Talking to someone in her mid-twenties recently, I mentioned someone else of the same age. ‘She’s a really talented girl,’ I said. Then I checked myself. ‘Sorry… er… woman.’ Sara smiled. ‘It’s OK,’ she replied. ‘That’s what I call myself. I’m a self-identifying “girl”.’
Fair enough. But the exchange stayed with me. It brought back the episode of Have I Got News For You which featured the ‘Michael Fallon touched Julia Hartley–Brewer’s knee’ story. Quentin Letts offered the opinion that Fallon had been brave, on the grounds that Hartley-Brewer is a ‘big strong girl’. ‘She’s not a girl,’ responded the presenter Jo Brand. ‘She’s a woman.’ The line got a laugh, and indeed a round of applause.
Again, fair enough. You can see why, with that audience and against that opponent, that presenter would say what she did. There is indeed something about the word ‘girl’ that sounds demeaning, even though it isn’t meant that way. We need a replacement.
If you’re talking about a man, it’s actually quite rare that you call him a ‘man’. You wouldn’t say ‘Mike’s a great man’ — it’d sound like you were comparing him to Churchill. Instead you say ‘he’s a great bloke’, or ‘guy’. If the man is under 30, say, you might use ‘lad’. (That word took a bit of a hit during the ‘lads’ mags’ era, but its more neutral meaning seems to have survived.) Depending on your age and class you might even refer to a ‘chap’ or ‘feller’.
But when it comes to females, there are only two choices: ‘woman’ and ‘girl’. The former, like ‘man’, is usually too formal, too strait-laced. It gives you the Churchill problem, with Winston replaced by Florence Nightingale.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in