Female Artists Are Not Their Characters (More Women Owing Their Artistry)

Many moons ago, I wrote a post about Women Artists Owning Their Artistry.  That post focused on journalism and the media's insistence on talking to women artists about the lucky nature of their success and talent, rather than engaging with the artist's work seriously as they usually do with male artists.

This week I came across another aspect of women artists, and their work still receiving less respect than the work of men.  Lena Dunham has been making headlines for throwing shade at Woody Allen during a panel at the Sundance film festival this week.  However, if you listen to the actual discussion, Dunham (along with Mindy Kaling, Kristen Wiig and Jenji Kohan) is talking about how the world generally equates female artists and writers with their characters--- assuming that the artist/author shares the foibles, issues, aspirations etc. of their characters--- whereas this happens much less with male artists.  Here is the excerpted segment:


Again, rather than engaging with a story or a character as a serious piece of art and creativity in and of itself, people prefer to spend time puzzling out how the character is a window into the neuroticism or hubris of the female author/artist.

This is problematic and sexist because:

1. It again refuses to take the art seriously, simply because it was created by a female.  The same respect, intelligence, experimentalism, and benefit of the doubt afforded to male artists are not extended to the women.
2. It is a sort of dominance display, attempting to ferret out the vulnerabilities of a woman against her will, and prove that the investigator knows the woman's mind and self better than she.
3. It is based on the assumption that women are fundamentally crazy (hysterical) or flawed, and a morbid desire to expose this.

The Fall: A Feminist Crime Show

Ever since binge watching the second season of the  BBC crime drama tv show, The Fall, broadcast in the US via Netflix, I've been trying to figure out how to put together my thoughts on the show.

Luckily, as of Jan 22nd, Madeline Davies on Jezebel has done it for me!  See her article here.

Originally, I wasn't too keen on the show.  I originally started watching it because of Gillian Anderson who plays the main character, Stella Gibson--- a police detective trying to catch a serial killer who has murdered several women in Northern Ireland.  To quote Davies synopsis of the show:

"The Fall's ingenious twist is that it's not a whodunnit. The murderer, Paul Spector (played with terrifying coldness by Jamie Dornan), is identified to the audience in the first episode and the plot is as much his as it is Stella Gibson's. The tension that drives you to binge watch comes not from suspicion, but from watching Spector and Gibson's stories as they head towards an intersection, break away from each other, and intersect again.

When I first started watching I couldn't take the dramatic irony.  As the viewer, especially in the first several episodes, you are privy to build up (and follow through) of acts of violence done by Spector without the power to intervene.  If only you could jump in and alert Gibson and her colleagues . . . but you can't.  This was too upsetting to me initially and I stopped watching after only a couple episodes.

Skip ahead to about six months later, I learn that Colin Morgan is in the show's second season, so I decide to give the show another chance.  I'm really glad I did.  This show is about way more than Colin Morgan showing up halfway through the second season.  Because this show--- despite maintaining the traditional focus on the dead bodies of women--- is a FEMINIST crime show.  And it's more than that.   It's a very cleverly constructed feminist criticism of the detective genre.

Opinion: Inspired by “Talking About Bias & Speaking While Female”

I want to thank TwoEsforMee for her recent post: “Talking About Bias; Speaking While Female.”  It made me think harder about many things we have discussed here on the blog and I want to offer a longer comment before all these thoughts evaporate. 

The Sandberg Paradox

It is easy to pick on Sheryl Sandberg because she is putting herself and her ideas out into the world, but I think her efforts are slowly proving the futility of her perspective.   When I reviewed Lean In early in our blog’s development, I highlighted two somewhat divergent approaches to the "women in the workplace" issue: the institutional perspective and the leadership perspective.  The institutional perspective focuses on systemic barriers like sexism, inadequate childcare and/or maternity leave, inflexible scheduling, etc.  In contrast, the leadership perspective focuses on what individual professional women can do to improve their career prospects.  Sandberg acknowledges the institutional perspective but generally operates under the leadership perspective.

Unfortunately, the leadership perspective is not holding up well in practice.  Sandberg seems to eat her words more and more as time passes.  As TwoEsforMee noted in her post, one of the main calls to arms in the Lean In movement, discussing discrimination, appears to be backfiring, or at least requiring heavy qualifications.  Similarly, many women’s personal experiences (including my own) illustrate the entrenched barriers in women’s workplace environments.  Even Lean In seemed to contradict itself, with chapters alternately telling women to a) stand up for themselves but b) not making too much fuss in case someone thinks they are bitchy.

The more Sandberg champions the leadership perspective, the more the outcomes seem to support the institutional perspective.  It is nearly impossible to walk the tightrope (leadership perspective), when the weather is terrible and everyone around you thinks you should not be walking in the first place (institutional perspective).

The Leadership Perspective as a Distraction?

Given the leadership perspective's apparent ineffectiveness, why does it persist?   Because we want it to be true.  

We want to believe that with the right suit, resume format, business speak, and hard work we too can overcome adversity and become the next woman leader.  This delusion is not limited to the women's community.  Upward mobility had stagnated for many groups and self-help books are as popular as ever.  But I believe we are doing ourselves a disservice when we persist in asking powerful women like Sheryl Sandberg, Hillary Clinton, and Oprah their secrets for success.  Lean In is full of typical answers about assertiveness and communication skills, but all this seems shockingly incomplete and ultimately insufficient.  None of it would have helped in my sexist project experience, nor will it do much for TwoE'sforMe as she tries to navigate the patriarchal world of medicine.

In the end, the real answer seems to be locate a supportive environment.  In Sandberg's case, the supportive environment came from good workplaces, mentors, and life partners.  Others have succeeded after building their own supportive environments (see L's review posts of #GIRLBOSS). Either way, this is unambiguously an institutional perspective solution dressed up to look like leadership in hindsight.  

Finding or developing a supportive environment is not easy by any means, but it is much more likely to pay off than fretting over your communication strategies.  It does involve personal initiative, but initiative that focuses on your needs (not someone else's "role model" path) and your environment, rather than viewing your situation as some personal leadership failure.  

The institutional or work-environment approach also broadens the range of potential allies.  Everyone benefits from inclusive and supportive environments: families, racial minorities, the disabled, women, the LGBT community . . . the list could go on for a while.  Even the "corporate" interests would benefit from greater worker morale and productivity.  Feminist issues move from being "women's" issues to being workplace issues with a broad coalition of support.

So I applaud Sheryl Sandberg for her efforts, but I worry that they represent a distraction from practical realities and effective initiative.  I for one will focus on finding or building a supportive work environment for myself in the future.

Talking About Bias; Speaking While Female

Do we need feminism?/Does sexism still exist?

            A few months ago during a discussion regarding feminism and women’s rights, a friend of mine expressed the following: “What more is there for feminism to do?”

A crushing statement.  Ironically, this student plans to join me in the field of medicine, a profession known for its disparities and its patriarchal and paternalistic structure.  Numerous posts and articles have pointed out the gaps between males and females in science and math, starting back when we are children and continuing on into the professional world.  In her short essay, Dr. Arghavan Salles shares some of her experiences studying engineering, then medicine, and finally joining the ranks of the surgical residents.  Surgery is known to be a notoriously competitive field, for men and women alike.  As she notes, women have made big gains: more women are joining residencies and training programs.  However, the academic side has not seen the same increase:

Indeed, despite one third of surgical trainees being women, only eight percent of full professors in surgery are women. Even fewer of these women go on to hold important leadership positions such as serving as department chairs: there are only three women chairs of departments of surgery in the United States.

She negates the idea that men work harder than women or that men are more qualified than women and thus are more likely to succeed.  However, she discusses an interesting study which reminds me of an earlier post by Morghan.  As Dr. Salles explains:  

The article argues that women face a stereotype that their ability is inferior to that of their male colleagues. The stereotype leads to a taxing dynamic: there’s pressure to perform at the highest level — with patient lives at stake — while constantly feeling like others doubt your ability. My research shows that when women believe others endorse this negative stereotype, our mental health deteriorates. Likewise, when we believe men are better surgeons than women, we experience physical health problems, such as gastrointestinal distress or low back pain.

Morghan brought up a similar study where the "main finding suggests that job authority decreases men's depression but increases women's depression" and Morghan suggested a similar emotional strain could be affecting mental health.  Dr. Salles calls it “nuanced sexism.”  Not as overt as sexism might have been 50 years ago, but still damaging on an emotional and perhaps physical level.   

            A previous post by Morghan detailed her experience of being at the receiving end of this kind of nuanced sexism:

Then I found out that two significant people on the project thought my day-saving efforts were "bitchy" and, while ultimately appropriate, unacceptable on any future projects.  At first I thought I'd done something terrible, but after some soul searching I realized these people would not have responded this way if a man had acted as I had.  I remembered how often I'd been told to smile (not something you'd say to a man) and how they had loved me when I was nothing but a servile bucket of sunshine. 

Talking about sexism

            Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook, author of Lean-In) and Adam Grant (UPenn) have teamed up to write a series of four articles regarding women and work.  Two of these have been published, the first titled “When Talking About Bias Backfires.”  Sandberg and Grant outline how spreading information about stereotypes can actually perpetuate and enhance them.  Disseminating this information can lead individuals to think discriminatory behavior is common, socially acceptable, and thus permissible for them to perform as well. They detail some studies exploring this phenomenon, and I suggest you check out the entirety of the article. 

            Their point is that talking about discrimination and sexism is not enough.  In fact, it could be dangerous and detrimental.  Instead, as shown by some follow-up studies, we need to talk about discrimination, express how it is wrong, and show how discriminatory viewpoints can be devalued.  Not only is this effective in changing perspectives, but it also motivates those being discriminated against to work beyond these external limitations.

When we communicate that a vast majority of people hold some biases, we need to make sure that we’re not legitimating prejudice. By reinforcing the idea that people want to conquer their biases and that there are benefits to doing so, we send a more effective message: Most people don’t want to discriminate, and you shouldn’t either.

But how to confront gender discrimination and sexism? 

Sandberg and Grant’s second article is entitled “Speaking While Female,” in which they follow the suggestions made in their first article.  They outline the stereotypes and current gender discrimination seen in the workplace, explain why this is problematic, and end with a call to action.

Studies (and personal anecdotes) show that when women do speak and assert their ideas in the workplace, they are commonly interrupted and spoken over.  Their ideas may be co-opted by male counterparts and subsequently receive more praise.  On this blog alone, we have had many posts and articles surrounding this balance of assertiveness being viewed as “bitchy and pushy.”  One study in the Sandberg/Grant article highlights this imbalance as such:

Male executives who spoke more often than their peers were rewarded with 10 percent higher ratings of competence. When female executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14 percent lower ratings. As this and other research shows, women who worry that talking “too much” will cause them to be disliked are not paranoid; they are often right.

            Other studies show how this creeping form of nuanced sexism leads society at large to devalue the ideas and opinions of a woman, due solely to the fact that she is a female.  Clearly, devaluing half the working population is an ineffective business model.  Women have indeed come up with fantastic new ideas and innovations, providing immense contributions to all genres of human achievement.  However, they need some time and space for the actualization of these ideas.

            This is the point where the Sandberg and Grant article falls flat for me, as their proposed methods of change leave nothing for concrete the motivated individual.  Sandberg and Grant outline two new strategies: 1) increasing the number of women in leadership roles and until then, 2) encouraging current leaders to incorporate gender equalizing practices.  Right now, business leaders can enact new models of teamwork and evaluation, such as blind auditions, no interrupting pitches, etc.  Then, following our current trend of increasing female leadership roles, women in power can enforce an equal playing field and provide an effective barrier to the nuanced sexism smog infiltrating the professional workplace.

            However, I am left wondering… What can women do now to improve their situation?  The two strategies outlined above leave the current female population dependent on the motivation of their bosses (who are most likely male) or waiting to reap the benefits of future change.  This state of dependence is almost as debilitating to the feminist cause as is being talked over in business meetings.  In Laura’s earlier review of #GIRLBOSS, she highlighted the following strategies from the book:  don't apologize for ambition, there is no shame in learning, draw strength from other women (and men).  While these tenants provide a real-time strategy for change, but I am concerned.  Will my assertiveness and directness only earn me negative evaluations and the title of “bitchy?” 

Feminism in medicine and the workplace

            A commenter on one of the Sandberg/Grant articles, Dr. Srinivasan, writes:

Medicine is a bastion of prejudice against women. Mild mannered men and "foreign doctors" are targeted too for the type of behavior described in this article and in Medicine, when women are not allowed to speak, patients suffer...  At medical conferences women can have their hands raised for ever to speak and be ignored. When they are allowed to speak they are often rudely interrupted…What is worse, female speakers and females in power practice the same prejudice against women that the men do. Men and women in power are threatened by the ambitious, knowledgeable and up and coming lower echelon … This behavior is practiced to disconcert, divide, enervate and deliberately frustrate underlings and those who don't belong to the "tribe" or network in power. It comes from the belief that sharing power is the equivalent of diluting power. Audacious questions, probing ones, dissenting opinions and contentious or discomfiting observations are not brooked from either gender, especially if those talking and dissenting are not "important."

            Medicine may be unique in its hierarchical structure, but as Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Salles point out, gender discrimination (among other types) is a medical prevalent issue.  Just as minimizing female contributions can limit the effectiveness of business teams, reducing the thoughts and concerns of the female health professionals effects patient care and health.  This is not an issue to be taken lightly.  What Dr. Srinivasan talks about is a conscious/unconscious method of "dividing and conquering" to maintain control, ultimately holding medicine in a stagnant, backwards state.  Reduced efficacy in screenwriting sessions may mean we have poor quality programming, but reduced efficacy in hospitals and doctor's offices means that patients die.

            I would also like to point out something from both Dr. Srinivasan's comment and the Sandberg/Grant article: gender discrimination can come from both males and females.  Dr. Srinivasan writes, "What is worse, female speakers and females in power practice the same prejudice against women that the men do."  Studies quoted by Sandberg and Grant mention "When female executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14 percent lower ratings."  This calls into question one of Sandberg and Grant's methods of change, namely that increasing the numbers of women in leadership roles will provide a more female-friendly work environment.  Multiple factors can underlie this phenomenon: perhaps only the most competitive women have succeeded thus far, competitive women who are ill-equipped to provide a nurturing work environment.  Whatever the reasons, this questions the effectiveness of Sandberg and Grant's recommendations for future change.

            Thus, what is the best way for me, as student and later a resident, to talk about and confront the nuanced sexism I may encounter?  How can I speak out and be effectively heard by those who are not interested in listening?  How can I speak out without negatively affecting my performance evaluations and ruining my career aspirations? How can I use my skills (as a female) to advance medicine and provide the highest quality care for my patients?

Herein lies the paradox,

To break down the barriers that hold women back, it’s not enough to spread awareness. If we don’t reinforce that people need — and want — to overcome their biases, we end up silently condoning the status quo. (Talking About Bias)

But..

when women challenged the old system and suggested a new one, team leaders viewed them as less loyal and were less likely to act on their suggestions. (Speaking While Female)

           Society at large, like my friend, may not understand why feminism is still necessary.  This "nuanced sexism" may be more hidden and subtle, but it is nonetheless damaging to the physical and emotional health of women.  It is also damaging to our workforce and the efficacy of our health services.  Thus, we need to talk about bias and discrimination; we need to talk about feminism. We need to find effective ways to have female voices heard without remaining dependent on the theoretical change-of-heart of professional leaders or future changes to our hierarchical structure.  I am still perplexed as how to find these viable strategies. Perhaps what we need is a male/female brainstorm session where both sets of ideas are equally valued ... but how we get to that point is beyond me.

Women Taking Back Religious Rites

Generally, when I consider feminism and religion, the two phenomena don't seem to mix very well.  Most of our major religions, at least traditionally, have demonstrated a tendency towards patriarchy.  Unfortunately this patriarchal tenancy showed itself last year when a prominent Washington, D.C. rabbi "was arrested for allegedly videotaping women in the mikvah he supervised."

For those outside the Jewish faith (including myself), the mikvah is a ritual bath used for conversions; by orthodox women after menstruation and childbirth; or in non-orthodox communities for life transitions like a "bar or bat mitzvah, or when you're ending a period of grieving, or marking an important anniversary."

After the rabbi's arrest, local women understandably felt uncomfortable about the mikvah, but several synagogues banded together to host a "Take Back the Mikvah" event to make sure the mikvah and its immersion ceremony remained a positive ritual of renewal for women in the community.  The event included a discussion of the mikvah and its troubles throughout history (all the way back to 1500 years ago!), a demonstration of the immersion rite, and an overall sense of community support for the women interested in experiencing the ancient ritual.

I was very inspired to hear that this group of women banded together and refused to let patriarchy limit their access to spiritual healing.  Score one for women in the otherwise lopsided Women : Religion scoreboard!

For the full NPR piece that inspired this post, see here.  The full piece is about 7 minutes long and worth a listen, although a shorter summary transcript is available here.

A Feminist Music Year in Review: according to BuzzFeed

Buzzfeed has posted a few articles regarding Feminism in 2014. I came across this article, and as someone who is always listening to music, I was surprised to have never heard of a good majority of these. Either I live under a rock, these songs are not really that famous, or maybe their "feminist message" is not ringing loud and clear. Let's take a look (BuzzFeed annotation, followed by mine in red)

1. Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj, “Flawless (Remix)” 15M+ views

Beyoncé’s feminist call to arms is even fiercer with a feature from Nicki Minaj. The two women take turns explaining all the ways they stay flawless in the face of constant gossip and hate. You can say what you want, Nicki and Bey know they’re the shit and they want everyone feel the same.
Girl-power lyric: “And you can say what you want / I’m the shit (what you want I’m the shit) / I’m the shit, I’m the shit, I’m the shit / I want everyone to feel like this.”

My take:  So this is the iconic song with Beyoncé standing proud as the definition of Feminism flashes behind her.  I love that. Awesome.  Not much room for discrepancy about what she is trying to say there.  I love this as an example of two powerful ladies (minority ladies at that) proving their success and using it to send a message.  A++++

However, I am totally confused by this genre.  I don't know what they are singing about for half the song: 

I'm with some flawless bitches because they be mobbin' pretty'

Cause niggas love bad bitches that be on they grizzly

Throw that ass back I be on my frisbee

Princess cut diamonds on my Disney

Rhyming on point, but I am totally lost.  However, the chorus is pretty clear:  I'm flawless.  You're flawless.  Women are flawless, let's get it done.  I can get behind that.

#GIRLBOSS Lessons from Chapter 2

Chapter 2: How I Became a #GIRLBOSS? 

In this chapter, Amoruso takes us through how she went from being an ID checker at a university to creating and running her company, Nasty Gal.  It's a good story to read if you are interested in fashion, online retail, and/or running an eBay business selling vintage clothes.  But I'm not going to get into her details of her story here.  You can read the book if you want to know all that.

Here are the more universal lessons I got from this chapter 
 

Drawing Strength from Other Women (and Men):

Throughout this chapter, Amoruso mention many other women who helped her and inspired her along her journey.  When she first started her eBay business, her mother helped her prepare garments and descriptions for listing (25).  She had several models, friends, model-friends, photographers help and believe in her as her business grew.  The name of her store was inspired by "legendary funk singer and wild woman Betty Davis" (22).  Amoruso describes her decision to name her shop out of homage to this woman:

"I thought I was just picking a name for an eBay store, but it turned out that I was actually infusing the entire brand with not only my spirit, bu the spirit of this incredible woman." (23)

Gender, Job Authority, and Depression

About two weeks ago a flurry of articles popped up regarding a new study showing evidence of increased depression in women holding positions of authority.  I found this idea intriguing but most of the news articles were short and vague (see USA Today, Washington Post, BBC News, CNN.)  To learn more, I looked up the original article:

Pudrovska, T. & Karraker, A. (2014). Gender, Job Authority, and Depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 55 (4): 424-441  (Full digital copy of the article available here.)

Here is a brief summary:

The Research Issue: We know very little about how job authority (defined here as control over others' work-- hiring, firing, influencing pay) impacts different groups of workers.  This is particularly true regarding women vs. men.

The Theoretical Foundation: Having more job authority should reduce stress since it gives you more flexibility and control over your environment.  However, authority tends to match cultural ideals for men ("power, dominance, competitiveness, and ambition") but conflicts with cultural ideals for women ("nurturance, empathy, and attachment").  Given this "double bind," increased authority may increase stress for women rather than reduce it.

The Data and Methods:  The authors take advantage of a long-running longitudinal survey to provide data on individuals' depressive symptoms, socioeconomic characteristics, job characteristics, employment status, family status, and early life characteristics. They apply a range of sophisticated statistical models to the data to evaluate the relationships between these variables.

The Results:  The study's "main finding suggests that job authority decreases men's depression but increases women's depression." 

The Research Implications:  This is the first clear, quantitative evidence that job authority generates different health benefits and costs for men versus women.  While this research did not test the various mechanisms that might cause this ("the processes of identity, meaning, perception, and interpersonal dynamics"), it provides a foundation for further research.

My thoughts:

Biological Gender Differences?!?!?! When I first saw the women-leadership-depression headlines I was worried.  Did the finding mean women somehow can't cope with authority because of some biological temperament problem?  The authors do not address this interpretation in their paper, especially since their research is identifying a phenomenon, not its causes.  However, they provide a lot of discussion and cite other research showing how the conflicting social and cultural pressures facing women in leadership positions are likely to cause stress and depression.  More research is needed, but this study does not declare that women are unequal to men in capabilities.

Well . . . this is obvious! To some degree this research seems obvious in hindsight.  Of course people operating under conflicting standards will be stressed!  I know I've heard personal accounts of this from professional women in my life.  However, having concrete, systematic evidence of this phenomena is an important step in understanding it and hopefully addressing it.

Generational Differences?  Because the survey data focused on a cohort of individuals born in 1939, the findings might not be identical for later generations of women working in possibly more progressive environments.  The survey was also limited to whites, so there could be difference for other racial groups.  It will be interesting to track any follow-up research to see if cultural standards have relaxed over time.

Practical Implications? Acknowledging the conflicting standards (manly authority vs. womanly empathy) could be an important improvement for women in leadership positions, if only to explain the emotional strain these women likely encounter.  It may also provide a foundation for a range of new "policies and interventions . . . aimed at minimizing psychological costs and increasing the nonpecuniary rewards of job authority among women."

Setting Expectations for Babies

I don't know about you, but it seems like a lot of people I know are having babies.  Three people I know have given birth in the past several months; another couple I know found out they were expecting a few months ago . . . baby to arrive in February.

One thing that has surprised me about all of these couples: they ALL decided to find out the sex of the child before it was born.

I find this both surprising and alarming.  On one hand, we are allegedly living in a time and a place where we are open-minded, egalitarian, and unbiased about gender . . . so parents should not care whether they are having a boy or a girl (and I'm sure if I asked them they would say the would be delighted with either) and having that information should not have any significant bearing on the pregnancy or getting ready for the child arrival.  This is why I am surprised when so many parents opt to find out in advance.  (Some parents even throw 'gender reveal' parties for friends to announce what sort of genitals their kid is expected to have . . . thankfully none of my friends did this to my knowledge.)

The Mystical "Cool Girl"

Even if you have not read Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn or seen the recent film adaptation, you are probably familiar with the term "cool girl."  Since Flynn's description of a Cool Girl as narrated by the main character Amy is perfection, I will repost it below:

Men always say that as the defining compliment, don't they? She's a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she's hosting the world's biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don't mind, I'm the Cool Girl. 

Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they're fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, co-workers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I'd want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who'd like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them.

Many articles have surfaced up since the advent of the book/movie (BuzzFeed, Telegraph, Jezebel) discussing whether the cool girl is a mythical male fantasy, a real personality, or just a phase. A few of the BuzzFeed comments vehemently expressed their dislike for the concept, stating that they like doing all the above mentioned activities and that does not make them a bad person.  Unfortunately, these individuals have missed the point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having "non-feminine" hobbies, activities, or qualities. Actually, that is pretty cool (pun intended).  The crowning quality of a Cool Girl is "never, ever getting pissed off " (Telegraph).

A Cool Girl is the ultimate low-maintenance female with a complete lack of expression and emotional need.  As the writer from the Telegraph relates, "It makes her two-dimensional and subservient ... Pretty soon I felt like a very understanding doormat."  The Cool Girl creates a constant aura of indifference and feigned nonchalance and ultimate submission to the men she entertains.  All energy is invested in obtaining this Cool Girl Status and attention. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being cool; there is an absence of self worth and independence that surrounds the Cool Girl.  As a former-Cool-Girl shares, "When you are chasing after qualities that you do not possess (but qualities you think a guy would want), you have decided on some level that you just don't cut it.  You feel a need to put on this song and dance, because you feel like the Real You doesn't deserve love." 

The Jezebel exploration of the Cool Girl poses her as a phase in the development of a woman.  

I think she's a perfect role to inhabit in your twenties when you're unsure of yourself (and who isn't?), trying on identities for size still, still working out your needs and how to get them met, and likely running with a pack of dudes who value such hedonistic detachment. I think a Cool Girl offers a way of moving through the world with protective armor over the girl you still are and the woman you're yet to become, while still courting all the adoration and fawning we're taught to hold so dear.

I take issue with this point of view.  First, it legitimizes the Cool Girl as a necessary fact of life.  A Cool Girl is unrealistic, unbalanced, unhealthy... she is not a persona to try on and have fun.  Being a Cool Girl is an awful experience, meeting almost none of your actual needs and erasing your personality.  It also legitimizes and emphasizes the pursuit of superficial, meaningless lust and desire.  Women want appreciation and sincere attention way more than a "pack of dudes." Furthermore, the author implies that a Cool Girl is the one and only way to receive attention and desire.  This is the exact irony of the Cool Girl persona and her portrayal in the media. Personally, I have always found successful, passionate, expressive people who enjoy life quite desirable. Understanding doormats?  Not so much. The article concludes saying that women tend to grow up and "mellow" out as time goes on. They suppose that no Cool Girls exist beyond the age of 30.  I also tend to disagree with that; the tendency to mimic the Cool Girl and her nonchalance in the pursuit of approval spans all age groups.  

Additionally, why is the foil of the Cool Girl someone who is "mellow" and "settled?"  I would propose that escaping the Cool Girl is actually the opposite: the growth of personality, desire, and expression.  How much more mellow can you become while attempting to be the ultimate low-maintenance girlfriend?  I have no intention of mellowing into another stereotype as I grow older.

Ultimately, I have not been able to truly identify whether the Cool Girl exists, is a phase, or a trope.  However, I absolutely agree with the Hello Giggles definition of the Cool Girl as a trap:

And the concept of the Cool Girl is so pervasive that sometimes you don’t even realize you’re doing it. You grow up watching movie after movie, TV show after TV show, where female characters are essentially props to further the guys’ story. You are told in not-so-subtle terms that this is what guys find attractive, and you hear the men around you when they wholeheartedly agree. So you go into the dating world hoping to be the Manic Pixie Dream Girl or the Hot Girl from Afar, the Cool Girl, but never, ever, You.

Instead, we need to recognize just how easy it is to fall into the Cool Girl trap, and what it says about our culture that this archetype is so prevalent and so powerful. Perhaps it’s time to call out writers who veer back to this overused trope. Perhaps we can focus all that energy we once used to be the Cool Girl – or to hate her – and channel it towards a new definition of “cool,” one that is synonymous with being yourself.

I know I stray into the Cool Girl trap, searching for instantaneous attention and affection. Sometimes I believe that she is the only way to warrant attention and desire. Sometimes I am an understanding doormat.  Not surprisingly, it is quite ineffective in fulfilling my emotional needs.  Throughout all these articles, it is unclear if the Cool Girl is really what men want... Are attractive men really interested in long term relationships with understanding doormats with the right list of superficial characteristics? I think attractive men are most attracted to you.  Let us put the Cool Girl in box of mystical creatures with the unicorns (and not narwhals) and spend more time demanding what we deserve from life.