Not sure why the title of this article says "girls".

Also in the article it says "this picture the vast cultural gulf between America and Italy, between American girls and Italian men"

Why are women are always called girls? Very belittling.

Hardly "a history." And tells us nothing much. Why post this?

Not to put too fine a point on it, "B," but the term "Girl" was the photographer's (a woman), not mine. If you look at the picture (via the link), you'll see that the males in the picture vary in age but are definitely "men."

Ah, in the '50's alcohol was freely available. So I'm not sure how modern pharmaceuticals factor into this tale of sex, murder and justice. And AFIK, trial by media rarely results in justice.

And this article has no information relating the Knox case at all, other than the photographs are of women and men in Italy.

Just because the photographer named the picture that doesn't mean the article has to use "girls" when referring to women. It seems the female in the picture was 23 at the time.

Why can't you just refer to women as women instead of girls? Hardly an outrageous request...

Let's try one more time, B.

The photographer, a woman, chose to title her piece "American Girl in Italy." The artist's decision, not mine. Case closed.

Okay, everybody out of the pool! Holden and "B," you're both wrong and both right, and GaryP, I'll get to you later.

B, women are not "always called girls" in this story, much less "always" everywhere. Let's go over the facts: in sequence in the story, including the headline (which is usually not the story author's work), the term for the females in question is, without quotes for convenience's sake, girls, women, female, young women, gypsies, girls, girls, woman. Three girls, one women, one young women, one woman, one female and one gender-neutral gypsy, meant in the generic nomadic sense. Hardly "always." Aside from the common admonition not to use the terms "never" and "always" in communicating in conflict, particularly about issues involving emotions, personal matters and inequities, it's wise not only to pick one's battles, but to be accurate when one picks them. Credibility goes out the window otherwise, leaving a void for suspicions of knee-jerk victimization hyperbole, or worse, hysteria and histrionics... (How's that for seeming gender stereotyping?!)

B's complaint about females above the age of 19 or so being called girls is legit, and Holden wrong, in the one sentence stating "... the vast cultural gulf between American girls and Italian men...," which was a clear focus of B's ire. In this day and age, so direct a differential is inappropriate and can often be, or be seen to be, belittling, whether intentional or anachronistically unconscious.

Elsewhere, the term boys is used once generically for Italian males, evening out somewhat the inequity of term usage. Elsewhere, the terms lads and men are used in one sentence, which because of that internal distinction has no effect of leavening.

Holden is in error in defensively attempting to limit the charge to the headline, and also in declaring "case closed" therefore, when clearly the issue arises elsewhere as well, correctly pointed out by B.

Lastly for B: is not the term "boyfriend," used to denote males of any age in an intimate but not marriage relationship to the possessor (!), equally demeaning for any male over the age of what, 19? Do females ever consider it to be demeaning, or question whether it is? It's an issue to ponder...as are the language term usages in the following relationships: men and their girlfriends, women and their boyfriends, men and their boyfriends, women and their girlfriends (interestingly, the only one of these four where the term "...friend" can connote a platonic relationship as well as an intimate one).

Lastly for Holden: I have to agree with mspat; this story wanders around a seeming theme but seriously lacks concision and force - the reader is left wondering what your point is. I realize this was adapted; if the earlier version, which I intentionally have not read yet, did not have these deficiencies, then it's a poor adaptation.

Now to GaryP. Given its context, the inexplicably cryptic (and inapt, in common usage) reference to "pharmaceuticals" must be to conception control medications, for their profound effect on female sexual liberation and resultant deepening of the referenced cultural gulf. Erroneously termed "birth" control from day one, for some odd reason - probably so the naughty words "conception" or "pregnancy" wouldn't have to be uttered, because that would be an overt acknowledgement that people were "doin' it." Quelle horreur... The honesty! The honesty! The sexual repression and shaming that still afflict us, that dictated the use of innocuous and baby-talk cover terms like "birth canal," "down there," "tummy" (all female anatomy, notice, and, except for male OB's and "birth canal," exclusively women's usage) and other absurd sanitizing misnomers, like my mother's terming my college lover relationship as "buddy-buddy." No, Mom, we weren't "buddy-buddy" - we were doin' it. A lot. And enjoying it carnally. A lot. You had eight kids. You were doin' it. A lot. Hope you at least enjoyed it. Please get real.

(Here, somewhat ironically and I hope not appearing to be hypocritically, I've used the term "doin' it" intentionally, as a cover term (and partly for humor's sake), when I'd rather have used the F-word, which is the most accurate and direct term for this discourse, because I didn't want my blog to get canned. Even though most of the Crosscut folks seem more enlightened and tolerant than the unfortunate norm, I'm not sufficiently conversant with the site's etiquette rules to know whether to have taken the risk...)

-newbieveryday.

wow very thorough analysis and commentary. I will amend always to often (or every very often).

I don't think it is a problem when women are called girls once in a while it is that it happens all the time. It rarely happens that men are called boys. Gals is acceptable. Girlfriend and boyfriend is fine as the are on the same level.

Yes my main point of ire was Holden's:
"... the vast cultural gulf between American girls and Italian men...,"

I didn't attack him personally just said that should be changed. Very simple. This is not a case of calling someone sexist without trying to actually address the issue in a calm manner.
I don't know why he reacted so poorly. I doubt he would write a sentence: "... the vast cultural gulf between American women and Italian boys...," When referring to adults.

I hope in the future he will use women, pretty simple.