2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

Female is a biological term and is used for animals, woman acknowledges the humanity and social construction of gender (this is not from me, but from my Women's Studies-related classes, though I try to follow it, clumsy though it may be).

It's one of those imperfect parts of the English language (or pretty much any language for that matter) that there isn't really a non-clumsy way to refer to women in many cases that doesn't have some sort of shitty linguistic connotation.

And yeah, technically, male isn't proper in this instance, either.

Okay that makes absolutely no sense to my understanding of the English language.

I don't talk about how we've had man Presidents in the past, so why would I talk about the possibility of having a woman President in this election?

Dan is this serious? half the human race is women, you don't find it worthy of comment that the other half is the only half that's held the highest office in the land for this country's entire history, nor that neither party has ever seen fit to even nominate one for the job?

("female" is just my sorta craw-sticking thing, never mind me when I get started on it, it just has always sounded very weird to me - why not "woman"? grammatically ok "female" is an adjective so parses cleaner, but it certainly doesn't mean "woman" & has [probably just for me, I've never heard anybody else rankle at it like I do] weird clinical connotations)

xpost yeah what en i see kay said. it's not like way high on the list of offensive stuff but it's always struck me as "really? 'a female president'?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/18/news/edsafire.php

Here's an article that explains it better than I can.

And yeah, technically, male isn't proper in this instance, either.

Okay, turns out I was wrong about this. The rest still stands, tho.

Hi J0hn, welcome to Completely Missing The Grammar Point Dan Is Making Because You're On Your Gender Politics Soapbox Theatre.

"Woman" and "man" are nouns. "Female" and "male" are adjectives. Why would I modify a noun with another noun when I could use an adjective? Or are you making the semantic point that it is more important that we are talking about a woman than it is that we are talking about a President?

I don't talk about how we've had man Presidents in the past, so why would I talk about the possibility of having a woman President in this election?

Dan is this serious? half the human race is women, you don't find it worthy of comment that the other half is the only half that's held the highest office in the land for this country's entire history, nor that neither party has ever seen fit to even nominate one for the job?

i think he was saying "the US has only had man presidents" sounds kind of ridiculous compared to "the US has only had male presidents". xposts!

I just misunderstood you Dan sorry however from the article linked:

There's nothing new about this: The use of woman as a modifier dates to 1300, with the poet John Dryden, translating Juvenal in 1697, noticing "a woman grammarian who corrects her husband for speaking false Latin." Today, usage is neck and neck, with woman as a modifier appearing to my ear as pulling ahead of female by a nose.

soo umm nyah, man male

There are plenty of words that were once strictly nouns that have found common and subsequently formal usage as adjectives, this is a case of feminists and the like trying (and more and more, successfully) using the fluidity of language to an advantage.

Every day I inch closer and closer to the opinion that poetry has done more to fuck up basic grammar than any other thing on this earth.

Poets 1
Language 0

in/over/through/about yr FACE language

this still sounds silly as hell, who is gonna say "man president"?

i understand the preference to differentiate between gender and genitalia but that has to be the most complicated logic

i get that "woman" is acceptable as an adjective but i don't see why it's to be preferred or why "female" is somehow unacceptable while using "man" in place of "male" still sounds silly and nobody, as far as i know, is pulling for that

xpost exactly

Hm, how about looking to etymology which tells us that 'president' is of latin>french derivation so from what we know of french we know what the gender of the word 'president' is; lots of leftover/hangover from donor languages in any English word.

Does the fluidity of language/grammar piss you off?

It has a lot to do with the historical dehumanization of women vs. and the common assumption that human = man.

Yeah, in a vacuum it's pretty silly, but when one considers the fact that women haven't really been societally elevated above property/pets/animals for very long, I think it makes plenty of sense.

Perhaps we move this to the fluidity of language thread or something, though.

its more interesting than actual primaries news, though

Me, I'm just killin' time with my bitchez Cixous and Irigaray until the debate.

(actually could someone do me a huge favour and post a link to a transcript afterward because this thing's on at 1am London time?)

but when one considers the fact that women haven't really been societally elevated above property/pets/animals for very long

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc. (Also whether or not the majority of women in the world are currently "elevated above property/pets/animals" is highly debatable and varies from country to country and according to economic status).

You're absolutely right. I was thinking in terms of American history, I suppose. Though there is an argument to be made for a rising trend line, despite wildly differing sample points (WOO back to polls).

I think this is why so many people hate discussions of the political ramifications of language, once you open one door it starts to feel like anything you say naturally has something wrong with it. Which, y'know, is often true, thanks to the thousands of years of bullshit baggage and construction.

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

why not lady president, as in lady novelist?

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc

Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence makes this excellent point several times, and he, in fact, devotes a chapter to deconstructing the nonsense about an evolutionary improvement in women's rights.

I think we need more dame presidents

in my dotage I have come to believe that the concept of "progress" in general is complete nonsense.

x-post

cant believe 200+ years of history and no chick presidents

there have been matriarchies? name one.

kind of beside the point, i know.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_el_pr/obama_taxes

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc

first sentenc refers to 'global' linear progress which indeed doesn't exist.

second refers to specific instances; there obviously has been progress there, though.

not much point in arguing with postmodern antinarrative dicks though, really.

http://www.multo.com/vlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/boudicca.jpg

in my dotage I have come to believe that the concept of "progress" in general is complete nonsense.

x-post

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:07 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

really though? can you not think of any segments of american society who could possibly provide a coutner-example here?

we can talk about cultures in which (the Medicis in 14th century Florence, for example) the idea of a powerful woman wasn't seen as a challenge to "patriarchy."

really though? can you not think of any segments of american society who could possibly provide a coutner-example here?

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

we can talk about cultures in which (the Medicis in 14th century Florence, for example) the idea of a powerful woman wasn't seen as a challenge to "patriarchy."

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:11 AM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

mainly because patriarchy is a generalized, ahistorical cateogory with a relatively recent vintage, i.e. no-one used it in 14th century florence. so indeed, it wasn't challenged.

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:12 AM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

"one iota"?

To use more onerous grad school jargon, "privileging" progress is a mistake; it's just another determinant, ever in flux.

sorry, why is it a mistake?

within a given society, say, the US; and within certain parameters; say, voting rights or laws, why is it a 'mistake' to talk about progress?

Progress vs progress

illuminating

You're changing the terms. I merely said that elevating progress as the means by which we judge material or spiritual improvements instead of a complex give-and-take is a problem. I never said that, say, gays and blacks haven't seen genuine improvements in their lots.

(xpost)

i'm not changing the terms at all. you said

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:12 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i don't know what "I merely said that elevating progress as the means by which we judge material or spiritual improvements instead of a complex give-and-take is a problem" even means -- *you're* changing the terms here.

calling something a 'complex give-and-take' is fair enough because it's a messy world; but that doesn't invalidate the idea of progress.

Nobody's invalidating it! There are times when women were treated as equals, and times when they weren't, and that's as true now as it was in 14th century Florence.

i.e. progress is just one factor, and it's not that important.

Aaaaand with an hour before debate time:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/04/ordinary_people_screw_em.html

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach. "Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Asked to respond, the Clinton campaign replied: "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made." Asked to produce any witnesses who could back that up, the Clinton spokesman changed the subject. Classy.

whoah I walk away for a few minutes...

bye, hillary

there have been matriarchies? name one.

I'll grant that "matriarchy" is a hotly contested term, but if we use it to refer to societies where there were established traditions of women holding positions of political and economic power there are plenty of examples: Egyptian Kush dynasty, Nubia, southern India (Mangalore/Kerala - still in existence today!), various European states at various times, etc.

interesting timing

xp