Why Do We Shrink “Girls’ Extracurriculars” to Stereotypes?
We’ve all heard it before: “Ugh, why is the girls’ robotics team so small?” or “Cheerleading isn’t a real sport—it’s just girls jumping around.” From robotics clubs to dance teams, activities labeled as “girls’ extracurriculars” often get dismissed as unserious, frivolous, or even cringeworthy. But why does society still roll its eyes at activities dominated by young women—and what does this say about how we value their interests and ambitions?
The Problem Starts With Labels
Let’s face it: calling something a “girls’ activity” instantly boxes it into a gendered category. Think about it. When boys dominate coding clubs or debate teams, we rarely call them “boys’ extracurriculars.” Instead, those activities are seen as neutral or aspirational. But when girls gravitate toward fields like art, fashion design, or even leadership programs, they’re often framed as “soft” or “girly”—code for less valuable.
This labeling isn’t harmless. A 2022 study by the American Association of University Women found that girls are less likely to pursue STEM careers if they internalize stereotypes about “feminine” vs. “masculine” interests. When society mocks activities associated with girls, it sends a clear message: Your passions are niche, not universal.
Where Does the “Gross-Out” Factor Come From?
The visceral reaction to “girls’ extracurriculars” often ties back to outdated gender norms. Activities perceived as feminine—like crafting, baking, or even organizing charity events—are historically undervalued because they align with domestic roles women were once confined to. Meanwhile, “masculine” pursuits like engineering or athletics are celebrated as ambitious or intellectually rigorous.
But here’s the irony: many “girly” hobbies require creativity, precision, and leadership. Take fashion design, for example. It blends art, engineering (pattern-making!), and entrepreneurship. Or consider cheerleading, which demands athleticism comparable to gymnastics. Yet, these skills are overlooked because they’re wrapped in glitter or sequins.
Another factor? Fear of authenticity. Girls’ extracurriculars often emphasize collaboration, empathy, and self-expression—qualities that threaten traditional hierarchies. A teen girl running a mental health awareness club challenges the idea that leadership must be loud and dominant. A coding team focused on designing apps for social good disrupts the myth that tech is only about profit. When girls redefine success on their terms, it unsettles people clinging to old norms.
The Hidden Cost of Mocking “Girls’” Interests
Dismissing these activities doesn’t just hurt feelings—it limits opportunities. When schools underfund “girly” clubs or steer girls away from them, they miss chances to nurture diverse talents. A student passionate about makeup artistry could become a successful cosmetic chemist or SFX artist. A debate club member who loves writing fan fiction might develop storytelling skills that translate into marketing or journalism.
Worse, the stigma pushes girls to abandon passions to fit in. A 2023 survey by Girl Scouts of America found that 62% of teens downplay interests they fear will be labeled “too girly.” Imagine a student hiding her love for poetry to join a robotics team she hates, just to appear “serious.” When we mock “girls’ extracurriculars,” we teach them to shrink their identities.
Flip the Script: Celebrating What Girls Bring to the Table
It’s time to reframe how we view girls’ passions. Here’s how:
1. Stop Gendering Interests
Why call it a “girls’ coding club” instead of just a coding club? Language matters. Neutral terms emphasize that skills—not gender—define an activity’s value.
2. Highlight Cross-Disciplinary Skills
A cupcake-decorating contest? That’s food science and art. A DIY jewelry workshop? It’s entrepreneurship and design. Schools and parents should connect these hobbies to real-world careers.
3. Amplify Role Models
Introduce girls to women who’ve turned “stereotypical” interests into groundbreaking work. Think: Rihanna (music to billion-dollar beauty empire), Lauren Hodge (science fair winner who studied carcinogens in grilled chicken), or Reshma Saujani (founder of Girls Who Code).
4. Challenge the “Cringe” Narrative
When someone sneers at a “girls’ activity,” ask: What’s actually wrong with it? Often, the critic can’t pinpoint a valid reason—just bias.
The Bigger Picture: Let Girls Be Multidimensional
Girls’ extracurriculars aren’t the problem—our narrow view of them is. Every time we reduce their passions to stereotypes, we reinforce the idea that girls must choose between being taken seriously and being themselves.
The next generation is already pushing back. Girls are launching eco-friendly fashion brands, creating apps to combat cyberbullying, and using social media to advocate for causes. These aren’t “just” hobbies—they’re training grounds for leadership.
So, the next time you feel “grossed out” by a “girly” extracurricular, pause. Ask yourself: Is this really about the activity—or am I uncomfortable because it doesn’t fit my idea of ambition? The answer might surprise you.
Let’s stop policing how girls explore their talents. After all, the world needs more innovators—not fewer because we dared to label their interests “cringe.”
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why Do We Shrink “Girls’ Extracurriculars” to Stereotypes