Oh, this. Right. Another attempt to categorize the inconvenient. Fine. Let's make this interesting for you.

Girl who behaves boyishly

This article discusses a particular type of girl or young woman, often labeled as a "tomboy." For other, less precise, applications of this term, you might consult Tomboy (disambiguation).

Ahem. This article, as you can plainly see, has accumulated its share of… feedback. It seems to be wrestling with multiple issues, primarily a rather casual tone and an awkward dance around gender stereotypes. One might even say it reads less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a hastily scribbled personal reflection, perhaps a fever dream of an editor grappling with the very concept of "militancy" in a Wikipedia article. Should you possess an abundance of free time and a masochistic streak, you are welcome to attempt to improve it or, more likely, engage in endless, circular debates on its talk page. After all, understanding "how and when to remove these messages" is a skill many acquire only after significant existential suffering.

Specifically, the article is noted for requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's rather lofty quality standards. The core problem appears to be a rather flippant tone, a discussion of gender stereotypes that manages to be both awkward and incomplete, and a general air of "partial speech"—whatever that implies—and "militancy." One could argue that the very subject matter invites a certain level of contention, but then, most things do. This particular observation dates back to November 2022, suggesting that some problems, much like certain individuals, are simply persistent.

Furthermore, the article has been flagged for sounding like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay, rather than adhering to the detached, objective style expected of an encyclopedia. It seems to present an editor's own feelings or an original argument, which, for a place that prides itself on distilled fact, is quite the faux pas. This particular critique emerged in March 2023.

Finally, the examples and perspective offered herein may not represent a truly worldwide view of the subject. A common failing, that. The world, it turns out, is larger and more complex than any single viewpoint. One might consider improving this article by broadening its scope, engaging in further discussion on the talk page, or, if feeling particularly ambitious, embarking on the Sisyphean task of creating a new article from scratch. These perennial concerns are, apparently, meant to be addressed, as indicated by the ever-present prompt to "Learn how and when to remove this message".

A tomboy

A tomboy, in its contemporary understanding, designates a girl or a young woman who conspicuously displays characteristics, behaviors, and inclinations that are typically, and often rigidly, associated with masculinity. This isn't merely about a preference for comfort over convention; such traits might manifest in her choice of attire, gravitating towards androgynous or overtly unfeminine clothing, eschewing the frills and restrictive garments often dictated by traditional expectations. Beyond aesthetics, a tomboy's identity is frequently expressed through her active engagement in pursuits and forms of play, sports, or even social interactions that have, for generations, been culturally demarcated as the exclusive domain of boys or men. This often includes a robust physical presence, a penchant for adventure, and perhaps a healthy disregard for delicate sensibilities, all of which challenge the more passive or demure archetypes historically assigned to girls.

Origins

The Tomboy, 1873 painting by John George Brown, depicts a girl in active, less traditionally feminine attire.

The linguistic genesis of "tomboy" reveals a fascinating trajectory, a compound word forged from the rather straightforward combination of "tom" and "boy." What is truly remarkable, and perhaps a touch ironic, is how drastically the semantic landscape of "tomboy" has shifted over the centuries. It now exclusively refers to a "boy-like girl," yet its etymological roots suggest a far different, and arguably more fluid, understanding of gendered behavior.

To trace this evolution, one must delve back to 1533, when, according to the venerable Oxford Dictionary of English, "tomboy" was initially employed to describe a "rude, boisterous or forward boy." It was a descriptor for youthful male exuberance, perhaps even a touch of unruly energy. By the 1570s, however, the term began its curious migration across gender lines, acquiring the meaning of a "bold or immodest woman." This shift is telling, suggesting a societal discomfort with women who dared to transgress perceived boundaries of decorum, perhaps echoing the earlier sense of "boisterous" but now applied to a female context. Finally, as the 16th century drew to a close and the early 1600s dawned, the term solidified into its current, if still debated, meaning: "a girl who behaves like a spirited or boisterous boy; a wild romping girl." This final transformation encapsulates the enduring human tendency to label and, by extension, categorize, any behavior that deviates from a narrowly defined norm, especially when it comes to gender. It’s almost as if society needed a specific linguistic pigeonhole for girls who refused to sit still and embroider.

History

In the United States

19th century

Before the mid-19th century, the prevailing societal ideal for women in the United States was rigidly defined by what historians have termed the "Cult of True Womanhood." This formidable social construct equated true femininity with an almost debilitating emotional fragility, a pronounced physical vulnerability, an inherent hesitation in action, and an unwavering domestic submissiveness. Under the stifling influence of this ideal, women were not merely discouraged but actively prevented from engaging in strenuous sports or virtually any form of robust physical activity. Their existence was largely confined to the domestic sphere, their bodies seen as delicate vessels rather than instruments of strength or agency. This paradigm, as rigid and unyielding as a corseted torso, remained largely stagnant, a cultural bedrock, until the tumultuous mid-nineteenth century.

Then, the relentless grind of economic reality began to erode even the most deeply entrenched social ideals. During the protracted economic downturn known as the Long Depression of the late 1800s, the increasing economic instability gripping the United States rendered the image of fragile, languishing femininity not merely impractical but actively undesirable. Families, struggling to survive, required every able-bodied member to contribute. Young women, out of sheer necessity, began to join the workforce, not just to earn wages to support their families but also to acquire practical job skills that were increasingly vital in an industrializing nation. This abrupt and undeniable shift in economic reality demanded a more robust physique, capable of withstanding the physical rigors and demands of burgeoning industrial and service labor. Consequently, a profound paradigm shift occurred in societal expectations for young women: the ideal transitioned from one of languishing, decorative beauty to vigorously healthy, capable individuals. This pragmatic re-evaluation, born of necessity rather than progressive enlightenment, inadvertently laid the essential groundwork for the emergence and, crucially, the societal acceptance of tomboyism.

This burgeoning recognition of the value of physical capability in girls found articulation in the intellectual discourse of the era. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a prominent feminist writer, championed the health benefits of being a tomboy in her influential 1898 book, Women and Economics. She provocatively argued that girls should be "not feminine till it is time to be," advocating for a period of uninhibited physical development free from the constraints of premature gender role enforcement. This wasn't just a fleeting observation; Joseph Lee, a passionate advocate for the playground movement, further reinforced this idea in 1915, positing that a "tomboy phase" was not merely acceptable but crucial for the healthy physical development of young girls, specifically between the formative ages of 8 and 13. This intellectual and social validation, coupled with the nascent stirrings of first wave feminism and the persistent economic pressures on American families, created a fertile environment for tomboyism to flourish amongst young girls. Their parents, often driven by the decaying economy and the turbulent political climate, increasingly permitted, and in some cases, actively promoted, an upbringing that encouraged the spirited and uninhibited exploration characteristic of tomboys. It seems even societal absurdity has its breaking point when the bills need paying.

Late 19th century and Civil War

The American Civil War served as a brutal, undeniable catalyst that forced American society to confront and fully realize the critical importance of healthy, capable women. As the conflict erupted, recruiting vast numbers of men for the Union and Confederate armies, women were left behind, thrust into the void to shoulder the "left duties of men." This wasn’t a gradual transition; it was an abrupt, often terrifying, imposition of responsibility.

During this period of immense upheaval, many adolescent girls and young women found themselves compelled to undertake tasks that had been rigidly categorized as belonging to the male realm. Women who, prior to the war, had been legally prevented from holding independent bank accounts, were now suddenly expected to manage household finances, navigate complex economic landscapes, and make critical decisions that ensured their families' survival. American wives, mothers, and young girls, who had traditionally relied on the men in their households for physical security and protection, now bore the daunting duty of defending their homes and families from the ever-present threat of enemy forces or opportunistic marauders.

The profound shift in responsibilities inevitably reshaped domestic priorities. Mothers, acutely aware of the new demands placed upon their daughters, began to focus intensely on improving the physical constitution and resilience of their girls, often while simultaneously tending to their own newfound burdens. Many women who had, by societal dictate, subscribed wholeheartedly to the restrictive tenets of the Cult of True Womanhood before the war, found themselves engaging in an astonishing array of traditionally masculine actions during the conflict—from managing farms and businesses to nursing the wounded and even, in some clandestine cases, fighting. The sheer exigency of women being compelled to assume the duties traditionally assigned to men during the Civil War period profoundly encouraged and normalized tomboyism, demonstrating that capability, not gender, was the true measure of a person in times of crisis. Though, one might note, this lesson was often conveniently forgotten once the crisis passed.

20th century: second wave feminism

Feminist Suffrage Parade in New York City, 1912, a visual representation of early feminist activism.

While the first wave feminism movement, primarily active during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, meticulously focused its formidable energies on securing fundamental political rights, most notably women's suffrage—the right to vote—the subsequent second wave feminism of the mid-20th century dramatically broadened the scope of discourse. This later movement expanded its critical lens to encompass a far wider array of systemic gender inequality, delving into intricate areas such as sexuality, the deeply ingrained dynamics of family structures, the pervasive disparities within the workspace, and the vast body of laws and cultural norms inextricably linked to patriarchy.

With its primary, overarching purpose being a comprehensive critique of the patriarchal system that had historically constrained women, this powerful movement opened previously inaccessible avenues for women across society. It pushed for significant advancements in education, challenging the notion that higher learning was a male prerogative. It fought for greater equity and opportunity in employment, dismantling barriers that had long relegated women to specific, often lower-paying, roles. And crucially, it advocated for enhanced legal protection against insidious issues like domestic violence, recognizing that personal safety was a fundamental right, not a privilege. This seismic shift in feminist thought and action, by challenging and redefining the very parameters of womanhood, inherently created more space and acceptance for expressions of gender that deviated from traditionally feminine norms, inadvertently fostering a more tolerant environment for tomboyism.

Late 20th century

As the late 20th century unfolded, the term "tomboy" continued to serve as a descriptive label for girls who, with an almost defiant disregard for conventional expectations, chose to wear unfeminine clothing—often practical trousers or shorts rather than skirts and dresses. These were girls who actively engaged in vigorous physical sports, not merely as spectators or cheerleaders, but as full participants, demonstrating strength and competitive spirit. They embraced what were often, and rather tellingly, known as "boy toys"—things like cars, action figures, or construction sets—and pursued other activities that had long been exclusively associated with boys.

However, a curious phenomenon began to emerge: the term itself started to be used with notably less frequency in the Western world. This decline wasn't necessarily because the behavior it described had vanished, but rather because, by this point, it had largely become a societal norm for adolescent girls to engage in physical activities, to play with peers of both the same and opposite genders without undue comment, and to wear comfortable, practical clothing like pants. The rigid gender lines that once made such choices remarkable had blurred considerably. What was once an outlier behavior, requiring a specific label, had simply become, for many, an unremarkable aspect of growing up female. It seems that when enough individuals defy a norm, the norm itself begins to buckle, and the labels used to police it become somewhat redundant. Or perhaps, less charitably, new, more subtle forms of policing emerged.

Beginning 21st century

In the nascent years of the 21st century, the very utility and implications of the term "tomboy" began to face more rigorous scrutiny. Sebastian Zulch, writing for Bustle, articulated a compelling argument that the continued use of "tomboy" could, in fact, be considered condescending and inherently sexist. His reasoning hinges on the observation that the term, by its very nature, implicitly associates certain behaviors with the masculine gender. In doing so, it subtly reinforces the antiquated societal expectation that girls should behave in a particular, "feminine" way, and that any deviation from this prescribed path requires a special, gender-coded label. This critical perspective highlights how seemingly innocuous terms can, beneath their surface, perpetuate and reinforce the very gender stereotypes they appear to describe, rather than simply acknowledging individual preferences. It's a linguistic trap, really, suggesting that to be active or unadorned is to be "like a boy," rather than simply "like a person."

Psychobehavioral aspects

Child development

Tomboyism is frequently observed as a distinct phase within the broader spectrum of gender presentation during childhood and adolescence. It is, contrary to some persistent misconceptions, generally not a definitive indicator of an individual's eventual sexual orientation or their long-term gender display.

Indeed, the tomboy phase is often perceived as a transient, albeit significant, period of gender presentation during adolescence. While some parents might initially express concern or confusion over their child's apparent lack of adherence to traditional feminine norms, historical perspectives suggest this phase holds developmental value. Joseph Lee, a prominent advocate for the playground movement in 1915, notably argued that the tomboy phase was, in fact, "crucial" for healthy physical development in young girls, particularly within the formative age range of 8 to 13 years. His observations implied that this period of active, uninhibited play was vital for building strength, coordination, and resilience. As girls mature, some naturally begin to embrace more traditionally feminine expressions and interests, while others, with a quiet determination, persist in their tomboyish inclinations well into adulthood, integrating these traits into their enduring identity.

Psychologists, ever keen to dissect human behavior, speculate that childhood tomboy behavior arises from a complex interplay of factors. It is often attributed to a young child's innate curiosity—a fundamental drive to explore the world around them, unburdened by preconceived gendered limitations. This inherent inquisitiveness then intersects with specific family dynamics, where parental encouragement or even passive acceptance can foster such behaviors, alongside the pervasive influence of imposed societal gender roles and ingrained behavioral customs. The observable preference for athletics, outdoor activities, and what might be termed "masculine" clothing can be readily explained by adolescent tomboys' genuine curiosity and enthusiasm for physical games and outdoor adventures. In this context, comfortable and practical attire, such as pants and jerseys, serves not as a symbolic defiance but as a functional necessity, facilitating their uninhibited physical engagement. A 2002 study, venturing into biological underpinnings, even suggested that some girls might be "born tomboys" due to potentially higher testosterone levels experienced by the mother during pregnancy. This intriguing hypothesis posits a pre-natal influence on later gender-typed behaviors. Regardless of these potential biological predispositions, it remains a critical point that being a childhood tomboy does not predetermine one's sexual orientation or dictate their life-long gender presentation. Such a simplistic, one-to-one correlation ignores the rich tapestry of human development and individual identity.

Gender roles

Girl riding a skateboard, an activity traditionally associated with boys but increasingly common for girls.

The very concept of a "tomboy" inherently reinforces the often-arbitrary societal demarcation between "girl activities" and "boy activities," and, perhaps even more fundamentally, between "girl clothing" and "boy clothing." This binary framework, though increasingly challenged, is solidified by the existence of a term designed to label those who transgress it. Thus, tomboyism presents a curious paradox: it can be simultaneously interpreted as both a defiant refusal of rigid gender roles and traditional gender conventions, and, ironically, as a subtle form of conformance to existing gender stereotypes by adopting the "valued" traits.

The contemporary view of the concept itself is rather bifurcated; it may be dismissed as outdated and restrictive, or it may be embraced from a positive viewpoint, recognizing the agency it represents. A significant factor contributing to tomboyism, particularly in certain historical periods or geographical regions, is the societal tendency to devalue and even actively reject traditionally feminine traits. In environments where masculinity is disproportionately desired and valued—often positioned atop the social hierarchy as the idealized standard—girls may respond by adopting masculine behaviors. This idealized masculinity, frequently upheld and disseminated through the social dynamics of young children at play, can create an implicit pressure. Tomboys, in this context, may perceive femininity as something aggressively pushed upon them, leading to negative feelings not only toward femininity itself but also toward those who embody it. In such instances, the adoption of masculine traits or behaviors can be interpreted as a powerful defense mechanism against the often-harsh societal push toward a restrictive femininity. It becomes a reclaiming of agency, a defiant assertion of self in the face of sexist ideas that narrowly define what girls are, and are not, capable of doing. It’s a pragmatic choice, really, to align oneself with power when the alternative is perceived weakness.

In many Western cultures, there has historically been an unspoken, yet potent, expectation that tomboys will eventually shed their masculine behaviors. This transformation is typically anticipated to occur during, or just prior to, puberty, at which point they are expected to seamlessly revert to traditionally feminine behaviors and, crucially, to embrace heteronormativity. Tomboys who fail to conform to this prescribed developmental trajectory often face stigmatization, a consequence frequently rooted in deeply ingrained homophobia and societal discomfort with gender non-conformity. Barbara Creed, a perceptive cultural critic, argues that the tomboy's "image undermines patriarchal gender boundaries that separate the sexes," thereby positioning her as a "threatening figure." This perceived "threat" is not merely personal; it extends to and actively challenges the very foundational idea of what a family must look like—typically, a nuclear, independent, heterosexual coupling with two biological children. Such a figure, by embodying a fluid and defiant gender expression, implicitly destabilizes these cherished, yet often exclusionary, social constructs.

The esteemed gender scholar Jack Halberstam further illuminates this societal double standard, observing that while the defying of gender roles is often tolerated, or even subtly celebrated, in young girls, adolescent girls who continue to exhibit pronounced masculine traits are frequently met with repression or outright punishment. The window for acceptable gender non-conformity, it seems, is remarkably narrow. However, the cultural landscape has shifted, particularly in the Western world, where the ubiquity of traditionally female clothing such as skirts and dresses has notably declined since the 1960s. It is generally no longer considered a male trait for girls and women to opt for more practical attire. This sartorial evolution, coupled with a significant increase in the popularity of women's sporting events (a phenomenon powerfully influenced by legislation such as Title IX in the United States) and other activities once exclusively dominated by males, has broadened societal tolerance. Consequently, the impact of "tomboy" as a pejorative term has significantly lessened. Sociologist Barrie Thorne aptly captured this evolving sentiment, suggesting that some adult women take considerable pride in describing their childhood selves as tomboys. This self-identification, she notes, often carries an implicit message: "as if to suggest: I was (and am) independent and active; I held (and hold) my own with boys and men and have earned their respect and friendship; I resisted (and continue to resist) gender stereotypes." It’s a badge of honor, a testament to a path less followed, and perhaps, a quiet rebellion.

Beyond the Western context, the term and its associated behaviors manifest with unique cultural nuances. In the Philippines, for instance, "tomboy" commonly refers to masculine-presenting women who engage in romantic relationships with other women, with their partners often, though not exclusively, tending towards more feminine presentations. The term can also encompass transmasculine individuals who have relationships with women, though the former usage appears to be more prevalent. Interestingly, women in the Philippines who engage in romantic relationships with other women but do not adopt masculine presentations are frequently still perceived as heterosexual, leading to a pervasive invisibility for feminine lesbians. Scholar Kale Bantigue Fajardo draws insightful parallels, arguing for the significant similarities between the "tomboy" in the Philippines, the "tombois in Indonesia," and the "toms in Thailand," collectively recognizing them as diverse yet interconnected forms of female masculinity across Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile, in China, girls exhibiting masculine characteristics are often labeled "假小子" (Pinyin: jiáxiǎozi), a term that literally translates to "pseudo-boy." This linguistic designation is largely, and problematically, employed as a derogatory term, imbued with negative connotations. Most of the time, to call someone a "假小子" is intended as a humiliation, carrying the sharp implication that the individual might struggle to find a male partner. This deeply ingrained cultural perspective significantly reduces the perceived value of women solely to their romantic potential and, in doing so, actively diminishes girls' confidence and ambition to pursue careers or interests traditionally defined as belonging to the "boy's realm." It's a succinct, and rather brutal, demonstration of how language can be weaponized to enforce archaic gender norms and limit individual potential.

Sexual orientation

Association of tomboyism with lesbianism

Throughout the 20th century, a confluence of factors—including the pervasive influence of Freudian psychology with its often-pathologizing interpretations of non-normative sexualities, and a powerful societal backlash against emerging LGBT social movements—engendered widespread societal anxieties concerning the sexualities of tomboys. This climate of fear and suspicion inevitably led many to question, with a palpable undercurrent of apprehension, whether tomboyism was, in effect, a precursor or a direct pathway to lesbianism. It seems any deviation from the prescribed feminine role was immediately suspect, often pathologized as a sign of sexual "aberration."

Indeed, a perceived, and often heavily scrutinized, correlation between tomboyishness and lesbianism has regrettably persisted throughout history. This association was frequently reinforced and exaggerated in popular culture. For instance, Hollywood films, with their penchant for reductive archetypes, would often stereotype the adult tomboy as a "predatory butch dyke." Such portrayals were rarely nuanced, often serving to demonize or sensationalize female masculinity. However, within the lesbian community itself, the connection often carried a different, more affirming resonance. Lynne Yamaguchi and Karen Barber, the insightful editors of Tomboys! Tales of Dyke Derring-Do, powerfully articulate that "tomboyhood is much more than a phase for many lesbians"; it "seems to remain a part of the foundation of who we are as adults." Many contributors to their collection explicitly linked their self-identification as both tomboys and lesbians to the shared experience of being positioned outside conventional "cultural and gender boundaries." Further scholarly work supports this observation: psychoanalyst Dianne Elise's 1995 essay reported a significantly higher incidence of lesbians recalling being tomboys in their youth compared to heterosexual women. This suggests a lived experience, a shared developmental trajectory that, while not determinative, is certainly noteworthy within the lesbian community.

Misconception

Despite these observed correlations and historical anxieties, it is crucial to emphasize that while some tomboys may indeed later identify as lesbian in their adolescent or adult years, behavior typical of boys when displayed by girls is absolutely not a true or reliable indicator of one's sexual orientation. To suggest otherwise is to engage in a simplistic, often harmful, form of stereotyping.

In the rapidly evolving social landscape of the 21st century, particularly with the rise of greater female liberation and the increasing prevalence of gender-neutral playgrounds (at least in regions like the US), the very definition of "tomboy" has become more fluid, if not somewhat obsolete. An increasing number of girls now routinely engage in physical activities, play equally and uninhibitedly with boys, and comfortably wear pants or other masculine or gender-neutral clothing. These behaviors are increasingly seen as normal, rather than requiring a specific, gender-coded label. Consequently, many girls who, in previous generations, would have been unhesitatingly referred to as "tomboys" now simply exist without such a designation, because their actions are no longer considered exceptional. Therefore, the historical association between lesbianism and tomboyism is not only outdated and often inaccurate, but it can also be profoundly disrespectful to both heterosexual women (by implying their autonomy or activity is somehow "masculine" or "lesbian") and to lesbians (by reducing their identity to a set of childhood behaviors, rather than a complex sexual orientation). It’s an intellectual shortcut, and like most shortcuts, it often leads to a dead end of misunderstanding.

Representations in media

Main article: List of tomboys in fiction

Tomboys, those spirited figures who defy conventional feminine norms, are often strategically deployed in fictional narratives to serve as a stark contrast to a more archetypally "girly" and traditionally feminine character. This dynamic sets up a predictable, and often infuriating, trope: these tomboy characters are frequently subjected to the infamous "makeover scene." In this narrative ritual, they are, with varying degrees of reluctance, initiated into the mysteries of femininity, often with the transparent goal of securing a male romantic partner. Usually, with the 'help' (read: unsolicited intervention) of their more conventionally feminine counterpart, they undergo a transformation from an "ugly duckling" into a "beautiful swan." This metamorphosis is almost universally framed as them having achieved their "best self," conveniently ignoring any past objectives, ambitions, or, indeed, their entire authentic personality. Doris Day's character in the 1953 film Calamity Jane is a prime, and rather grating, example of this particular narrative arc, where a spirited, independent woman must be tamed and prettified for heterosexual consumption.

Perhaps even more disheartening is the fate of tomboy figures who, with a stubborn refusal, do not eventually conform to feminine and heterosexual expectations. These characters often simply remain in their childhood tomboy state, trapped in an eternal ambiguity, never truly allowed to mature or evolve beyond their initial defiance. The stage of life where tomboyism is deemed acceptable is, in fiction as in life, remarkably short. Rarely are tomboys permitted to peacefully and happily age out of it without undergoing a radical personality shift, or without explicitly surrendering their tomboyish essence. It’s as if narratives struggle with the concept of a woman simply being without fitting neatly into a prescribed box.

Beyond these individual character arcs, tomboyism in fiction often serves a more profound symbolic purpose, frequently signaling the emergence of new types of family dynamics. These narratives often arise in the wake of a death or some other significant disruption to the conventional nuclear family unit, leading to the formation of "families of choice" rather than traditional, bloodline-based descent. This provides a fertile ground for challenging the very notion of what constitutes a family, often critiquing societal assumptions about who is "allowed" to be a family. This frequently extends to critiques of class structures and, crucially, a woman's prescribed role within a family unit. By challenging rigid gender roles and the often-unquestioned assumptions of maternity and motherhood that tomboys inherently inhabit, such narratives can be argued to normalize and even actively encourage the inclusion of other marginalized groups and diverse family structures in fiction, including LGBT families or racialized groups. It’s a quiet revolution, dressed in practical trousers.

Finally, tomboys are also frequently employed in patriotic stories, particularly those set during wartime. In these narratives, the female character often expresses a fervent desire to serve in a war, driven by a multitude of reasons, chief among them intense patriotism and a yearning to be on the front lines of conflict. This trope, however, frequently overlooks the many other, equally vital, ways women historically participated in war efforts, instead focusing almost exclusively on a singular mode of serving: the physical deployment of one's body in direct combat. This type of story often follows a predictable arc: the tomboy's true gender is discovered only after she sustains an injury, playing on the particular ways bodies are revealed, policed, and categorized in gender-segregated environments. Such narratives are also frequently nationalistic, presenting the tomboy as an idealized hero, a figure whom other female characters should emulate. Yet, even in these tales of valor, the tomboy is usually expected to shed some of her more "extreme" masculine ways once the war concludes, a subtle but firm reminder that even heroism has its gendered limits. A woman's strength, it seems, is only truly palatable when it serves the nation, and then, only until she's needed back in a skirt.

Tomboy