Dame Helen Mirren has a rather unconventional piece of advice for women who have spent their lives being told to smile, stay agreeable and avoid causing a scene: stop being so polite.
The Oscar-winning actress, celebrated for her performances in The Queen and Calendar Girls, has challenged the expectation that women should constantly accommodate other people's feelings, even when doing so comes at the expense of their own comfort.
And in typically uncompromising fashion, Mirren made her argument with a choice of words unlikely to appear in any traditional etiquette handbook.
"Women have got to stop being polite. If I ever had children, which I don't, the first thing I'd teach a girl of mine is the words 'f** off.'"
Behind the deliberately provocative language lies a serious question: why should women feel obliged to remain pleasant when what they really want is to say no?
Helen Mirren challenges the pressure on women to be agreeable
Mirren's remarks address a familiar social expectation: that women should be accommodating, approachable and careful not to offend, regardless of how uncomfortable a situation might become.
From unwanted conversations to professional disagreements, the pressure to remain agreeable can make setting boundaries feel like an act of confrontation rather than an ordinary personal decision.
Mirren's argument turns that expectation around. In her view, women should feel entitled to reject situations and interactions they do not welcome, without automatically worrying about appearing rude.
Her choice of language is intentionally blunt. The point is not necessarily that every disagreement requires an expletive, but that women should have the confidence to express themselves without treating someone else's approval as a requirement.
There is, admittedly, a considerable difference between teaching someone good manners and teaching them that good manners must always come first.
Why Mirren's advice goes beyond simply saying no
One particularly revealing part of Mirren's statement is her reference to the daughter she never had.
Rather than imagining lessons about being charming, obedient or universally liked, the actress suggests she would prioritise teaching a girl how to reject unwanted demands.
That distinction matters because the ability to establish boundaries is not necessarily the same as the willingness to use it.
Someone may know perfectly well that they have the right to refuse a request, end an uncomfortable interaction or disagree with a colleague. Exercising that right can become considerably harder when they have been encouraged to regard other people's disappointment as a personal failure.
Mirren's proposed solution is hardly diplomatic, but diplomacy is precisely the expectation she is questioning.
Her remarks also raise a broader distinction between kindness and compliance. Being considerate towards others does not require agreeing with everything they say, accepting every demand or tolerating behaviour that crosses a personal boundary.
Does standing up for yourself really require being rude?
There is a reasonable objection to Mirren's advice: politeness and assertiveness are not mutually exclusive.
People can establish firm boundaries without swearing, and a calm refusal may sometimes be more effective than an aggressive response, particularly in professional or sensitive situations.
But interpreting Mirren's words as a literal instruction to insult everyone who becomes inconvenient risks missing the underlying argument.
Her statement is better understood as a challenge to the idea that women must prioritise being liked over being heard.
In my view, the strongest part of Mirren's argument is not the profanity but the distinction between respect and submission. Courtesy remains valuable, and there is no reason to dismiss it altogether. Yet politeness becomes less admirable when it is expected from one person regardless of how others behave. Mirren's language may be excessive for everyday disagreements, but its force makes that imbalance difficult to ignore.
The useful lesson is therefore not that kindness is a weakness. It is that kindness should be a choice, rather than an obligation that prevents someone from defending their own interests.
Why Helen Mirren's message carries particular weight
Mirren's public image adds an interesting dimension to the statement.
An Academy Award winner whose portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in The Queen remains among her best-known performances, she is closely associated with characters who project authority, composure and dignity.
That makes her rejection of compulsory politeness particularly striking. An actress famous for portraying a monarch is effectively questioning one of the social rules most closely associated with traditional ideas of proper behaviour.
Of course, Mirren is not suggesting that courtesy should disappear from everyday life. Her remarks focus on what happens when the expectation to be pleasant overrides someone's ability to express discomfort or disagreement.
The original statement, as presented, does not establish when or where Mirren made the comments, so it would be misleading to portray them as a new declaration or part of a recently announced campaign.
What the words do provide is a pointed contribution to a continuing conversation about how women are expected to behave.
And perhaps the most revealing aspect of Mirren's advice is how easily a demand for basic personal boundaries can sound radical when expressed without the usual apologies.
Her suggested vocabulary may not suit every occasion. The freedom to say no, however, should not depend on finding a sufficiently charming way to say it.
