"That's not very ladylike"

Here I argue that we should abandon the term 'ladylike' as a sexist anachronism. My argument rests on the idea that 'ladylike' traits involve submissiveness, ineptitude and vanity, none of which are anything to aspire towards, nor are they traits which belong to all and only women.

The word 'ladylike' conjures up archaic ideas of what a lady should be like. 'Ladylike' traits seem to take two forms:

a) Appearance-related traits such as wearing beautiful dresses; looking immaculate; being thin and pretty with big boobs; wearing lots of makeup

b) Behavioural or personality-related traits such as being coy, submissive, dumb, weak and inept at any traditionally 'male' pursuits

Why, in present day, are these traits considered to be essential or desirable features of being a lady? 'Ladylike' seems reducible to 'bimbo'; this does not seem to be something to aspire towards.

What about women who are described as 'unladylike'? Such women might be butch, scruffy, uncouth, dominant, opinionated, they enjoy 'masculine' activities (whatever they are), or they are - dare I say it - intelligent. As far as I can tell, at least some of these 'unladylike' features are as desirable or more desirable than the 'ladylike' ones; being intelligent and having opinions seem particularly desirable. And yet, when someone says a woman is 'not very ladylike' this is rarely meant as a compliment.  'Ladylike' does not seem to mean 'like a lady', since ladies (qua women) all look different, act different, and think differently from one another, so if 'ladylike' meant 'like a woman' then the term would be so broad so as to be meaningless. It would include being tall, short, fat, thin, brown, white, clever, stupid, beautiful, ugly - all the collective traits of all women - and so 'ladylike' cannot mean 'like a woman'. Rather, 'ladylike' seems to mean what an ideal lady is (supposedly) like, viz. demure, sexy, submissive, inept and brainless. She is beautiful, vacuous and needs big strong man to look after her and to tell her what to do. I simply cannot fathom why these are supposedly the features of an ideal woman, but these do seem to be the features which people are referring to when they say that a woman is ladylike (or features which a woman lacks if she is "not very ladylike").

Recall Always' "Like a Girl" advert. The advert is in all likelihood scripted and choreographed, but it is close enough to reality to be plausible. "You run like a girl" is not a compliment; it is a put-down - it is dismissive to tell a girl she runs like a girl, and real insult to tell a man that he runs like a girl. Thus there is a tension between the idea that a female should be like a female - but that being like a female is not as good as being a male. As a general rule, men are taller, faster and stronger than women, so might my critic object that "run like a girl" just means run slightly slower than a man? Such a claim seems indefensible. "Like a girl" is used to mean that something is being done in a ditsy, brainless, flamboyant and incompetent way; it is not used to mean "brilliant, but just slightly slower than a man". Being 'like a girl' or 'ladylike' is simultaneously an expectation and a failing.

"Just been to the salon dahling, must dash home to get dinner
on the table before His Lordship gets in! Mwah! Mwah!"

Running fast in trainers is not very ladylike, whereas the straight-legged short-strided jog is ladylike - viz. the way in which one has to run if one is wearing high heels and a tight skirt - 'ladylike' clothes. Telling a woman that she "runs like a man" can perhaps be delivered as a compliment ("Wow, you're as good as a man, which is unusual for a woman!") or as a put-down ("You're too butch and manly; you're not very ladylike.") There is the ever-present implication that if you are female, you should be ladylike - but that being ladylike involves some of the most inert and vacuous features a person can possess. 

Buzzfeed ran an article listing 21 signs [that] being ladylike is not your forte. The list includes having messy hair, poor make-up, you can't walk in heels, you're not afraid to say how you feel, you swear, you don't like spa days or shopping, and you think the most important part of eating is the eating. Now I concede that Buzzfeed is not the perfect guide to word usage, but its popularity and ubiquity does give us some sense that the above traits are indeed features of ladylikeness. The implication is that if you are a woman who is not ladylike, this is bad - even though ladylike traits do not seem to be useful or aspirational: in other words, if you are a woman you should know your place and not get ideas above your station. Your function as a woman qua woman is to be eye candy for the lads, and not to have a brain or an opinion.

So it seems that 'ladylike' is used to refer to the way women "ought" to be - the ideal - but that the supposedly ideal (ladylike) woman is someone who should be seen but not heard. A ladylike woman is one who looks immaculate, but has limited assertiveness, independence or intelligence. I submit that this is not in fact the ideal woman, and it is not something which women and girls should aspire towards. 'Ladylike' is little more than a sexist, offensive anachronism, used to keep women in their place, as subordinate to men; being ladylike is both an expectation and a failing of women. As we try to move forwards into an age of sexual equality, terms such as 'ladylike' serve no useful purpose; the only purpose of the term is to subordinate women, and such subordinating terms should not be used in the 21st century.