Is ‘Female’ An Offensive Term? Part 2

I really don’t get it. Female and male are more objective terms than man and woman. I am a female. You are a male. Who cares? I use guys and folks to designate both sexes. Maybe it’s a Colorado thing.

I have a (minor) problem with both “male” and “female” used as nouns in some contexts, though I couldn’t tell you which. Some ways they are used, it sounds like animals rather than humans are under discussion.

I sometimes hear people use “female” in such a way that it sounds very clinical, or perhaps like the speaker refers to livestock. I can see where it might rub someone the wrong way. Personally, I don’t mind because I can see how it might come to this.

Calling women “girls” is more likely to offend. Calling women “women” sometimes comes off a little too . . . PC? I don’t know. I think it’s all in the tone. I used to go with “woman” more, but now that I’m older than a lot of them, “girl” seems more reasonable in some cases. But often I preview in my head and struggle to know which to use. If I’m with friends, I generally know which they might prefer, but out in the world with strangers you can never tell until after the fact.

IMO, ‘female’ sounds like a word used to refer to an animal, not a person. It lessens the humanity of the one being referred to, reducing them to their sex in a way that ‘woman’, ‘lady’, etc doesn’t. The speaker gains an implied since of superiority, while the one being spoken of gains a dehumanizing anonymity.

There are, however, some cases when using ‘female’ is acceptable, such as in law enforcement and medicine. But using it in a casual or unprofessional setting is just skeevy.

No, I don’t like this experiment. You can’t just do a little introspection and call it science.

I also think this is drawing attention away from the original context. I mean, I feel that “woman” is preferred to “female”, but I would rather not argue the point if it means ignoring the much bigger problems with that panel.

It really depends on context, I guess. I can’t help but think there are more important issues to work on with sexism than worrying about the use of “female”. Maybe it’s supposed to alter our mindset to make the bigger issues easier to deal with, I don’t know. But even the best term for the context can sound wrong with subtle chances in tone.

I do not think that it is devaluating, but then, I am not a native speaker.

Being referred to as a “male” when “guy” or “dude” or whatever would be more appropriate doesn’t offend me so much as it makes the person saying it sound like an alien or a robot or something…

(Robot voice) – “I am going to a social function tonight with my male friends! We will participate in ritual, rhythmic body motion set to music, imbibe intoxicants and court females!”

I myself have used the term “female” to describe women when I want to be as value-neutral as possible. It had never occurred to me that the term could be interpreted as sexist. It’s always possible, of course, to take any term, no matter how benign, and use it offensively. On the other hand, some people are overly sensitive to perceived slights and will interpret words as being offensive even if none was intended or implied.

In this situation with the panel, I think the latter situation is at play rather than the former. That doesn’t mean her feelings should have been so dismissed, but neither does it mean the speakers were being inappropriate. It’s fine to talk about the impact of language, but when it gets in the way of dealing with more important issues, then such debate should take a back seat.

You can’t just answer the question “Is female considered offensive by some women?” by analyzing how you feel about a the word “male”. You are not the traditionally suppressed gender. Grow breasts, ovulate every month, and make less than average for your line of work regardless of your skill. Try that out for 20 or 30 years, then you can replace every pronoun with “female” and see if you feel objectified as the first step in understanding if you were once a male-privileged jerk that had his head stuck firmly up his ass. This would be akin to a white guy wondering if the term “Curry Slurper” is offensive after pissing off some Indian friends by replacing every pronoun he hears with “White bread” or “Cracker”. The unsuppressed gender (or ethnicity) doesn’t find derogatory terms used to refer to them to be nearly as offensive.

You’ll find all kinds of regional differences on the acceptability of terms, so I decided a long time ago not to be offended by word choice or worry to much about my own. Reasonable people will be able to have a discussion about it if it’s a personal issue.

As a woman, I understand the inherent difficulty in addressing women. I’ve had people object to the word “lady”. To me it implies sophistication, maturity and a strong sense of self. To others it implied a woman who was too polite to make waves. Some women don’t like being called “girls”. Others feel you’re implying they’re old if you don’t use it. It really is a no win situation if people are unwilling to take in consideration the context.

Jose is right. The problem was the speaker’s attitude, and that was clear from the follow-up joke.

Wasn’t the issue at the conference about a panel of mostly men, wondering why no women want to join their club, saying something that didn’t jive with one woman in the audience and then making an obnoxious joke to ostensibly dismiss her concern?
Many of the more outspoken atheists I know are actually women, possibly because historically women have often been the ones hurt most by religion. I don’t think we would be having any problem recruiting them if some men out there weren’t always telling them what to think and when not to be offended.

this whole situation reminds me of the “don’t be a dick” argument. The speaker found it absurd that anyone could find the use of the word “female” offensive in this context, and ridiculed the questioner to demonstrate/express the absurdity. He was being a “dick”, and he felt justified doing it.

Some people might use the word female in a derogatory manner, but then such a person with such an attitude will use ALL feminine words in a derogatory manner. Without context, there is no safe word. Best to never say anything ever.

IMO, the running away in tears appears to be a huge over reaction, but not knowing what that woman’s day was like prior to it, I’m not in a position to analyze it.

OTH, I am not only a woman, but an engineer and very used to ‘playing’ in the boy’s playground. Believe me between older engineers (I graduated college in the 80’s – there were PLENTY of older engineers) and contractors I’ve heard most of the tries at finding an ‘appropriate’ term.

Personally I prefer woman to female and my reasoning is how it’s pronounced. Woman has two syllables that are really uniform. Female, OTH, almost loses the soft ‘fe’ to the ‘male’.

As for this ‘thought’ experiment it is as biased as any similar racial experiment and uses the same rational as the whites used to say they weren’t discriminating against minorities, while actually doing so. If you are coming from a position of power, whatever term you use is immaterial.

I think you are trivializing the whole discussion of what went on with this follow-up.

@Zach
Tom says at the beginning of the video, “Do you like science?” Introspection has the problem that it has a sample size of one. And this experiment has the problem that it does not control for context.

And no, I do not think that is the issue at hand, though it is the issue Hemant decided to blog about. The issue is the entire panel was messed up. It was not one individual comment or word that ruined it.

Sigh. First of all, you can not compare the use of masculine and feminine terms and conclude that the usage of the first is equivalent to the usage of second. So any “experiment” is going to give you false result. Second, though there are some words that are inherently derogatory, with a word like “female” context matters.

If, in the context of a panel discussion on attracting more women to a movement, a panelist is using terminology that sounds to someone (likely more than one someone) in the crowd like he’s talking about livestock, that itself is a problem. The panelist’s “joke” was reprehensible and counter to the conference’s goals. Now, this ongoing mansplaining and rationalisation is just adding insult to insult.

No “mansplaining” here Ibis – I have written several times that the “weaker-sex” joke was rude. That is not the point of this blog. The topic here is about the use of “female” in the context of the meeting, and how substitution of the word “male” effects my feelings.

If you insist on returning to the past I have this to say… We are all occasionally rude, but that doesn’t make us misogynistic. We all make mistakes. The joke was meant to be funny but it failed. Let’s not make this out for more than it is. The jokester might want to apologize, but the original posters that accused the AA convention of being a hot-bed of sexism should apologize too. They were the ones the started the exaggeration and resulting conflagration.

I’d like to add that I personally find the term “mansplaining” offensive. Too often I’ve seen it used to ignore or shut down any points a man (male, guy, whatever…) makes about sexism, no matter how valid his points may be.

I agree with those who say it’s more about the intent and context behind the words used.

You cannot compare how something offends, or not, a woman with it’s “equivilent” in men and say Hizzah! it does not offend men, thus it should not offend women.

Men come from a position of power and automatic respect in our society – women do not. Thus, it is much easier to offend with mere words an group that is already marginalized and oppressed than it is to offend a group that faces no such oppression or marginalization.

Personally, I think it really depends on the context. If you’re discussing why there aren’t as many women as men or why the women don’t feel welcomed, it’s not a good idea to use female over and over again like this man did (really, no need to harken back to a time when the oppression of women was justified by saying our natural sexuality and connection with the Earth made us easy prey for Satan by using a term most often used to refer to animals). However, if you’re discussion biological differences between males and femaeles, or want to refer to a group that has both little girls and older women, then I think it’s an appropriate term.

I also think this discussion is taking away from the real issue with all this. That panel was 5 men and one lonely woman discussing “women’s issues” and when a woman did raise a concern, it was almost completely blown off. They then moved on the musing how women might come to these things to find mates. They went from using a term that’s by and large used in a biological sense to talk about populations to musing about how women use these things to find a suitable mate. I would’ve left in frustrated tears as well.

Well, I was going to write something like “You might get a lot of incorrect self-assessments here. White males tend to have weaker feelings about labels and subtle discrimination than other groups to begin with. You’re also making them cognizant of the issue and giving them time to justify not being bothered by the word.”

Then I checked the above and realized I’m a white male who says “male” all the time. I may have no argument 😛

Haha, well, self-described white male or not, I agree with your argument, coyotenose. That is what I worry about the video as well.

The reason this doesn’t work as a useful thought-experiment isn’t just about sample size or the value of introspection. The problem is that an equivalent usage will sound very different when applied to and heard by a group (here, men) who has always been accepted, welcomed, and listened to in a particular arena, as opposed to when heard by a group (here, women) that is often dismissed, trivialized, excluded and talked down to. You see this same issue when white people sometimes cannot understand why something is offensive to a person of color, as the corresponding remark about white people would not bother them at all.

That is also why we can’t argue offensiveness or not based on the simple word here. It is ALL about context.

I think, if i only used “females” it would be insulting, but i refer to women as, Well, Women, Females, galls, Girls, ect.

Didn’t really care, but I’m not in a position to feel threatened by it. The thought experiment doesn’t capture that. It’s not a good analogy.

No one was saying “those females” or “that female”, meanwhile they were referring to men as “males”. I think when you are at a “atheist” conference it is natural to speak of “male and female atheists”, and so in shorthand males and females.

This is only an issue for someone riding on the victim-hood train, or someone sucking up to them, like Tom. Some people find profundity in bullshit. I don’t, and it’s part of the reason I’ve rejected Christianity.

Ok, she felt the use of the word was degrading, many thought “WTF?”, resented the accusation, and someone responded with a biting comment. Misunderstanding, life goes on. None of us are perfect.

As far as the experiment above goes, I don’t think it’s all that relevant to how people reacted at the conference. Clearly it was news to most that the word “female” was now inappropriate, even when “male” was used for “men”.

I value the bluntness, honesty, and the disdain for phoniness that I find among most atheists I’ve met. That doesn’t always make for comfortable encounters.

The audience’s honest eye-rolling and moans of dismay were far better than condescendingly pretending to appreciate the question for PC reasons. That way lies madness.

I have a question. Which of the definition for female and woman are you finding offensive? I looked at the definitions and found that woman seemed more offensive then female. A woman is seen as a servant, a female attendant, or one that cleans houses. While a female is one with two X chromosomes in their nuclei. I guess most women want to be see as the above but thought we were past that. When I say female, I am talking to people of all ages while I use woman or lady to speak of females about the age of 30 or so. I sometimes use girls to address females of a younger age. Why are people trying to make this use of language no different then the way christians try to use language to make it seem that the US Constitution is based on the bible?

@Rollingforest
The fact remains that men and women AREN’T treated the same. Women are more likely to be paid less for the same quality of work, their opinions more likely to be rejected, ignored, or laughed off. And why? BECAUSE of our History. When we consider gender relations NOW we MUST consider gender relations in the past. Gender relations do not exist in a vacuum. And neither do individuals. Want to draw more women to the movement? Consider your male privilege. Consider Gender Inequality. Consider its roots in religious doctrine, and acknowledge how it has shaped the way that all men and women, including atheists, interact with and amongst each other.

it doesn’t sound quite right, but I find nothing devaluing about it.

I have one problem with your comment Ms Crazy Pants. Are females a minority. If I remember correctly they aren’t and in fact they hold a 4% edge on us guys. I agree we need to focus on getting members from all groups and sometimes we focus on issue which have no reason to exist. Are women repressed? Yeah some are some aren’t. Who is at fault for that? In some cases it is women themselves that cause the repression but most times it is men doing it.

@Baconsbud: “A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power.” (from a quick google of the term, found on wikipedia)

You could make the argument that women are not a minority in education, but as far as employment, social status, wealth, and political power go, we are still very much a “minority” in the sociological usage of the word.

In regards to the post, I feel like this is completely missing the point. I am disappointed but, once again, not surprised.

I agree that women are repressed and when it comes to select areas they are a minority. The areas they tend to be a minority are those with power to influence. Why are they in the minority socially yet numerically they are in the majority? I tend to believe that is because of religion and the teaching of the first sin. The sad part is most of the people who taught that to me were women not men. The men just seemed to take advantage of the womens willingness to play second fiddle to men. I know not all women go for that but it does seem even within the atheist community there is an element of this. I think women need to become more vocal as they did when they got the right to vote and during the 60’s when women took more control of their sexuality.

The problem with the panel was what happened after the woman spoke up about not wanting to be referred to as a female. But as far as the more direct question of this thread, it sounds really awkward to me, but only in the sense that it just sounds grammatically wrong. It’s not normal convention (around where I am at least) to use female in situations like that, so it just sort of stands out. Male would be the same way. My reaction wouldn’t be to think they were trying to be offensive, but rather to wonder why they were speaking in such a weird fashion.

@Rollingforest – Sorry, but no. Any time a man out of hand dismisses a woman’s subjective experiences in _a discussion of women’s subjective experiences_ because she’s just engaging in “really silly PC language nitpicking run amok” (as MH so eloquently put it), that’s mansplaining.

Disagreement and mansplaining are not the same thing.

I’ll give you an example. Earlier, you complained that the panel just made mistakes, that it wasn’t “purposeful sexism.” That’s mansplaining because you are straw-manning the issue. I haven’t seen anyone try to claim that the panel was a bunch of evil male-supremacists who hate women and were purposefully and deliberately trying to make them feel unwelcome. The fact that you seem to think that this is the criteria for determining whether sexism is present or not is a lovely indication of male privilege.

PS: Love that you so easily dismissed my entire post as just some sort of anti-man “blanket scenario” – even though I can’t find anything I said that would indicate this. You are a perfect specimen of the “mansplainer”!

Lucy! You got manslpainin to do!

Re: “referring to people as females is likening women animals instead of humans.”

Did I miss something? When did Homo sapiens cease being mammals? Are we not animals?

What do we check on every single form that requires it? M or F?
Applying for a license? M or F?
Enrolling in college? M or F? (F? WELL! You might get an even better scholarship!)
Have a kid? Fill out the birth certificate: M or F?
Do you check OTHER and write in woman/lady?

We are animals. We are humans. M or F doesn’t change either of those truths. It’s just a way to differentiate genders. Voila!

But… It’s all about context! If the context of the talk is about making women uncomfortable, what term is less sexy than FEMALE? It’s so simple. There are no questions about it. Female! End of story.
They’re skating on thin-ice anyway for being called horn-dogs, so, seemingly in an effort to use the most scientific and NO-NONSENSE term, they fucked it up even more.

There’s no winning.

Personally, I don’t like it when people call me “young lady” or “miss” but these people are strangers, I don’t have any emotion invested in them, I don’t take it home with me.
If it were someone I knew, someone I would continue to encounter, I would make it known that I was uncomfortable being called “XYZ” … And if they didn’t listen after that, then I would be upset.

People just need to be adult about the situation they’re in and have a conversation. All situations are going to be different. There’s no black & white with this one.

/my 2 cents.

Again, the frustration with this event is so not about the word female vs. woman.

If the issue of being hit on isn’t a significant problem, and being bullied isn’t a significant problem, and being ridiculed isn’t a significant problem, being objectified isn’t a significant problem… then what exactly is keeping all of these elusive atheist women away from atheist groups?

I thought the lone female panelist made a really interesting statement that she was “protected” from these things by being married. I have found that the same is true even for the non-sexual aggression among men in atheist meetups. When my husband attends an event with me, the other men in the room rarely demean me or diminish my perspective, nor are they as angered/annoyed when I disagree with them. (Politics, feminist issues, you name it.)

I don’t know what the hell that means, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway. Maybe someone else can explain it or suggest an alternate interpretation.

It should be noted that it isn’t just that there weren’t equal numbers of women there at the conference, its that there are less women in general who are out of the closet atheist. There are several theories why this is true (such as the theory that women are more social and thus gain more from church communities) but no one really knows why. Atheist communities are fairily liberal and thus less likely to be sexist than society at large, so I don’t think that in and of itself keeps women away. It could be that because being an atheist is socially frowned upon, it is less acceptible for women to rock the boat than for men.

@Grimalkin:

I do believe in gender equality and I am open to others opinions, so demonizing me is unfair and not helpful to the conversation.

If the panel wasn’t purposefully being sexist, then why accuse them of acting sexist? Why did Lyz and Sharon write such an angry post if it was just a misunderstanding. If it’s a misunderstanding between the groups then they can compromised on it. “I’m offended so I’m right” is not an argument. If something is bothering you, talk it out and try to come to an understanding. Don’t just accuse the other person of being hateful.

The problem is that all too often men’s opinions are just written off when discussing gender because since they have been declared privileged in this situation therefore they are considered too blind to understand things. Even when the man is supporting gender equality. Even when he has the facts on his side. If I guess if the term ‘mansplain’ was used correctly all the time, that would be fine. But it is normally just used as a conversation stopper, which is not how atheists should debate things.

If you weren’t making a blanket statement then I apologize, but the fact is that too many people are when they use that term against men whenever they have another opinion in a gender discussion and that’s sexist. But calling me names is equally unfair.

Look at John’s comment. Instead of trying to debate me, he decided just to be an asshole. That’s the problem.

@MV: All of those things you accused me of, I could say exactly the same thing about you. That’s how ad hominem they are.
“One of the benefits of that privilege is being unaware of it”

That sounds an awful lot like “You can’t truly understand God unless you believe in him” or “if you stop believing in Christ then you never were a Christian to begin with”. Just a way of saying “you aren’t intelligent enough to understand” which I think is unscientific.

Yes I agree that men have privilege in some areas. Women also have privilege is a few areas (car insurance prices or more importantly the draft). Feminism has succeeded in making the genders more or less equal in many areas (voting, college ect). Ignoring that disrespects their work.

You saying “they [women] don’t take kindly to being told your opinions about it” seems to directly contradict “men are entitled to express their opinions”. If you can ignore anything a man says just by writing it off as mansplaining, then that is sexist.

If a person has privilege in a certain situation, then show factual evidence of it! Saying “you can only see privilege if you don’t have it” is unscientific and mythical. That isn’t how atheists are supposed to think.

@ John D : Don’t be an asshole. If you think that you are allowed to reject anything a man says then you are being sexist. Mocking men who express their opinion turns them away from feminism.

I think it is largely a numbers game. Numbers define the context. When a woman enters a room full of men for what is supposed to be a cultural event, the first thing she thinks is “Wonderful, a room full of pathetic losers”. When the men in that group see a woman enter, they think “Thank God, a woman showed up”. In either case, the numbers at play define the context and how each gender perceives the others. If the numbers had been more evenly matched at the beginning, the context and resulting perceptions would have developed very differently. The solution is hard because it is a catch 22 situation. More women would feel comfortable if there were already more women in the movement. Short of bussing “them” in (sorry for using the “them” word), perhaps all that can be done is to be very sensitive about the gender make-up of panels and perhaps be smart about whose faces you put forward to the public.

I’d encountered this naming convention many years ago… in a science fiction novel…
Humans and genetically modified chimps and dolphins were referred to in gender as:

“mels” and “fems”

No guys or gals, men or women, male or female.

This reminds me of how all threads discussing FGM always end up with everyone talking about circumcision. I thought this was about the panel, about women in the new atheist wave, etc. Not about how offended men feel about the word mansplain. Could you please talk about how offended and oppresed men are in another thread? This one was interesting.

“When a woman enters a room full of men for what is supposed to be a cultural event, the first thing she thinks is “Wonderful, a room full of pathetic losers”.”

I doubt it. I’ve never walked into a room full of women or blacks and immediately thought “what a room full of losers”.

Context matters. Atheist groups were not put in place as dating sites, or socials. If a woman walks into a group, sees a majority of men and jumps to the unjustified conclusion of “losers” then that is her problem.

Grimalkin,

“Once again, the issue is not whether the word “female” is offensive or not.”

Not according to the “experiences” being communicated by the woman questioner in the audience. She was communicating an offense to the use of the word female. When in fact up to that point the word was used in a perfectly reasonable and non-demeaning way, as was the word male. As in male and female freethinker/atheist.

“When a woman volunteered her experiences, she was ridiculed and dismissed”

She did not communicate the words you have put in her mouth. In fact your first sentence actually contradicts the experience she was communicating.

Women aren’t some collective who have automatic insight into what every other member is thinking.

The best people to ask about why they didn’t show up at the meeting didn’t show up at the meeting. Anyone sitting on the panel speculating about it regardless of gender is unqualified to do so.

Another point is that just because people experience things a certain way does not mean that was what was actually happening. Everyone laughed at her (including lots of women) because it was clear that her internal experence was out of whack with what was actually occuring. THe term female was not being used in a degrading fashion.

“It was the sheer amount of mansplaining I saw on the internet that made me hesitate before I joined my first atheist organization. ”

So you don’t show up because you are a misadrist. That I can understand.

“So if you want an answer to why more women don’t join the atheist movement, pay attention to what’s going on right now – to the way in which so many people are casting this whole discussion as one woman’s hysterics, or as an argument over semantics.”

A woman objected to the use of the term female as it was used in the discussion. For example, one guy said “female freethinker”. This was ridiculous and an argument over PC semantics. Then she broke out crying when she was rightfully ridiculed for it.

So you object to rational discussion of what really happened. Not our problem.

Your problem is that you want everyone else to think the way you do about things, irrationally and as mind reader. We don’t, and frankly I can’t, and quite analogously to why I can’t bring myself to believe in a diety. I know it’s not true, like I know your characterization of events is false. I just got done watching a woman nitpicking semantics in a politically correct fashion, and crying because the crowd turned against her nonsense.

One of the reasons why churches have broader social appeal is that the culture is not to question anything or anyone. Therefore personal bubbles are not likely to be popped in public like this. You are right. If you don’t want the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

Some men, a rare minority, have a different attitude about such things. It’s expected that in issues of long statisitical tails that their might be major differences with women in this regard. This doesn’t make it wrong. It just means that atheists meetings don’t end up being a good place to meet with women. I can live with that 1) Because I don’t go to these meetings. 2) Because I’m married.

Why are you so upset over this stupid comment by a woman that you are trying to cover up for her? You aren’t responsible for her thought processes, and it’s no reflection on you. There are plenty of women out there perfectly capable of explaining why what she asked was ridiculous. You don’t have to think like a collectivist on this. We (men and women) can object to her question and laugh at it without it being a reflection on all women. This is not about claiming a general hysteria in women.

It certainly is fun reading all the comments here. All the things that come up.

On this occasion I would like to make fun of all the women finding sexism everywhere and bitching about the oh so terrible suppression of women in the society. I think its the other way round. Women enjoy far more advantages than men.

You complain about getting paid less for the same amount of work. What bullshit, call-boys and porn actors earn considerably less then call-girls and porn actresses. They do even more work, all the humping is tiring. Women just shift position now and then. INJUSTICE!

Women can rise up in ranks quickly just by offering sex. Men have to actually work. INJUSTICE!

You complain about not being taken as seriously as men. Well, if men were wearing the clothes you wear we wouldn’t be taken seriously at all. INJUSTICE!

“Oh nice, you got the candy from the kind grandma, how sweet.” vs. “WHAT!? You got the candy from the creepy geezer, CALL THE POLICE!” INJUSTICE!

A woman can slap a random dude in the face and everyone would think he is a douche and deserved it. Then the woman would get free drinks and be the center of attention. A man can slap a woman in the face and get immediately beaten down. Then the woman would get drinks and be the center of attention. INJUSTICE!

If somehow all cows in the world die women could make their own milk. INJUSTICE!

Finally, I would like to explain why the humanist/atheist movement lacks female members. It’s because most females believe in supernatural shit like fate, karma, astrology, unicorns, love at first sight, ect. Rationalism says they can’t have that, so they stay away. Furthermore their interests narrow down to twilight, reading about the newest affair of some famous person, taking long bubble baths, fashion, diets and remorseful snack attacks.

To attract more female members I suggest creating a mascot like Jesus, but specifically altered to attract our target audience, the common female. So lets start with Jesus. Topless is good, just needs more muscles, and glitter. He should also be a vampire, but one that does not kill women, he just makes love to them. And he should be immune to sunlight, so he can go to the beach. Throw away the cross, it kills the mood. Beard has to go too. He should ride on a unicorn. Pants and hairstyle should change according to latest fashion. Also needs nice shoes. Women love shoes. Oh wait, Jesus was the son of a carpenter, lets make our mascot the son of a shoemaker, even better. Lastly, the name. Lets leave it at Jesus, but pronounced the Spanish way “Jesus”. Sounds so mysterious, so wild, yet so comforting and familiar. Perfect, that will get us all the bitches.

Jose,

“I thought this was about the panel, about women in the new atheist wave, etc.”

Read the title of the article, “Is Female an Offensive Term”, then adjust what you think to correspond to reality.

“Not about how offended men feel about the word mansplain.”

Wouldn’t it be ironic if I dismissed your comment on the grounds that it was “womensplaining”, on a thread about finding offense in gender terminology.

“I thought this was about the panel, about women in the new atheist wave, etc … Could you please talk about how offended and oppresed men are in another thread? This one was interesting.”

Which leads me to wonder what private conversation is going on in your head because this

I do take away from your last sentence you total lack of interest in the ways men are oppressed and a total lack of care about offending them. Which makes you guilty of a double standard. You can’t whine about female offense and oppression if you don’t care about the issue in general as applied to all groups. Otherwise it is merely a mechanism to give women a privileged status in the true sense of the word privilege. As in “Heads I win. Tails you lose”.

There’s no need to wonder why men who are interested in the hard sciences don’t take minors in women’s studies. The discipline fails the most minor tests of objectivity.

“you total lack of interest in the ways men are oppressed and a total lack of care about offending them.”

I have a total lack of interest in people who step in a post where something about women is being discussed and start taking over it with off-topic comments about their problems.

Jose,

“I have a total lack of interest in people who step in a post where something about women is being discussed and start taking over it with off-topic comments about their problems.”

Total baloney. He didn’t just out of the blue start talking about his problems. Grimalkin posted a vile comment about him. A comment that quite explicitly violated a standard that was quite on topic.

She not only used an offensive invented word, but used false reasoning and factual claims to try to paint “Rolling Forest” argument as an unreasoned dismissal based on misogyny, all the while showing quite explicit misandry.

…And so the thread drifts, and women’s problems and concerns are mocked, dismissed and finally ignored yet again.

“It makes me think that the panelists were Ferengi.”

They weren’t using the term the way the Ferengi do. Ferengi use female as a pronoun when speaking directly to a woman.

No they sounded more like the feminist used to when they referred to us men as “males” all the time. Something they still do. Do a web search and educate yourself.

I’m going to have to insist at this point that anyone complaining about the use of female point out the specific usage that was offensive, in context. For example if someone says “Atheists male and female need to be represented” then tell me exactly what that sentence is and what you find objectionable about it.

To claim that they were using the word female like a Ferengi would is to mischaracterize what I just got done listening to.

The most “objectionable” thing I heard was when someone on the panel said “girls” but then also said “guys”. So what? This is not the same as referring to a woman as a girl by a long shot.

I’m not going to talk or write with some politically correct special in-group sanctioned syntax, the whole purpose of which is to make language a minefield for people who disagree with their quite unbalanced rantings and “concerns”.

“I’d rather spend my time with a bunch of folks who actually understand and care about multiple forms of prejudice and oppression rather than a group of people who only share my disbelief in a god but are largely clueless about the experiences of those outside of their particular demographic slice of humanity.”

What makes you think you understand? What makes you think others don’t. You a mind reader?

Women aren’t some morally superior race, nor blacks. If you don’t think males and whites experience prejudice then you live in a sheltered world. I just got done raising two boys to college age and school consists in large part in devaluing their culture, and painting them as moral inferiors for behaviors that other races have practiced from the beginning of time.

I was the victim of a racial assault when I was a kid, and I betcha you are totally blind to all the overt racism displayed by blacks. Many blacks take actual pleasure out of making complete strangers uncomfortable around them. For example, making angry glances at every white male that walks by.

Sorry unlike you chumps I’m not going to internalize your racism and sexist bigotry against me.

This whole idea that whites or males can’t understand or empathize is bigoted. What I can’t empathize with are double standards, projection, political correctness, and misattributing cause and effect.

Meanwhile there are blacks who agree with me. Which falsifies your thesis.

You are just playing the old Marxist game of dismissing your opponents as bourgeoisie, instead of addressing a single argument. Except in this case you dismiss whites, males, and uncle Tom’s like Thomas Sowell.

Don’t now complain that you were taken in the wrong fashion. You are the one who wrote a general not specific comment. You’re the one who expressed a desire to cocoon yourself.

I think the term “mansplaining” has its uses. For example, any discussion of women in video games quickly leads to mansplaining, and I would say that when my fiancé counters my statement that women are often afraid to walk alone at night with how he was similarly repressed by a female manager he once had who played favorites, then I think that’s borderline mansplaining. Here? It’s a nebulous subject and I’d hesitate to use it for the most part – like “female” it’s context-specific. I find the us/them thing more troubling, and as an earlier commenter said, if the male panelists decided that all of the issues they brought up were dismissible, then why do we still have a problem with women in the atheist movement?

For my part, I prefer not to have my gender referred to at all, but if it must be, then “woman” as a noun (I doubt they were debating how to make young girls feel more included) and “female” only as an adjective to clarify a more important noun.

@Jeff P : But why must a group of men be defined as “a room full of pathetic losers”? Why revolve everything around gender? Can’t a room that is half men and half women also be “a room full of pathetic losers” or just awesome people. If the women at the meeting don’t want sexual advances, then why would they rate a group of men by their ability to sexually attract women? I thought the whole point was to make the meetings about atheism and not about dating.

@Julie: Again “You’re a man, so it’s impossible for you to understand” is sexist. And “just accept everything I say or I’ll slander your name” is a hit job, not a rational argument.

@ John D: Sorry if I was too quick at firing back, but I don’t want people believing lies about me. In a more personal setting where I knew you were kidding it would be okay. But in this emotionally charged debate, I guess it is too easy for everyone to misinterpret what you are saying.

@ Daniel K: regardless of what your point may be, I have to admit that your post was fun to read.

@dantresomi: could it be that women are uncomfortable coming to atheist events because most people are male, regardless of what the men do? I’ve known many instances where a white person is uncomfortable among black people simply because they feel out of place. Similarly, a black person might feel out of place among whites if they are used to being in an all black environment. So it may be that no matter how the men act, women are going to be uncomfortable. Perhaps instead of focusing on how to change the men, we should instead be focusing on how to reach out to more women.

@ Jose: Discussing how women feel about a situation is fine. But that doesn’t give people the right to slander or misrepresent men to do it. Why can’t we just respect everyone of both genders?

@ timberwriath: Yes, everyone should seek to understand other’s perspective. But when I am doing it for them, I expect them to do it for me too.

@ Alexius: If the term ‘mansplaining’ was always used correctly, I wouldn’t have a problem with it (though making a negative word out of “man” and “explaining” is a little sexist). But too often the term ‘mansplaining’ is used to refer to anyone who is male who they disagree with, ignoring anything that that man may have said, and I think that’s sexist. Also, there’s the double standard that no one would accept the term ‘womansplaining’ but they are often happy to accept the term ‘mansplaining’.

Also, if a person assumed that the only possible reason why less women are coming is because the men are sexist, that theory is, well, sexist. There are less women atheists out of the closet in our society, so of course there are going to be less women at atheist meetings. It is wrong to blame that on the men at the meeting. Are there things that some of the men could do better? Sure. But that’s true of some of the women at the meeting as well.

Using an adjective as a noun doesn’t necessarily suggest that that person feels that that is the most important quality about them. If I say “males in colleges are more likely to join a Frat than they used to be” that doesn’t suggest that that’s their gender is the only thing interesting about them. The same goes for other races and genders.

http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-this-sexist.html

So is it sexist when Jen uses the term?

Here’s a thought experiment.

Everyone think of several words that describe you.

Now men, how many of you thought of the word man first? How many of you thought of something that you do (teacher, doctor, dad, etc)first?

Women, how many of you thought of the word woman before something that you do?

I am guessing far more women define themselves first by their gender and then by what they do. This is what it means to be a member of a privileged group. You define yourself by what you do first rather than some unchangeable characteristic like gender, sex, race, or sexual orientation. This may explain why women are more sensitive to the terms others use to describe their sex/gender than men are. (Hopefully this thought experiment works as it is supposed to)

As a female, myself, I have no problems being called a female. I also refer to men as “males” in certain contexts. I do think that, in general, if you are using “men” to refer to males, you should use “women” to refer to females. It just seems weird not to but I wouldn’t assume that either choice of words dehumanized me.

@Guest

The paragraph has one underlined “female” that is used as a noun.

Alexius,

Essentially I think the problem is that the use of an adjective as a noun suggests that the speaker believes this quality to be the most important characteristic of the subject, in the same way that calling people “blacks” or “gays” suggests that those are the most interesting things about those people.

You’re right about characteristics, wrong about adjectives. Female is a noun, and nouns can convery characteristics. “Woman” has the same problem, and I agree that the human cultures that I know base their languages and actions around gender, gender roles are a large part of these cultures. Males and females, wear different things, act differently, and talk differently, language is just following us. We could always refer to a person or people, perhaps when our culture has progressed.

To me, as a woman, to be called a “female” for no practical reason when anther word could be used equally, it seems as though I’m being carefully removed from the human population. “Female” is OFTEN used by men as a form of insult and I have had this happen to me numerous times, it’s often used to make some baseless generalization (females can’t drive, how typically female, you can’t trust females). Think about the way Quark uses the word “human” in Star Trek, and yes I know that’s a nerdy analogy but it works. Female has come to mean less-than-male.
Forgive me if I’m wrong about you personally, but atheism tends to lead us toward humanistic principles, we’re shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot if we allow women to be treated as second class nonhumans.

It sounds a bit stilted and formal to substitute the word “male” for all other designations of the gender but it really doesn’t bother me beyond its clumsiness.

pretty stupid experiment. At first I was gonna try it, til I tried in a sentence “he’s a good male”– I wouldnt even use females like that. I rarely ever use “female”, and when I would, I would likely say “male” as well for the opposite sex.

#fail…. or #fefail