Active Users:697 Time:21/11/2024 08:53:28 PM
"Female that"? That's even worse. Legolas Send a noteboard - 07/04/2012 11:42:00 AM
My claim is that this connotation of female is so foreign to such a vast majority of American English speakers that it simply does not exist in ordinary language and discourse among us. I offer a few examples that support (not prove) my claim below in my latest response to Vivien. Just because Vivien objects to it, and perhaps her sister, doesn't undermine my argument. It could be perceived as a bit of slippery slope, granted, since it sounds like I'm arguing from a majority, but that's really not it. It doesn't pass basic phenomenological muster- I've never encountered it before, and I am fairly knowledgeable and even have a passing familiarity (and sympathy) with the arguments and language of radical feminism.

This strikes me as rather contradictory with your comments below, at least if we limit the argument to the use of "the female" alone. You agreed that "the female" is unusual, though "not unheard of", for every-day use referring to a woman. Is it any surprise then that when the term *is* used referring to a woman, in a sensitive context, people are inclined to associate it with the more common meaning? And - I'm just theorizing here, obviously I don't actually know how exactly the connotation was created in my mind - I suppose that after having concluded that "the female" was derogatory, I concluded that "females" in the plural must be too, not realizing that there might be a difference somehow.

Your never having encountered it before is of course an important factor to note, but Vivien and Aeryn have encountered it before, so it's really anecdotal evidence on either side. I have also encountered it before, and unlike what you said in your reply to Vivien below (in direct contradiction to what I had already told you, I might add), that's got nothing to do with my native language, which doesn't have any cognates of "female". Since you continually stress that you are talking about American English, I should of course add that my own English is a mixture of British and American, but judging by snoop's reply, this isn't an issue of British vs. American.
I was utterly shocked to hear of this connotation, and stated with such sweeping and condescending authority. As were the other Americans on this thread. Look at how they respond. They never say "oh *eyeroll* this old canard again, you people are wrong". They all say they simply have not heard of it before, and repeatedly, and that they don't understand. Celia even attempts to untangle the ground on which Vivien rests her objections below, but the latter keeps vacillating.

Actually, if you read Celia's posts properly, you'll find that she's quite aware of the issue - she says she understands how it sounds, and judging from her rant on the issue, this really isn't the first time that she's discussed or thought about the negative connotations of the word. So that makes three Americans who *are* familiar with this connotation, even if one of those thinks it's stupid.

And frankly, I don't see Vivien "vacillating".
In any case, there is an element of δημοκρατια to Vivien's argument. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly if I had been familiar with the connotations, or even if I had heard it brought up more often. It seems like that connotation is incredibly archaic I think and only exists for a few people. But it is either a part of ordinary language and discourse or not, and I really can't see that it is.

Evidently it's a connotation that doesn't exist for some, which I admit is a surprise to me, and perhaps also to Vivien. Equally evidently, it does exist for others. No doubt there will be social or geographical groups of people among whom it's more widespread than among others, our sample of people here is rather too small to say more than that...
(Also, lastly, isn't English a second language for Aeryn and Vivien both? I could be mistaken, and it's irrelevant to the main argument I made just above, but still.)

You'd have to ask them. I was under the impression that they were more fluent in English than in Russian and that for all extents and purposes English was their native language.

This is very interesting. Generally it tracks with my experience very well. There are definitely some slightly different usages between "female" and "woman", though none as Vivien articulated, I think. There is certainly a more general and abstract sense to "female", I think, and it's definitely more commonly used in the plural with humans. It's not unheard of in the singular, though. I think it's not uncommon in the African American community incidentally, and I don't think it has any negative overtones, though I could be wrong about that.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that, for instance, the author of the article that sparked this discussion talks about a text "written by a female with femalist themes". Surely you agree that "written by a woman with feminist themes" would've been the expected phrasing, and that the author is making a point of some sort by using "female" and then coining his neologism "femalist" (Wiktionary informs me that this word was in fact in use in a unrelated sense in the past, but for all extents and purposes I think we can agree it's a neologism here).

And then there is more (anecdotal, true) evidence: for instance, one of the hits for your search on "female that" yields the phrase "sex-crazed female". As I suspected, this seems to be more common than "sex-crazed woman" - even though "female" is used much less than "woman". Which reminds me of the fixed expression "red-blooded male". In both cases, it rather seems to me that the usage of "male/female" rather than "man/woman" is not coincidental, and has to do with the focus on sex.

In short, even among those who never thought of the noun "female" as offensive in any way, I would think that there is still a difference in usage between "female" and "woman", with "woman" being clearly the more neutral and cautious term to use in a discussion of feminism (in a medical discussion, not so much). But I could be wrong.
I wonder if the use of the article is relevant here. My guess is that you will get more results relating to animals and biology if you use the definite article "the female" and a slightly more even spread between human and non-human with the indefinite article "a female". I think there might be a carryover from Indo-European grammar that gives a noun paired with the article a generic sense. I know Greek definitely does it (something like ὁ ἄνθρωπος can just mean "man" in general), does German also do it?

If I understand correctly what you're talking about with the Greek example, then I believe German does it, yes - Dutch does for sure. I don't know that that has much to do with it, though, because if you focus only on the difference between definite and indefinite articles, the same should apply to "woman", which isn't the case.
Also, I decided to remove the article entirely and simply google "female that". Since "is" often carries a generic sense it was best to use a relative, and one that can relate to man, animal, or object equally well in common parlance, and let the internet decide. I didn't bother to count, but it seems like at least one half of the results are referring to humans, maybe as much as two thirds. It's still a bit awkward sounding though to my ear though, and no matter how you query the singular it still gets split at least 50/50 between humans and animals, so your observation is definitely on the money.

That strikes me as even worse - that people would use "that" instead of "who". Of course, that's quite common in English in general, so it might be a bit silly to focus on it here, but at least with "a female who", the "who" makes it unambiguously about humans. "A female that" really sounds like you're talking about animals, but evidently it is indeed not unheard of to use it for humans.
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 969 Views
Ok, I did and basically it's garbage. *NM* - 03/04/2012 04:53:00 PM 789 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet - 03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM 916 Views
No, it's totally off. *NM* - 03/04/2012 05:39:03 PM 779 Views
fair enough. like I said, I haven't read it yet. *NM* - 03/04/2012 07:20:34 PM 727 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
Hermoine was the most kick ass of the Potter kids. - 04/04/2012 03:08:17 AM 753 Views
So? Hunger Games has lots of male characters. - 04/04/2012 05:30:21 AM 809 Views
His racism point... - 04/04/2012 02:32:43 PM 694 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 839 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 797 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
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 809 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 736 Views
Female is perfectly acceptable to use in a medical/clinical setting. *NM* - 04/04/2012 10:36:57 PM 978 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 789 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
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 806 Views
English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words - 06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM 870 Views
LOL! You don't say... - 06/04/2012 05:06:20 PM 773 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 752 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 633 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 784 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 702 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 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
*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 814 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 781 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 774 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 823 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