At this point in history there’s been a billion songs from female singers about relationships. Nearly every song revolves around that topic.
Where are the songs like:
Blue Öyster Cult - Don’t Fear The Reaper
The Charlie Daniels Band - The Devil Went Down to Georgia
Even great songs like Rhiannon by Fleetwood Mac though about a witch is still about a witch & unrequited love.
One reason why I like Trip Hop is because there’s some great female voices but the lyrics aren’t always themed towards relationships. I suspect though that many of those songs are written by the guys in the band.
Everything I have stated above about female singers applies to female comedians too. They primarily joke about relationship stuff. There are no female Mitch Hedbergs joking about silly shit.
I just want to hear Shakira or Jewel or Norah Jones sing a song about mudwrestling Satan in a dive bar in 1970s Louisiana. Ladies, where is your imagination?
For future reference:
Male/female is chiefly used to refer to biological contexts. “Female spiders in some species tend to devour their male mates” is a perfectly acceptable description.
Men/women is chiefly used to refer to human-centric sociological contexts. “Women in technology roles face hurdles that men in similar roles do not.” is also a perfectly reasonable description.
@SatanicNotMessianic @Deceptichum I think that’s somewhat fair, but linguistically “female” is an adjective and “women” is a noun. The noun in that sentence is “singer” and female is a classifying adjective.
The original post IS stupid and has sexist overtones, but I don’t think they come from word choice.
I think I’m going to have to disagree on the basis of such usages as “women singers/songwriters.”
The differentiation is socio-linguistic, because “female” is often used in a dehumanizing context in English. Sociology-linguistically, it’s similar to referring to “blacks” as opposed to “black Americans” or “deafs” as opposed to “deaf people.” The problem is specifically substituting a noun that historically been used to dehumanize the people to which it refers, because it is exclusionary of the “default” status (male, white, hearing).
I am on the side of the linguists who take a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach to the analysis of language, but part of being a descriptivist is recognizing the subtext potentially if subconsciously involved.
@SatanicNotMessianic can’t say any of that is wrong or unreasonable, but I still do find the expressed intent of the post more misogynistic than the use of the word female in context.