Written by: Hanna Yaghoubi

Edited by: Noa Doupe

In today’s digital climate, misogynistic language and ideology have been neatly packaged in a box marked ‘reclaimation’; the rhetoric has changed over time, but the sentiment has not. Femininity in its many forms has been disparaged for so long that when women claim it they are often praised, even if the so-called ‘feminine traits’ they reclaim have deep-rooted misogynist origins. Phrases such as “I’m just a girl,” “girl math,” and “pretty girl humour,” encourage internalized misogyny, reducing womanhood to superficiality and incompetence. Using Sandra Bartky’s theorizations of disciplinary practices, it becomes evident how women learn to monitor and regulate themselves through constant self-surveillance. This internalization of the male the male haze, leads women to shape their actions and behaviours in ways that appear cute. These concepts are labelled as harmless or humorous, resulting in women absorbing the very sexist ideas that restrict them. In an exploration of popular internet language, it will become clear how women, through attempted reclamation of tropes and stereotypes, subconsciously aid misogynistic narratives. This article will examine three interconnected digital trends to explore how each perpetuates internalized misogyny, reinforces patriarchal expectations, and disciplines women’s behaviour. 

The Aesthetic of Helplessness 

The popular phrase “I’m just a girl” has become a widely used trope across online spaces. The expression is often used in retaliation to a challenge or difficulty, suggesting that expectations should be lowered because “I’m just a girl.” As Molseed explains, the phrase “uses hyperbole and irony to construct its effect,” with the word just implying that the speaker is “nothing more than a ‘girl,’ with no other sense of identity”. The trope suggests that women are naturally prone to mistakes, and that to be a woman means to be helpless. In using this excuse, women pre-emptively discredit themselves so that men and others do not get the chance to. This concept is what Molseed identifies as constructing girlhood through repeated displays of “incompetence and ineptitude”. This approach reinforces how incompetence is inherent to femininity, suggesting that part of womanhood is to ‘simply’ be, echoing antiquated tropes of womanhood. These stereotypes are those of the ditsy woman, one that is overly emotional, and one that you should not have high expectations of.  As Bartky argues, women learn to diminish and monitor themselves based upon patriarchal expectations. They discipline their behaviour in ways that may feel natural or even endearing. Therefore, when women use the phrase online, self-effacement is mistaken for aloof charm rooted in expectations of female subordination and inferiority.

Financial Infantilization 

“Girl math” is a humorous framework women use to excuse irrational or impractical spending. This results in a reinforcement of longstanding stereotypes about women’s financial incompetence. It began with the rationalization of certain purchases, claiming that things ‘under five dollars are free,’ or that ‘paying with cash means you didn’t lose any money at all’. These jokes directly draw on long histories of women being stereotyped as financially irresponsible or bad with numbers. This trope also infantilizes the women who use it, suggesting that they need outside assistance to properly take care of their finances. Designating a distinct female framework for mathematics and finance, within which women are presumed to be irrational, women’s economic reasoning is inherently inferior, requiring its own alternative logic. This separation aids in gender binary thinking, a view that argues traditional gender roles are the ‘correct’ way for individuals to behave. Framing women as uneducated through separate frameworks contributes to and reinforces binary roles, painting the man as the knowledgeable, dominant force. Similarly, in high-class patriarchal narratives, there is a common stereotype that wives should not, and need not, be trusted with money. The choice to humourize this stereotype lets women laugh along with the joke, but does not remove the fact of being the joke; it encourages them to discipline themselves into these roles. Bartky would frame this as a means to internalize discipline; women participate in their own trivialization because the performance of incompetence has been normalized as feminine. As a result of this so-called reclamation, women are infantilized, their authority is undermined, and it is suggested that logic and finances belong to men. 

When Beauty Cancels Wit

“Pretty girl humour” further extends this patterning through a suggestion that attractiveness and humour are mutually exclusive for women. The use of the term relies on the stereotype of women being inherently unfunny. The phrase is often used defensively, where women insist they don’t have pretty girl humour. To claim the term would mean that one has been conventionally attractive her whole life, implying that they could never develop a genuine sense of wit. The use of this phrase actively works to isolate women from one another, ridiculing those who fit the conventional beauty standards and always have. The foundation for this assumption is that women can only become funny through loss, distance, or deviation from femininity; humour can only be the product of adversity or lack of desirability. This rhetoric positions femininity and wit as incompatible, reinforcing the patriarchal notion that to be feminine is to be ornamental rather than clever. In contrast, men are permitted to be humorous and masculine. This characterization of women aligns with Barkty’s view that patriarchal norms confine women to surface-level traits. Appearances are rewarded, and expressions of intelligence are discouraged. Women are taught that humour is not inherent, and that it threatens femininity–something to disclaim or minimize. Participation in this language propagates an internalization of restrictive gender norms, disciplining oneself into a hierarchy where femininity and humour cannot coexist. 

Reclamation, or Restriction?

Despite the way these digital trends are framed as playful or ironic, they ultimately recycle the same gendered expectations that have continued to restrict women. What can be presented as reclamation often becomes self-surveillance; a performance of smallness or incompetence in exchange for external validation or approval. As established through Bartky’s framework, internalized misogyny rarely shows up explicitly—it hides in habits that are socially rewarded, ones that feel natural and humorous. These phrases silently reassert who women are allowed to be and expected to behave. These trends reveal how easily misogyny can adapt, modernizing itself through humour and aesthetics.