A brief history of the (female) world: in the Dark Ages - denied the right to vote, do an exam or work in a corner office - women were deemed to be too irrelevant.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Then, after numerous decades of change - both incremental and momentous - in which the female's place in life and duty to society were hotly contested, women achieved something approximating equality.
They could tick a box on election day, carry a briefcase without looking weird and control what happened to their reproductive systems. Go girls!
But that hasn't stopped the chat about what it is to be a woman. Be it in relation to other men - or, as it happens, other women.
In the 1980s, when women donned shoulder pads and took to their careers with gusto, people looked questioningly at the home. What's going on with the children and the casserole pot? These women are too worky.
In the 1990s, when women struggled to reconcile feminism's gains with feminism's to-do list, people looked questioningly at the female mental state. What's with The Beauty Myth book clubs and riot grrrl concerts? These women are too bitter.
In the 2000s, when women took pole-dancing classes and braved Brazilian waxes, people looked questioningly at their virtue. Aren't they smart enough to know that people will judge them for that? These women are too raunchy.
Now, in the 2010s, women are too girly.
At least that's the assessment of Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly. ''Most of what passes for feminism these days, however, just legitimises girliness,'' Farrelly wrote this week.
Farrelly - who is also an author, critic and academic - said that she didn't usually read female authors ''because they're boring''.
She likes writing with a ''higher IQ and lower pH than most women can manage''.
Farrelly also took aim at women writers for wallowing about in the personal and for the explosion of ''women's stuff'' on websites, blogs and social media.
''It makes me want to scream. Stop self-obsessing, girls. Leave the sewing circle,'' she said.
According to Farrelly, the world needs more heroic females: ''It needs us out there, muscular, mindful, purposeful and strong.''
It may not surprise you to learn that Farrelly's piece has provoked a tote bag's full of, like, reaction.
Writer of books and women, Tara Moss, took to The Hoopla (a site singled out by Farrelly) to argue that we need womeny spaces.
''As long as 50.2 per cent of the population continue to be treated as a minority in the arts, in film and public debate, it's fair to say that women-focused websites, organisations, initiatives and literary awards have a legitimate place,'' Moss said. At Daily Life (another women's website), Candice Chung wrote that women should be able to enjoy girly things if they want to.
''In the end, criticising or poking fun of women with a different ideology may not be 'misogynistic', but it isn't enriching the feminist discourse either,'' she wrote.
Other commentators, tweeters and people I happened to talk to weren't so polite. We've spent decades legitimising women's issues, conversations and ideas to take comments like ''because they're boring'' without a peep (Besides: Zadie Smith, Anna Funder, Miles Franklin! C'mon!).
I'll admit that I'm no poster girl for what might be defined as girliness.
I have an allergic reaction to pink. As a kid I did soccer, not ballet and I never had Barbies. To this day, I've got no idea what to do with liquid eyeliner.
I don't bake cupcakes. And I struggle to get excited when someone else does. Unlike the Prime Minister, I can't knit. And I have zero plans to learn. I also get squeamish when conversations - particularly public published ones - get overly personal (do you really need to tell people that?).
But then, I also get squeamish when someone tells me that my whole gender needs to buck up. And that we're not as good as the guys. How positively back to the Dark Ages!
Why, why, why is it that women continue to be characterised in fell swoops? As either too much in one corner or too much in the other?
It's not just about accepting that women are different. Or that there are different varieties of women. It's about accepting difference within each individual woman (i.e. person) and recognising that just because a gal wants to talk about her kids or her relationship break-up it doesn't make her facile or stupid.
It's ridiculous to even have to say it. Or think of all the women in your life - let alone in the public sphere - who are muscular, mindful, purposeful and strong. Not to mention wonderful, hilarious, complex human ''beans''.
And yet the same themes keep getting spewed back up in debate.
If women want to talk about ''girl stuff'', they can also chew gum at the same time. Maybe write a book about it too.
Judith Ireland is a Canberra Times journalist.
