Active Users:813 Time:21/11/2024 09:22:29 PM
Just in case (however slim that chance may be) you are genuinely interested in citations/references. Vivien Send a noteboard - 07/04/2012 05:34:37 AM
Contrary to the impression you may have received based on this thread, I do not actually enjoy repeating myself. Based on the content of your post, I see us going in circles and getting nowhere. And guess what, I don't feel like engaging with you. You don't deserve it.

Anyway, you asked for references/citations and I can't say no to that. Internet links ahoy!

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/female_3

http://www.writersrelief.com/blog/2010/01/female-troubles-female-vs-woman/

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/woman-versus-female.aspx

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/female-or-woman/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/20/the_female_question/?page=2

http://persephonemagazine.com/2011/10/female-is-an-adjective-you-got-your-grammar-in-my-feminism/

http://ucommunications.colorado.edu/services/style-guide/word-list

http://www.shakesville.com/2010/03/on-being-woman-not-female.html

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/mcintyre/blog/2007/10/female_trouble.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/02/10/is-female-an-offensive-term/

http://www.wordmonster.org/2012/01/17/female-noun/

http://peevepile.com/peeves/2179






What few others? I was simply referring to your previous post that said: " I'm not the only crazy in here" and "There are a couple men that spoke up in agreement and the responses to them have been respectful and polite."

When did I ever say I was getting any flack at all, or being brave? I did not say these things. If you're referring to the little copy/paste tangent filled with, in Doma's words, "platitudes", that was just a preemptive attempt to clarify my position and not offend unduly, and to prevent needless flaming.

The main thrust of my criticism is that you seemed to changed the nature of your argument against the substantive use of female from a normative argument that is either grammatically correct or politically incorrect (I'm still not sure which, both, I guess?) to one that is based on your own feelings and reactions to the word. Those are two different justifications to make.

It's both an issue of correct grammar and the dislike of female as a noun- it's very unpleasant to read or hear the use of female as a noun.

I'm amused by your constant references to grammar. Give me a citation, please, anywhere. I do not believe you and believe you are wrong, and a citation should be easy to come by. Or do you simply *feel* like it's the wrong grammar?

So it's either one of three things, or some, or all:

1) Grammatically incorrect
2) Politically incorrect
3) Personally distasteful

I addressed (1) above, and (3) I am discounting because one should not attempt to correct someone's vocabulary because they personally associate the words with certain meanings. That leaves (2), which can be stated:

The word "female" is politically incorrect because it has a connotation among English speakers that emphasizes reproductive biology, and when used as a substantive it subtly devalues and reduces women to their reproductive biological roles.

The issue I have is that in America, "female" simply does not have that connotation among English speakers. I grant that perhaps a hundred years ago it may have had a distinctly clinical sense to it- I actually don't know the history of the word. But presently it is completely interchangeable on a day-to-day level with "woman". It's become "anthropized" (made the word up, not a linguist) basically, to come to mean "female human".

Want some examples? The term "feminism" came to be associated with a Political and Ethical movement. The constituents then were understood as "females". It was one step in the anthropization of the term female. Most other animals do not have Politics or Ethics at all. Here the same word (or the root, or what have you) has been associated with a distinctly human endevour.

It's also reflected in ordinary language with the adjective "feminine". Were I to compliment a woman on being very "feminine", or someone were to remark on a male being (supposedly) uncharacteristically "feminine", most Americans today would understand the adjective to be referencing human traits, gender traits, that they associated with being a human female. Primarily cultural. For the average American, it would probably be something like wearing dresses, putting on makeup, speaking with a high, affected voice. Note that I'm not endorsing or believe this- just describing how "feminine" is deployed now, and they definitely reference human/gender feminine traits. They would not associate "feminine" with biological feminine traits.

So I'm claiming that "female" does not have the connotation among American English speakers that you claim, so the grounds for objecting to it as a subtle semantic shift simply don't exist. I was honestly surprised to here of the association, as were all of the other native English speakers here. Two people supported you, but based on shaky analogies from their own languages.


It's fascinating how some people discount others' feelings so automatically and sharply. It's not just that you're not willing to take them into consideration, but you have to go on a crusade to try to prove that my perspective and feelings are invalid. In regular life, if someone has different perspectives and feelings do you need to prove that they are wrong and only your outlook is correct?

This is an incredibly telling statement. Do you really think I'm out to discount your feelings, or your perspective? It's not about your feelings. I'm responding to a normative argument you made above at to Jens which I took to be on shaky ground, and which you in turn have been reiterating constantly. I'm responding somewhat virulently not because I am evil and repressive, but because your initial response and your sweeping claims were pretty condescending, and that your claims about the use of "female" were effectively incorrect.

You asked previously why you and not your male supporters were being singled out and rebuked. Look above. You were not singled out. Different focuses above, but if anything longer rebukes. I responded twice to you because you 1) began the debate 2) were condescending and 3) made by far the most posts on the subject, justifying it in different ways. I'd venture to say the level of venom is about equal among all the responses, and you'll note that when D0ma responded rather rudely, I stepped it up accordingly.

Arguments of this sort actually can be rationally analyzed and examined. Aren't you an engineer? I should think you'd appreciate that.







Reply to message
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
Ok, I did and basically it's garbage. *NM* - 03/04/2012 04:53:00 PM 790 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet - 03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM 917 Views
No, it's totally off. *NM* - 03/04/2012 05:39:03 PM 780 Views
fair enough. like I said, I haven't read it yet. *NM* - 03/04/2012 07:20:34 PM 728 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 892 Views
Hermoine was the most kick ass of the Potter kids. - 04/04/2012 03:08:17 AM 754 Views
So? Hunger Games has lots of male characters. - 04/04/2012 05:30:21 AM 810 Views
His racism point... - 04/04/2012 02:32:43 PM 695 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
Completely agree with your first paragraph - 04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM 840 Views
Re: Completely agree with your first paragraph - 04/04/2012 01:43:55 PM 802 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 793 Views
I don't think Jens was really using it that way, though - 04/04/2012 07:34:28 PM 725 Views
Thank you! - 04/04/2012 08:03:38 PM 828 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
I'm going to have to just outright disagree with you then. *NM* - 04/04/2012 10:54:25 PM 751 Views
If I wanted to be accusatory... - 04/04/2012 11:05:37 PM 774 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 856 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
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
I think the language difference is really interesting. - 05/04/2012 03:13:03 PM 807 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
LOL! You don't say... - 06/04/2012 05:06:20 PM 774 Views
LOL u so mad - 06/04/2012 06:19:28 PM 770 Views
The prospect of "losing cred" is not going to stop me from speaking my mind. - 04/04/2012 10:30:03 PM 753 Views
My dear - 09/04/2012 01:07:34 PM 799 Views
LOL - 09/04/2012 01:57:53 PM 647 Views
guess what, it is a noun. *NM* - 04/04/2012 07:26:39 PM 634 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that. - 04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM 771 Views
well it's important that you say "female human" - 04/04/2012 09:28:45 PM 760 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
No, I have issues with words that begin with the letter f. - 04/04/2012 11:09:45 PM 785 Views
ooookay then. - 04/04/2012 11:11:23 PM 841 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
For the record, I certainly don't think you're crazy town. - 05/04/2012 07:23:18 PM 754 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 777 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 751 Views
*deletes long reply* Let's focus on the essence here. - 07/04/2012 06:38:08 PM 737 Views
Re: *deletes long reply* Let's focus on the essence here. - 07/04/2012 09:26:34 PM 840 Views
Aha, we found the problem - 09/04/2012 01:03:35 PM 824 Views
You're being disingenuous. - 09/04/2012 12:57:38 PM 751 Views
To be fair - 04/04/2012 02:37:25 PM 791 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
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive - 04/04/2012 07:51:46 PM 782 Views
This - 05/04/2012 12:20:04 AM 759 Views
I got half way through the review and got bored. - 04/04/2012 03:09:58 AM 735 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
I think that might be debatable - 05/04/2012 06:59:35 PM 775 Views
She still made plenty of choices and she did choose to kill. - 05/04/2012 07:13:47 PM 723 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
Out of curiosity (this off topic) - 04/04/2012 07:32:25 PM 722 Views
Rachel, of course. - 05/04/2012 12:17:41 AM 782 Views
Well. Now I've actually seen it. (mild spoilers) - 09/04/2012 12:17:03 AM 833 Views