Jump to content

Talk:Feminine (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feminine is not a synonym for female

[edit]

There was some controversy about this at masculine (see Talk:masculine). So I'll quote the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED1) here up front to avoid that this time. The OED1 (1900) gives 6 definitions of feminine. The very first usage it provides is feminine as female (the last is as a grammatical category).

  • 1. Of persons or animals: Belonging to the female sex ; female. Now rare.

Note that it was rare 100 years ago, the most recent usages then were:

b. humorously.

Of the adjective used substantively OED1 says,

  • c. A person, rarely an animal, that is feminine; a female, a woman. Now only humorously.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

[edit]

The other definitions are:

  • 2. In same sense [as 1 above], of objects to which sex is attributed, or which have feminine names, esp. one of the heavenly bodies.
  • 3. Of or pertaining to a woman, or to women; consisting of women; carried on by women.
  • 4. Characteristic of, peculiar or proper to women; womanlike, womanly.
  • 5. Depreciatively: Womanish, effeminate. ? Obs.
  • 6. Gram. Of the gender to which appellations of females belong. Of a termination: Proper to this gender, Of a connected sentence: Consisting of words of this gender.

The second definition is not described as rare. In other words, describing Venus or other heavenly bodies as feminine was still common usage in 1900. The OED1 considered such usage to be like attributing sex to things that have no intrinsic sex. I imagine this is much less common now (though I don't have sources), since gender-neutral language prescribes removal of such categorizations wherever possible (and Wiki endorses much of this).

Interestingly, feminine has an explicitly negative usage (typically when applied to men), however OED1 notes this was already obsolete in 1900. One way or another, definitions 1, 2 and 5 are not required at this disambiguation page. The grammatical definition is common, but technical and derivative, so requires disambiguation, but is not the usual meaning.

The distinction between definitions 4 and 5 is subtle: 4. refers to things "surrounding" women, where 5. refers to things "inherent to" women. Additionally, implicit to the definition is that female animals (and objects) have been excluded, being treated in the earlier definitions. These definitions (4 and 5) provide us with normal usage in English, and the distinction between them is too subtle to be dealt with by disambiguation.

I am editing the page accordingly. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage guidelines

WP:DAB#What not to include

[edit]

Sorry you put so much work into this, but it's not what disambig pages are for. -Yamara ✉ 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB#Usage guidelines - "Do not pipe disambiguation links." This is one of those rules that emphasize the only use of disambig pages: Helping people find what they are looking for. Disambigs are not articles, and need to reveal what they have so readers can move on. This results in troublesome efforts to achieve pleasant syntax, and it looks ugly, but it is what's done, and the rest of WikiProject Disambiguation will enforce this with a certain mercilessness. This I know from grim experience. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

No problem, nothing is ever lost from the edit history. I'm happy for the info to stand on the talk page anyway. Here, it backs the positivity of the usage, the inappropriateness of the broader description female, and the direction of the antonyms.

"Characteristic of, peculiar or proper to women; womanlike, womanly."

Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition (1900): p. 152.

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find insufficient evidence for "positivity" to be a definitional constant or norm. Edwardian definitions are very chancy, as both the old OED and the 1911 Britannica are full of period perspectives that are no longer current. The 1979 Collegiate AHD (pg. 483) states "feminine and female are essentially classifying terms", with feminine's main definition being "Of or belonging to the female sex. Said especially of members of the human species." The AHD details the synonyms, (which I will not retype in full for WP:COPYVIO reasons) but did not present or detail a review of the AHD Usage Panel, which means that the contributors and editors had no disagreement with the neutrality of the term. In any case, disambig pages themselves are not dictionary definitions, as readers are not looking for definitions but articles, and therefore with WP:NPOV the simplest and most neutral description must pertain. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I find you have been making edits that are unsupported by Wiki policy or any sources. This includes removing sourced and relevant information. Your edits are in line with a documented POV, which however does not actually apply to the usage of the words concerned. This could constitute evidence of bad faith and POV pushing, and could constitute an expression of a broader systematic bias.

The more comprehensive and recent AHD 2000 does not apply feminine to exclusively sexual characterisation among its several definitions. On the evidence to hand, such usage was already obsolete by 1900. On the other hand, the word qualities (not neutral features or aspects) is found in almost all contemporary dictionaries, in both the definitions of masculine and feminine. It is normally the default or first definition listed. OED makes explicit what other other definitions do not. We know what it says, it is sourced, pertinent and accords with contemporary usage with which readers will be familiar.

You need to supply a source that specifies neutral use, permits negative use, or explains an evolution of the meaning. The positive use is documented explicitly in the Oxford and implied by the short definition available in manual editions of many publishers. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to "positive" in any of these. There are references to "characteristic of" or "appropriate" and other such language, but such a presumptive definition is far outside the scope of a disambiguation page, and even in an article, in each instance a source's POV would have to be cited carefully to maintain NPOV. Asserting "feminine" as "positive" seems to be a personal POV , and while being positive about the genders may be a fine attitude in life, it is categorically a violation of the encyclopedia's policy of WP:NPOV.
Online Etymology Dictionary
reference.com
Encarta
AHD 4th edition (2000)
Wiktionary as of 20:50, 23 May 2008
Further reversions will be referred to WikiProject Disambiguation. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Online dictionary describes derivation of the word, and I'll take it's word that feminine arose as reference to female sex or grammatical gender. It doesn't provide much information about usage since 1851. Your other sources do not prove the point either. Reference.com, makes precisely the point I'm making.
Characteristic of is arguably neutral. Appropriate is positive. Do we need to find sources for the meaning of appropriate? Positive is actually a more simple and direct description than appropriate, and milder than the Oxford's description of masculine as "excellences". I see no presumption here, save in the presumption to obfuscate what is positive reference in the sources. It seems highly presumptuous to me to presume POVs in dictionaries, unless one subscribes to certain POVs of language usage, notably various feminist views. That is violation of NPOV policy which I also consider myself to be defending the Encyclopedia against. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverter v Poster

[edit]

Reverter's challenges

[edit]
Normally is an assertion not based on contemporary sources, and in other contexts constitutes wp:weasel words. Positive is not found in any contemporary sources, but is asserted by poster based on his interpretation of prewar sources. Appropriate is not a synonym of positive, the latter of which can imply certainty. Poster insists on emphasizing second and third definitions over a primary description, or a neutral inclusive description.
Poster is not following guidelines for WP:DICT and WP:DAB, despite having them explained. Poster insists his POV is the most neutral, and that he must "defend" against other neutral POVs, and is at this writing alone in defending his position.
Finally, poster's proofs tell against his position. Most notably:
  1. 1751: My sister ... the young ladies are hourly tormenting by every art of feminine persecution. — Samuel Johnson ←tells against positive aspect, from one of the most precise wordsmiths of his age
  2. 1835: There was something almost feminine in the tender deference with which he appeared to listen. — Edward Bulwer-Lytton ←not toward a female
  3. 1873: The most virile of poets cannot be adequately rendered in the most feminine of languages. — James Russell Lowell ←deprecatory comparison
The others of that set are by poets, rather than critics and cannot establish average modern notable use.
As my proofs, I primarily offer the AHD 1979 and 2000, where the definition of "feminine" has not appreciably changed. AHD 1979 in more depth reads: "Feminine and female are essentially classifying terms. Female, like male, merely categorizes by sex: the female population. Feminine can be used thus narrowly: the feminine lead in a drama. often, as the opposite of 'masculine,' it refers to things characteristic of women: feminine allure, feminine wiles."
The word "positive" is not used or implied, as allure and wiles are strikingly imprecise as to their degree of welcomeness or certainty.
The Usage Panel, which made active, modern judgments as to the contemporary meanings of the words in the AHD, include:
Cleveland Amory, Maya Angelou, William F. Buckley, Jr., Alastair Cooke, Ralph Ellison, Annie Dillard, Langston Hughes, Margaret Mead, David Ogilvy, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Theodore Sorensen, Isaac Asimov and dozens of others from all walks of life, academia, and political viewpoints.
Burden of proof remains on poster to show that the terms "normal" and "positive" are not aspects of his personal POV and original research.
WikiProject Disambiguation has been apprised of appropriate issues. Sincerely, Yamara ✉ 01:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster's responses

[edit]
  • Normally is the standard word used on DAB pages to flag a concept is the main usage (if there is any such main usage).
  • Positive is my "toned-down" version of the OED definition of the relevant usage of masculine. The entry has only been trivially edited over 100 years (I own OED1=NED, checked contemporary version at local library). "Excellences" has not been removed from the entry now current, nor have additional usages been added. Reverter has based reversion on presumption of change, which is OR. The word positive was supplied to the definition of feminine, mainly for the sake of simplicity and parallel. It is true that the OED provides less evidence of negative use of masculine (the few cases are references to women) than of feminine. However, that the OED presents feminine as chiefly refering to features considered "qualities" and "appropriate", i.e. positive features, is apparant from other dictionaries that often simply define feminine as "qualities appropriate to women or girls".
  • Both appropriate and positive have senses dependent on context. I have never claimed them to be synonymous, merely that appropriate says more than positive, hence implies it and so supports it. The word positive in the context of the definition is not ambiguous, a reading of certain does not scan.
  • Reverter insists on positing rare, obsolete, etymological or usages by transference as the main (or normal/usual) definition.
  • Reverter considers herself to be defending against POV and has not accepted that WP:DICT does not apply (the reverted text is palpably not a dict def), while insisting on removing sourced claim without gaining consensus for this.
  1. 1751: My sister ... the young ladies are hourly tormenting by every art of feminine persecution. — Samuel Johnson
I concede this is a negative usage, I do not concede it is normal, as the OED presentation, in context, makes clear.
All this shows is my neutrality, in that I've presented all relevent evidence impartially from a RS for the sake providing the most reliable definition.
  1. 1835: There was something almost feminine in the tender deference with which he appeared to listen. — Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Again, I concede this is not towards a woman, it is positive; it is a two-fold exception in the OED examples, where explicit comments in the text note feminine applied to men is normally negative reference.
  1. 1873: The most virile of poets cannot be adequately rendered in the most feminine of languages. — James Russell Lowell
The reverter reads her own POV into understanding this reference. In context Lowell was refering to Dante Alighieri and French. In a parallel sentence preceding the OED quote he says, "But the austerity of Dante will not condescend to the conventional elegance which makes the charm of French." It would appear virility parallels austerity and condescention, while conventional elegance and charm parallel feminine. So, again, I trust the Oxford editors above the reverting Wiki editor in interpreting the value of the example.

The burden of proof has always fallen on the reverter to demonstrate a case from reliable sources for a POV alternate to that of the OED and the many dictionaries that follow it. I appreciate the reliability of the AHD and its usage panel, and believe that the reverter has indeed made a case from this dictionary, and therefore accept the responsibility to demonstrate that the reverter has misinterpreted the AHD, or to conceed that there is indeed a reliable second POV.

Since this is a DAB page, not an article, we don't want two POVs. Some kind of harmonization would be required. I am currently checking to ensure the AHD does present the quoted information as the primary understanding of feminine (and respectively masculine). Alastair Haines (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary appears to follow other dictionaries and the Oxford after all.

1. Of or relating to women or girls. See synonyms at female. 2. Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman. 3. Effeminate; womanish. 4. Grammar Designating or belonging to the gender of words or grammatical forms that refer chiefly to females or to things classified as female.

— 'feminine', in American Heritage Dictionary]
  1. chiefly it refers to human beings not to the female sex indiscriminately.
  2. it speaks of qualities, not merely features or conditions
  3. it can be negative, when applied to men
  4. specialist grammatical use is derivative not primary

Hence I find that the reverter is indeed citing a reliable source, however, she is citing it contrary to its intention. As I suspected, not only is the OED reliable, it is detailed beyond most other sources, and provides the best evidence against my own reading, not simply for it. Of course, there is so much information in the Oxford, that unless examples are interpreted out of context, the points I have been making are clear, explaining why so many other dictionaries are confident to use the non-neutral term "qualities" rather than aspects, conditions, etc. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverter proposes compromise

[edit]
Poster still hasn't given a citation where the word "positive" is specifically and precisely used. All the elaboration above shows that the word must be interpreted as existing by poster, not specifically cited. Let me reiterate clearly: positive has a parallel primary meaning of certainty, which can be mistaken if the DAB continues to resemble a dictionary definition. Application of the word "normal" is also not seen in the modern definitions.
'Reverter' has no argument that the definitions of masculine are more generally positive (in both senses) than those of feminine, of which there is no consistency in reception. Therefore, I propose:
Poster's language:
Feminine normally refers to qualities positively associated with women or girls (see Femininity).
A near synonym is womanly; antonyms include unfeminine, unwomanly, manish and epicene.
Reverter's language:
Feminine refers to anything belonging to the female gender, especially femininity, the quality or condition of being feminine.
Proposed language:
Feminine can refer to elements associated with women or girls, especially qualities of femininity.
The construction "can refer" is typical of DAB pages, and implies the unexclusivity demonstrated in the examples; "especially" emphasizes the primary meaning, and places "qualities" in the context where they are best understood.
The Wiktionary link seems to make further elaboration either redundant (considered as part of the choices presented to readers of the DAB), or contradictory, if the information in the sister project does not match clearly.
Uncertain whether redirect is best for feminine as it is for masculine, see Talk:Masculine. -Yamara ✉ 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties support compromise

[edit]
Having started this discussion (or rather, the equivalent one at talk:masculine) I've had to absent myself from it due to an imposed wikibreak. I still won't have time for a few days at least to make any sort of detailed contribution (certainly not to the extent that has happened above!), but for what it's worth I'm happy to accept the compromise proposed by Yamara. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I have not had the time to contribute to this discussion - I am quite busy on and off wiki - but I think Yamara's suggestion is appropriate both in light of sources and site policy. I say this recognizing the hard and detailed work that Alastair has put into the masculine and feminine pages and in hope that he understands the position we 3 are taking on the issue - again apologies I have not been able to take part in this discussion--Cailil talk 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster rejects compromise

[edit]

(Poster titled this section)

quick post before going to work

Sorry people, but Yamara's suggestion is considerably more interpretative than the simple word positive. It is so hard for me to actually understand that I need to work out if it is even compatible with sources, let alone if it reflects them. Since no clear argument exists against my post. I see no need to change it as yet. However, I will think and see if I can at least agree that the proposal is in line with sources. If it is, it may simply need to be modified. Of course, finding a source that shows all other sources to be wrong, or the word positive to be incompatible with these would still be a step forward. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

considered response after work

Firstly, the issue appears to be whether the most common usage of masculine and feminine is in contexts of positive reference to the characters of men and women. I have posted this to the article, claiming it is backed by OED and all other dictionaries. Several others have challenged both the accuracy of the positive reference, and the interpretation of the sources claimed to back it. I make this out to be three issues.

  • Are masculine and feminine ever used as terms of positive reference?
  • Are these uses the most common usage (or the primary usage) of the words?
  • Are the answers supported by reliable sources?

Secondly, a number of tangential issues have floated around, one of which can be settled independently of the three questions above. Wikipedia policy helpfully notes that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Why? Both dictionaries and encyclopedias apply ideas to words, but with different purposes. Encyclopedias aim to provide articles on concepts, which simply happen to be indexed by words. Dictionaries, however, disambiguate meanings of words with a view to usage—so the reader can either understand it, or imitate it.

Two things follow. An encyclopedia article on Star does not help people understand the concept of a star by reproducing words that are used to refer to this idea. A dictionary need not be consulted, in fact, dictionary information on star can be removed as irrelevant, however reliable.

More subtly, disambiguation pages resemble dictionaries more closely, because both use similar methodology, but their purpose is different. The dictionary aims to provide comprehensive explanation of various usages, DAB pages leave that to the articles they point to. Additionally, DAB pages will not cover non-notable uses of a term, nor will they disambiguate nuances of usage irrelevant to identifying concepts.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor are its DAB pages. Does that mean we can never use dictionaries? Far from it. In many cases, especially with common abstract nouns, precise and concise definition of a concept is needed in the lead of an article, and dictionaries are reliable and NPOV sources worth consulting and sometimes quoting. Einstein's relativity would not benefit from this, Economics probably would.

DAB pages are one place that can frequently benefit from dictionary definitions, because they are typically precise, NPOV, short and sweet. Sadly, they are not always available. But even when they are, we want to paraphrase rather than quote them, since quotes import a distracting, "article like" verification aspect to the page, and can (and should) be covered in articles where necessary.

Where does this leave us? It leaves us free to consult dictionaries, along with other sources, to establish answers to our three questions above. It leaves us free to deviate in wording, though not in meaning, from what those sources say.Alastair Haines (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

specific responses

The current proposal is prompted by the observation that the poster has not cited a source using the specific term positive. A compromise proposal is offered by the reverter, which itself is phrased without the support of sources for its wording. In other words, it does not address its own expressed concern—it is wikt:disingenuous.

Happily, this is no obstacle to me, nor to anyone here who is happy with the Wiki policy of avoiding references, citations or quotes on DAB pages. This, from memory, is the view of almost everyone who has posted so far, including specifically the reverter. It doesn't matter whether we use the precise wording of dictionaries or other sources, in fact it is preferable that we don't. All that matters is that we reflect the meaning of these in a clear and concise fashion.

We can haggle away at wording without throwing out accusations that our precise terminology is not found in sources. However, we are not without any constraint. Whatever wording we end up using must reflect the meaning of the sources.

Two specific issues with the current proposed alternative are:

  • In line with other DAB pages, the default meaning needs to be stated as per Tuna (disambiguation) without qualification, with alternatives introduced by can or may. Alternatively normally, usually or some other modifier needs to flag the default, not can, as proposed.
  • While I like incorporating the link to Femininity being incorporated into the text, and like the sound of the expression qualities of femininity, this is circular and begs the question of the definition. Femininity is a collection of feminine qualities, not vice versa. The proposal assumes the ideology of gender feminism, where qualities of femininity are culturally defined gender roles, rather than qualities perceived by English speakers to be qualities of women as women.

Gender feminism may, in fact, be correct. But if it is, one of its points is the silliness of feminine mystique, one of its proofs for such a thing is lexis like feminine, and one of its successes is the reduced attestation of the use of words like feminine and femininity, which lose their usefulness, but not their meaning.

The sense of this is clear in a common phrase like macho BS, which is a negative assessment of the positive association some people give to certain forms of behaviour. Macho is a term of positive reference, where that positive reference is frequently considered negatively.

I'm very happy to change the wording of the short definitions of masculine and feminine. Theoretically, I'm happy to replace the word positive with another word, or a phrase that conveys the same sense—that these words typically refer to character, which is considered both good and sex-specific. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

[edit]

From the article femininity I cannot see that it should be the primary topic of this dab page ... other views would be welcomed. Abtract (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned here, there is no primary topic in the MOSDAB sense for either masculine or feminine. However, there is also no prohibition against including a brief definition of the common sense of the terms in the opening line. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current revision seems non ideal, since the text nowhere has the word Femininity, which editors have previously decided is the namespace suited to the main meaning. The word Femininity should appear somewhere on the page. Are there any objections to including the word Femininity? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminine_(disambiguation)&oldid=1245180247"