Current Events > Have you learned to stopped calling women "female"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The_Apologist posted...

Sure it does. Thinking for oneself is always better than being a mere product of social circumstances. I'm not saying that authenticity is easy, though.

Yet your thinking as such is a societal thing. Are you saying that you yourself are lesser for thinking such a way?

ellis123 posted...

Yet your thinking as such is a societal thing.

Only minimally, if it all.

ellis123 posted...

Are you saying that you yourself are lesser for thinking such a way?

Insofar as I do, yes; that's the obvious implication of what I said. Inauthenticity is a flaw, whether in myself or in others.

The_Apologist posted...

Only minimally, if it all.

Not really. Society dictates how much you view ones self as a function, so much like how you are espousing that thinking for yourself is important someone from China would espouse that harmony is far more important than individuality. In that vein I would say that you are almost entirely basing your thoughts on what society deems as important, with only minimal lens from your personal feelings on the matter.

The_Apologist posted...

Insofar as I do, yes; that's the obvious implication of what I said. Inauthenticity is a flaw, whether in myself or in others.

Your feelings are not in-authentic just because they are built to fit in with societal norms. They are your feelings, how you built them has little bearing on that fact.

ellis123 posted...

Not really.

Yes, really. Society has a default influence, but it's possible to counteract most or all of that influence through critical thinking.

ellis123 posted...

Your feelings are not in-authentic just because they are built to fit in with societal norms.

That's exactly what 'inauthentic' means, yes. If (or insofar as) I have my perspective because society gave it to me, it isn't genuinely mine. I'm just a recipient of the programming.

The_Apologist posted...

Yes, really. Society has a default influence, but it's possible to counteract most or all of that influence through critical thinking.

And such critical thinking is a part of your personality, which is primarily influenced by society. Hence why every society views things fundamentally differently.

The_Apologist posted...

That's exactly what 'inauthentic' means, yes. If (or insofar as) I have my perspective because society gave it to me, it isn't genuinely mine. I'm just a recipient of the programming.

That is a bleak way to view your own, current personality.

I don't follow this place's unwritten laws lol

ellis123 posted...

And such critical thinking is a part of your personality

The results of it aren't. Rationality is what it is, regardless of differences in personality.

ellis123 posted...

Hence why every society views things fundamentally differently.

That's obviously false. There are differences (though they're rarely fundamental), but the critical thinkers from various societies tend to converge on similar basic principles.

ellis123 posted...

That is a bleak way to view your own, current personality.

Truth matters more than bleakness.

The_Apologist posted...

That's obviously false. There are differences (though they're rarely fundamental), but the critical thinkers from various societies tend to converge on similar basic principles.

No, it's observationally true. There's a difference. I can post studies that show it ( https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0511/024-opinions-science-psychology-ideas-opinions.html?sh=75824970620a ), you have the ability to snub B.J. Neblett. The convergence is entirely centered on what I've been saying, that the act of thinking that you aren't the sum of your experiences is main character syndrome.

ellis123 posted...

There's a difference.

I accept the backpedal.

ellis123 posted...

The convergence is entirely centered on what I've been saying, that the act of thinking that you aren't the sum of your experiences is main character syndrome.

Well, it's just belief in a degree of free will. What's your evidence for this convergence?

The_Apologist posted...

I accept the backpedal.

Oh, you're just trolling. Carry on then.

ellis123 posted...

Oh, you're just trolling.

No, I'm pointing out the backpedal from "every society views things fundamentally differently" to the much less wacky claim "There's a difference".

The_Apologist posted...

No, I'm pointing out the backpedal from "every society views things fundamentally differently" to the much less wacky claim "There's a difference".

No, you're randomly deciding to cut out "there's a difference" and pretend it was a backpedal instead of me just calling you out for being wrong. There's a difference.

I prefer Chicks

ellis123 posted...

No, you're randomly deciding to cut out "there's a difference" and pretend it was a backpedal

It was the charitable reading. Otherwise, I'd have to interpret you as claiming that American society views things fundamentally different from British society, and so on.

The_Apologist posted...

It was the charitable reading. Otherwise, I'd have to interpret you as claiming that American society views things fundamentally different from British society, and so on.

In many ways we do.

You seem to have said something totally fine. Grats. Not the charitable reading bit, though. Something that can be easily disproven by a simple Google search is not charitable.

I can't even tell what's going on in this topic anymore.

ellis123 posted...

In many ways we do.

Such as? Remember that you used the word 'fundamentally'.

ellis123 posted...

Something that can be easily disproven by a simple Google search is not charitable.

I don't know what this is referring to.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I can't even tell what's going on in this topic anymore.

nobody does. its a fun read when you have a bunch of egomaniacs trying to tell you how to speak and what words to use.

they can keep it up. im right here with my

The_Apologist posted...

Such as? Remember that you used the word 'fundamentally'.

I don't know what this is referring to.

Well that's simple. First you type "Is American and British philosophy the same" into Google.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/94cd40a7.png

Then you go to whichever link seems like it will give a reasonable answer (in my case the first one from Quora seems fine).

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/6ea55173.png

And then you just read it.

In this case it is a person with a Bachelors in Philosophy from 2014 talking about their studies from a well respected textbook (ie. saying that their findings is wrong requires a fair bit of scrutiny). They immediately say that British and American philosophy have some similarities, but are wholly different. As the first example they talk about how British philosophers are more focused on the analysis of concepts and language, while American ones are more interested in exploring the foundational questions of metaphysics and epistemology.

That alone is already them just wholesale saying that the fundamental view of philosophy from philosophers is radically different. Yes it goes on further and gives more examples of the differences, but you can read it if you want. Heck, you can just look at British versus American media if you want. They are different in part because society itself isn't the same, and if society itself is the same then by default how you view the world is different. There are near infinite ways for groups of people to be different, and with something as radically massive as how you view the world there is no way for it to be the same even within fairly similar groups.

WalkingPlague posted...

nobody does. its a fun read when you have a bunch of egomaniacs trying to tell you how to speak and what words to use.

they can keep it up. im right here with my

Prime example of the misogyny and historical sexism still prevalent

women who share their experiences and perspectives about language that is othering and dehumanizing are dismissed as hysteria or in this case labeled egomaniacs

ellis123 posted...

That alone is already them just wholesale saying that the fundamental view of philosophy from philosophers is radically different.

This is an amazing example. American and British philosophy aren't fundamentally different; they're fundamentally the same, and that's why they're famously categorized together as 'analytic' or 'Anglo-American'. The major schism in Western philosophy in the twentieth century was between the analytic/Anglo-American and continental traditions. I'm guessing you didn't know this, or else you would've gone with some other example.

ellis123 posted...

Heck, you can just look at British versus American media if you want.

Yep. I don't see any fundamental differences there either.

I don't think I use it as a noun when referring to real-life women. But I use it as an adjective for things like "female character" or something like that. It's also used when referring to the female sex or the female gender identity as well.

Now, do people refer to men as "males" in a similar fashion?

The_Apologist posted...

I don't see any fundamental differences there either.

Hence why I said you were trolling.

ellis123 posted...

Hence why I said you were trolling.

What are some fundamental differences between American and British media?

Like, how the fuck does a topic about misogynists calling women the wrong term turn into a slap fight about the difference between American and British philosophy?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Damn, I've been spotted. *rolls out from under the table*

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Like, how the fuck does a topic about misogynists calling women the wrong term turn into a slap fight about the difference between American and British philosophy?

Gender, gender norms, whether gender norms are bad, whether social norms in general are bad, whether it's possible to dissent from social norms, the power of society over people's minds and identities, the homogeneity (or not) of thinking within and across societies, examples of fundamental differences between societies.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Because it's easier for people to stigmatize the entire practice rather than have to sniff out who's using it derogatively and who isn't.

You know, kind of like how we've apparently deemed it would be too difficult or disruptive to society to do something about all the men who would grope/harass/assault/etc women who dare to go outside topless, so instead we just... made it illegal for women to go outside topless. Sorted!

If I'm talking about a female I will use the word female. But I guess it doesn't come up a lot

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If youve been reading the thread, you would notice the use of the word female is not inherently problematic. Thats not what is at issue here.

The difference is in using it as noun instead of an adjective.

Im female or I am female is not problematic. Using it as a noun, however, reduces the person down to a trait (that being female.) This is where some people or guys regularly refer to women as females, or saying are you a female versus are you female?

Theres nothing wrong with the word female, its the usage of othering and dehumanizing that comes from using it as a noun instead of an adjective to refer to people.

Conservatives and both siders will continue to misrepresent the discussion as woke liberals screeching about how the word female is banned.

lilORANG posted...

If I'm talking about a female I will use the word female. But I guess it doesn't come up a lot

Case in point^

CSCA33 posted...

Using it as a noun, however, reduces the person down to a trait (that being female.)

Why would a noun be any more reductive than an adjective, though?

The_Apologist posted...

Why would a noun be any more reductive than an adjective, though?

Pick any number of other groups and do the same, whether that's transgender, black, etc.

This isn't something crazy or difficult to understand, and widely regarded as inappropriate. Though that still doesn't stop people from using language in this manner, just as in this thread we have people complaining about the grammar police in so many words.

CSCA33 posted...

Pick any number of other groups and do the same, whether that's transgender, black, etc.

Men, women, children, humans, Americans, citizens, consumers, gamers, etc. Why are any of these 'reductive'? Why are they more 'reductive' in this form compared to using an adjective instead?

I rarely use the word at all nowadays outside of a biological context myself. That said, I think it's usually fairly obvious when it's being used in a demeaning or incel-ish way. In a vacuum I do think it can be innocuous, though I also understand why it being used to refer to women in general rubs many the wrong way.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Neither sounds 'worse'. The latter is just unusual--although demographers often refer to 'whites', 'blacks', 'gays', etc.

Oh we're pretending "the blacks" hasn't been a dehumanizing term forever.

lilORANG posted...

If I'm talking about a female I will use the word female. But I guess it doesn't come up a lot

A female what

hockeybabe89 posted...

Oh we're pretending "the blacks" hasn't been a dehumanizing term forever.

No. It's just that grammar (noun versus adjective and so on) has nothing to do with the dehumanization.

This type of thread happens way too often and it feels like the internet just love feeling outraged. This shit isn't nearly as common as y'all making it seem as I barely see any motherfuckers saying the term females for women in a derogatory way. Usually those types are often isolated then banned and then get made fun by everyone else. And the very rare time I see this term used in a derogatory way in an offline setting is typically when another woman wants to shit talk another woman and I could count on one hand how many times that has happened and most of those times came from the same person. Lol

This shit reminds me of those threads about guys bitching about how no girl will look at a guy under 6 feet when like 80% of the male population is under that and they have no problem getting a girl. Just another instance of people wanting to feel mad for no reason trying to make a minor problem coming from a very small party of people feel way bigger than what it actually is. Stop worrying about small shit like this when there's way bigger problems for women like actual misogynists holding political power and making dumbass decisions like abortion laws.