(no subject)
Aug. 11th, 2005 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmThe New York Times discovers the "girl crush" phenomena and manages not to be completely idiotic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/fashion/thursdaystyles/11CRUSH.html
19th century literature and social conventions are appropriately mentioned and so forth, but wow do I wish we could have a better name for the phenomena, which when termed "girl crush" serves to trivialize friendship the way we constantly do in this "just friends" world. Also, I feel the article really shouldn't attempt to address men at all, because it really leaves out a lot of what is going on in the culture on that front especially if you look at the move from buddy movies to these films about very serious non-sexual bonds between men (e.g., Lord of the Rings and the 8-bazillion essays it's spawned on romantic friendship/the new homosociality).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/fashion/thursdaystyles/11CRUSH.html
19th century literature and social conventions are appropriately mentioned and so forth, but wow do I wish we could have a better name for the phenomena, which when termed "girl crush" serves to trivialize friendship the way we constantly do in this "just friends" world. Also, I feel the article really shouldn't attempt to address men at all, because it really leaves out a lot of what is going on in the culture on that front especially if you look at the move from buddy movies to these films about very serious non-sexual bonds between men (e.g., Lord of the Rings and the 8-bazillion essays it's spawned on romantic friendship/the new homosociality).
