Eggcorn Forum

Discussions about eggcorns and related topics

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Registrations are currently closed because of a technical problem. Please send email to if you wish to register.

The forum administrator reserves the right to request users to plausibly demonstrate that they are real people with an interest in the topic of eggcorns. Otherwise they may be removed with no further justification. Likewise, accounts that have not been used for posting may be removed.

Thanks for your understanding.

Chris -- 2018-04-11

#1 2008-02-21 11:01:28

nilep
Eggcornista
Registered: 2007-03-21
Posts: 291

"Male species"

This morning on Morning Edition, the National Public Radio morning magazine program, Susan Stamberg paraphrased script supervisor Steve Gehrke: ”[H]e’d like to think that the male species is also capable of doing the job well.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=19201451

[Script supervisors were at one time called “script girls” because they have historically tended to be women.]

This co-location, “the male species” is obviously a reshaping of the cliche “the male of the species.” I don’t think it is an eggcorn – the reshaping is not semantically clearer; indeed, the elided bits are not obscure in the least. Rather, it is a simplification, omitting two “grammatical” words (i.e. words that add syntactic rather than referential meaning).

In so doing, however, the meaning of the phrases changes in what, to me, is an extremely annoying and even potentially mystifying way.

“The male of the species,” meaning “men,” is a slightly humorous appropriation of the language of biology or physical anthropology. It suggests that humans as a species are under empirical study, and makes sex-difference talk sound slightly pompous, and therefore humorous.

“The male species” seemingly makes the same joke, but by leaving out the part/whole division expressed by “of” it suggests that males are a species separate from homo sapiens.

The suggestion that males are somehow different from (regular?) humans is in keeping with the common belief that men and women are different in every way. That belief, however, is not without its problems. We could, in fact, say that men are women are alike in almost every respect, except for sex differences (chromosomes, genitalia; scholars such as Judith Butler suggest that even those differences are less categorical than we habitually think).

Therefore, “the male species” is a reshaping with ideological and political ramifications.

Offline

 

#2 2008-02-23 11:08:29

jorkel
Eggcornista
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1456

Re: "Male species"

Interesting find even if it isn’t an eggcorn. I had a few thoughts…
First, although “species” has a strict biological meaning that would make “male species” ludicrous, the word “species” is sometimes used more broadly to refer to a class of individuals.

But having said that, I can see the reshaping “male species” (with “of the” removed) as being very trendy among an urban chic who are critical of stereotypical behavior of the opposite sex and see “species” as a condescending way to trivialize a group by relegating it to an animal distinction. The category “male species” begs the question whether the utterer would ever refer to females as “female species” (or vice versa for a male utterer). That would determine whether “male species” is being used to distinguish the group from females or homo sapiens in general (as you suggested).

I would just conclude by saying that I wouldn’t be too concerned about its ramifications. Some people think along such lines, and some don’t. The language isn’t creating a new subculture of beliefs; the subculture has long existed, and language is simply being tailored to their needs—whether it be self-validation, self-defense or whatever.

Finally, on the biological front… there have been scientific discussions on the evolution of the X and Y chromosomes on the basis of mate selection over the eons, and, for instance, some say the Y chromosome is vanishing. I seem to recall a discussion along those lines in Matt Ridley’s book Genome, and I simply can’t do justice to the logic from memory, but I seem to remember that the politics of mate selection is involved.

Last edited by jorkel (2008-02-23 11:38:55)

Offline

 

#3 2008-02-28 22:32:32

Fishbait2
Eggcornista
From: Brookline, MA
Registered: 2006-10-08
Posts: 80
Website

Re: "Male species"

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Female of the Species WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Offline

 

#4 2008-03-12 16:05:17

nilep
Eggcornista
Registered: 2007-03-21
Posts: 291

Re: "Male species"

I think that both “male of the species” and “female of the species” allude to Kipling – though the source of the allusion is probably lost on most contemporary speakers, so that it has become merely a cliche or stock-phrase. The c. 1996 pop song “Female of the Species (Is More Deadly Than the Male)”, for instance, is a clear allusion to Kipling.

As to whether people use the male/female varieties with equal frequency, I searched Lexis/Nexis Academic for newspapers, magazines, journals, and trade publications prior to 1 January 1996 (to avoid references to the song – though as you can see below, I still netted several titles).

Unfortunately, I discovered that the Lexis/Nexis “exact phrase” search does not actually search for exact phrases – go figure. Searches for “female of the species” and for “female species” return the self-same set of results. Nonetheless, the searches did allow me to determine the number of news publications in the Lexis Nexis database using some variant of “female (of the) species” versus “male (of the) species.” In addition, I randomly selected 40 articles from each set and analyzed those articles in more detail.

There are 689 occurrences of “female of the species” and variants, to 901 occurrences of “male of the species” and variants.

Of forty articles consulted, 25 (62.5%) contain the phrase “female of the species,” while four (10.0%) contain “the female species.” Twenty-eight of forty articles (70.0%) contain the phrase “male of the species,” and five (12.5%) contain “the male species.” (The numbers do not total 100% because some articles contain other phrases, such as “female of this species” etc.) So in terms of raw counts, the numbers are fairly similar.

I then studied the articles in more detail, for the obsessive.

Of the 80 articles total, ten include proper names, including Kipling’s poem, a novel called “The Male of the Species,” and a novel called “The Female of the Species.” If nothing else, this shows that both cliches are current.

Of the remaining 70 articles (33 “female” and 37 “male”), 19 (11 containing “female”, 7 “male”) refer either to non-human animals or to biological species generally (as in, “In nature, the power to choose a mate… is usually bestowed on the female of the species.”), while 51 (21 “female”, 30 “male”) refer to humans, the latter usually in a jocular tone. Only one of the 70 articles uses species in the more general sense of variety or kind to refer to a non-animate object: “When he started, the term ‘salon’ was reserved for the ‘female species’.”

Thus, the jocular usage, in which “female/male (of the) species” is used as a replacement for “women” or “men” is more than twice as common as more literal usages, either biological or general.

An additional finding is that jocular uses of “male (of the) species” make up a larger percentage of total occurrences than do jocular uses of “female (of the) species”.

Since this is already perhaps too long for a forum posting, I will leave discussion and conclusions as an exercise for the reader.

BUT – I will add one more comment. As to whether, “The language isn’t creating a new subculture of beliefs,” questions of linguistic relativity remain controversial, with many scholars accepting the so-called “weak version Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis

Offline

 

#5 2008-03-12 17:03:08

jorkel
Eggcornista
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1456

Re: "Male species"

nilep writes:

BUT – I will add one more comment. As to whether, “The language isn’t creating a new subculture of beliefs,” questions of linguistic relativity remain controversial, with many scholars accepting the so-called “weak version Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis

I’m certainly not disputing that point; In fact, It may possess a valid mechanism.
However, what I am saying is that a certain amount of “churning” occurs with language with no significant drift in subculture. Within a fixed world view, old terminology may get replaced with new terminology; A new generation within a subculture may simply be replacing the language labels of a previous generation without inventing any new ideas. I suspect that’s all that is going on here.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
PunBB is © 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson
Individual posters retain the copyright to their posts.

RSS feeds: active topicsall new posts