Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 91
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wonder if this explains the bizarre reaction by some feminists to women being called "females," despite not having a problem with them being labeled as being "female." I've seen a number of weird, twisting explanations for why the former is "dehumanizing" or whatever, but all of them appeared as pure motivated reasoning, especially given that no man I've ever heard of has had any problem with being called "a male." Could very well be indeed pure motivated reasoning, meant to put a veneer of justification over what's, at heart, a pure visceral response.
More or less.
Well, if by “visceral response” you mean “heuristic.” Hearing someone choose the word “females” usually says a lot about their worldview. It’s the same sentiment that makes most men cringe at “male fantasy” or “male privilege”: you immediately know what you’re getting.
More options
Context Copy link
When I've seen this come up it's been in the setting of what women perceive as low status males being misogynist, however their is one community that uses females to refer to women a lot - low class/income inner city blacks, one of the groups that is most disrespectful to women.
I think a lot of the incoherence is stemming from that.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm surprised to hear that, since in recent years "male" and especially the dreaded "cis het white male" seems like something of a slur, and I'm not sure in what other contexts people would call a specific man or boy "a male." Calling oneself "a male" comes across as an apology.
"male role model" is probably the big one.
Oh yeah, that one is positive.
Along those lines, I guess a female boss or CEO sounds neutral to me, and like something I might say.
Both of these are used as adjectives It's the nouns that have bad reputations.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but the reason it feels more natural is that by saying ‘female’ in that context it was initially (and perhaps remains) a way to divorce the baggage ‘woman’ carries as ‘nothing bad about them’, scientific, natural. Mistake theory. ‘Woman’ had negative connotations in that setting.
By contrast, ‘mayle’ is intended to invoke the opposite end of that and meant to imply science and nature are against how they generally are. Conflict theory. ‘Men’ had neutral to positive connotations in that setting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen 'the group of males over there' and the like. Or 'why do males do x thing'. You're right, though, it doesn't seem regularly used for a specific referent.
And I suspect there is just a gender difference in how easy it is to get offended. Men just get offended by stuff like that less. Everyone makes fun of 'Oh he's got his panties in a wad over being called Mr Whatever instead of Bob' but its far more acceptable for a woman.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think 'females' is usually used to refer to animals, that's why many people don't like it. Men and boys are just less sensitive.
That's one of the justifications I've heard, but it just doesn't strike me as based on anything real. It's often used to refer to animals, but not in a way that distinguishes non-human animals from human ones, like how referring to someone as "it" might. It appears to me as motivated reasoning.
Ok, now that someone’s brought up its use in black culture- which the women who most strongly object the term would associate with poor treatment of women- that’s probably the real reason. Obviously the ‘it sounds like you’re talking about dogs’ is a bit more acceptable to say in public, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Today I learned there are women who are offended by the term female. Really we are living in interesting times.
Think of it as the difference between 女 and 雌
I'm a native English speaker but do know the words you mention here I'd argue mesu (female) like osu (male), is an idiosyncratic use only for animals in a way that male and female is not in English. Much hay has been made in feminist circles of Mulvey's term "the male gaze" in cinema (and elsewhere), to say nothing of the general term "male chauvinism." I haven't heard any men upset with the term. It seems unexpectedly childish for women to be upset over the use of female--like an adult woman I know strongly dislikes the word moist among other words. But that's just a mild word aversion. She doesn't try to justify it.
You would argue wrongly. Someone hasn’t read enough filth in the internet :)
めす and more rarely おす can be used in relation to humans but are demeaning and/or sexual precisely because they are more commonly used for animals.
For obvious reasons, feminists tend to be sensitive about being associated too closely with their biological nature. Male and female have much more subtle associations in English, but I think it's ultimately the same thing. Men have traditionally leant into their physicality, so I don't think it works in reverse.
I don't agree with anything you're saying here, except that I concede that people may be using メス and オス for humans in a pejorative way--that simply illustrates my point, that these terms are for animals, and thus to use them with humans is considered rude.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say
What are the obvious reasons? I know many women who consider themselves feminists of various stripe and I wouldn't say any of them are sensitive about being associated with biological femaleness. In any way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't seem like a majority but I've seen not-just-generally-offended-by-stuff women dislike the term being applied to themselves because it's usually a descriptor for animals.
Yes, and that's exactly why women-generally-offended-at-everything have no problems using it for men.
More options
Context Copy link
I imagine it in a Ferengi voice. Or with a similar vibe to "birthing parent."
They let their females wear clothing!
More options
Context Copy link
I watched a lot of DS9 as a kid, but I default to imagining female-as-a-noun in a working-class black voice because it's in common usage among black people in my area (same goes for male-as-a-noun). Why this is, I could not say.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, it's definitely the crowd of women who would say, "uh, you mean women?" to either referring to 'vagina havers' or 'females' and would strongly dislike either being used as a noun for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link