English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words
Dan Send a noteboard - 06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM
'Female' is an incredibly common noun used in day to day American language, absolutely transparently. Never used with any sort of medical, scientific, or reductive connotation, ever. Vivien's critique is actually fairly radical in that it does fly in the face of ordinary language here. I've certainly never encountered this before, and my understanding of the nuances of American English is probably perfect. I'm not saying that to posture, but just to remind that connotation is a very delicate thing at this level. You wouldn't lecture Demosthenes on his use of καιγαρτοι, would you?
(I'm going to preemptively put a copy/paste edit in here from below to clarify)
I'll probably get some flack for this, but frankly, it should be emphasized more. I'm not being a bigot, I am saying the following. Despite the fact that Americans eat cheeseburgers and hate healthcare, American English is in fact a very complex and nuanced language that people ought to respect just a bit more, particularly with issues this subtle. It should be afforded the same respect as Japanese or Attic Greek. Being raised here does matter in some of these liminal cases. Being intelligent, watching movies, and reading books will not help someone on an issue that is this complex. You need to be a native speaker living here.
Yes. But mostly for animals. If you go around talking about a movie in German and all the "Weibchen" in it, I dare say people will call you a male chauvinist pig as well.
I'm with you.
I'm fairly averse to using it as a noun except for animals in English too, though I know that's all to do with how you use and don't use femelle (anymore) in French.
It would be extremely derogatory to use the word a noun for a human woman, except in a medical contex or as a short cut for "genre féminin". Another acceptable use would be for humour (non offensive gender humour, for e.g....)
I guess it has a lot to do with culture. Femelle for French speakers reduces the gender to its reproductive function and was mostly used in other contexts by mysogynists or men wishing to dismiss or attack the gender. Since feminism, the word is barely ever used except for animals and a proper scientific term (totally non offensive when used this way). A few decades ago however, a priest could for example (and if you go back far enough, often would) refer to Eve as a "femelle" (while referring to Adam as a Man), but nowadays a priest doing that would really ruffle his flock.
Anyway, culturally I still find it really weird and odd to use female as a noun for women in English when the context isn't scientific, and when others use it sounds derogative and rude (even aggressive), whatever the real intent. Based on the argument, it sounds like with English speakers the word has gained the same derogative stigma for some women, but it's not as widely established culturally/linguistically as it is in French. In French even the adjective could be derogative out of the scientific context, and féminin is much preferred for all the others.
Typically, mâle has none of those connotations. Using it over homme (man) for a human male is often even flattering. French can be incredibly sexist in some of its usages.
(I'm going to preemptively put a copy/paste edit in here from below to clarify)
I'll probably get some flack for this, but frankly, it should be emphasized more. I'm not being a bigot, I am saying the following. Despite the fact that Americans eat cheeseburgers and hate healthcare, American English is in fact a very complex and nuanced language that people ought to respect just a bit more, particularly with issues this subtle. It should be afforded the same respect as Japanese or Attic Greek. Being raised here does matter in some of these liminal cases. Being intelligent, watching movies, and reading books will not help someone on an issue that is this complex. You need to be a native speaker living here.
I am no native speaker. I just checked. The word can be used as noun.
Yes. But mostly for animals. If you go around talking about a movie in German and all the "Weibchen" in it, I dare say people will call you a male chauvinist pig as well.
I'm with you.
I'm fairly averse to using it as a noun except for animals in English too, though I know that's all to do with how you use and don't use femelle (anymore) in French.
It would be extremely derogatory to use the word a noun for a human woman, except in a medical contex or as a short cut for "genre féminin". Another acceptable use would be for humour (non offensive gender humour, for e.g....)
I guess it has a lot to do with culture. Femelle for French speakers reduces the gender to its reproductive function and was mostly used in other contexts by mysogynists or men wishing to dismiss or attack the gender. Since feminism, the word is barely ever used except for animals and a proper scientific term (totally non offensive when used this way). A few decades ago however, a priest could for example (and if you go back far enough, often would) refer to Eve as a "femelle" (while referring to Adam as a Man), but nowadays a priest doing that would really ruffle his flock.
Anyway, culturally I still find it really weird and odd to use female as a noun for women in English when the context isn't scientific, and when others use it sounds derogative and rude (even aggressive), whatever the real intent. Based on the argument, it sounds like with English speakers the word has gained the same derogative stigma for some women, but it's not as widely established culturally/linguistically as it is in French. In French even the adjective could be derogative out of the scientific context, and féminin is much preferred for all the others.
Typically, mâle has none of those connotations. Using it over homme (man) for a human male is often even flattering. French can be incredibly sexist in some of its usages.
This message has been locked.
This message last edited by Dan on 06/04/2012 at 10:07:12 AM
This message last edited by Dan on 06/04/2012 at 10:07:12 AM
- Edit 2 by Dan on 06/04/2012 at 10:07:12 AM
- Edit 1 by Dan on 06/04/2012 at 10:04:27 AM
The Hunger Games gets a ... different kind of review.
03/04/2012 03:37:39 PM
- 2186 Views
"Written by a female with femalist themes"
03/04/2012 04:38:54 PM
- 970 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet
03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM
- 917 Views
It's not. That's what shallow idiots say about things where women have power or physical skills *NM*
04/04/2012 03:45:22 PM
- 814 Views
I can only speak for the film, which was not feminist.
03/04/2012 06:01:18 PM
- 881 Views
Where do I start?
03/04/2012 07:43:18 PM
- 891 Views
But that is exactly what feminist means "it could have been a boy just as well"
04/04/2012 01:42:43 PM
- 873 Views
Makes me almost wish I knew the source material so I could judge what he is saying
03/04/2012 10:50:48 PM
- 796 Views
Why don't you think the Hunger Games are feminist?
03/04/2012 11:17:53 PM
- 901 Views
Why would I consider it to be femenist?
04/04/2012 01:51:24 AM
- 784 Views
I just don't consider feminism as something that has to be radical.
04/04/2012 05:42:59 AM
- 864 Views
Completely agree with your first paragraph
04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM
- 840 Views
To you "feminist" is a dirty word? To me, it means acceptable. Differences in definitions I think
04/04/2012 01:50:32 PM
- 791 Views
Unfortunately truly ordinary female characters are so rare that the exceptions stand out
04/04/2012 01:49:16 PM
- 832 Views
Fair enough
04/04/2012 02:33:22 PM
- 871 Views
Stop using female as a noun!
04/04/2012 03:51:13 PM
- 798 Views
It's stuff like that that makes you lose cred
04/04/2012 05:26:24 PM
- 799 Views
It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
04/04/2012 07:30:18 PM
- 792 Views
I don't think Jens was really using it that way, though
04/04/2012 07:34:28 PM
- 725 Views
Of course he didn't intend it that way, but that's how it sounds.
04/04/2012 08:06:03 PM
- 810 Views
I understand that, but it's still such a ridiculous thing to get fussed over
04/04/2012 09:20:01 PM
- 846 Views
You are rather exaggerating just how "fussed" anyone did get, you do realize.
04/04/2012 09:51:22 PM
- 761 Views
Her tone was not just "informative". It was accusatory
04/04/2012 10:17:57 PM
- 737 Views
Female is perfectly acceptable to use in a medical/clinical setting. *NM*
04/04/2012 10:36:57 PM
- 979 Views
so if your problem is people using it disparagingly...
04/04/2012 10:45:10 PM
- 708 Views
That's not what I said.
04/04/2012 10:51:41 PM
- 821 Views
Which flies in the face of it's ordinary usage, which smacks of needless revisionism.
06/04/2012 09:42:15 AM
- 754 Views
Accusatory of what.i think you meant annoyed. So youre annoyed she was annoyed? Let's out this to re *NM*
09/04/2012 12:44:17 PM
- 824 Views
Are you a native English speaker, Legolas? (Clarified to preempt possible internet tears)
06/04/2012 09:29:28 AM
- 792 Views
Nope. (edit)
06/04/2012 07:23:54 PM
- 790 Views
Re: Nope. (edit)
07/04/2012 04:51:30 AM
- 855 Views
"Female that"? That's even worse.
07/04/2012 11:42:00 AM
- 744 Views
Ok.
07/04/2012 03:27:16 PM
- 1023 Views
Let's try and whittle this down some so as to help you with the quotes.
07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
- 742 Views
However he meant it, it was unpleasant to read. Just use "woman" instead. *NM*
05/04/2012 08:13:13 PM
- 691 Views
Re: It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
05/04/2012 02:21:21 AM
- 797 Views
English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words
06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM
- 871 Views
The prospect of "losing cred" is not going to stop me from speaking my mind.
04/04/2012 10:30:03 PM
- 752 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM
- 771 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 10:48:07 PM
- 751 Views
wait, so now you're claiming it's a grammatical thing? *NM*
04/04/2012 10:58:31 PM
- 755 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
05/04/2012 02:08:26 AM
- 823 Views
Re: Stop using female as a noun!
05/04/2012 02:18:47 PM
- 703 Views
If dislike of the use of female as a noun makes me crazy town, I'm not the only crazy in here.
05/04/2012 05:59:16 PM
- 739 Views
Oh, so now we're using 'dislike' instead of 'should'. It's funny how you fell back on that.
06/04/2012 10:01:59 AM
- 771 Views
Fascinating.
06/04/2012 09:54:47 PM
- 800 Views
Re: Fascinating.
07/04/2012 03:54:26 AM
- 777 Views
Just in case (however slim that chance may be) you are genuinely interested in citations/references.
07/04/2012 05:34:37 AM
- 776 Views
What a joke. Do you even know what grammar is?
07/04/2012 05:57:40 AM
- 836 Views
Oh, come off it. This should be the point where you admit to being wrong.
07/04/2012 12:11:07 PM
- 711 Views
Sorry, no. Read better.
07/04/2012 02:23:10 PM
- 750 Views
Re: If dislike of the use of female as a noun makes me crazy town, I'm not the only crazy in here.
09/04/2012 03:09:06 AM
- 765 Views
Nothing wrong with your use of female. You should ignore those crazy foreigners saying otherwise. *NM*
06/04/2012 02:49:41 PM
- 654 Views
I think I'll start saying males instead of men. If the males here don't mind? *NM*
09/04/2012 12:58:54 PM
- 742 Views
You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 01:46:16 PM
- 815 Views
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 02:23:33 PM
- 764 Views
Interesting. I really need to read these books soon, evidently. *NM*
03/04/2012 10:52:43 PM
- 727 Views
And it appears the writer of the article completely missed a central point of the story *spoilers*
04/04/2012 05:44:40 AM
- 800 Views
The reviewer is kind of full of it, but makes a good point about the character
04/04/2012 04:22:30 PM
- 824 Views