The Feminization of Language?

Begun on February 7, at 4:38 P.M.

This criticism has been made that people now say, "I feel," instead of, "I think," when expressing their opinion. Feel has become a synonym for think, while retaining its original meaning (experiencing an emotion). The point may have even been made in my philosophy program, of all places. I recall the complaint being made by someone older... was it the department chair, during one of our teaching seminars? Was this change concomitant with the admission of women into higher education and their attaining of positions within academia? Or is it more a result of Uhmerican mass media, especially those in broadcast news and others charged with providing commentary,  hiring people not on the basis of the sharpness of intellect?

It may be that this usage does not reflect a difference in understanding, but just laziness and the lack of definitions. Or just unthinking habits that have been passed down -- people don't learn the meanings of words before using them, they use them almost haphazardly, following the example of others and how they speak. A linguist could even interpret it as an even softer (or more severe?) form of verbal hedging than beginning every statement with "I think."

I note that "feel" can refer both to feelings/emotions but also to sense perception, in particular the sense of touch. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, feel was first used with reference to sense perception. I think many are ignorant of the distinction between intellect and sense, but it is unclear to me whether this contributes to people using "feel" for "think."

It is the case that in the young and the immature, emotions dominate reason/thinking. With this new usage are we seeing that this is true not just of moral agency and moral reasoning, but of our understanding of our behavior and how we explain it?

I have heard both men and women make this error both on television and on talk radio. (I say it is an error because as far as I can tell, "feel" has not been redefined in this new usage to include the use of reason. It is still tied to the senses or the passions. Nonetheless, I ask the question, "Who is more prone to accepting this, men or women?" Which resonates more with women, feeling or thinking? With which do they identify more? I would argue that women are more prone to making this error to men. Female sympathy can be broadly understood to encompass both the act of perception and the feeling that follows from it. If we just consider women's so-called "emotional" intelligence, I believe that we can observe it in both feminine virtue (the care for others) and feminine vice (e.g., the employment of language to hurt others, or emotional abuse).A woman's strong verbal ability and her sensitivity (over-sensitivity in too many cases), coupled with her empathy to others does help us to understand her role in family and society. Communication skills may be improved in so far as a woman can understand what someone is feeling through their body language and so on. (But this does not suffice to solve their problems in communication with men, about which feminists and shrews and nags often complain.)


One woman even claims that empathy (and concern for others) is that which separates human beings from animals. Even if women are quick to believing this (especially if they believe that women are morally superior to men by their very nature), it is also a common belief in science fiction, for example, the division between emotion and logic in Star Trek and V. (Do we see this occurring in earlier sci-fi novels, when men dominated science fiction writing?  There were some women who wrote episodes for the original Star Trek, but I don't know if they contributed to the making of emotion superior to logic, or if this was part of Gene Roddenberry's conception.) But those of us who have learned from a master recognize that it is rationality which distinguishes human beings from other animals (and rationality can be broadly understood as encompassing all that pertains to rationality, including rational love, which is not the same as empathy, something even higher animals feel).

The error in self-understanding is serious enough, particularly when it is linked to some form of reductionistic ideology that holds that we are really no different from other animals, just a little bit "higher," if that is the apt or "scientifically" correct way to compare us with them. It can only get worse if emotion is a marker of female identity and feminism and a basis for claiming women are morally superior to men by their very nature. It can then become symbolic of the dominance of women in "public" and "semi-public" discourse involving men. By itself it may not be oppressive, but in a PC culture and with the cooperation of women in positions of power (or the HR office), it can be a way to stifle criticisms of the new egalitarian (dis)order.


Many call for the return of male teachers to public (or private) schools, especially at the primary level. But can if there aren't enough for the men to congregate, could they handle socializing with modern Uhmerican women? (Or just women in general?) If the staff lounge is dominated by female conversations, I could understand why men would go somewhere else.



Postscript:
Randy Jackson, during an episode of this season's American Idol (during the first set of eliminations), told one of the aspiring pop stars, "Feel, not think." Does this represent the ascendancy of emotion in music (in particular modern pop music)? The Romantic era hasn't left us yet. Singers are told to find their own "unique voice" while being expressive, showing what they feel and believe. Emotion propels their drive to become a star and it is also their identity.