Active Users:228 Time:29/03/2024 07:47:28 AM
Re: Nope. (edit) Dan Send a noteboard - 07/04/2012 04:51:30 AM
That would be a more sensible argument to make if it was only non-native speakers who attested to this connotation, don't you think? Not the case here.


The argument I'm making is that Vivien's claim rests on a general connotation of "female" held by American English speakers, and that by using such a word in place of "woman" you are effecting a subtle semantic shift that has broad socio-cultural implications. A similar case might with the word "girl", since using that subtly attaches a the diminutive sense of "girl" to women and thus undermines their agency on a number of levels through its continued use in discourse.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)


Edit: I did another Google search and the result is interesting. My first search had been "females are" - and nearly all of the hits on the first few pages for that one are simply about women, without any obvious negative connotation, so that rather disproves my stance.

However, if you search for the singular, "the female is", then you do indeed get the result I was expecting to get on the first search - i.e., predominantly articles talking about animals, plus a few medical articles, and almost no articles where it's used as a normal equivalent for "woman". So, you who are a real American and all - does that stroke with your impression of things, that when "female" is used as a neutral noun, it's generally in plural?


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 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?

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.

I fear the term feminist carries such a negative connotation sometimes because it seems that it's out to tell people what they are allowed to think about females.
If I want to watch a film where the female is nothing more than the pretty, dumb eye candy next to the hero, I'll do that. Because, ya know, such females exist. That's not the same as telling every woman out there to do or be the same. And then after I turn this film off I watch Ripley kick alien ass as good as any male character could have. Just don't tell me I have to decide, can't have both or that every film will have a Katniss now. Females are pretty and are ugly, they are smart and dumb. Just like movie characters. And just like guys.
This message has been locked.
This message last edited by Dan on 07/04/2012 at 04:53:32 AM
  • Edit 1 by Dan on 07/04/2012 at 04:53:32 AM
Reply to message
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
Ok, I did and basically it's garbage. *NM* - 03/04/2012 04:53:00 PM 741 Views
I grant that I haven't read the Hunger Games yet - 03/04/2012 05:10:38 PM 865 Views
No, it's totally off. *NM* - 03/04/2012 05:39:03 PM 730 Views
fair enough. like I said, I haven't read it yet. *NM* - 03/04/2012 07:20:34 PM 679 Views
I can only speak for the film, which was not feminist. - 03/04/2012 06:01:18 PM 840 Views
Where do I start? - 03/04/2012 07:43:18 PM 838 Views
Hermoine was the most kick ass of the Potter kids. - 04/04/2012 03:08:17 AM 709 Views
So? Hunger Games has lots of male characters. - 04/04/2012 05:30:21 AM 762 Views
His racism point... - 04/04/2012 02:32:43 PM 649 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
Completely agree with your first paragraph - 04/04/2012 08:22:35 AM 797 Views
Re: Completely agree with your first paragraph - 04/04/2012 01:43:55 PM 760 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
Thank you! - 04/04/2012 08:03:38 PM 781 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
I'm going to have to just outright disagree with you then. *NM* - 04/04/2012 10:54:25 PM 707 Views
If I wanted to be accusatory... - 04/04/2012 11:05:37 PM 727 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 808 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
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
I think the language difference is really interesting. - 05/04/2012 03:13:03 PM 751 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
LOL! You don't say... - 06/04/2012 05:06:20 PM 730 Views
LOL u so mad - 06/04/2012 06:19:28 PM 729 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
My dear - 09/04/2012 01:07:34 PM 737 Views
LOL - 09/04/2012 01:57:53 PM 606 Views
guess what, it is a noun. *NM* - 04/04/2012 07:26:39 PM 590 Views
That's the first time I have ever heard/seen anyone say that. - 04/04/2012 08:19:02 PM 705 Views
well it's important that you say "female human" - 04/04/2012 09:28:45 PM 717 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 715 Views
No, I have issues with words that begin with the letter f. - 04/04/2012 11:09:45 PM 742 Views
ooookay then. - 04/04/2012 11:11:23 PM 798 Views
Re: Stop using female as a noun! - 05/04/2012 02:18:47 PM 663 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
For the record, I certainly don't think you're crazy town. - 05/04/2012 07:23:18 PM 714 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 721 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
*deletes long reply* Let's focus on the essence here. - 07/04/2012 06:38:08 PM 700 Views
Re: *deletes long reply* Let's focus on the essence here. - 07/04/2012 09:26:34 PM 786 Views
Aha, we found the problem - 09/04/2012 01:03:35 PM 769 Views
You're being disingenuous. - 09/04/2012 12:57:38 PM 696 Views
To be fair - 04/04/2012 02:37:25 PM 749 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
Re: You didn't see thmovie? She is far from passive - 04/04/2012 07:51:46 PM 741 Views
This - 05/04/2012 12:20:04 AM 714 Views
I got half way through the review and got bored. - 04/04/2012 03:09:58 AM 695 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
I think that might be debatable - 05/04/2012 06:59:35 PM 736 Views
She still made plenty of choices and she did choose to kill. - 05/04/2012 07:13:47 PM 686 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
Out of curiosity (this off topic) - 04/04/2012 07:32:25 PM 680 Views
Rachel, of course. - 05/04/2012 12:17:41 AM 727 Views
Well. Now I've actually seen it. (mild spoilers) - 09/04/2012 12:17:03 AM 791 Views