Talk:It girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Compliment?

I originally noted that this was a backhanded compliment. Somebody changed this to "compliment", which it is not, so I removed the expression entirely. See [1]: "Perhaps journalists love the phrase because it is such a backhanded compliment. Marianne Faithfull qualifies for the title of original It Girl because her fame is founded on the flimsiest of pretexts." Dictionary.com gives "a young woman who has achieved celebrity status due to her social activities and lifestyle" [that is to say, and little else]. I would suggest that talented actresses don't qualify, but perhaps the meaning has changed recently? Shantavira 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why Marianne Faithful then, who is a legitimate recording artist and who some people prefer to the Rolling Stones. steven 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widely considered?

Who is this widely and how have they considered? Can we at least apply some sort of source to this? --Fastfission 15:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As I remember Chloë Sevigny once was it girl but she's not on this list.
Googling "it girl" will usually bring up entertainment articles about it, and a lot of the same names begin to pop up. I'd say Chloe acheived "it girl" status around 1995 with Kids.--Fallout boy 07:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, Naomi Watts for an "it girl" for year 2005 for King Kong? I think it's safe to say she has been an established actress for years already, with Mulholland Drive probably considered her breakthrough.
I have completely removed the section - Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research. It has had an unreferenced tag on it for ages now... /wangi 10:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 15 minutes

I rem'd a See also lk from 15 minutes of fame to here. A lk from here to that would make more sense, but i doubt that even that makes enuf to justify it. Maybe there's a wider topic on mile-wide & inch-deep cultural trends, that they connect thru better than they do directly.
--Jerzy•t 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How positive is this expression?

I just found two paragraphs in an online journal called "Eurozine" about the "it-girls". The term doesn't seem to be quite as positive as it is in Wikipedia's article. Quote:


A new breed of useless female celebrity was dubbed the "it-girl" by the British media. Although the term was originally coined in the 1920s after Clara Bow starred in a silent Hollywood film called "It", the it-girl was very much a 1990s phenomenon.

She was famous just for being famous, the sole criterion being that she should be sexually attractive. "It" has always served as a sexual euphemism but now the word was explicitly depicting the sexual objectification of women. "It" also alluded to the vacuous nature of celebrity as a whole by tacitly acknowledging that media profiles were interchangeable spaces, able to be filled by anyone with the requisite sexual presence.


Rdavout 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't believe everything you read on on-line! The article as presently drafted does recognise the "re-formulation" in the 1990s, but, as a concept, "It girl" has undoubtedly been around for 80 or so years. It has probably become less "positive" in recent years, but is also used rather indiscriminately and I don't myself accept the suggestion that it has been applied particularly to mainstream cinema. IXIA 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's another term that has become somewhat empty through over-use and mis-use by the media. The concept "being famous for being famous" (Paris Hilton's original claim to fame, as far as I have heard) is inherently negative, though the term seems to be more hype than anything else. The original definition seems to have been watered down so much "it girl" has become just another label anyone famous can slap on her portfolio. Just my two pieces of eight. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 05:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

The current version of this article is clearly written from a neutral point of view. Key sources are cited to establish the coining of the term over 80 years ago. There is a whole series of popular novels named after this phrase. Pop culture might not be everyone's culture, and it comes and goes in fashions. However, it is clearly documentable. Love 'em or loath 'em "it girls" are at least a part of twentieth century culture. Wiki isn't about changing culture, but about recording the facts. From those facts, people can argue pro or con to the better good. Opinions minus facts is vanity, whatever we may think about "it girls". No censorship of "it girls"! I am removing the tag that questions the article's legitimacy. Alastair Haines 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Went through whole article to smooth punctuation and Wiki typographic style. The actual prose flows beautifully. Two things marred the flow of the text, though: "(strongly disputed)" at the end of the openning sentence, and the intrusion quoted below.
“ Some feminist critics have characterized the use of a third person pronoun to describe a human being as sexual objectification{{Fact|date=February 2007}}, although the sense is a woman who has "It," not a woman who is "It." ”
By all means, let's have an extra section to the article, with sourced quotes from feminists who explain how patriarchal structures drive young women to vain pursuits. However, let's not do this by spoiling the beautiful prose of the main text, that does ample justice to some talented women's moments of glory. Feminists can do a lot better than attack the it in "It girl" as objectification though. (That's how I found this article btw, doing research on usage of it.)
This sentence quoted above does violence to: the editor's beautiful prose; the memory of some talented, influential and charming women; the intellectual credibility of feminists; the intelligence of the reader; and, last but not least, Wiki policy of attribution.
On pretty much the same grounds, I'm deleting the "strongly disputed" comment. Strongly is unnecessary and unsourced, and the same goes for disputed really.
Congratulations to the orginal editors of this piece. Thanks for educating me about a side of life I rarely interact with. Alastair Haines 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears still it?

Britney Spears is in the illustration, but is she still it? ssepp(talk) 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

shes an established musician, but she is more known for her personal drama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posh tart

I have removed the bit about "posh tarts" because ... because it just isn't true. Maikel (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)