2

I've noticed in informal communication it's not uncommon to refer to a grown women as a 'girl'. For example:

  • "The girl on the phone said we needed to apply in person"
  • "I saw two men hitting on the same girl at the bar last night"
  • "Maybe the new girl they just hired can help, she use to do that at her old job"

I hear this often, I've even caught myself doing it on occasion. I don't like it because it feels less empowering of women, that grown men are referred to as men, but women are referred to with a term used for children. It's minor, but it's one of those tiny use of the language that perpetuate subconscious cultural stereotypes about the sexes in a manner that may not be favorable to women.

I'm looking for a word that could be used in the situations that 'girl' is often used today, but one that doesn't risk being dis-empowering as 'girl' could be.

I think part of the reason 'girl' is used instead of women is it's easier to say. girl is one syllable, women is two. It may seem minor, but when speaking quickly, especially about someone in passing, the faster 'girl' flows easier and doesn't slow the conversation as much. For that matter for some reason 'women' sounds slightly more formal to my ears, to the point that it could theoretically feel out of place in a particularly casual conversation.

Thus I'm hoping to find a word that is just one syllable and would fit in casual conversation well.

I've already thought of lass, but that's a very regional term and would feel odd used where I'm from, plus for some reason it doesn't feel any more empowering then women, for some reason I partially associate it with men using it in a more dismissive manner to refer to a women, though I don't know if that's a common connotation or just an odd association of my own.

Roger Sinasohn
  • 10,276
dsollen
  • 667
  • 4
    If, as you surmise, the reason girl is used is because it is simply easier to say and doesn’t slow the conversation as much, then you should agree that it is not done in order to be dismissive. Therefore its being “dismissive” is only in the ear of some listeners who are looking for slights where none is intended. – Jim Jun 07 '17 at 15:52
  • 3
    @jim there is a difference between intent of language and effect of language. There are many many cases where innocent intent results in perpetuating negative stereotypes anyways. People don't mean any harm when they buy little girls pink dolls and little boys blue guns, but they still perpetuate sexual roles to what is acceptable to wear or enjoy for each sex which can be harmful. Calling someone in a wheelchair disabled may simply be an attempt to explain they have different needs, but there is a reason we have stopped using that term. 'Girl' is very minor, but it could still do harm. – dsollen Jun 07 '17 at 16:11
  • 2
    You are basically right. Interestingly enough, many modern women have reclaimed the word girl to express their empowered selves, as in Grammar Girl and self-descriptions like "I am a happy-go-lucky girl with an interest in Physics and flowers. I work as a scientist at NASA and grow orchids in my spare time" (completely fictional statement I devised to illustrate a common usage) You can google search 'woman synonyms' to get many words - some may suit your description. The best choice is 'woman'! – English Student Jun 07 '17 at 16:21
  • 1
    Not a duplicate but some possible ideas – Mitch Jun 07 '17 at 16:43
  • In the examples you used I think "guy" would be used in place of "man" by all but the most formal speakers. I'm not sure what the aversion to "gal" is. I do understand the problem with "girl" as it is synonymous with a female child. As for the cultural baggage, well I think that attitudes need to change more than words, and I believe they are. (like when I think of the "girls", I think of the "girls" I coached on my daughter's soccer teams ... athletic and fierce competitors but with slightly different flavors of mischief than the boys mischief). – Tom22 Jun 07 '17 at 16:54
  • 3
    What's wrong with woman? Why do you need a single-syllable word? – Drew Jun 07 '17 at 17:22
  • 1
    @Tom22 The etymology of gal is "a colloquial or regional (U.S. or southern English) pronunciation of girl" (OED). It is used exactly the same way as girl, to refer to girls and young women. Lass (while etymologically unrelated to these two) is also defined this way, so neither gal nor lass moves away from a "term used for children". I'm not sure that there is a polite, casual, monosyllabic word for a woman not used for girls. You might have to go for two syllables: lady is polite & flows well, although is a little formal sounding. – Laurel Jun 07 '17 at 19:14
  • 2
    Regarding taking offense, I think it's fair to refer to adult women as "girls" in any context where you'd refer to adult men as "boys". Still, some people will take offense at anything. Regardless of taking of offense, every culture has gender roles. The only way to get rid of them would be to exterminate the human race. Still, I think this is an excellent question: such a word would be useful to know. +1 – Ben Kovitz Jun 07 '17 at 20:04
  • @Tom22 There's a case to be made that "guys" is more offensive and more culturally damaging than "girls" (read the preceding, too). But you should post "guys" as an answer, hopefully with some explanation, so people can upvote, downvote, and comment. For better or worse, the word "guys" is in use for the purpose the OP asked for. How well it succeeds is another matter. – Ben Kovitz Jun 07 '17 at 20:09
  • 1
    @Tom22 I don't think "guy" is pejorative; it's meant to be friendly, welcoming, and unisex. The weirdness is explained in the article. But please—stop commenting here on the question: you've probably got the answer! – Ben Kovitz Jun 07 '17 at 20:49
  • @Tom22 No more answers from me for at least a day! If no one's done it by time I get back, or none explain the weirdness, I'll write it up when I come back. – Ben Kovitz Jun 07 '17 at 20:51
  • 1
    Actually, in a lot of those situations I'd expect to hear "gal" (and I kind of wonder if people aren't often saying "gal" but you hear "girl"). – Hot Licks Jun 08 '17 at 02:00
  • How about: wench, broad, bitch, ho. Oh wait, you said less disempowering. Nevermind. – fixer1234 Jun 08 '17 at 02:01
  • Not sure if they are less disempowering, but there's chick and broad though I think you might need to be in the US to get away with either of those. They also sound dated to me. – Steve Lovell Jun 11 '17 at 12:39
  • @SteveLovell I think both those terms would definitely count as less empowering then girl :) – dsollen Jun 12 '17 at 13:03
  • 1
    @dsollen, I agree but wasn't sure since being from England they aren't really part of my vocabulary. – Steve Lovell Jun 12 '17 at 13:07

2 Answers2

-1

In reference to the OP, "Woman" would appear to be a suitable term. I don't believe it is pejorative unless you are addressing a woman directly.

Though it is not a single syllable term, perhaps you could use the word "lady". I don't think it is pejorative.

Eliot G York
  • 5,220
  • These suggestions are neither single-syllable, nor informal, though... – herisson Jun 08 '17 at 03:29
  • 1
    For now I'm accepting this as I don't mind Lady, it's not single sylable but it still feels like it flows slightly better then women. I resolve the right to select another answer if someone can think of something better, but i've waited long enough that I think it's unlikely a term that meets my stated requirements is going to be suggested. – dsollen Jun 12 '17 at 13:44
  • OP asked for a "single syllable informal word for women...", and you not only didn't offer a single syllable word (you offered two 2-syllable words), but you also suggested a word that the OP had already used in their own question... – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jun 27 '17 at 20:36
-2

Lass, perhaps - a girl or young woman.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lass

Dan
  • 17,948
  • Thank you for answering, but I already mentioned in the question that it didn't feel right to me as it's too regional etc. – dsollen Jun 07 '17 at 22:56
  • 1
    @dsollen - sorry should have read more carefully. My bad. – Dan Jun 07 '17 at 23:03