Active Users:226 Time:28/03/2024 01:50:57 PM
Aha, we found the problem Aeryn Send a noteboard - 09/04/2012 01:03:35 PM
I asked for articles backing up her ridiculous assertion that female as a noun is ungrammatical because it was a cut-and-dried issue and obviously incorrect. She had been returning to that point and doubling down on it over and over again, and I wanted to put that in particular to rest. I notice that you're not speaking to that point at all. Is she correct or incorrect about the grammar issue? What's sad is that you dance around it to avoid hurting her feelings.

That's why my previous response focused on the grammatical issue, because that's all I asked to see citations for. If you bothered to read my previous posts I seperated the grammatical issue from the political issue. I did not ask to see citations that "female" can be problematic. Of course the issue has been spoken to. My point is that it's an incredibly ambiguous and obscure. Anyone can find a host of writings on nearly any obscure subject online.

And the results of Vivien's research are completely unsurprising. I guessed that the word had a history of being problematic reaching back over a century, but I never guessed how actually ambiguous the connotation has always been. It seems to never have been cut and dry. If Austen uses it unreflectively as a synonym for "woman", and people have been split about it for centuries since as to whether it connotes humanity or biology, the connotations are ambiguous enough not to draw general conclusions about it ordinary language. This was my argument originally, remember? Furthermore, the fact that the connotation has been so dynamic is support for my claim that in contemporary America it is currently on one end of an already-established spectrum with next to no connotation of biology currently.

My point was that it never emerged with a consistent connotation of Biology enough for it to effect ordinary language as a whole. So let me say it again, and you can go back and read my arguments: I objected to Vivien's blanket assertions about the connotation, and yours and D0ma's. I also objected to Viivien's completely incorrect grammatical argument, and her framing everything in a very strident imperative. All of these things I've said. I didn't object to the claim that it held that connotation for a small minority of contemporary Americans, or that it did previously at different times. I never doubted it. There is a difference between the following claims:



So it is her tone you objected to! Strident? Well at least that makes sense. Should have said so from the start and save everyone the replying to you "females should speak and write in soft, pleasing expressions, and make no strident proclamations. It is unseemly and unnatural. "

You can go now, male.


(1) It is ungrammatical to use "female" as a noun and "female" also carries with it universally a connotation of reproductive biology that is reductive, so therefore you should never use female as a noun.

Versus:

(2) Even though you can use "female" as a noun and the connotation today among American speakers is as an effectively harmless synonym for "woman", the word "female" has a history of being used with reference to a female's biology exclusively and for some today this connotation still holds, so therefore it is advisable and preferable to use "woman" over "female" as a noun, just to be on the safe side, so to speak.

The citations Vivien supplied absolutely support that second claim. I completely agree with it, and will in the future take care to heed this advice. But the second claim was not the original one that Vivien made, the one that she and you still seem to stand by and the one I've been arguing against The two statements make very, very different factual claims and significantly different normative judgments. There are at least three solid points of disagreement that I took up with Vivien and you and others. I can always enumerate them propositionally if you want. In any case, there you have it.

No, those articles didn't discuss grammar, and didn't argue that it was grammatically incorrect to use "female" as a noun - nor did they even object to it, when limited to its usage for female animals.

But it's a bit sad for you to focus on that, while completely ignoring the much more important points made by that list of citations, which I'll sum up for you:

1) The usage of "female" as a noun referring to women is definitely an issue for a good amount of people, particularly but not only in feminist circles, so if you are familiar and sympathizing with feminism as you claimed to be, you'd do well to heed that.

2) This is not in any sense a new reinterpretation of the word. Go read the fascinating Boston Globe article included among those links; the point was made as early as 1856, and in 1900 the editor of the OED commented that using "female" as synonym of "woman" (as a noun) was at that time avoided by writers, except when used contemptuously.

3) In fact, the very reason why there are sometimes arguments nowadays about whether to say e.g. "woman senator" or "female senator", is that people who learned that "female" as a noun is derogatory, somehow forget that it's perfectly acceptable as an adjective in "female senator".

4) And so, rather naturally, writing and style guides advise people not to use "female" as a noun referring to women.

And 5), my turn to add a paragraph to avoid internet tears: you can't be blamed for using the word when you're not aware of the negative connotation, of course. When you are and you do keep using it to prove a point, well, then that's your choice.
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 839 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 708 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 796 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 780 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 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
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 714 Views
No, I have issues with words that begin with the letter f. - 04/04/2012 11:09:45 PM 741 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 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
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 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
*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