site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   1768 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 29, 2024

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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

I'd argue mesu (female) like osu (male), is an idiosyncratic use only for animals

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

For obvious reasons, feminists tend to be sensitive about being associated too closely with their biological nature.

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.

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.

I imagine it in a Ferengi voice. Or with a similar vibe to "birthing parent."

I imagine it in a Ferengi voice.

They let their females wear clothing!

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.

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.

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats