“Girl”: Contemporary Society’s Failed Linguistic Revolution

Despite decades of feminist progress, language regarding women is regressing. The widespread substitute of “girl” for “woman” has dominated social media trends, seen in phenomena like “girl dinner,” which describes women opting for snack boards over traditional entrees; “girl math,” (used to justify frivolous spending); and the one-liner response, “I’m just a girl,” which trivializes accountability, treating women more like toddlers, and reinforces a misogynistic message: “I messed up because I’m a girl.”

While these terms may seem harmless and playful on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, they reflect a growing linguistic trend that infantilizes women, subtly reinforcing outdated, misogynistic ideas under the guise of humor or empowerment. At a time when women are facing renewed efforts to restrict their rights and roles in public life, it’s dangerous to let this kind of language define modern femininity.

Digital spaces encourage provocative, extremist language. Instead of penalizing online misogyny, it often rewards and normalizes it in ways that might not translate to real life but still shape cultural attitudes.

During the Riot Grrrl movement — an underground feminist punk rock movement that emerged during the early 1990s — all-female bands like Bikini Kill and Bratmobile reappropriated “girl” as a badge of honor rather than abatement, pushing the boundaries and resisting patriarchy; however, today’s usage instead utilizes a caricature of girlhood that’s rooted less in empowerment and more in trivialization, fragility, and weakness. These uses of “girl” lack the intentionality and critique that defined Riot Grrrl’s reclamation, instead continuing anti-feminist ideologies.

In her piece, “Theory as Liberatory Practice,” American author Bell Hooks argues that reclaiming language, which has historically been used to oppress, can be particularly liberating for marginalized groups. During the Riot Grrrl movement, “girl” was reclaimed as a powerful, defiant term that embodied Hooks’ vision. Riot Grrrl expanded what it meant to be a “girl,” rejecting conventional femininity — an idea originally constructed by patriarchy.

The movement encouraged young women to freely express themselves through music and art: to create their own bands, make their own zines, and publish their own stories. Riot Grrrl urged women to enter the male-dominated punk scene unafraid by facilitating all-female mosh pits, and advocating for feminist issues in its music. Bands of this era created songs that addressed feminist and anti-racist viewpoints with lyrics that confronted heavy topics such as rape, incest, and eating disorders. Take Sleater-Kinney’s 2005 hit, “Modern Girl,” for example, which boldly exposed the convoluted hardships and frustrations of being a woman during a time that often romanticized girlhood and femininity. Riot Grrrl gave women a platform to speak out against misogyny and the confidence to continue fighting for equality.

Kathleen Hanna, lead singer of Bikini Kill, coined the phrase “girl power” to reclaim “girl” under new terms; by the late 90s, the slogan became ubiquitous, used by pop sensations like the Spice Girls. In contrast, today’s use of “girl” attempts to embrace conventional femininity, but without critiquing the system, it proliferates the very stereotypes and patriarchal values that the Riot Grrrl movement sought to dismantle.

Contemporary uses of “girl” are used in seemingly inclusive ways, inviting women of all backgrounds to participate in shared cultural trends that center on a reimagined concept of girlhood. However, American feminist philosopher Judith Butler warns against such universalizing approaches in her book “Gender Trouble,” arguing that feminism’s tendency to affirm a shared experience of oppression under patriarchy often creates a “categorical or fictive universality.” With Butler’s concern in mind, the contemporary use of “girl” without meaningful reclamation risks creating a superficial inclusivity that erases individual struggles and identities.

While the use of “girl” can foster connection, it must avoid becoming a tool to further entrench systems of domination under the guise of empowerment. Its use can only really be meaningfully reclaimed when it actively challenges such oppressive systems rather than reinforces them.

This analysis does not aim to settle the debate on the use of “girl” but instead underscores the shortcomings of its modern usage compared to its past potency. Will I stop using terms that feature “girl” in its modern context? Probably not. Yet, I acknowledge that this language may not advance feminism while also offering room for fun and levity in language. I understand it’s contradictory and hypocritical, but it reflects a broader truth: Feminism as a social movement thrives not when definitive answers are imposed but when its contradictions and multiplicity are embraced. Balancing the critical with the playful allows feminism to remain dynamic and evolving, even if that means wrestling with its own hypocrisies.

As Carrie Brownstein, lead singer of Sleater-Kinney, beautifully put in her novel “Hunger Makes Me a Modern Girl”: “We were never trying to deny our femaleness. Instead, we wanted to expand the notion of what it means to be female. The notion of ‘female’ should be so sprawling and complex that it becomes divorced from gender itself.”