t want to wish to read about those subjects, please scroll to the paragraph after. 

Disturbing Facts

Now knowing the reality of historical marriages, its time to see the realities of modern marriages. Although modern marriage has undeniably progressed in terms of legal equality compared to even fifty years ago. In the 1870s, Alabama and Massachusetts made domestic abuse illegal but it wasn’t defined nor prosecuted across all fifty states until the mid 1970s [7]. It wasn’t until l993 that material rape was recognized and made illegal in all fifty states [8]. It wasn’t until 2010 that all fifty states adopted no-fault divorce [9]. Today, under the law, women can divorce their spouses for any reason, and it is illegal for their spouses to assault or abuse them. Despite these laws, 51.1% of all perpetrators of assault committed against women are their intimate partners [10], and one in three murdered women is killed by their husbands, with 1,683 confirmed victims a year.

Modern Marriages

Unfortunately, marital inequalities do not end there. For example: the motherhood penalty. The motherhood penalty is a measurable form of employment and earnings discrimination faced by women who have children. Married women are also affected by this penalty due to the assumption that they will eventually become mothers. In contrast, men experience a “fatherhood bonus,” in which marriage and parenthood increase their earnings and employment opportunities [11].

These inequalities are also reflected in the home. Despite increasing wages and employment, women still are the primary homemakers. When a woman gets married, she will spend an extra three hours a week – 165 extra hours a year -on housework compared to her husband, who will receive three extra hours of leisure [12]. Regardless of either patterns employment status, women also spend more time on childcare [13] and provide more emotional labor in relationships and marriages via emotional comfort, regulation, guidance, and organizing and planning daily tasks [14]. These invisible hours and burdens may be lesser then in decades past, but their continuous existence within marriages remains detrimental to women’s happiness and both emotional and physical health. 

The Potential of Marriage

Marriage, in its simplest form, is a wholesome testament to love. Its history, though messy and at times problematic, reflects its sweet nature despite the misconceptions surrounding it. Today, marriage is nearly as legally equitable as it has ever been. However, by overlooking its current issues and focusing only on the fantasy we hold about historical marriages, we are prohibiting marriage from reaching true full legal, economic, and social equality.

Citations:

1. Cambridge University Architecture Department
   Dyble, Mark. Dr. Mark Dyble | Staff. University of Cambridge Department of Architecture, https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/staff/dr-mark-dyble. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

2. Cambridge University Story Page
   “Monogamy League Table.” Cambridge University, https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/monogamy-league-table. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

3. JSTOR Book Source
   (Assuming this is a book or chapter — since the stable link is given but not the title on the URL, include as below with placeholder title if you want to refine further with author/title.)
   Author Last Name, First Name. Title of Book or Chapter. Publisher, Year. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fj1mn. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

4. Archive.org — The World We Have Lost
   Clark, Peter. The World We Have Lost: England Before the Industrial Age. Penguin Books, 1994, p. 99. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/TheWorldWeHaveLost/page/n99/mode/2up. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

5. Archive.org — The Marriage History Book
   Coon, Carleton S. The Story of Human Marriage: Its Basis and Development. Harvard University Press, 1954. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/marriagehistoryh0000coon/page/n5/mode/2up. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

6. Wikipedia — Lady Margaret Beaufort
   “Lady Margaret Beaufort.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, 31 Jan. 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

7. National Women’s History Alliance Timeline
   “Detailed Timeline of the Women’s Rights Movement.” National Women’s History Alliance, https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

8. Psychology Today Article
   Reynolds, Emma. “Marital Rape Is Criminalized — Not Upheld.” Psychology Today, March 2022, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-games/202203/marital-rape-is-criminalized-not-upheld. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

9. CNN Article
   Hall, Louise. “No-Fault Divorce Explained: History and Wellness.” CNN, 27 Nov. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/27/us/no-fault-divorce-explained-history-wellness-cec. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

10. RAINN Statistics Page
    “Statistics: Perpetrators of Sexual Violence.” RAINN, https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/statistics-perpetrators-of-sexual-violence/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

11. Demography Journal Article — Duke University Press
    Author Last Name, First Name, and Second Author First Last. “The Accumulation of Economic Disadvantage: The …” Demography, vol. 59, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1377–??. Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/59/4/1377/315802/The-Accumulation-of-Economic-Disadvantage-The. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

12. NPR Article
    Cohen, Patricia. “Pew: Earnings, Gender Wage Gap, Housework, Chores, Child Care.” NPR, 13 Apr. 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1168961388/pew-earnings-gender-wage-gap-housework-chores-child-care. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

13. U.S. News Health News Article
    Author Last Name, First Name. “Gender Reveals Data Shows Disparities in Child Care Roles.” U.S. News & World Report, 11 May 2023, https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-05-11/gender-reveals-data-shows-disparities-in-child-care-roles. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

14. BBC Worklife Article
    Smith, Rebecca. “The Hidden Load: How Thinking of Everything Holds Mums Back.” BBC Worklife, 18 May 2021, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210518-the-hidden-load-how-thinking-of-everything-holds-mums-back. Accessed 31 Jan. 2026.

The post The Historical and Modern Realities of Marriage: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

What an It Girl is

The Modern It Girl

Social Medias Influence

Where We Go From Here

Citations:

“It Girl.” Wikipedia, 31 May 2022, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_girl.

The post The It Girl: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

Boys are four times as likely to have autism compared to girls. They are three times as likely to have ADHD compared to girls. Boys are nearly three times as likely to have a learning disorder—such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia—compared to girls.

Autism studies have a male-to-female ratio of 8:1 [1]. ADHD studies of a male-to-female ratio of 9:1 [2]. Studies on learning disorders have a male-to-female ratio of 3:2 [3].

That first paragraph makes more sense now, doesn’t it?

When teachers, counselors, and therapists are diagnosing an individual as neurodivergent, they look for specific characteristics and qualities based on studies of the possible diagnosis. However, when studies have a super-majority of male test subjects, the super-majority of diagnoses will be male. When mis- or undiagnosed, women and girls may go their whole lives without the understanding or support they need—simply because their neurological disorder doesn’t present itself in the same way it does in men. Now, to understand the influence gender has on neurodivergency, one must know what neurodivergency actually is, how it appears in girls versus boys, and the effect that undiagnosing has on women.

What is Neurodivergence?

According to the Cleveland Clinic [4], “The term ‘neurodivergent’ describes people whose brain differences affect how their brain works. That means they have different strengths and challenges from people whose brains don’t have those differences. The possible differences include medical disorders, learning disabilities, and other conditions.”

Historically, neurodivergent individuals have been ostracized by society and, in some cases, sent to insane asylums with very poor conditions and treatment. People with atypical brain functions were believed to be insane and even dangerous. Although today there is more acceptance of these divergences, many of these outdated beliefs remain deeply ingrained in modern culture and cause bullying, isolation, and harassment targeted at neurodivergent people. The fact of the matter is that neurodivergent people are not dangerous nor insane—their brains simply work a little differently than what is considered standard. Medicine, trauma, or any situation does not cause their brains to function differently; neurodivergence is genetic, just as having black hair or brown eyes is.

Masking

Before we get into the next section, we need clarification on what masking is. The Oxford Review has an article on masking that I encourage you to read. Still, the basic definition they give is: “Masking, in the context of neurodiversity, refers to the act of suppressing or camouflaging natural behaviors, thoughts, or responses in order to conform to neurotypical social expectations… Masking can involve mimicking social cues, forcing eye contact, hiding stimming behaviors, rehearsing conversations, or pretending to understand things when they don’t. It is often subconscious and habitual, particularly when someone has been masking for many years.”

Female vs. Male Neurodivergence

When people think of autism, they often think of a child or adult who cannot understand social cues for the life of them and is obsessed with trains, science fiction, or history. If someone thinks of ADHD, they often picture a person who is constantly energetic, loud, and impulsive. Or if people think of learning disabilities, they typically think of a person who has difficulty with speech, gets bad grades, and has trouble socializing. Although some of these stereotypes may apply to a few girls, they are, by and large, male neurodivergent traits.

Because of the severe understudying of the female divergent brain, it is actually unknown how these divergences appear in women. Additionally, even when they do emerge in women, they are less likely to show these traits because women are infamously good at masking. From a young age, girls can conceal their differences compared to their male peers.

Societal Expectations

While scientists speculate that something in the female brain makes women exceptional at masking, I believe society does this. Women have learned that the labels placed upon them are character attacks with lasting effects. Their male peers will “outgrow” their quirks. Think about it… when a boy cannot get social cues, he is a dork, a quirky trait. When a girl can’t, she is weird and awkward, a judgment about who she is. When a boy is energetic and loud, he is rambunctious, active, and spirited. Meanwhile, if a girl is, she is difficult and not ladylike– a failure to meet the feminine ideal. When a boy is struggling in school, he is just having a hard time and needs support. When a girl is, it clearly means she is just a pretty face, and school was never meant for her– a verdict on her intelligence. This imbalance teaches girls that mistakes and differences reflect their worth, so they hide them. It teaches boys that behavior is behavior, not identity.

Growing up with these differences, it is clear why girls are better at masking. Masking became a survival mechanism to get through every aspect of life when adults do not give girls the understanding or the support that boys have. Additionally, girls will start to show their divergences in ways that aren’t recognized, which is why “girls aren’t as prone to neurodivergence.”

The Consequences

A misdiagnosis or lack of diagnosis can have serious consequences, and women take the brunt of that fallout. At best, it means being misunderstood, dismissed, or ostracized by peers and even family members. At worst, it can mean being denied the medical or therapeutic support you genuinely need, falling behind in school or work, and developing additional mental health issues like depression and anxiety.

Being a suspected or confirmed neurodivergent girl is brutal, but the situation is not hopeless. The best thing you can do is advocate for yourself. Professionals and others will brush you off, ignore you, and underestimate you more than expected. Stand your ground and keep making noise until someone actually listens.

Educate yourself about yourself and find communities who will understand and support you. Most importantly, make sure you get the understanding, support, and treatment you deserve.

Citations

1. MIT News – Autism Study
   Sample, Ian. “Studies of Autism Tend to Exclude Women, Researchers Find.” MIT News, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2. ADHD in Girls and Boys Study
   ADHD in Girls and Boys – Gender Differences in Co-Existing Symptoms and Executive Function Measures. National Library of Medicine.
3. Gender Differences in Special Educational Needs Identification
   Daniel, Lucy. “Gender Differences in Special Educational Needs Identification.” Review of Education, vol. 11, no. 3, 2023, Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3464.
4. Cleveland Clinic – Neurodivergent Definition
   “Neurodivergent.” Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23154-neurodivergent. Accessed [your access date].

The post Neurodivergence in Girls: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

This statement has become a common and unquestionable fact within our society, but does it hold any validity? Modern Homo sapiens have been on this planet for an estimated 315,000 years [1], and only began farming and building housing during the Neolithic Revolution in the Middle East’s Fertile Crescent around 12,000 years ago [2]. But what of those 303,000 years? What were we doing then? While this article will not delve into all aspects of those 303,000 years, it will examine the hunter-gatherer period of human history and the effect gender had on communal roles. By looking at the origin of the male-hunter/female-gatherer theory, modern research, biological factors, and common sense, it is easy to see how ridiculous our presumption of this history really is.

Man: The Hunter

To understand how society accepted this theory as fact, we have to look at where it started. The theory of men as hunters and women as gatherers is relatively new, emerging in the late 1960s. Much of the support for this idea came from the 1966 symposium Man the Hunter, organized by Richard Lee and Irven DeVore. What is particularly striking about this symposium is that it became one of the most influential theories of hunter-gatherer societies, despite being grounded primarily on assumptions rather than in statistical or genetic evidence. Moreover, it is essential to note that this piece’s main point wasn’t even about men being hunters and women being gatherers, but rather about how hunting and gathering created community for humans.

The assumption was that, because male biological tendencies make men stronger and faster, men did the hunting. This theory went virtually unchallenged for sixty years—whenever human remains were found with weapons, they were assumed to be male. Robert Kelly [3], a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, stated to NPR [4], “No one,” Kelly said, “had done a systematic tally of what the observational reports said about women hunting.”

Modern Findings

Although feminists have questioned the notion of men doing all the hunting for decades, it wasn’t until 2020 that there was a solid attempt from the scientific community to test who did the hunting and who did the gathering. So, fifty-four years after the fact, Cara Wall-Scheffler, backed by the University of Washington and Seattle Pacific University, set out to test if hunting and gathering were based on sex.

Wall-Scheffler and her colleagues studied accounts of prehistoric hunting methods dating back to the 1800s and beyond. This led Wall-Scheffler to discover that, rather than the presumed sex-based system, prehistoric societies were much more relaxed about gendered roles, with 79% of societies having female hunters [5]. Furthermore, the study found that women didn’t just participate in opportunistic or small-game hunts. Wall-Scheffler reported to NPR that “the hunting was purposeful. Women had their own toolkit. They had favorite weapons. Grandmas were the best hunters of the village.”

Effects on Modern Society

So, how does a nearly sixty-year-old theory about our million-year past affect today? The idea that men were hunters feeds the argument that men are natural breadwinners and providers, justifying jobs and positions of power being given exclusively to men. It’s important to recognize that this theory was popularized during the second wave of feminism and by those who sought to push back against change. During this time, it wasn’t uncommon for people to believe that men had natural intellectual superiority over women, so when this theory justified men’s supposed physical prowess, it made them appear naturally better in nearly every category. By making women docile gatherers and reducing their natural role to being mothers, it internalizes the idea of the supposed inferiority of the female sex.

Be the Hunter

The fact of the matter is that women are not primarily created to be mothers to men or to serve a lifelong supportive role to them. We have been given the ability to be hunters, chiefs, and whatever else we want to be. Although this theory has been used to justify the subordination of the female sex, it is debunked daily. Be the hunter you were meant to be.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Side note: Below, I have pasted some links that go into more detail about this part of our history. I cannot recommend these articles enough: 

Prehistoric hunters weren’t all male. Women killed big game, new discovery suggests | CNN 

Men are hunters, women are gatherers. That was the assumption. A new study upends it. 

________________________________________________________________________

Citations

Rafferty, John P. “Just How Old Is Homo sapiens?” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/story/just-how-old-is-homo-sapiens.

HISTORY.com Editors. “Hunter-Gatherers.” History, A&E Television Networks, 5 Jan. 2018, updated 28 May 2025, https://www.history.com/articles/hunter-gatherers. HISTORY+1

Kelly, Robert L. “Robert Kelly — Emeriti Faculty.” Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, University of Wyoming,

https://www.uwyo.edu/anthropology/personnel/emeriti-faculty/er-kelly.html

Aizenman, Nurith. “Men Are Hunters, Women Are Gatherers. That Was the Assumption. A New Study Upends It.” NPR, 1 July 2023, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/07/01/1184749528/men-are-hunters-women-are-gatherers-that-was-the-assumption-a-new-study-upends-i.

Anderson, Abigail, Sophia Chilczuk, Kaylie Nelson, Roxanne Ruther, and Cara Wall-Scheffler. “The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s Contribution to the Hunt across Ethnographic Contexts.” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 6, 2023, e0287101. 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101

The post Women’s Role in Hunting: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

Misogyny in Popular Culture and Trends

Things like weightlifting, STEM, and rap music often get a bad rap for being misogynistic. While those stereotypes do hold some truth, it’s important to understand that almost all popular culture contains some degree of misogyny—and that some of the most influential forms are the subtle forms. Trends such as “I’m just a girl” [1] or “Girl Math” [2]  are wildly popular online among women and girls. They’re catchy, seemingly harmless, and often satirical. But they also raise the question: why is the butt of the joke usually women, and why is their supposed “stupidity” or “indecisiveness” the target? Why do women often perpetuate these jokes themselves? 

Beyond these seemingly harmless examples, some trends are far more insidious, such as the “Tradwife” trend [3] or the “I’m not a feminist because ___” [4] trend where thousands of women publicly denounce feminism and call for the regression of women’s social and political rights, all under the guise of a “trend” on social media.

Women Hating Women

So, it’s clear that women can and do internalize misogyny—but how does this affect the way women treat each other? Misogyny between women shows up in thousands of ways, but one of the clearest examples is the “I’m not like other girls” [5] trend. In this trend, girls go to great lengths to prove they’re different from, and therefore better than, other girls. They avoid popular music, reject stereotypically “girly” hobbies, and even alter their style to separate themselves from the rest physically. Of course, this behavior can swing both ways when cliquey girls exclude and ridicule other girls who don’t follow trends. Girls get bullied for being either too trendy or too alternative, and, most of the time, it’s other girls doing the bullying.

The “I’m not like other girls” trend is the most obvious example of women-on-women misogyny, but it’s far from the only one. Think about all the times female relatives have pushed younger girls to help out more than the boys. How often have girls put down their own gender in a conversation with a cute guy? How many of us have caught ourselves catering to or prioritizing our male friends and colleagues over our female ones? There aren’t enough words in this article to capture all the ways women discriminate against other women. Still, I encourage every girl reading this to pause for a moment and reflect on your genuine thoughts and actions toward other women. You might be surprised by what you find.

Women Hating Themselves

One of the biggest tragedies of our society’s sexism is how girls are taught to fundamentally, and subconsciously, view themselves as less than. How many women haven’t pursued their passions because they believed they couldn’t, simply because they were women? How many have denied themselves the very human emotions of rage or angst? How many women have gone their whole lives believing it to be a fault to be a woman in a world of men? These limitations act as chains that have dragged (and continue to drag) every woman down due to the key pillar of our society– misogyny. Women hate women, others, and themselves [6]. I truly believe every girl, if she thought about it, could recall a moment when she deemed herself unworthy or incapable of doing something she was fully capable of doing. In fact, I think she could remember many moments.

The Feminism of Recognized Misogyny

In conclusion, the notion that women cannot be misogynistic is not only ignorant but dangerous. It undermines the real oppression and violence that women can, and do, inflict on each other and themselves. Because misogyny has been ingrained in us since before we could even think, it’s crucial to recognize how it lives within us and to take active steps to unlearn it. I write this knowing that I am misogynistic—but I do not want to be. Unlearning it will take a lifetime, but I owe it to myself and to every woman alive.

Education is key. Don’t support the system that is keeping you down. Don’t hate other women or yourself for simply existing in this world. Support others, love yourself, and remember: it’s very feminist to admit your own misogyny.

Citations

“Unmasking the Trend: the Hidden Harm of ‘I’m Just a Girl.’” The Teen Magazine, 30 May 2024, www.theteenmagazine.com/unmasking-the-trend-the-hidden-harm-of-i-m-just-a-girl.

Teo, Kai Xiang. “‘Girl Math’ Is Going Viral on TikTok — But It Has a Cost.” Business Insider, 13 Aug. 2023, www.businessinsider.com/girl-math-personal-finance-trend-goes-viral-tiktok-2023-8.

Travers, Mark. “A Psychologist Explains the Dangers of the ‘Tradwife’ Movement.” Forbes, 6 Jan. 2024, www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/01/06/a-psychologist-explains-the-dangers-of-the-tradwife-movement.

Whitmore, Claire. “’I’m Not a Feminist, I Can Actually Cook’: Conceptual Feminism Explained.” Medium, medium.com/@ClaireWhitmore/why-we-need-to-stop-saying-im-not-like-other-girls-095ce0d9ccd7.

Whitmore, Claire. “Why We Need to Stop Saying ‘I’m Not Like Other Girls’.” Medium, medium.com/@ClaireWhitmore/why-we-need-to-stop-saying-im-not-like-other-girls-095ce0d9ccd7.

Soddu, Isabella. “Internalized Misogyny Is Limiting Self-Expression and Confidence in Women.” The Vermont Cynic, 29 Nov. 2022, vtcynic.com/opinion/internalized-misogyny-is-limiting-self-expression-and-confidence-in-women/.

The post Internalized Misogyny: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

Babe Didrikson Zaharias set three world records in the 1932 Olympics when she threw a javelin 43.69 meters, ran the 80-meter hurdle in 11.9 seconds, and completed a 1.657-meter high jump. Also, apparently, she could type eighty-six words a minute [1]. Katie Ledecky held the 400-meter freestyle world record and currently holds the 800-meter and 1500-meter freestyle world records [2]. Alexandra Trusova is the first female skater recorded to land a quad flip, a quad lutz, a quadruple jump in a combination quad toe loop, land two and then three ratified quads in a free skate, and complete five quads in a single free skate [3]. Among many others, these women are truly wonders to watch at their craft.

However, a widespread belief is that women are bad at sports. Why is that? Does it hold any validity? When considering women’s sports, it’s essential to examine how girls’ physical health at the earliest ages is addressed, the media coverage of women’s athletics, and society’s broader attitudes towards female athletes.  

Women’s Athletics at the Grass-Root Level

What many people fail to realize about women’s sports is that girls are disadvantaged before they even reach kindergarten. Male infants and toddlers are encouraged to be more active and allowed to fall and roughhouse more than female infants and toddlers. The UK Parliament [4] notes that, by the time they reach kindergarten, “there is a real gap in fundamental skills between boys and girls.” Baz Moffat [5] observed that in parks, “Boys are doing rough and tumble and playing around. They are learning how to move their bodies, but girls are just not moving as much.”

These challenges only grow as female athletes reach their juvenile and teen years. According to the Women’s Sports Foundation [6], “As girls grow up, the quality level of their sports experience may decline. The facilities are not as good as the boys’ venues, and the playing times may not be optimal. The availability of quality, trained coaches may be limited in their community, or these coaches may be more focused on boys’ programs that have more funding for training. Equipment, and even uniforms, aren’t funded for many girls’ programs at the same 0levels as boys, so their ability to grow and enjoy the sport is diminished.”

It’s no surprise, then, that by age 14, girls drop out of sports at twice the rate of boys. All of this happens before these girls even reach college, so by adulthood, only 20% of women participate in sports compared to 47% of men [7]. This begs the question: do girls drop out of sports because of their “crazy hormones” and supposed physical inability to play, or because the world has told them in every way that they are not cut out for it?

Media and General Perception

Even when women are one of the best at their sport, nobody cares—because nobody knows. The media coverage gap between men’s and women’s athletics has been debated endlessly, and yes, women’s sports do generate less attention. But why is that? Many sport-bros argue that women are simply less entertaining to watch because they tend to be neither as strong nor as fast.

In that case, Stephen Curry is not the tallest, Tom Brady is not the most athletic, and Lionel Messi is far from the fastest. Yet all of these men are world-renowned. Additionally, if it were purely about physical feats, why do people watch college sports, vintage matches, or their local teams? If it were just about raw physical ability, the only sports people would watch would be track and weightlifting—yet those are among the least watched.

People watch sports for the stories, rivalries, emotion, and skill. They watch because of the drama, not the data. People don’t ignore women’s sports because they’re “less interesting”—they ignore them because they either don’t know about them or they subscribe to the misogynistic idea that women don’t belong in sports and can’t stand seeing a woman thrive in what they wanted to be.

Moving Forward

Whether it’s not having access to sports, not being encouraged, not wanting to be perceived as masculine, not being recognized for their talent, or not having faith in themselves, many incredible athletes aren’t on the field right now. How many Cristiano Ronaldos are unable to access proper fields? How many LeBron Jameses are being overlooked—all because they’re female?

There have been, and are, many sensational athletes who happen to be women, yet they remain unrecognized—either due to lack of exposure or outright misogyny. Times are changing, though. Now, more than ever, people are tuning in. Just last year, the women’s NCAA tournament outperformed the men’s by around 4 million viewers [8].

If you are a girl or woman reading this and you have an interest in any sport or physical activity—pursue it. You don’t have to reach the professional level. Do it for yourself, and for all the women who have been held back. Push your body, perfect your craft. In the end, the only person you should be training against is yourself.

Citations

“ Mildred ‘Babe’ Didrikson Zaharias.” National Women’s History Museum, womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/mildred-zaharias. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. National Women’s History Museum

“Katie Ledecky | Biography, Olympic Medals, Records, & Facts.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 30 Sept. 2025, britannica.com/biography/Katie-Ledecky. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. Encyclopedia Britannica

“Alexandra Trusova.” Wikipedia, 23 June 2004 (birth date), en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Trusova. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. Wikipedia

“Health barriers for girls and women in sport.” House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee, 5 Mar. 2024, publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmwomeq/130/report.html. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. UK Parliament+1

Moffat, Baz. “About – The Well HQ.” The Well HQ, thewell-hq.com/about/baz-moffat/. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. The Well+1

Staurowsky, E. J., et al. Chasing Equity: The Triumphs, Challenges, and Opportunities in Sports for Girls and Women. Women’s Sports Foundation, Jan. 2020. Women’s Sports Foundation

Herbert, Tim. “Only 1 in 5 women play grassroots sport, survey finds.” Women’s Sport Daily, 25 Aug. 2022, womensportdaily.co.uk/article/2022/08/06/only-1-5-women-play-grassroots-sport-survey-finds. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025. Women’s Sport Daily

Romo, Vanessa. “Women’s NCAA Championship TV Ratings Crush the Men’s Competition.” NPR, 10 Apr. 2024, www.npr.org/2024/04/10/1237894567/womens-ncaa-championship-tv-ratings-crush-the-mens-competition. Accessed 18 Oct. 2025.

The post Women’s Athletics: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

The History

To understand the history of medical misogyny, it is necessary to understand that for the majority of medical history, females were believed to be deformed, smaller males (3). This idea was considered common and unquestioned knowledge for thousands of years. This context is crucial to understanding why women have been excluded from medicine for so long. Why would a study include women if it costs more to house the male and female mice? Why would a study include women if their pesky hormones affected the otherwise “clean” data? 

Another historical theory that has had a significant impact on modern medicine came from the Greek philosopher Plato. Plato claimed, without any proof or medical trial, that women’s wombs were in constant motion within their bodies, and this was the cause of female mental and physical disturbances. This unquestionable theory came to be known as female hysteria, which derived from the Greek word ὑστέρᾱ, which translates to the uterus. It justified keeping women out of intellectual spaces such as medicine. The claim was also the cause for countless women throughout history being subjected to physical and psychological torture when they dared to step out of line. All of this in the name of medicine and logic. 

Still Failing Us

So, what has changed? As mentioned above, in 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act (4) was passed, which required medical trials to include women and racial minorities. Note that this only applies to medical trials that are funded by the NIH (National Institute of Health), and this does not apply to industry or private medical research. Additionally, there is no requirement for how many women have to be included.

It is important to remember that this act was passed around thirty years ago and that the vast majority of foundational knowledge of modern medicine, which is still used today, came far before this law. Of course, this fact raises questions about how much of our fundamental understanding of medicine only applies to men.

When considering modern medical misogyny, it is also notable to mention that women are routinely and severely underrepresented. They are underrepresented in medical trials due to the lack of policies requiring women and the lack of enforcement for the laws that do exist. This lack of representation is also evident in the shortage of female health professionals. Outside of pediatrics and family medicine, women make up only 30.2% of doctors (5). Women hold 25% of board seats in healthcare companies (6). Women only make up around 28% of hospital and health-system boards (7). 

With the scarcity of laws protecting women in health and the lack of women in positions of power, it is clear that modern medicine continues to fail women just as it has in the past.

Lethal Ignorance

This history is not behind us, and these laws are not protecting us. Women and racial minorities are 30% more likely to be misdiagnosed compared to their white male counterparts (8), and 93% of women have reported feeling dismissed when attempting to seek medical treatment (9). Nearly one thousand women in the wealthiest country in the world die during childbirth each year (10).

In their 2001 study “The Girl Who Cried Pain”, University of Maryland scholars Diane Hoffman and Anita Tarzian found that, “…female chronic-pain patients were more likely to be diagnosed with histrionic disorder (excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior) compared to male chronic-pain patients.” and that “…when it comes to receiving adequate treatment, proper medications, and even timely and correct diagnoses of illness, studies suggest that women frequently get treated differently—often worse—than men.” (11).

These studies are not just jarring statistics; they are real people who are suffering and dying solely because of their sex. How many women die every year due to ignorance? How many more lives will misogyny claim before some action is taken? 

This is an uncomfortable situation that needs to be addressed. Historically, medicine has failed women, but it does not have to continue to do so. These numbers and deaths are not unfortunate facts of life; they are very changeable. With the right policies, equal representation, and proper conduct of research, these deadly mistakes can be corrected, and women can receive the care they deserve.  

Citations

1. National Institutes of Health. “NIH Policies on Inclusion.”
   Office of Research on Women’s Health, https://orwh.od.nih.gov/toolkit/nih-policies-inclusion.
2. University of Utah Health. “Why We Know So Little About Women’s Health.”
   University of Utah Health, 2020, https://healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/womens-7.
3. “Sex Determination – Developmental Biology.”
   NCBI Bookshelf, National Center for Biotechnology Information, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9985.
4. “S.1 – National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993.”
   103rd Congress, 1993-1994, https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1.
5. Statista. “Share of Female Doctors by Specialties U.S. 2023.”
   https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105355/female-doctors-share-specialties-usa.
6. Gonzalez, Georgina. “In Healthcare, Women Hold 25% of Board Seats: 5 Findings to Know for 2021.”
   Becker’s Hospital Review, 8 Oct. 2021, https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/in-healthcare-women-hold-25-of-board-seats-5-findings-to-know-for-2021.
7. Jeffries, Jane. “Women Underrepresented in Hospital and Health System Boards.”
   American Hospital Association, 2021, https://trustees.aha.org/articles/881-women-underrepresented-in-hospital-and-health-system-boards.
8. “Medical Mistakes Are More Likely in Women and Minorities.”
   PubMed Central, National Institutes of Health, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34387620.
9. “She’s Not Imagining It: The Continuing Medical Dismissal of Women.”
   Psychology Today, 27 July 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-not-just-in-your-head/202507/shes-not-imagining-it-the-continuing-medical-dismissal-of.
10. Hoyert, Donna L. “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2022.”
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2022/maternal-mortality-rates-2022.htm.
11. 11. “The Impact of Medical Malpractice on Women.” Best Lawyers, 12 June 2020, https://www.bestlawyers.com/article/medical-malpractice-effect-on-women/3010.

The post Medical Misogyny: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.

Society teaches women that they should hate themselves. Every woman has something fundamentally wrong with her — whether it’s her waist, her face, her breasts, or her bum. There are a million options for a woman to choose from when deciding what she will loathe about herself for the rest of her life. Hating your body has become an accepted and expected reality of womanhood. To understand how women’s insecurities have turned into a trillion-dollar industry, one must realize beauty standards in terms of class, race, age, and economics. Once you understand these concepts, it is easy to see that the industry that claims to support women’s self-confidence is little more than misogyny wrapped in a pretty pink bow.

The Effect of Class

For much of human history, the ideal woman was curvaceous and full-figured; love handles signified health and regular access to food. In ancient Rome, a fair complexion was ideal because it meant a woman did not have to labor outside. In ancient India, it was considered beautiful to have long, glossy hair — hair products were exclusive and expensive. The one thing all beauty standards have in common, past and present, is that they represent something only the wealthy can achieve. When only the rich can meet beauty standards that they themselves set, they automatically become the beautiful class. Until very recently, the rich were almost viewed as a different species of human. Wealthy people were considered the superior class because they had natural intelligence, beauty, and elegance that the poor simply did not have. For thousands of years, they dictated what was beautiful and what was not, so, of course, they made physical perfection something only they could achieve.

The Effect of Race

Racism has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on beauty standards. Granted, for much of human history, racism did not take the same form as it does today. The very concept of race didn’t formally emerge until the late sixteenth century (1). The Medium (2) notes that one of the ways colonialism retained its power from the very beginning was through implementing Eurocentric beauty standards: “Beauty standards weren’t merely aesthetic preferences — they were sophisticated tools of cultural domination that could achieve what armies alone could not. By systematically devaluing indigenous features while promoting European ideals as universal markers of civilization, colonizers created a psychological dependency that outlasted their political control.” Dr. Frantz Fanon (3) described this as ‘epidermalization’ — the internalization of racial hierarchies that led to self-hatred and cultural alienation. When one fundamentally hates their natural appearance and believes another group to be superior, they become easy targets for oppression. Beauty standards have been used as psychological oppression for both the poor and racial minorities for nearly 400 years, and these standards remain foundational to modern ideals.

The Effect of Age

In the 1950s, the ideal woman was a woman. She had a grown body, a mature face; she had a female body that had gone through puberty. But in the 1960s, with the rise of second-wave feminism (4), the United States saw the birth of childlike beauty standards. When women stopped acting like helpless children, the media stopped romanticizing women and started romanticizing helpless children. Suddenly, big eyes, small hands, smooth porcelain skin, petite bodies, and young blonde hair were in every magazine. Now, sixty years later, it is a trillion-dollar industry for women to look as young as possible. Women bleach their hair to mimic childhood, buy anti-wrinkle products to erase smile lines, and go on extreme diets to remain as thin as they were before puberty. This infantilization of girls’ bodies and minds has led to the vilification of women’s bodies and minds.

Love Yourself

Beauty standards are not harmless coincidences; they are well-thought-out and executed weapons. They are meant to elevate the rich and punish the poor. These standards intend to devalue and dehumanize whole cultures to glorify the colonial powers. At their most insidious, they attempt to make women hate themselves for simply aging. Every standard has been designed to control, shame, and keep women chasing an impossible fantasy that is not even their own. In a world of impossible standards, it is crucial to remember that they only hold power over you as long as you give them that power. Ignore them. Reject them. Remember, the strongest rebellion against these standards is loving yourself.

Citations

1. “The History of the Idea of Race.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 29 Aug. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/The-history-of-the-idea-of-race.
2. Sadat, Nazmus. “The Invisible Chains: How Colonial Beauty Standards Continue to Shape Our Mirror’s Reflection.” Medium, 30 Jun. 2025, https://medium.com/@sadat99/the-invisible-chains-how-colonial-beauty-standards-continue-to-shape-our-mirrors-reflection-c0d8f24f3081.
3. “Frantz Fanon | Biography, Writings, & Facts.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 29 Aug. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frantz-Fanon.
4. “Second Wave of Feminism | Definition, Goals, Accomplishments, Leaders, & Facts.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 22 Sept. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/second-wave-feminism.

The post Understanding Beauty Standards: Simplified appeared first on GirlSpring.