Now that you've felt a woman's pain, the learning can begin

Over at Sara Speaking Sara has a post called See? See what I mean? which discusses how her male co-worker experiences the same kind of gender-based discrimination that women encounter in male-dominated jobs.

Our main customer set is stay-at-home or work-from-home moms. We have Babies and Biceps classes, prenatal yoga, storytime. Now I agree that it sucks and I’m sorry, I really am, because I know how it feels to be overlooked or disrespected because of your gender, but where children are concerned, women are just expected to be “naturally” more competent. If this were a male-gendered workplace (a sports bar, an auto parts store, a game store, an electronics/hardware store), people would be going to him first, assuming that he was “naturally” competent.

“Well that’s just stupid.”

Yes, yes it is. Which is why I’m a feminist.

“Well that’s just stupid,” he said. You bet it is. And yet, even as Sara sat there agreeing with him and using his experience (as a man) to illustrate why she’s a feminist, he rejected what she was saying in favour of his own opinion that feminism “privileges” women.

Let’s look at that for a minute.

As a man, Sara’s co-worker has gone through life assuming that if he’s hired for a job in which he interacts with customers, customers will respect his knowledge as an employee of the store. This is, I think, a reasonable thing to expect. But, here’s the catch: women can’t reasonably expect that, we can only hope the customer base is more intelligent than to rely on gender stereotyping.

What is happening to Sara’s co-worker is wrong. You won’t get any disagreement from most feminists on that. What I find to be sad, however, is that this man was presented with a perfect opportunity with which to explore his own privilege and to understand, even a little bit, what women face every day of our working lives. Here was a real, live feminist telling him that unfair situations like his were why she was a feminist and all he could think about was to go on about how men aren’t “fairly” represented in feminism.

Most schools of modern feminism don’t shy away from discussing masculinities and men’s issues. They also don’t shy away from having men in their ranks. The only fair way to conduct the fight for equality is to have it focus on those who need it most. And, as long as men are disproportionately advantaged by society, those people are going to be, more often than not, women.

[Yes the title of this post was shamelessly swiped from Family Guy… I can’t be expected to be witty all the time!]

Male responsibility in ending the cycle of discrimination

A real life example and another reasons why men need to call other men out on their shit. This is an area that women cannot make any progress in because we’re not part of the male homosocial group.

In her post, Distinguished Schmuck Visits, Misbehaves, Zuska relates an incident of sexual discrimination that happened to a female science professor while her male colleague looked on in horror. The guy, of course, only waited until after the discriminator had left to say something about it. Zuska says that it isn’t good enough and gives an example of how it should have gone down.

She then goes onto say this:

Sadly, few men think like this. They need training. They need training to the effect that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERRUPTING THE CYCLE OF DISCRIMINATION. It’s not all on our shoulders to figure out the solutions. They have to figure out how to re-socialize each other. They are plenty good at socializing each other how to be Real Men and How To Be Macho and How Not To Be A Wimp And A Pussy. They are perfectly capable of letting each other know when one of them has Behaved Like A Faggot, You Wuss. They are good at reminding each other Not To Cry Like A Little Girl. Clearly, they do have this mechanism built in for communicating to each other expected norms for male social behavior. So I don’t think it’s asking all that much to expect the more enlightened among them to start using that mechanism to pressure the dolts, schmucks, and morons to start acting like decent human beings, even if they can’t be made to think like such.

So, to all you would-be REAL Nice Guys (TM) out there (and this can go for REAL Nice People (TM) too — whites, straights, cisgendered people, etc), take heed of this. You want to be a REAL nice person? You gotta do your part to mold socialization because if seeing discrimination makes you feel uncomfortable, think how the person being discriminated against feels.

Via She’s Such a Geek! Blog.


Silent Hill Movie

Silent Hill MovieYou would think that a movie that has women as the main protagonists would be a progressive step forward in terms of the portrayal of women in film. With Silent Hill, you would be wrong.

I went into the movie with the skepticism of a fan who has seen many of her favourite video games (not to mention books) ripped to shreds when they reach the big screen. I had heard that the movie was pretty good, and I was cautiously optimistic over the female protagonist who didn’t seem to fit the “sexy woman who kicks ass” paradigm that seems to have become a requirement for female heroes. I was even more interested when it was shown that the other protagonist would be a cop who, it seemed, just happened to be female.

Despite the lack of the lead pipe (I know, how could someone say they were being true to the series and not give the lead pipe some airtime??), I remained cautiously optimistic as the storyline got going. The cinematography was excellent. It was fun to recognize the monsters populating the town. The plot was both close enough and far enough from Silent Hill 1 to bug me a bit, but I never got the chance to play through all of the game so I could take it.

But, then, near the middle I started getting a sinking feeling in my stomach when I saw the themes that were emerging. By the end of the movie I wanted to throw something at the screen. Spoilers and mild rape triggers follow! Continue reading


Self-transformation and the challenges of unpacking privilege

[Hi everyone, I’m Jen/Arielladrake. Tekanji has kindly invited me to guest-blog here for a while. I’m a mixed race (Asian/white) Australian, bisexual cisgendered woman who lives and goes to university in Queensland. I’m a sociology/politics/applied ethics major with a bent towards gender studies. I have a personal/political blog on Livejournal, which can be found here.]

Something that comes up often in discussions about challenging privilege is this idea that asking someone to check their privilege is akin to expecting them to engage in some kind of Maoist form of self-criticism. This analogy almost always gets my back up for a few reasons. Some of these are quite personal, and I don’t really wish to go into them here, but aside from that, it’s about the fact that such reactions tend to betray a misunderstanding of the nature of the state, and a failure to acknowledge the particular coercive powers of the state; coercive power that non-state parties generally don’t have. However, this misunderstanding, whilst one reason for my frustration, isn’t the whole story either. Continue reading


The War on Non-Christians' Newest Soldier: Spam

So, December is right around the corner and it seems like it’s that time again. Yes, time for the fundamentalist Christians who are hell bent on giving all Christians a bad name, interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom for my religion only“, and in general asserting their Christian privilege in an attempt to oppress non-Christians.

In the past two days, I’ve gotten two pieces of near-identical spam hawking the same product.

Here’s the first one:

A new comment on the post #93 “The War Against Non-Christians” is waiting for your approval
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-12-20_93

Author : Bruce (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx] URI : [don’t want to accidently advertise for them] Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Speaking of the war on Christmas, Best Buy has just dug their heels in and returned to the trenches by banning the greeting, “Merry Christmas” from their advertising campaign this Christmas.

I’ve been fighting back with this song (feel free to use it in your campaign if you like it):[cut because I’m not actually endorsing the spamming]

Here’s the second one:

A new comment on the post #186 “When will I get arrested for “driving while atheist”?” is waiting for your approval
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-26_186

Author : Dr BLT (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx] URI : [don’t want to accidently advertise for them] Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Thanks for keeping the spirit of Christmas alive. Believe it or not, blogs like these empower soldiers fighting for Christmas. I’ve been fighting on the Best Buy front on the war on Christmas with an original song that seems to be generating lots of interest.

As you may know, Best Buy banned the use of “Merry Christmas” in their ads this year. It caused me to wonder what kind of an Inn Best Buy would be if it were an Inn, and not a department store, back in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. That thought gave birth to this song: [cut because I’m not actually endorsing the spamming]

I’m very glad to hear that my efforts to expose the “War on Christmas” as the oppressive, anti-freedom of religion BS that it actually is “empower[s] soldiers fighting for Christmas”. Onward Christian soldiers! Fight against those fundamentalists besmirching your good name! Fight for inclusive language such as “Happy Holidays” that acknowledges that not everyone is a Christian, nor does everyone celebrate Christmas! Go, fight, win!


Sex does not determine racial identity

You know what’s sexist? White guys who see Asian women as exotic sex objects, something they can use in their porn-based fantasies about “sideways” vaginas. Why? Because everything about me is obscured by my sexual utility for them – they are attempting to define my identity through their penis.

You know what’s also sexist? Asian guys who think that Asian women aren’t “Asian” enough if they don’t exclusively date Asian men. Why? Because once again my identity is being defined by a man’s penis.

Take a look at this post by Jenn at Reappropriate, where she criticizes a new webcomic called Single Asian Female. While she mentions the good points about the comic (mostly its good art style), she worries that it attempts to portray the Asian-American women (AAW) experience as centering primarily on sexuality: white guys who try to date them, and the Asian-American men whom they should be dating.

Lo and behold, one of the first comments attempts to discredit Jenn’s perspective through – you guessed it – bringing up her sexuality.

(And again.)

Another comment attacks Jenn for criticizing AAMs – it’s the “What About the Mens?” Phallusy, except in a racialized version. These instances are harder to recognize than most examples of non-racialized (read: white) male privilege, because it’s true that AAMs do face oppression as well. All men of color experience a male privilege that is intertwined with, and undermined by, racial oppression – AAMs in particular are often viewed as feminine and therefore not even ‘male’. They face racism based on both the challenge that their skin color presents to white people in general, and the challenge they present to white men in particular.

However, this fact should not be used to re-direct their animosity toward AAWs, or to obscure the ways in which AAWs face both racism and sexism – and yes, that includes sexism from AAMs. Imposing a ‘duty’ upon AAWs to date AAMs, and criticizing those who don’t, is belittling and disempowering. It minimizes the contributions of AAWs to anti-racist efforts (have these people even read Jenn’s insightful blog?), reducing the importance of AAWs to their bodies and sexuality – to what they do for AAMs. It also treats racial identity and solidarity as something tied to sex – specifically, who the women of color have sex with – instead of theory and activism.

It also reproduces the attitude that caused problems for women of color in the 1970s during the U.S. civil rights movement, when men of color excluded them from political activity and reduced their contributions to producing babies for the sake of the race.

Look. I don’t hold with the fringe view that women can only be feminists if they’re lesbians, as if having sex with other women was the only way to be in solidarity with them. This is because women can have meaningful and supportive relationships with people that aren’t characterized by what goes into their vaginas. Asian-American women can also have meaningful and supportive relationships with people – like AAMs – without having sex with them.

They can also have sex with non-Asian men without being “sell-out AF trash”, because for the love of all that’s holy, a woman’s personhood is not defined by her vagina.

I am not defined by my body, or what goes into it. I am defined by my mind, and what I choose to do with it. I can have meaningful and supportive relationships with people, I can be an anti-oppression theorist, and I can be an anti-oppression activist. And none of that hinges on whether or not I sleep with someone of this or that gender or race.

Get it? What I do, who I am, and what I believe are not determined by whom I choose to fuck.

Oh, wait – that would be who fucks me, because clearly these perspectives treat women as passive sexual receptacles that can only have sex happen to them.

Stop exerting male privilege over me to make yourselves feel more important. Just stop. I don’t care if you’ve got layers of privilege coming out your ass and this is just one more way for you to oppress people; I don’t care if you’re disadvantaged because of your color or class or whatever, and penis-privilege is all you’ve got. You do not have the right to lift yourself up by taking advantage of the power society gives you over me.

I have the right to define my identity in the way that I want. That means who I date, but that’s just a tiny part of it. It also means: who my important relationships are with, how I spend my time, what I learn, how I challenge the power structures around me.

I also have the responsibility to be aware of how my choices about my romantic relationships – among all the millions of other important choices in my life – affect me. That means negotiating the power dynamic of dating someone who holds privilege that I don’t, whether that’s white privilege or gender privilege – or someone who lacks privilege that I have, due to my class or ability. This is not even considering the everyday difficulties of having an intimate relationship, based on the fact that people are complex and inevitably conflict with those who are close to them.

What all this doesn’t mean is doling out my sexuality based on the color of a man’s penis. Or lack of penis. Or anything else.

I am not defined based on which men do what to me. I am defined based on my mind, not random parts of my body. My body is not the important part of me and my activism. MY VAGINA DOES NOT CONTAIN A MAGIC WELLSPRING OF POLITICAL SOLIDARITY, THANK YOU.


Kenji Yoshino: Who wants to be a stereotype?

When discussing what he calls “covering” (the pressure to assimilate into the privileged “default” ways of acting, thinking, etc), the Harvard law professor and queer theorist Kenji Yoshino makes this observation:

Who wants to be a stereotype? Who wants to live in a box? But, of course, right, I mean if we just live our lives inverting stereotypes about our group, we’re just as controlled by those stereotypes as a photograph is controlled by its negative. Right? If we just reverse every single term of the stereotype then we’re just as controlled by the stereotype.

Hear the entire lecture over at blackfeminism.org.


A Deeper Look at "Minority Spaces"

So, a while back I got an e-mail from a reader about my Nice Guy list. Finding it interesting, I decided to make it the subject of a post. That was, as I said, a while ago. I am nothing if not a procrastinator.

Anyway, the e-mail (reprinted with permission) is as follows:

Hi,

I read the article “How To Be A Real Nice Guy” and most of the comments to it last night, and I am somewhat confused by what is really a core premise of the article that isn’t fully articulated, namely what exactly you are saying qualifies as a Minority Space. The definition given is “Minority spaces exist, whether they be safe-spaces, places where we can go to not have to focus on priviliged groups for once, or even exclusionary ones.” This leaves me with a number of questions. For example, is a blog on feminist issues by default a Minority Space by virtue of its subject matter being one of concern to the Minority rather than an issue that caters to the privileged group? Or would there need to be more specific and/or explicit criteria followed for it to constitute a Minority Space? Further confusing me is that certain parts of the article appear to treat the concept of entering a Minority Space interchangably with having a conversation with a member of a Minority.

There is in your article a strong emphasis on the idea that members of a Majority who are in a Minority Space should listen and learn (without requiring active teaching) and refrain from actively participating, and in particular, to be extremely cautious when comparing the experiences of that Minority group to their own as a member of another Minority group and not to compare said experiences at all to the experience of the Majority. I certainly agree that members of a Minority should be free to construct such a space if that is their wish, and there are certain spaces that could be assumed by their very function to be, unless otherwise noted, a Minority Space of this type (eg a rape survivor peer counselling group). But a broad definition of Minority Space that encompasses any space where members of the Minority engage in discussion about issues of concern to their Minority, combined with all members of the Majority who participate following your suggestions (a perhaps unlikely hypothetical) would largely preclude direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority on those subjects, which would be an unfortunate result.

(Of course, it could be that what I see as the inherent benefits of direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority- that the insights of all parties, both as individual thinkers and as people with the respective experiences of being part of the Minority and the Majority, will together allow understanding that would not have been possible otherwise- is a viewpoint derived from my position of privilege, and that such discussion is not actually beneficial to the Minority. Nevertheless, I believe that such benefits do exist.)

Nicolas

So, first, the simple answer: a “minority space” is a space created by minority groups, for minority groups. It may allow privileged groups to listen to or participate in discussion, and it may not. It differs from a “privileged space” in that its exclusionary nature is not designed to uphold established power structures (as with gentlemen’s clubs and the like), but rather to provide a safe environment for minority groups to discuss issues that are not able to get airtime in “default” spaces due to those spaces being primarily focused on so-called “real” issues which too often amount to issues that the privileged group cares about.

The longer answer to Nicolas’ questions will be behind the cut.

I. Is it a “Minority Space” or Not?

For example, is a blog on feminist issues by default a Minority Space by virtue of its subject matter being one of concern to the Minority rather than an issue that caters to the privileged group? Or would there need to be more specific and/or explicit criteria followed for it to constitute a Minority Space? Further confusing me is that certain parts of the article appear to treat the concept of entering a Minority Space interchangably with having a conversation with a member of a Minority.

Whether or not a space is a “minority space” is a question that can only be decided by the membership and/or proprietors of said space. It also can vary depending on the subject matter — this blog is primarily a minority space, but we’re one that welcomes all voices that follow the discussion rules, and there are a few posts that specifically address and invite the participation of privileged groups (such as the “Nice Guy” list).

I should also point out that, while I tend to conflate “minority spaces” with “safe spaces” in my “Nice Guy” post, they aren’t the same things. A “safe space” is one that has strict rules of support, many of which I have drawn on for my guidelines to approaching a minority space, and is, in general, not a debate space — not even for the minority members of that community. Minority spaces that are debate spaces can open the floor to discussion of privileged issues with minority groups and spaces. These spaces will sometimes invite privileged people to engage in the discussions in the hopes of fostering dialogue.

In general, though, I’m going to say that I think it’s best to treat any space populated primarily or wholly by a minority group as a safe space, unless specifically told to do otherwise. Even then, I’d say it would be a good idea to follow some of the same guidelines of a minority space even when it’s a minority issue in a default space. Sort of a it’s better to err on the side of politeness than on the side of rudeness kind of thing.

On that note, that idea — of treating conversations about minority issues as if they are taking place in a minority space — may be one reason that I seem to interchange the idea of a minority space with conversations about minorities/with minority individuals. While the two are not exactly the same, I believe that the fundamentals of a privileged person entering a minority space with respect and willingness to listen are the same fundamentals that are required when dealing with a minority individual as well.

II. Privileged Participation in Minority Issues

But a broad definition of Minority Space that encompasses any space where members of the Minority engage in discussion about issues of concern to their Minority, combined with all members of the Majority who participate following your suggestions (a perhaps unlikely hypothetical) would largely preclude direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority on those subjects, which would be an unfortunate result.

The role of a privileged person in a minority discussion is not one that is easy to define. The reason I emphasise the “listening instead of talking” and not trying to always compare a privileged situation to that of a minority problem in my list is because, more often than not, talking instead of listening and bringing up how an issue does/does not affect their group are methods used by privileged people that, by their nature, shut down discussion.

This doesn’t mean that one can never have a discussion about a minority that one isn’t part of. If that were the case, then I would have broken that rule on more than one occassion — I occassionally like to stick my nose in racial issues and I assure you that, despite being an Ashkenazi Jew (which in some places really is an ethnic minority), I am as lilly-white as they come and steeped deeply in my own privilege. But, at the same time, I’ve been doing this long enough to know when to keep my mouth shut and when to add my voice to the issue — and when I screw up (and we all screw up sometimes) and get called on it, I don’t argue but rather try to understand why I got called out so as to not repeat it in the future.

So, when have you learned enough that you can start speaking about minority issues without raising the ire of minority groups every time? I really don’t know. I think a big part of it is when being asked to check your privilege isn’t immediately answered with a defensive reply — “it’s not that I’m privileged, it’s that I disagree!” (the two aren’t mutually exclusive; in fact, I’d rather say that the privileged response necessitates disagreement, though not the other way around).

As for the rest… well, in terms of the way I do it, it’s all about carefully thinking about why I’m posting on the issue, what I hope to accomplish (which, in my case, has always been to show solidarity on the issue and, more importantly, to try to educate other people of my privileged class), and then check and re-check to make sure that I haven’t said anything offensive. If I do and get called on it, I apologize and take note of it for the next time.

In shorter terms, I look as myself as guest when I discuss their issues. I am not the one in charge, I am not the authority; I am a guest in their territory and therefore I need to treat them — and discussions that involve them — with the same respect I would someone who opened their home to me.

III. Conclusion

All in all, I have to say that “minority space” is a flawed term that doesn’t begin to define the complexity of privileged/minority interactions. Not only that, but not everyone will have the same exact definition of a minority space, nor the guidelines for interacting within that space, or even with a minority individual. Especially with the latter, because, being individuals, one person’s preferred interaction will differ from another’s.

Still, I use the term as a generalization in order to make clear my even more general point about privilege. Flawed as it is, I don’t think it’s altogether a bad set of guidelines for beginners interacting with groups that they are not a part of. The definitions that I use for minority spaces are used because I think that they offer solutions for some of the common problems that plague privileged/minority interactions (therefore shutting down any meaningful dialgoue) and will open up a path to greater understanding of the dynamics that govern our lives. In turn, that theoretically opens the way for discussion and, ideally, solutions to these problems.


Sexist Language [Red-blooded American Sexist, Part 3]

For those just tuning in, this is Part 3 of my series on a small blurb that Joseph Lisner wrote for Wizard’s “How to Draw” series (found here [JPG]).

The language Lisner uses throughout the blurb Others, dehumanizes, and ultimately objectifies the women that he’s talking about — both drawn and real. The chart below compares the language he uses to describe women versus the language he uses to describe men. In terms of variation of terms it was equal (4 on 4), but the distribution of those terms reinforces the general message being sent in the blurb — men as people, women as objects.

Term # of Uses Term # of Uses
Women 2 Men 4
Female 4 Male 1
Girls 1 Guy 2
Ladies 1 Gentlemen 1

Lisner uses “female” the most to describe women and “men” the most to describe men. In fact, the one use of “male” is a correct usage of the term, while most of the way he uses “female” are inappropriate outside of a nature documentary or science lab. Before I get into the nitty gritty, however, let me first explain the differences between “female”/”male” and “woman”/”man”.

I. Adjectives Versus Nouns

“Male”/”female” are most commonly used as adjectives used to list characteristics or otherwise modify nouns. In the former case, since the nouns being modified are inherently gender neutral, it can be useful to specify a gender if one wants to address that section as a whole. Some examples include “female gamer,” “male doctor,” “female teacher”, and “male artist”. There are also times when the noun is implied, rather than stated. When you say, “I am female,” you are stating a characteristic like saying, “I am tall.”

These terms can be used as nouns, but this is typically confined to scientific settings. In nature documentaries, for example, you will see this employed to talk about the animals (“the male sleeps peacefully,” or “the female leads her pack on the hunt”). For reasons I will get into below, however, this use of the term is, if not incorrect, then certainly sexist outside of a scientific setting.

The terms women, girls, men, boys are all nouns used to describe types of humans. You use them when you want to specifically address one kind of human: “Girls and boys go to school,” or “Let’s join that group of men over there.” Using nouns is the typical way to distinguish between genders.

II. Why It Matters

You wouldn’t typicaly say “I am a female,” (you are a female what? person? bat? fruitfly?) but rather “I am a woman,” and not just because it’s grammatically ambiguous. There’s a reason why, outside of a scientific arena, we don’t commonly refer to people as “the male” or “the female” — it’s dehumanizing. Because the most common usage of “female” and “male” are as adjectives, using them as nouns serves to remove the human element (ala. “the gay”, “the black”, “the transsexual”). With “male” and “female”, this is further reinforced by the setting we do see the words used as nouns in, which is to say in reference to animals.

III. The Terms In Action

Lisner illustrates this dehumanization process perfectly. Men, to him, are clearly people and so his most common reference to them is as “men” (or “guys”, which is also a noun). The one instance in which he uses male, he uses it as an adjective describing himself (“heterosexual male”).

Let’s contrast this to the way that he described women.

Anyone attracted to the female must ask themselves, “What turns me on? What about the opposite sex hits me like lightning and instantly shatters my self control?”

His language here is reminicent of a documentary, “The wild males of the flock are attracted to the female, but which one shall be her mate?” So, already, we have the animal connotations. It’s also important that the concept of woman is important here only in terms of facilitating men’s lust: “the female” is the vehicle in which men are turned on, important because some effusive quality of this concept of “the female” is so powerful that it “instantly shatters [men’s] self control.” The actual woman here is non-existent, and ultimately not important.

Many is the time I have been out with a girlfriend and some female would walk by and totally blow my mind.

Again, here we have the use of female as a noun. This is dehumanizing on two levels.

First, the use of “some”. We use “some person” to mark the information as unimportant (A: “Who was at the door?” B: “Oh, it was just some guy.”)– it wasn’t a person, it was some person. Not always, but often, its used with negative connotations: “Jeez, some guy just ran the red!” or “Some person’s cell phone went off in the middle of the movie!” or “Some woman was yelling so loud I could hear her in my room.” Writing this, I am also struck by the way that “some man” doesn’t seem natural to me. “Some boy,” sure. “Some guy,” okay. “Some dude,” even. But “some man” hasn’t, in my experience, been a phrase that has gotten a lot of play. I’m not entirely sure why.

Anyway, the second way that it’s dehumanizing is in the same way “the female” above is dehumanizing: it reduces the woman in question to an object of Lisner’s lust. He reinforces this opinion when, later on in the exchange, he excuses his rude behaviour (obviously checking out another woman while he’s out with his girlfriend) by implying that the woman he checked out had such an impressive breast/butt/pair of legs that he couldn’t help himself.

IV. Conclusion

You can argue with me over the technicality of the issue — “male” is listed as a noun to mean “man or boy” in the dictonary, just as “female” is listed as a noun to mean “woman or girl.” But definitions are only as good as their context; when the most common usage is to refer to animals and in the rare instances its used to refer to people it’s almost always “female” and used in a dehumanizing context, can you honestly say that calling a woman “a female” or “the female” or “some female” isn’t insulting? I personally don’t think so, and I’m not the only woman who feels the same way.