Review: Girl on Girl Explores the Dark Side of '90s Nostalgia
Author Sophie Gilbert's book dissects turn-of-the-century media and the role of women in it.

In Girl on Girl, Sophie Gilbert of The Atlantic examines cultural artifacts from the 1990s and 2000s, tracing how media of that era portrayed and molded women who grew up surrounded by its messages. The book examines everything from 2000s "torture porn" movies to early reality TV shows to the rise and fall of the "girlboss."
Gilbert's book largely disabuses me of any nostalgia for the '90s and '00s, even as such nostalgia now seems to be trending culturally. The cruel fat-shaming of all but the thinnest women, the open sexualization of teenage celebrities, and the startlingly misogynistic teen sex comedies have thankfully fallen out of style. The fixation with violent pornography, on the other hand, hasn't receded so much as it's become so common as to no longer register as taboo.
Recent teen comedies almost never play sexual violation for laughs the way American Pie did. But while open misogyny is less tolerated in mainstream culture now, contemporary teen boys don't need to flock to R-rated movies to see women in compromising sexual situations, as they might have in the infancy of internet porn. Gilbert's book shows just how difficult it is to mold culture from on high (a lesson age-verification advocates might do well to consider). After all, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is a girl?
Emma's false feminist 'doth protest too much' moralizing here doesn't ring true. If not for the general tone then, once again, for Emma's general obliviousness of the "sexual violation" themes or content of American Pie relative to the more modern lack of them in movies like No Hard Feelings,
CockBlockers, or Sausage Party.The older she gets the more young and cluelessly naive she behaves.
https://tenor.com/view/mi-scusi-eurotrip-mi-scusi-eurotrip-2004-movie-eurotrip-train-eurotrip-train-scene-mi-scusi-gif-8023149009986748078
The clip of Jennifer Lawrence beating up 3 teenagers in the nude while skinny dipping and trying to score with a 4th teenager (for money) is actually pretty good if you're into that sort of thing (or not averse to Jennifer Lawrence naked). The German suplex is a little unbelievable but in a larger cultural context is pretty tame/humorously entertaining.
Maybe the (lack of) "sexual violation" has gotten more even-handed between the sexes since the 90s, but it's kinda hard to argue that Stifler's Mom was the victim of anything.
Do you even girlboss, bro?
Girl on Sqrl action involves deploying pepper spray and using a rape whistle.
That scene looked AI generated to me.
Gilbert's book largely disabuses me of any nostalgia for the '90s and '00s
Uh... you graduated UVA in '22, were you even alive in the 90s?
Given your persistent struggles with recalling two weeks ago, that's not a very compelling case of disabuse.
Uh... since when is nostalgia limited to periods when one was alive?
Is Emma's stupidity contagious? Pretty widely accepted that you can't be nostalgic for a time and/or place you've never been, Stupid.
Are you picking this fight for some serious libertarian purpose or just to defend a feminist writer for The Atlantic and her misportrayal of historical social awkwardness as maliciousness in order to advance her feminist agenda and, more importantly, hock her book here at Reason?
Are you stupid by nature? It is not widely accepted. You don't control language.
For instance, is JD Vance wrong to be nostalgic for the 1950s?
ARE YOU CALLING JD VANCE WRONG?
Hey, mad.casual, you skipped this one. Are you mad? Don't go away[,] mad. Bye, mad.
I didn't skip anything. Your Mom, Dad, school teachers, guidance counselors, etc., etc., etc. were the ones responsible for following you around and preventing you from making an idiot of yourself.
It's no skin off my back how stupid you want to look or make the people around you and the causes you support look by association.
Ah, still skipping the answer to why you think JD Vance is Stupid for his 1950s nostalgia. Still mad.
You don't control language.
So... don't understand the words 'nostalgia' or 'widely accepted'.
How hard are you going to continue to dig to embarrass yourself and everything you stand for, Stupid?
I laugh in your general direction, because you think JD Vance is Stupid for being nostalgic for the 1950s.
It's not stupid, just inappropriate word choice.
Oh, but mad.casual begs to differ. He says both JD Vance and I are Stupid.
It's always been what I understand the word to mean. Maybe other people use it differently, but I'm pretty sure the common meaning requires nostalgia to be for things you actually experienced.
The common meaning is not the only meaning. Just because the common meaning is widely accepted doesn't invalidate the less common meanings, nor make them less widely accepted.
I was hoping for a more reasonable or meaningful discussion of semantic drift to highlight how people could actually exploit it to rewrite history in a narrative that should be very obviously related to the subsequent "Dear Colleagues" and #metoo anti-social movements. Movements that, even by their own standards, were lots of flourish and little effect (if not outright smoke and mirrors), but Stupid decided to go full retard instead.
Flawless takedown.
Even by Emma's limbo-stick low standards, this is an irredeemably stupid blurb. You are a child, dear. You have no idea what the 90s were like, but almost every reader here does. Please refrain from lecturing anybody on topic you know less than nothing about.
MAGA is nostalgic for the 50s
Yes, and mad.casual is ashamed to admit that he has called JD Vance Stupid for his 1950s nostalgia.
Between the Vance-obsession and the self-contradicting defense of narrative-reinforcing/politically-aligned-but-otherwise-valueless advertising schlock, this really, really sounds sarcasmic-level broken.
To be fair, the Democrats are nostalgic for the 60s...
The 1860s? Why yes, and the 1760s too.
George Wallace, Dick Nixon, Billy Graham, Harry Anslinger, George Lincoln Rockwell, James Larrat Battersby, Elvis Presley the government prohibition snitch...
Emma is being cavalier with the truth?
Movies don't have shower scenes because they no longer sell tickets.
You can't get big special effects scenes on pornhub
Reason becomes Jezebel. Emma and ENB just represent different waves of feminists.
You know, I had forgotten they weren't the same person. Like Boehm and Sullum.
Such different waves, that based on the tone and tenor of this article, I'm not sure how uncomfortable the tension is when they're in the same room.
The cruel fat-shaming of all but the thinnest women, the open sexualization of teenage celebrities, and the startlingly misogynistic teen sex comedies have thankfully fallen out of style. The fixation with violent pornography, on the other hand, hasn't receded so much as it's become so common as to no longer register as taboo.
But sex work is work, and quit demonizing porn, OnlyFans is empowering amirite?
Stop objectifying women... unless you pay $4.99 a month!
Don't ask the child to be consistent. Selective outrage is the only kind of outrage it knows.
Is this Emma going full "the sexual revolution might have had some downsides" feminist on us?
Isn't lesbianism dead? Shouldn't it now be, "transmale on transmale"?
I'm still stuck on the decade that gave us, all of us for the last 30 yrs., Sir Mix-A-Lots' peerless hit, the decade known for "cruel fat-shaming of all but the thinnest women"
But then, in the 90s, as a male who was using diuretics at the time, I was still listening to music that I could barely be nostalgic for so what do I know?
I grew up mostly on music that had already expired. Spent my entire life with a broken taste in music.
What healthy female would want to mate with a girl-bullying MAGAt?
Lastly, what is the libertarian angle here?
I'd say Reason Magazine gets paid, but that doesn't really answer your question.
dissects turn-of-the-century media and the role of women in it.
I think the word you're looking for here, Emma, is "deconstructs". Because you fell for the deconstruction argument hook, line and sinker.
1. What is a woman, Emma?
2. Now we have porkers being held up as models of health
3. Other women were fat shaming. But being fat is unattractive.
4. 99.999999999 percent of the issues you have with how women are portrayed are from other women
5.. All you young'uns are afraid fo sex nowadays. Everything with the slightest bit of sex is 'misogynistic'. No tits on screen - that is exploitation!
No tits on screen - that is exploitation!
Unless you hit that like button and smash that subscribe button-- and this month's special for $7.99/mo gets you feet pics in your inbox every week!
Emma, is sex work work?
If yes, then have you looked at pornhub recently? It's full of the misogyny you deplore.
To be fair, she did mention that. Which kind of defeats a lot of her point. I think it was probably healthier to have silly teenage sex romp movies than to have hardcore gangbangs at everyone's fingertips 24/7.
...but here we are!