"Girl" or "girls" appears five times in this groundbreaking Styles piece about socialites who are also beauty-industry entrepreneurs, or who consent to having their names and images stamped on the marketing materials in exchange for profit, same difference. This is not, however, a story about how Spence and Chapin sophomores are really making a go of it. The "girls" mentioned specifically are (or claim to be) 27, 34, 34, and 36 (making them 37, 44, 44, and 46, respectively).
And there I was, claiming that "girls" only ever referred to adult women in the case of sex workers or fashion models. Seems if you're rich enough, spending enough on anti-wrinkle creams that claim to target not only lines but also rides, your girlhood lasts forever, across however many well-calculated marriages.
All of this would be standard Styles fare (note that "girl" and "girls" are appearing in quotes, leaving open the possibility that the reporter finds this preposterous), except that it gets a touch meta, with one of the "girls" preemptively defending herself:
She is bothered by the title “socialite.”
“I always find the term somewhat funny, and in this day and age, a misnomer,” she said. “I just think of myself as a girl who works and who likes to go out. Especially in New York, most of the women I know from that scene also work. Sometimes it’s a little misogynist.”Let's get this straight. The "girl" in question is (or claims to be) 34, married to a man who's been divorced, and has a 12-year career in finance behind her. "Socialite" is "misogynist," but "girl" is not?