Let's try and whittle this down some so as to help you with the quotes.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
Legolas Send a noteboard - 07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
I have no idea how quotes work still, so if I fuck it up, well, we'll have to try to make the best of it.
The easy way is just to hit the right-most button above the "Body" field, which neatly splits the text you're replying to into paragraphs, at which point you just go paragraph by paragraph, deleting your own (unless you still need them) and adding comments after those of the other person. Or, like me, you can set your settings so that this is done automatically.
And you're not a native speaker raised here, so you (probably) aren't aware of how it's used without that connotation here almost completely in ordinary language. I was arguing against broad claims as to its connotation.
I'm not sure if this is actually the point you were getting at, but it would probably be true to say that my exposure to English is more biased towards the academic and literary than it would've been if I'd been a native speaker, yes. I already admitted that I have indeed overestimated how widely spread the connotation was (incidentally, did you spot the part where you misattributed my statement about that to Dom and based you on that mistake to dispute his disclaimers? You may want to correct that).
If I'm not mistaken Celia expressed familiarity with the terms being used in a clinical setting with the connotation of biological reductionism, since she works as a vet. She's familiar with the words' use in a clinical setting, not that somehow this connotation has carried over into ordinary speech. She expressely grouses that it's a synonym for male and female, and that's that, so to speak. She had never heard of the objection Vivien raised.
We will have to leave it to Celia to say either way, of course. Still, if she had actually never heard of the objection Vivien raised, I dare say she'd have reacted quite differently, and among other things, would not have replied to me saying "I understand that, but..." or "I don't think Jens was using it that way though". Considering Vivien's articles, it would seem rather logical that a highly educated young woman is indeed familiar with the issue, even if you are not.
That's very true. Frankly, I wasn't expecting to get into anything quantitative here. I address this general topic in my reply to you below. I've no objections with a weaker exhortation, without all of the overreaching factual claims bundled with it. Vivien's articles support that, certainly. But the articles also reveal that the connotation has been incredibly ambiguous for hundreds of years with no definite, universal connotation emerging. My experience supports that if anything, local to this time and nation, it happens to be skewing towards non-reductive. All in all enough variance to argue against the claims above.
It's rather hard to avoid the quantitative, don't you think? Having established that on the one hand the issue has been around for a long time, while on the other there are definitely many people who aren't even aware of it, there's not much left to argue about other than just how widespread its negative connotation is. There have only been two major "overreaching factual claims" in this discussion that I'm aware of. One was mine, when I indicated that this connotation was held by English speakers in general; I retracted that, and I haven't seen Vivien state anything of the sort. The other was Vivien's "it's an issue of correct grammar", which, agreed, was badly phrased and factually incorrect if you read it literally, but more on that below.
The third and probably most important thing is the "you shouldn't use it", as stated by Vivien and myself, which is indeed subjective, but after all the evidence I've seen in this discussion, I still stand by it.
Uh, this is weird. As in, almost irrelevant. "Female who" would inevitably yield plenty of nasty and reductive things too. I didn't see an overwhelmingly sexual focus on the results returned by "female that".
This wasn't linked to the "that vs who" thing, and when I said "sex", I meant it in a broader sense than just the pornographic.
"Woman" is definitely the more cautious term, that much has been made clear over the course of the argument. My point is that the ordinary usage simply does not have a biological connotation, not that it's simply "not offensive", with the result being that it would never occur to an American to err on the side of safety, since they would not be aware of any difference between the two terms.
It entirely depends on which American you ask. You complain that people are making too broad claims about the connotation of the word, then you go and state simply that "an American" does not know this connotation? That's exactly the same as what you accuse us of doing (and as said above, Vivien never even did that, while I did but retracted it), but in reverse.
I think the indefinite article does it to some extent too. That's why I was shoe-horning the relative in there to see what happened. Unless I'm misunderstanding you?
I don't know, I'm confused by your entire argument here about "generic nouns". How does that say anything about the difference between the nouns "female" and "woman"?
Yeah, this is another ordinary usage thing. "Who" and "that" are very interchangeable for most people day-to-day. "A man that would give his life savings to charity is certainly going to heaven.' for instance, is completely acceptable. "Who" is a bit more precise, but the two are interchangeable, with the latter simply having wider scope. That's why I googled "female that". I knew Americans don't distinguish between the two relatives in ordinary speech, so googling "female that" would yield a decent glance as to how often "female" in the singular is referring to a person or an animal.
Good thinking.
The Hunger Games gets a ... different kind of review.
- 03/04/2012 03:37:39 PM
2394 Views
"Written by a female with femalist themes"
- 03/04/2012 04:38:54 PM
1145 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet
- 03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM
1093 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
988 Views
I can only speak for the film, which was not feminist.
- 03/04/2012 06:01:18 PM
1063 Views
Where do I start?
- 03/04/2012 07:43:18 PM
1068 Views
But that is exactly what feminist means "it could have been a boy just as well"
- 04/04/2012 01:42:43 PM
1067 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
964 Views
Why don't you think the Hunger Games are feminist?
- 03/04/2012 11:17:53 PM
1078 Views
Why would I consider it to be femenist?
- 04/04/2012 01:51:24 AM
966 Views
I just don't consider feminism as something that has to be radical.
- 04/04/2012 05:42:59 AM
1038 Views
Completely agree with your first paragraph
- 04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM
1009 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
960 Views
Unfortunately truly ordinary female characters are so rare that the exceptions stand out
- 04/04/2012 01:49:16 PM
1019 Views
Fair enough
- 04/04/2012 02:33:22 PM
1056 Views
Stop using female as a noun!
- 04/04/2012 03:51:13 PM
965 Views
It's stuff like that that makes you lose cred
- 04/04/2012 05:26:24 PM
976 Views
It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
- 04/04/2012 07:30:18 PM
964 Views
I don't think Jens was really using it that way, though
- 04/04/2012 07:34:28 PM
892 Views
Of course he didn't intend it that way, but that's how it sounds.
- 04/04/2012 08:06:03 PM
979 Views
I understand that, but it's still such a ridiculous thing to get fussed over
- 04/04/2012 09:20:01 PM
1026 Views
You are rather exaggerating just how "fussed" anyone did get, you do realize.
- 04/04/2012 09:51:22 PM
933 Views
Her tone was not just "informative". It was accusatory
- 04/04/2012 10:17:57 PM
905 Views
Female is perfectly acceptable to use in a medical/clinical setting. *NM*
- 04/04/2012 10:36:57 PM
1142 Views
so if your problem is people using it disparagingly...
- 04/04/2012 10:45:10 PM
874 Views
That's not what I said.
- 04/04/2012 10:51:41 PM
989 Views
Which flies in the face of it's ordinary usage, which smacks of needless revisionism.
- 06/04/2012 09:42:15 AM
942 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
1013 Views
Are you a native English speaker, Legolas? (Clarified to preempt possible internet tears)
- 06/04/2012 09:29:28 AM
972 Views
Nope. (edit)
- 06/04/2012 07:23:54 PM
966 Views
Re: Nope. (edit)
- 07/04/2012 04:51:30 AM
1038 Views
"Female that"? That's even worse.
- 07/04/2012 11:42:00 AM
910 Views
Ok.
- 07/04/2012 03:27:16 PM
1217 Views
Let's try and whittle this down some so as to help you with the quotes.
- 07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
925 Views
- 07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
925 Views
However he meant it, it was unpleasant to read. Just use "woman" instead. *NM*
- 05/04/2012 08:13:13 PM
867 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
977 Views
English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words
- 06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM
1062 Views
The prospect of "losing cred" is not going to stop me from speaking my mind.
- 04/04/2012 10:30:03 PM
935 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
- 04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM
941 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
- 04/04/2012 10:48:07 PM
913 Views
wait, so now you're claiming it's a grammatical thing?
*NM*
- 04/04/2012 10:58:31 PM
929 Views
*NM*
- 04/04/2012 10:58:31 PM
929 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
- 05/04/2012 02:08:26 AM
982 Views
Re: Stop using female as a noun!
- 05/04/2012 02:18:47 PM
870 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
909 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
954 Views
Fascinating.
- 06/04/2012 09:54:47 PM
969 Views
Re: Fascinating.
- 07/04/2012 03:54:26 AM
950 Views
Just in case (however slim that chance may be) you are genuinely interested in citations/references.
- 07/04/2012 05:34:37 AM
944 Views
What a joke. Do you even know what grammar is?
- 07/04/2012 05:57:40 AM
1010 Views
Oh, come off it. This should be the point where you admit to being wrong.
- 07/04/2012 12:11:07 PM
887 Views
Sorry, no. Read better.
- 07/04/2012 02:23:10 PM
921 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
935 Views
Nothing wrong with your use of female. You should ignore those crazy foreigners saying otherwise. *NM*
- 06/04/2012 02:49:41 PM
815 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
931 Views
You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
- 04/04/2012 01:46:16 PM
992 Views
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
- 04/04/2012 02:23:33 PM
935 Views
Interesting. I really need to read these books soon, evidently. *NM*
- 03/04/2012 10:52:43 PM
899 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
973 Views
The reviewer is kind of full of it, but makes a good point about the character
- 04/04/2012 04:22:30 PM
1005 Views
