When did we decide "girly" was "weak"?

The other day my long awaited relationship with Ms. magazine finally commenced. I had ordered the magazine in September, but delivery failed for months until finally Jane Fonda and Charlize Theron landed on my doorstep - along with an extension of my subscription.

My sweetheart, Tim, had clued me in on a recent conversation he read reqarding the cover of Ms. magazine - the winter issue with Jane Fonda. Let me describe the cover: Her hair is perfectly frosted and curled, her makeup by most 'magazine' standards is flawless and her top is frilly and pink. Her nails match her blouse and her (adorable) dog is perched on her lap. Quite similarly to the Good Housekeeping issue that adorns Laura Bush.

Now I looked the two covers over and the conversations at both Salon.com's broadsheet and Feministing.com and I get the confusion. But that's all it is. Confusion. Are we (women/feminists) supposed to all look like 'strong women'? Do we all need to wear bandanas, cut our hair, wear pants? Do we all need to stop wearing bras, painting our nails, or 'styling' our hair? Now I'm not saying what we wear should be a total free for all with no consideration and that we should dress like Erin Brokovich, but even if we do - should we be objectified, ridiculed and ignored regardless of our convictions?

Jane Fonda might be wearing a little too much makeup even for my 'openminded' standards, but hey, the lady is using her profits from her latest film (and first in the last 15 years) for G-CAPP -- the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention -- which she founded. Not to mention all else she has done in the name of human rights (Which I discussed in Honesty - the key to revolution?)

And furthermore, I love pink. I love "pretty things" (flowers, cakes, dresses)...I thought being "girly" was empowering. I thought being who I am is strong. When did we decide "girly" was "weak"? And why would we ever want to?