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
It is all of the above. Does that make more sense?
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".
Not true. You will not find an example of writing where female is casually used in place of woman. It say it's interchangeable, in fact your argument verges on it, but the truth is, it's not. If I'm wrong, id love so see examples to the contrary.
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.
I dunno, when you say feminine, I say hygiene product. Thats the most common subtext for tht word. Anyway, not to go off on a tangent.
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.
You just haven't convinced me that the word female is used interchangeably with woman. Like I said, I need textual examples.
The Hunger Games gets a ... different kind of review.
03/04/2012 03:37:39 PM
- 2183 Views
"Written by a female with femalist themes"
03/04/2012 04:38:54 PM
- 966 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet
03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM
- 915 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
- 879 Views
Where do I start?
03/04/2012 07:43:18 PM
- 888 Views
But that is exactly what feminist means "it could have been a boy just as well"
04/04/2012 01:42:43 PM
- 872 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
- 794 Views
Why don't you think the Hunger Games are feminist?
03/04/2012 11:17:53 PM
- 900 Views
Why would I consider it to be femenist?
04/04/2012 01:51:24 AM
- 783 Views
I just don't consider feminism as something that has to be radical.
04/04/2012 05:42:59 AM
- 861 Views
Completely agree with your first paragraph
04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM
- 838 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
- 790 Views
Unfortunately truly ordinary female characters are so rare that the exceptions stand out
04/04/2012 01:49:16 PM
- 831 Views
Fair enough
04/04/2012 02:33:22 PM
- 870 Views
Stop using female as a noun!
04/04/2012 03:51:13 PM
- 796 Views
It's stuff like that that makes you lose cred
04/04/2012 05:26:24 PM
- 797 Views
It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
04/04/2012 07:30:18 PM
- 791 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
- 808 Views
I understand that, but it's still such a ridiculous thing to get fussed over
04/04/2012 09:20:01 PM
- 845 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
- 733 Views
Female is perfectly acceptable to use in a medical/clinical setting. *NM*
04/04/2012 10:36:57 PM
- 977 Views
so if your problem is people using it disparagingly...
04/04/2012 10:45:10 PM
- 705 Views
That's not what I said.
04/04/2012 10:51:41 PM
- 818 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
- 818 Views
Are you a native English speaker, Legolas? (Clarified to preempt possible internet tears)
06/04/2012 09:29:28 AM
- 790 Views
Nope. (edit)
06/04/2012 07:23:54 PM
- 788 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
- 741 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
- 740 Views
However he meant it, it was unpleasant to read. Just use "woman" instead. *NM*
05/04/2012 08:13:13 PM
- 689 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
- 796 Views
English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words
06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM
- 868 Views
The prospect of "losing cred" is not going to stop me from speaking my mind.
04/04/2012 10:30:03 PM
- 751 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM
- 770 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 10:48:07 PM
- 750 Views
wait, so now you're claiming it's a grammatical thing? *NM*
04/04/2012 10:58:31 PM
- 754 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
05/04/2012 02:08:26 AM
- 820 Views
Re: Stop using female as a noun!
05/04/2012 02:18:47 PM
- 701 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
- 738 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
- 770 Views
Fascinating.
06/04/2012 09:54:47 PM
- 797 Views
Re: Fascinating.
07/04/2012 03:54:26 AM
- 775 Views
Just in case (however slim that chance may be) you are genuinely interested in citations/references.
07/04/2012 05:34:37 AM
- 775 Views
What a joke. Do you even know what grammar is?
07/04/2012 05:57:40 AM
- 834 Views
Oh, come off it. This should be the point where you admit to being wrong.
07/04/2012 12:11:07 PM
- 710 Views
Sorry, no. Read better.
07/04/2012 02:23:10 PM
- 750 Views
You're being disingenuous.
09/04/2012 12:57:38 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
- 763 Views
Nothing wrong with your use of female. You should ignore those crazy foreigners saying otherwise. *NM*
06/04/2012 02:49:41 PM
- 653 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
- 738 Views
You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 01:46:16 PM
- 812 Views
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 02:23:33 PM
- 762 Views
Interesting. I really need to read these books soon, evidently. *NM*
03/04/2012 10:52:43 PM
- 724 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
- 798 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