Empowerment a Two-Way Street a Reaction to Rosalind Wiseman's Girl Cliques

Cliques have to start somewhere. The actuality is that most high school boys and girls are extremely aware of "types," and most fit bits and pieces of several. Yes, there are "popular girls" and "jocks," but the majority exist between these obvious stereotypes; nothing like what we see in the movie Mean Girls, in which all of the students are portrayed as being distinctly defined with one group. Everyone is quick to say there are cliques, and queen bees , and so on and so forth, but few give any recognition to the uniqueness each individual adds making each situation abstractly different. "The Plastics," in Mean Girls, are modeled closely on Rosalind Wiseman's "queen bee," "sidekick" and "messenger," which really are quite generalized stereotypes. Wiseman acts as if she is only trying to help people understand "girl world," but really Wiseman is being a "mean girl" herself by using hasty generalizations such as these.

Are girls meaner than they used to be? I really don't think this question can possibly be answered in relation to time. What do statements like "used to be," or "no worse than ever," really mean? The world we know today is far different for women than it has ever been and their social endeavors much more in the public eye. The cliques talked about by Wiseman never could have existed before the era of public education for women. In almost all cultures across all of time women have had little social interaction compared to that of today's semi-equal world where women can, for the most part, make all of their own choices for the first time.

Wisemen's essay, "Cliques No Worse Than Ever," really seems to only be a comparison of what she saw and experienced in her high school days, to the way she perceives things are in high schools these days. I believe the essay is written from an ethnocentric point of few, but also with a perspective of the time in which she has lived. Whether or not Wiseman arrived at the correct conclusion, her essay seems worthless in many aspects because her view seems to be blurred by her political agenda. It is obvious that Wiseman is trying to be motivational and empowering. In fact it is so obvious that it appears she has tried too hard and reached too far to get the answers she wants.

Throughout the essay, "Cliques No Worse than Ever," Wiseman continually stereotypes high school girls and boys. It is hard to understand how lumping girls and boys into convenient categories (i.e. alphas) can be in anyway empowering, as Wiseman claims is her mission. Aren't these stereotypes just making the fire burn a little brighter? If not even a self- proclaimed expert on such a subject can breakdown these walls, how are the kids going to?

So let's say a girl is told, "You're an alpha and even though you may think you've got it made you don't." The girl will not respond, "Oh, thank you I'll take care of that." No, definitely not, she is more likely going to say, "You don't even know what being me is like. Mind your own business." Girls are not alphas. They in fact have names like let's say Jessica and Jennifer and each differs in many ways. Jessica is a straight A student who is nice to everyone and a cheerleader. Jennifer is a C average student who only acknowledges those she likes and a basketball player. However, both Jessica and Jennifer are what Wiseman says are "Queen Bees," the "it girls." Why isn't Jessica different from Jennifer? Jessica, through her honest hard working actions, is what every girl wants. Why all of a sudden is she thrown in with a classification of bullies like Jennifer?

We are told by Wiseman that, "One thing to remind your daughter is that lots of girls in the alpha group don't want to be there; it's very confining. Most people look at the 'it girl' and think she's got it all. I see her as stuck in solitary confinement, so tied to stereotypical femininity that she has no choices." (552). To that I say what a load of crap. Wiseman wants to make the generalization that the Alpha girls are the ones that really have it bad. To that I just want to say "Shut up Wiseman, you know you are still just jealous because you never got to be popular or liked." Of course I don't know if that's true, but I tend to think it's more accurate than the broad claims Wiseman makes about girls she only thinks she knows.

Next, Wiseman goes on to tell the parent "...those girls in the Alpha clique are so vulnerable to early sex, drinking, drugs, and even abuse. That's because they need to keep the alpha boy for status, even if he's abusive." (552). Wow, I don't know who bullied Wiseman around, but she is really attacking those Alpha girls. So, let's try and understand the ramifications of this last statement by Wiseman. Wiseman has singled out the alpha girls and said they are more prone to all of these horrible things because they have to keep their man for status. So, more prone than who? The non-alpha girls? Don't the non-alpha girls already include the "druggies,"

the "partiers," the "sexually active band geeks" (mentioned in Mean Girls), and so many more who are already doing some of the things