Re: It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
DomA Send a noteboard - 05/04/2012 02:21:21 AM
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.
The Hunger Games gets a ... different kind of review.
03/04/2012 03:37:39 PM
- 2124 Views
"Written by a female with femalist themes"
03/04/2012 04:38:54 PM
- 923 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet
03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM
- 865 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
- 770 Views
I can only speak for the film, which was not feminist.
03/04/2012 06:01:18 PM
- 839 Views
Where do I start?
03/04/2012 07:43:18 PM
- 838 Views
But that is exactly what feminist means "it could have been a boy just as well"
04/04/2012 01:42:43 PM
- 823 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
- 750 Views
Why don't you think the Hunger Games are feminist?
03/04/2012 11:17:53 PM
- 853 Views
Why would I consider it to be femenist?
04/04/2012 01:51:24 AM
- 735 Views
I just don't consider feminism as something that has to be radical.
04/04/2012 05:42:59 AM
- 816 Views
Completely agree with your first paragraph
04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM
- 796 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
- 744 Views
Unfortunately truly ordinary female characters are so rare that the exceptions stand out
04/04/2012 01:49:16 PM
- 783 Views
Fair enough
04/04/2012 02:33:22 PM
- 828 Views
Stop using female as a noun!
04/04/2012 03:51:13 PM
- 751 Views
It's stuff like that that makes you lose cred
04/04/2012 05:26:24 PM
- 753 Views
It's fairly derogatory as a noun, though, have to agree with Vivien on that one.
04/04/2012 07:30:18 PM
- 745 Views
I don't think Jens was really using it that way, though
04/04/2012 07:34:28 PM
- 681 Views
Of course he didn't intend it that way, but that's how it sounds.
04/04/2012 08:06:03 PM
- 758 Views
I understand that, but it's still such a ridiculous thing to get fussed over
04/04/2012 09:20:01 PM
- 804 Views
You are rather exaggerating just how "fussed" anyone did get, you do realize.
04/04/2012 09:51:22 PM
- 717 Views
Her tone was not just "informative". It was accusatory
04/04/2012 10:17:57 PM
- 694 Views
Female is perfectly acceptable to use in a medical/clinical setting. *NM*
04/04/2012 10:36:57 PM
- 927 Views
so if your problem is people using it disparagingly...
04/04/2012 10:45:10 PM
- 662 Views
That's not what I said.
04/04/2012 10:51:41 PM
- 775 Views
Which flies in the face of it's ordinary usage, which smacks of needless revisionism.
06/04/2012 09:42:15 AM
- 695 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
- 769 Views
Are you a native English speaker, Legolas? (Clarified to preempt possible internet tears)
06/04/2012 09:29:28 AM
- 736 Views
Nope. (edit)
06/04/2012 07:23:54 PM
- 742 Views
Re: Nope. (edit)
07/04/2012 04:51:30 AM
- 807 Views
"Female that"? That's even worse.
07/04/2012 11:42:00 AM
- 697 Views
Ok.
07/04/2012 03:27:16 PM
- 975 Views
Let's try and whittle this down some so as to help you with the quotes.
07/04/2012 05:42:32 PM
- 693 Views
However he meant it, it was unpleasant to read. Just use "woman" instead. *NM*
05/04/2012 08:13:13 PM
- 636 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
- 760 Views
English is not French, and it's not German. Particularly the connotations of American English words
06/04/2012 09:39:00 AM
- 818 Views
The prospect of "losing cred" is not going to stop me from speaking my mind.
04/04/2012 10:30:03 PM
- 701 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM
- 705 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
04/04/2012 10:48:07 PM
- 705 Views
wait, so now you're claiming it's a grammatical thing? *NM*
04/04/2012 10:58:31 PM
- 714 Views
Re: That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that.
05/04/2012 02:08:26 AM
- 779 Views
Re: Stop using female as a noun!
05/04/2012 02:18:47 PM
- 662 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
- 691 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
- 715 Views
Fascinating.
06/04/2012 09:54:47 PM
- 756 Views
Re: Fascinating.
07/04/2012 03:54:26 AM
- 720 Views
Just in case (however slim that chance may be) you are genuinely interested in citations/references.
07/04/2012 05:34:37 AM
- 734 Views
What a joke. Do you even know what grammar is?
07/04/2012 05:57:40 AM
- 766 Views
Oh, come off it. This should be the point where you admit to being wrong.
07/04/2012 12:11:07 PM
- 673 Views
Sorry, no. Read better.
07/04/2012 02:23:10 PM
- 706 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
- 718 Views
Nothing wrong with your use of female. You should ignore those crazy foreigners saying otherwise. *NM*
06/04/2012 02:49:41 PM
- 610 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
- 667 Views
You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 01:46:16 PM
- 768 Views
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive
04/04/2012 02:23:33 PM
- 722 Views
Interesting. I really need to read these books soon, evidently. *NM*
03/04/2012 10:52:43 PM
- 686 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
- 747 Views
The reviewer is kind of full of it, but makes a good point about the character
04/04/2012 04:22:30 PM
- 778 Views