"Offending Women" certainly offended this woman

I was going to write this as my post but I wanted to put it in direct coversation with the posts you two wrote so it is now a comment. I also found this reading problematic but for a different reason--the stereotypes of "Welfare Queens" (borrowed that from Chandrea) was nothing new to me.For that reason, the impact of Alliance's message to the girls did not hit me hard--perhaps, because the dependency discourse is so ingrained in our society and is constantly used as a political platform when discussing class in America. With that said, what bothered me most was the use and mentioning of the word, "girls." While reading both of your posts/comments, I noticed that in some cases that word was used either to remain true to the original text or to refer to the subject at hand. At some point, Uninhibited, you give them their due respect by referring them as "young women."

When Rachel Brennan says, "girls like you." The phrasing and the use of the word  characterizes the "young women" as small, naive, even stupid. Although referring to someone or using the word "girl" is, often times, not problematic, it is worh noting that it can mean that a female has not yet reached an esteemed state: womanhood. So, as I was caught off guard by Rachel Brennan's demeaning approach, and annoyed by the whole chapter, the question of "What does it mean to be a girl versus a women?" kept coming to mind. Yes, I can acknowledge that these females are young but for them to end up in a correctional facility/program speaks volumes to the experiences and hard lives they must have had. Similar to how adulthood is often characterized by how wise someone is as a result of many experienced years, along those same lines, the "girls" should be titled as women. This term is respectful and acknowledges that many of them probably led lives that forced them to take on the responsbilities of womanhood.