Why do they call actresses "actors" now???

[Manifestor_of_Light]

I do not understand it.

The Oscar does not go to "Best Actor with a Vagina".

:shrug: :shrug:

[RB TexLa]

1. There are male and female actors

I don't understand. Do you think there are Doctors and Doctorettes? Bartenders and bartendesses? :shrug: indeed

[USA_1]

47. There used to be!

Female doctor: doctress

female teacher: teachress


The words still exist but are now viewed as archaic.

[Maru Kitteh]

48. Those words are not viewed as archaic.

They are archaic.

[Odin2005]

2. the "-ess" ending is viewed as sexist is some circles.

[prairierose]

22. That is because it is...all feminine endings that have survived...

in English are diminutives. There is no male equivalent in the language.

[Igel]

40. Not true.

If you say "Latino" instead of "Latina", it's often an ugly scene.

Must not indicate a woman's sex linguistically.

Unless, of course, you can show sufficient ethnic awareness in so doing.

[treestar]

42. It would be harder in a language with genders

English does not have it built into the language the way Romance languages do.

Agree it would be unreasonable for Romance languages and others with genders. But with English, it can be done.

[blondeatlast]

119. I was about to make the same point. In Romance languages, it's a major grammatical mistake.

Not so with English.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. That's because the grammar of Latinate languages is heavily

gender based. Even way outside gender designations, there are different male and female nouns and verbs and adjectives and adverbs. English, being primarily a Germanic language, is not constructed that way, therefore any arbitrary male/female designations cast the male as superior, rather than equal to, the female.

[Art_from_Ark]

150. German has 3 genders

Female, male, and neuter, and the adjective has to agree with both the gender and case, if it comes before the noun. Interesting that two German words for young woman and girl, "Fraeulein" and "Maedchen", are both neuter.

As for Romance language verbs, in the two Romance languages that I am familiar with, French and Spanish, the verbs have to agree with the subject regarding first/second/third person, and singular/plural, but they do not depend on whether the subject is male or female.

[roody]

96. o/a is not a diminutive. -ito/ita is.

[prairierose]

148. If you read my post, you would see that I specifically said this is in English,

I do not mention Romance languages or other languages that use gender. English no longer uses gender in that way.

[Xenotime]

131. Agreed. Very offending

[leftstreet]

3. Because this is the 21st century?

[asdjrocky]

4. Because they say so.

[HeresyLives]

5. We used to have poetesses and doctoresses.

Sounds pretty silly don't you think?

[defendandprotect]

50. Stewardesses . . . "Fly Me!" . . . Mailmen . . . now Flight Attendants and Mail Carriers . . .

[canetoad]

6. Same reason there are no longer

waiters and waitresses. They do the same job so why is it necessary to identify them by gender.

[yodoobo]

41. really?

Guess that particular piece of political correctness slipped by me.

[CTyankee]

88. Women poets used to be called poetesses. I'm sure you would find that quaint today.

It hasn't been in use since the early 19th century...

[yodoobo]

91. oh I agree the language changes.

Just saying that this eradication of the word waitress seems to have missed my corner of the world.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. It also depends on the restaurant -

go to a good quality dinner restaurant and you will be served by the wait staff, whether the servers are male or female.

Go to a diner down the street, and you will probably be served by a waitress, unless she's too busy and the busboy/dishwasher takes care of you.

[NoPasaran]

167. Some now call them "waitrons"

Whether this actually represents progress I can't say.

[MilesColtrane]

169. A waitron sounds like some kind of cyborg.

...a very ineloquent word.

[EFerrari]

129. It was used for a short time as a way to diss women writing poetry.

Ironically, my ex burned my OED so I can't look up the history.

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

171. Ex burned your OED? Sounds like a story there.

I've heard of destroying clothing, or pictures, for prized keepsakes and even (gah!) killing pets, but never burning an ex's dictionary.

[sabrina 1]

51. Maybe because some women are proud of their gender?

I think it's possible that a lot of words in the English language don't have a separate word for women, like Doctor, Lawyer, even waiter because in the past women weren't allowed to work at those jobs. Eg, Maria Montessori was the first woman doctor in Italy and that was only in the last century.

Later, as women began to enter those fields, like acting eg, words were invented to recognize them. Couldn't it be that those words were meant to honor them rather than diminish them? To announce that they had as much right to act eg, as men did?

Older gender based words like princess and queen eg, are an indication that women have held those positions for a much longer time, imo.

Just guessing but in general I think recognizing the role of women as they began to emerge from the 'kitchen' is not a problem. We may be going backwards by now trying to eliminate them. Back to a time when only men could hold certain jobs.

Take, eg, the word 'maid'. There is no male version of the word because men were never maids. Men were 'butlers' but women weren't. The language does seem to follow the history of the progress of women.

If that is the case, that female versions of words that were originally used exclusively for men are actually a statement that women were claiming the same rights as men, then it seems silly to go backwards again.

[geardaddy]

124. Why stop at 'actress'?

Why not call women senators "senatress" and women representatives "representress"?

[JustinL]

83. that's news to me

Never in my life have I heard anyone use the term "waiter" in reference to a woman. Is that a regional thing? I live in the Philadelphia metro area.

[Rhythm]

84. No, but you do hear the term 'server'

Used to describe the job, no matter the gender of the one performing it.

[JustinL]

85. I think it depends on the context

I've heard restaurant staff say "your server will be right with you", but I can't remember ever hearing anyone say "where'd our server go" or "our server was great", and I've definitely never heard anyone say "I used to work as a server". Likewise with "associate" vs. "cashier".

[MineralMan]

86. I'm sorry "waitron" didn't catch on.

It had a nice robotic quality that typifies many restaurant service people I've run into.

[antigone382]

7. "actress" is not a traditional theatre term.

It was pretty much created for award ceremonies in the early days of film...guess it sounded more professional than "best starlet." From high school theatre onward, I was taught by both male and female theatre teachers that professionally, one should use the term "actor" to refer to all theatre performers regardless of gender.

[htuttle]

28. I was taught the same thing

Stage actors have always been referred to as actors, regardless of gender, for as long as I remember. 'Actress' is more of a TV/movie thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. And even though spellcheck will tweak you for it, I'm glad you spell the word as ending in "re"

George Spelvin would be proud.

[Cirque du So-What]

8. I prefer 'actor'

It's more egalitarian. Do not male and female actors perform the same task? Then why make a distinction based upon gender?

[sabrina 1]

10. I prefer 'actress'.

I like having my own word. Should we call all royal rulers Kings, or Princes? It makes women look like the want to be men or feel inferior to them.

I like being a woman and I like the differences between men and women. Differences don't mean 'less than'. I don't aspire to being anything other than a woman. Calling myself by a term that in my lifetime anyhow, brings up the image of something I am not, doesn't sound very progressive to me. Why do some women feel so inferior to men that they feel the need to be like them in order to have importance? I certainly don't feel that way.

I like the word 'actress' and since we have it, why throw it away as if we are ashamed of being women?

[inna]

14. +1

[KingFlorez]

15. Very good points

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Well said.

[antigone382]

30. I see your point, but within the history of theatre, "actress" is demeaning

"Actor" is the longstanding professional term for performers of either gender, on par with "doctor" or "lawyer." The term "actress" came into usage in the early days of film. It carries connotations of female eye-candy devoid of genuine theatrical ability, and reflects the historical paucity of challenging, multi-dimensional onscreen roles for women, who have often been reduced to temptresses and damsels in distress. As an actor since high school, I would not want to be referred to as an "actress." It just isn't the professional term, except perhaps at the sensationalist Hollywood level.

[theorbiter]

34. Thank you.

Succinct and well stated.

[BlueJazz]

38. I agree. I've never, ever thought any less of an Actress than an Actor.

Women don't need to Compromise a damn thing to be themselves...and yet they keep trying to be something that they are not. (Less than Men)

[Greyhound]

46. Are you an actress?

I have no position either way, but all of the women actors I've known over the years first wanted, and now prefer actor to actress.
:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

61. No, I'm not an actress.

I just wonder, as I said in a post below, if the word became part of the language to honor the fact that women, who used to be forbidden to act at all, finally claimed the right to do so. The fact that women were excluded from that profession, is probably the reason why there used to be only one word to describe it. And as soon as someone said 'actor' people knew the gender of the person. But later, as women began to claim more rights, including the right to act, adding the word 'actress' to the language was a bold statement that women did not need to identify themselves by a word that had once basically stated that the profession was for men only. By getting their own title, actress, the word itself said 'women are part of this profession also'.

Just speculating, but I think words that recognize women's capabilities are powerful. Not having a female version of 'Doctor' and 'Lawyer' eg, seems to me to be a holdover from times when women could not be professionals.

[defendandprotect]

52. Shall we call female lawyers -- lawyerettes?

Or female Justices on the Supreme Court -- Justice-ettes?

When we become aware of the message we send when we attach a feminine suffix to

professions, we understand that there shouldn't be doctors and doctor-ettes --

Our daughters should be treated equally whatever professions they decide to enter --

and not have their status demeaned by a diminutive form.

How are men belittled by language, for instance?

Do you have any examples of that?

When men give notice that they would like to be known as something other than

"actors, carpenters, lawyers, plumbers, scholars, scientists, doctors" --

something that would put more emphasis on their gender . . .

then maybe we should consider that for them?

Or should we suggest now that they are ashamed of their gender because they don't

advertise it in their professional titles?

[EFerrari]

53. Actor, like poet, is gender neutral in the tradition of the craft itself.

There is an argument to be made for reclaiming the gender marked "actress" and "poetess" as the history of those words is pejorative, not only descriptive.

It's funny. I've been an actor and a poet and have no problem with "actress" but if someone called me a "poetess", I'd probably slug them or want to, anyway. lol :hi:

[sabrina 1]

65. Lol, true, poetess does sound a little funny! But

in countries like England eg, it is still used and doesn't sound as strange with an English accent. See my other posts though. I think at one time, when women had to hide their talents and pretend to men when they published their work, because only men could be poets, it must have been liberating to be able to declare finally that they were capable of writing poetry. And to call themselves 'poetesses' openly was a way of declaring their equality, rather than pretend to be 'poets' which meant 'men'.

I didn't know you were a poet and an actress though, I am not surprised though :-)

[EFerrari]

66. The feminine has been so vilified over time

that it's interesting to track what female marked words mean and to whom and when. :)

[sabrina 1]

78. It is, I hadn't thought about it much until this thread.

I read a lot of history and noticed subconsciously I guess, that until relatively recently there were no female professionals, lawyers, doctors, coach drivers, carpenters, firemen etc. which kind of explains why there is no female version of those words. I see that as a statement of how women were viewed in the past. Which is why I think that the female-gendered words were meant to declare women's emancipation.

Imagine being able to freely call yourself an 'actress', not having to hide behind the word 'actor' anymore, after being banned from the profession and then demeaned when you insisted on following your dreams for so long. By eliminating these words, we may unwittingly be returning to the 'men only' words.

I wonder if there is a history of the development of language as it pertains to women? Lol, something else to use for purposes of procrastination ~

[EFerrari]

82. I'm sure somewhere in Linguistics there must be.

And remember, banning women from the stage was a British thing. Elsewhere, like in Spain, women were not banned from playing.

And then, there is the classicism of the literati who give us reports from other eras. Right up to the mid 19th or so, poor and working class women were not seen as even having a gender. That belonged to the middle "marriage material" class.

And acting troops were at about the bottom of the barrel unless they were one of the few with noble patrons/sponsors. Hell, there were famously signs that said "no players, masterless men or dogs" outside of inns. There were sumptuary laws about what working class people could wear. So, class also played a huge part in the naming of actors, let alone women in the English theater. If the Elizabethans or the Jacobeans saw how America worships Hollywood, they'd think we were all demented. lol

[557188]

69. What shall we call black actors?

Or Hispanic actors?

And so on.

We are HUMAN BEINGS. It's ridiculous, and sexist, to have separate terms.

I think it's ridiculous that they separate the sexes for awards.

Live outside gender and be yourself. Don't define yourself based on your genitals.

[sabrina 1]

73. We'll have to disagree. I love being a woman

and do not want to hide it from anyone. We are not a gender neutral society. It is unnatural to pretend we are. To deny one's gender, as women had to do for so long especially if they were intelligent and/or talented, seems regressive to me. They fought for so long to be able to be open about their abilities as women.

I don't want to 'live outside' gender. Why would I? Seriously? There is more to a woman, and a man for that matter, than genitals.

[557188]

135. Gender is a social construct

To live in a gender system, and strangely be happy about it, makes you a slave.

The reason for sexism, for so long, is due to the restrictive nature of the gender system. We are individuals. You are you and I am me. Instead you want society to define you?

Again...what shall we call the award for black actors, hispanic actors and so forth. Maybe they enjoy their race! You forgot to answer that question.

[Dorian Gray]

163. I agree with your point that there shouldn't be separate words for

actor/actress (and other fields), though I disagree that gender is a social construct. People are born as female or male. That is not a social construct, but reality. There are differences between genders. There are also socialized differences, of course, but there are physiological differences, too. That, however, does not mean that we need to refer to women professionals by a feminized title! I am a believer in acknowledging differences in gender while showing full respect for both women and men.

[roody]

98. Everyone can be called the "ruler."

[treestar]

44. True but then should the Oscars just have one category?

Is it sexist to have separate categories for best male and best female actor/supporting actor?

[Speck Tater]

9. So, just out of curiosity, are you a DU member or a memberess? nt

[sabrina 1]

16. Funny, but when we used to refer to all human beings as 'mankind'

the same people who want women to be addressed as actors, didn't want them included in 'mankind'. That's kind of confusing. You'd think they'd be consistent at least.

As for your question, just out of curiosity, was Diana a Prince or a Princess, was she a Lord or a Lady before that? Is Elizabeth a King or a Queen?

The English language isn't consistent, that's part of the beauty of it. But I bet there are reasons behind the inconsistencies.

Seems kind of petty to me. There are more important issues facing women. And as Shakespeare said, 'what's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. I prefer actress, princess, queen, lady, waitress, mistress. All powerful words imo, which recognize that women too held powerful positions and worked independently. Just a matter of preference.

[Speck Tater]

21. Yes, English IS confusing. I know a guy, a good friend, who's a real queen.

(No disrespect intended. He is a good friend, after all.)

[cartach]

31. That's just

short for the word humankind. Not gender specific. But wait a minute,what is the word humankind derived from?

[Ms. Toad]

35. In case your comment is not just flamebait:

Actor is gender neutral. Pulling women out of a gender neutral title and giving them a diminuitive title diminishes (same root word) that position.

Mankind is not gender neutral ("Man" should give you a clue). Using a male gendered noun (e.g., fireMEN, policeMEN, mankind or using He, Him, His, etc. used as the only "neutral" gender in generic texts) to refer to everyone makes women invisible.

There is nothing inconsistent about the two positions. You may or may not agree with them, but they are consistent - don't remove women from a truly gender neutral noun (actor, doctor, waiter, etc.) by giving them a diminuitive related role (actress, doctoress, waitress), and don't use expressly male nouns as generic nouns (mankind, fireman, policeman, he, him, his, etc.), the use of which makes women invisible.

[sabrina 1]

67. My comment was not flamebait. Sorry if it came across that way.

I agree completely and in fact that is my point, that we are not gender neutral. The reason why male-gendered words for 'firemen' etc. were the only available words was that women were forbidden to participate in those professions for so long. Which is why I like the female-gendered words that probably evolved later as women began to claim their rights.

Actors meant 'men' because women were not allowed to act. It seems to me that when women declared themselves as actresses they were making a strong and probably courageous statement at the time 'we are here and we do have a right to participate in this profession'. Rather than consider the female titles, eg, 'waitress' etc. to be diminutives, I believe they were bold statements when women refused to hide behind the male-gendered words which declared that women were not allowed to hold those positions, any longer.

I am proud of being a woman who is capable and has a right to be anything I am capable of being. And I like the fact that there are words that allow me to make that statement rather than 'share' or 'hide' behind words that were for 'men only'.

[Ms. Toad]

92. You seriously need some history lessons.

Men working as actors, stewards, doctors, lawyers (etc.) and other similarly gender neutral professions resented women entering the professions and created diminutive forms of those occupations (literally meaning a smaller form of the root word) to ensure that no one confused the real thing with the smaller, imitation role that women with similar title were allowed to perform.

Here is a snippet from a book review of a book you might find interesting, if you would like to move beyond your fantasy view of history:

>>Barton meticulously explores the origins of gender discrimination in language, finding the source of the distinction in the myths of creation, as languages developed according to an Adam's rib pattern: man primary, woman secondary. He has amassed an overwhelming collection of evidence to show how sexual bias invades a language and becomes virtually impervious to eradication, discussing those in which nouns have specific gender but concentrating upon English, which discriminates in subtler ways. Though this insidious process may begin spontaneously, Barton cites cases of male etymologists inventing and perpetuating myths about the origin of words in order to rationalize those that belittle women and glorify men, while purporting to do just the opposite.

When the BA degree was first granted to women, many 19th-Century educators insisted female recipients be known as Maids of Arts, and in the rare cases when a woman earned a more advanced degree, as Mistress or Doctress. As more women entered occupations dominated by men, the diminutive and demeaning suffixes proliferated. Some, like starlet and majorette, linger on; most died of acute absurdity, like hoboette for an indigent female traveler, jockette for a woman who rides racehorses, and pickette, a woman striker.>>

LA Times book review of On the Origins of Gender Discrimination in Language, Elaine Kendall


The use you find contradictory has similar problems - that when expressly gender specific words are used (fireMAN, policeMAN, MANkind) the female vanishes. So long as gender neutral is really gender neutral (actor, steward, doctor, lawyer) no specific gender is declared so those words do include both the male and female. When an expressly gender/male specific word is used to refer to everyone, the female is made invisible. That is why the push to remove "MAN" from fireman, policeman, mankind, etc. has the same motivation as rejecting diminutive substitutes for already gender neutral words. The former makes women invisible by referring to them expressly as male; the latter diminishes women by pulling them out of a truly gender neutral category into special less worthy category by tacking on a demeaning diminuitive suffix, when nothing in the gender neutral title would have excluded them from being full participants without adding a suffix.

[sabrina 1]

109. The way you started your post.

With an insult, to a woman who has stated some opinions. Some things just don't change, do they, despite what we were told about the women's movement working to gain respect for women, AND their opinions. I have a feeling many women have been spoken down to by the men in their lives, in the manner in which you chose to open this post. Is it better if women try to demean other women than if men do it?

Anyhow, just an observation. I am assuming you are a woman btw, by your gender-based title.

As for the point you are making, I am not at all impressed with Barton's work compared to the work of others eg. Language was not all based on 'Adam's Rib', what an outrageous claim. Extremely biased, or written to appeal to a certain audience.

Of course you provided no link and I only have the excerpt you provided to judge the work by. It is possible that you selected part of the work that would best make the point you want to make.

The truth is, the English language did not develop with the idea of demeaning women at all. Maybe it is not I who needs to study history or at least the history of the development of the English Language. As for those words that were meant to mock women, there are always going to be ignorant, low-lifes doing that. But they do not deserve a prominent place in the history of the English Language any more than any comedian's attempts do. None of their made-up words have ever been heard of, have they? So I don't understand the focus on something so insignificant other than to produce fake outrage.

[Ms. Toad]

145. You asserted that there was a conflict between two femisist positions

I pretty gently explained why there was not conflict between the two positions.

Since that history seemed to be something you were unaware of (since you repeated the sugar-coated explanation of how you imagined it was a positive thing), and you didn't acknowledge that you understood my explanation as to why both attaching a diminuitive suffix to a gender neutral noun and burying the female within a gender specific noun diminish the role of women (or are at least internally consistent positions), I decided perhaps I needed to be a bit more blunt about it.

That particular portion of the history of language development is something I lived through, and was in the trenches fighting against. I don't need a history book to understand the basis for attaching diminutive suffixes to gender neutral nouns or the reason we fought so hard to abolish their use. Women (and men) take the progress that grew out of the work back in the 60s and 70s for granted - and frankly I find it pretty frightening when charming little cutie-pies like Sarah Palin deliberately play on male fantasies and are seen as viable candidates for president or vice president, and when using language that makes women seem cute and cuddly and less than their male counterparts is championed, particularly on a progressive board, as promoting women rather than demeaning them.

[sabrina 1]

154. I asserted nothing of the kind. I said I liked, and still do,

words that recognize women's accomplishmenst. We are not a 'gender neutral' society or world no matter how people try to make it so. And I for one, like it the way it is. Even if we eliminated all of the 'female' words (and I always wonder why we should eliminate them rather than the male words if we're going to go that far) it would still NOT be a gender neutral world, thankfully.

As someone else in the thread pointed out, what about the word 'woman' itself? We can't change the whole language, but we can take it and use it to our advantage.

Sorry to have opinions you don't approve of. I simply don't see something the way you do. There is no need to get so upset about that. Imho, there are far more important issues facing women that I would want to spend actual time on, than trying to force everyone to use the word 'actor' instead of 'actress' quite frankly. And I don't feel the need to force you to agree with me. It's fine that you don't, I won't lose sleep over it nor will I insult you or accuse you of being some kind of inferior intellect. We disagree, that's all, the world won't end.

Having said that, I do see your point, I understand where YOU are coming from, I just feel differently. It is possible to understand someone's pov and still maintain a different pov.

I appreciate all you fought for, and all those women throughout history. Language changes over time, it always has. People have different experiences and opinions. And meanings change, and there will always be jerks in the world. None of that means that people do not realize what it took to get justice in this world, not just for women. I don't know why you think it does.

As for Sarah Palin, not much to be said about her and those who support her that hasn't already been said. But I don't believe she has a chance of being elected to the WH.

[defendandprotect]

54. What is there in "actor, doctor, lawyer, carpenter" that suggests gender?

Nothing -- Look up those words in your dictionary --

It is the female diminutive ALONE which applies a gender description --

Let us know when males want their professions to indicate their gender, as well --

[sabrina 1]

63. At one time, women were forbidden to pursue careers in any of those

professions. They had to fight for the right to be doctors and carpenters and lawyers. That is why there is only one word for each profession as women were not recognized as being capable of doing those jobs. They were excluded from them.

That is one reason why I am for giving women the recognition of having their own identification, such as 'carpentress' eg, which states loud and clear that women are capable of doing that work if they choose to do it. When I hear 'carpenter' I never think of women because the word was intended to exclude them. We have a right to our own word, imho.

Take the Bronte sisters eg. They had to hide their gender because women writers were not accepted at that time. They wrote under men's names. Women poets did not dare call themselves 'poetessess' and had to hide their gender also. Imagine the courage it took for the first woman to say 'I am a POETESS'. NOT a POET, which everyone knew meant 'man'. Or thought they did. It was like declaring to the world 'I am a woman and I am as good as any man'!

Just my opinion of course, but that's how I see it.

[defendandprotect]

118. Check your dictionary . .. they are NOT gender specific . . .

so creating an opposite which is gender specific is unnessary --

As I've said elsewhere, women were the original caregivers, the original doctors --

our herbalists --

Meanwhile, I think you should work on specific ways to label professions as MALE . . .

before we begin to encourage diminutive forms to signal the female's gender.

And -- rely on your dictionary for accepted meanings --

[defendandprotect]

57. So you think we should have the Equal Rights Amendment back on the fire -- ????

And just be considered "Mankind" cause we're too busy to do something about more than one thing

at the same time?

The difference in your examples is this . . . King and Lord indicate a male gender --

actor, carpenter, lawyer, Justice ... do not.

[sabrina 1]

68. Actually I disagree that actor, carpenter, lawyer, Justice etc.

do not indicate gender. They indicate that those professionals are male. That is because back when the words were invented, women were excluded from those professions. As I pointed out in another post, as late as the early 20th century, women were excluded from being doctors in some European countries. That is why there is only one word for the profession. There were no women doctors. I think we should have our own word as women in other professions have after having declared their right to participate in their chosen professions.

King and Lord have female counter words, Queen and Lady, because the world recognized that women could hold those titles and were given the right to do so. But only a select few. Other professions barred women so there are no words, lawyers eg, to acknowledge their right to practice law. I wish there were. We are still hanging on to the coattails of men, using THEIR words to describe who we are. I like having my own words to let the world know I am a woman.

[defendandprotect]

114. Check your dictionary . . . of course lawyer, Justice, carpenter are NOT gender specific ...

Where is the indication that they are male professions???

If you want to go back far enough, probably the original architects and original

musicians and original writers were female -- Pre-patriarchy, that is.

Women were our original doctors -- care givers. They were originally our herbalists

and worked with plants as our medicines.

Women were the original midwives who assisted at childbirth -- a profession which was

forcibly taken from women and which has long been male-dominated.

I know that "King" and "Lord" have female opposites.

But unlike "lawyer, carpenter, mail carrier, flight attendant" they ARE gender specific.

Let's get the Equal Rights Amendment past -- have any ideas on how to move that along?

You know the GOP platform stands strongly against it --

and we haven't heard a peep from Dems about it in . . . . eh . . . decades?

[EFerrari]

70. Depends. Elizabeth I called herself a king and lord.

:)

[Touchdown]

11. Don't worry. We still have succubussesses...

or whatever.

[begin_within]

12. I think Jodie Foster popularized it to some extent,

by repeatedly referring to herself as an actor.

[EFerrari]

13. This isn't particularly new. Women were called "actors" in the mid 70s

when we were in the drama department. :shrug:

[whathehell]

17. For the same reason we don't say "poetess"?

How about the Oscar goes to:

The "Best Actor with a Dick"?

[sabrina 1]

23. We do say poetess.

Language is meant to make communication simple and expedient. Why use a long sentence when one word simplifies matters. One of the reasons a friend of mine, who is Filipino, had trouble communicating in English was that she always used the pronouns 'him' or 'he' to describe everyone, because in her language they had no female version of the pronouns. We were always asking who she meant in the middle of a story.

Using words like 'actor' for women sounds fake to me. Like trying too hard to make a point that should be simply accepted. It's like women feel lost and without an identity and don't know what to call themselves. It's like the word 'progressive' it always sounds like a compromise, a word to hide what we really are. But that's just me. I like my female words as I already said.

[whathehell]

39. You may say it...I haven't heard it, or seen it in print for decades.

and that's fine with me.

[CTyankee]

89. If I were you, I'd stay away from academia, using the term "poetess."

At the very least you'd get funny looks and comments about your strange sense of humor. If you insisted on the line of reasoning you have offered on this thread, you'd be given a lot more than that...

[sabrina 1]

99. Really? So Academia, I presume you mean in the U.S. would

mock a woman for having an opinion, at least in your opinion?

Funny, I have never had problems in academia. The word is used in other countries and it doesn't surprise me that there are small-minded people who would mock people in other cultures, that's something we are good at in this society. I eg, have some elderly relatives in England who use the word quite naturally and to my knowledge, have never been subjected to any kind of mockery.

My understanding of the women's movement btw, was that women would no longer be mocked for their opinions but treated with respect, at least that was one of the claims. But your post, and one or two others in this thread demonstrate why many younger women today are not enthusiastic about the movement. Trading being told your opinions are worthless by men to being told the same thing by women is not my idea of 'liberation'.

Having said that, I'm really not interested in what other think of my opinions. As a liberated woman who has never had problems communicating, learning, sometimes teaching depending on the field, with others, I find it easy to dismiss knee-jerk opinions from people I do not know. But some women, when exposed to this kind of demeaning put-down, or attempt anyhow, do not handle it so well.

The elitism the left is often accused of, although I do believe it is not rampant, is obvious in your post. Maybe you can tell me why you place such importance on the opinions of any one group of people over another? In my experience, people in academia are no more or less intelligent than ordinary working class people. The only difference being that each has accumulated a certain amount of knowledge in their respective fields.

[lukasahero]

116. When fact contradicts opinion,

opinion should be rightly mocked be it from male or female.

The women's movement did not automatically give women the right to never be mocked for their opinions. I can't imagine where you got that impression.

Women have access to facts and our opinions should be formed from such. Making up your own stories based solely on opinion does nothing to improve the condition of women as regards respect.

[sabrina 1]

127. The very fact that you consider mockery a means of communication

says a lot about you. Of course you can do it, you can also be cruel, bullying, nasty or engage in any other form of negative behavior and you can use such tactics to communicate if you wish. You can decide that the feelings of those you 'mock' don't matter. And you are free to justify all of it. You are also free to walk under a moving train, but it isn't advisable. But that doesn't get you off the hook for being judged by that behavior does it?

The women's or any other movement doesn't excuse bad behavior either. In my opinion, sorry to bother you with opinions you don't like, people who engage in such negative tactics as a method of discussion, are not very confident of themselves or their opinions.

I see no facts presented by you that are particularly persuasive. You certainly can attempt to bully or mock others, but that won't convince them of much other than that your own communication skills could use improvement. Present your facts and I will consider them. I certainly won't mock them, although I may disagree.

[CTyankee]

134. Hey, go for it, I was just sayin' that you might find the encounters "interesting."

I live in New Haven...come visit and we'll go over to Yale and see what the poetesses are up to there...

If by "elitism" you mean they would question what you say, then yes, they would be elitist...they'd be interested in why you used the word and you could explain it all to them as you have done here...I'm really trying to say that it's in academia where you are likely to get a good grilling on why you think what you think...I've been there, done that! kind of a socratic method...far from trying to shut you up, they'd want to hear more...

[sabrina 1]

137. No problem ~

I don't use the word myself, but as I said, do have elderly relatives in England who use it and it sounds wonderful to me in their beautiful English accents, not strange at all. But as I said to EFerrari, it does sound odd here. Usage is what makes language acceptable imo. I'm sure the people who wrote the Constitution would sound quaint in our world, but then we'd sound pretty strange to them also.

Lol, I don't mind being questioned and have learned a lot from people I start out disagreeing with, probably more than from those who agree with me. I have said from the beginning, that I am expressing my opinions, as I am not an expert on the history of language. I have already learned some interesting information from this thread, eg.

I'd probably enjoy a discussion with your friends from Yale ~ lol. If I ever get back to the East Coast, I might take you up on the offer! At least it would be a lively discussion which always makes life interesting. Thanks for the offer, sounds like fun which is what life ought to be about, as much as possible, in my humble opinion of course! :-)

[CTyankee]

139. I do a "liberal's" tour of New Haven for friends which includes visiting a replica of

the Amistad whose home port is New Haven and also the building where Estelle Griswold's Planned Parenthood defied the state law and had her docs offer fittings for diaphragms in order to get arrested and test the law...it became Griswold v. Connecticut...then there's the Yale campus, the New Haven Green under which many Puritans were buried...it's an interesting town, founded in 1638...

[JerseygirlCT]

18. They are both people who practice the craft of acting

there's really no reason to add a diminutive to actor for women.

[Igel]

45. It's not a diminutive.

It's merely the allomorph that says "female."

An allomorph is a variant of a morpheme, a meaning-bearing chunk of word. Start with "act": For males or mixed groups or persons of unknown sex, add -or, but for females or all female groups add -ess. It's not the case that you start with "actor" and add -ess, then have some sort of rule to delete the -o-. (Perhaps at some point in Latin that was the case. Most of us don't confuse English for Latin.)

As some linguists would say, the masculine is "unmarked": It can, in a pinch, serve for either gender.

Part of the problem with disposing of "actor" is that markedness is a quirky thing. "Two actors made love in the movie" sounds strange to me. "Two actors made love in the movie -- the leading man arrived and found them, surprised at seeing his wife with his girlfriend" doesn't do much to make it sound less strange. Why? Because "unmarked" doesn't always cut it.

[EFerrari]

55. And that's the difference between a linguist and an actor who is used to hearing

"the actors in the love scene". :)

[defendandprotect]

59. "Actor" does not reveal a gender . . . why should the female have to reveal hers?

Do you want to change Carpenter and Justice and Lawyer and Entrepreneur to reflect gender

as well?

[sabrina 1]

71. Actor does reveal a gender. Since women were forbidden

from the profession for so long, the word actually meant 'male performers'. Which is why, as I said before, I like the word actress. It says women now have the right they did not have in the past, to perform. And why would anyone want to hide their gender? Shouldn't women be proud to be women?

As for changing Carpenter etc. yes, I wish there were a female word for those women who practice those professions. It would state that women are no longer barred as they were for so long, from following the careers of their choice. In those cases, we are still using the words that used to mean 'men only'. That's a shame imo. We deserve our own words.

[defendandprotect]

113. Actor is NOT gender specific . . . here's the dictionary .....

n.
1.A theatrical performer.
2.One who takes part; a participant: "France, Britain . . . and any other external actors now involved . . . in the affairs of the continent" (Helen Kitchen).
3.Law. One, such as the manager of a business, who acts for another.

and do you want to change carpenter, lawyer, Justice, Entrepreneur to make them

gender specific, as well?

If you want males to be "proud of their gender" then I think we need to masculinize these

terms?

But glad you're for females in formerly male dominated professions --

Let's hope for more female doctors and more male nurses!!

[sabrina 1]

130. Lol, I really don't want anything. I'm not especially concerned

about words so long as they can be used to communicate exactly what people are trying to say. I made a statement that I liked the word 'actress'. I do and have given the reasons why. I have seen nothing in this thread to change my mind as I do not see the word the way others appear to, as demeaning to women. In my opinion, which appears to be disturbing to a couple of posters here, the word empowers rather than diminishes women. I don't think either side is right or wrong. It appears to be a matter of opinion.

Maybe it has to do with experiences. I have never felt inferior to men, different yes, and most definitely equal so I suppose my experiences formed my opinions. Others may have felt diminished by their experiences and are therefore more sensitive about these things.

[defendandprotect]

149. Agree, as you point out . . . it's only your opinion . . . may of us disagree . . .

IMO, anyone who does a job well and is qualified should receive the same compensation

and should be called by the same title --

Maybe it has to do with experiences. I have never felt inferior to men, different yes, and most definitely equal so I suppose my experiences formed my opinions. Others may have felt diminished by their experiences and are therefore more sensitive about these things.

That sounds like spin from the right wing --

but let's just say that it would be unwise from a feminist viewpoint to have the very same

occupation called two different things simply because both a male and a female are participating

in that profession. Same profession, same compensation - same title.


I'd also volunteer that your suggestion that you "have never felt inferior to men," but that others

here may have "felt diminished by their experiences and are therefore more sensistive about these

things," isn't going to help your cause here. I'm sure if you reread it you will come to

understand it is rather an insulting and insensitive suggestion --

[sabrina 1]

152. I meant every word I said and have no intention of being

manipulated into altering anything because you don't like what I think. Sorry, you can't control what people think but that's the way it is.

Lol, my 'cause here'??? Do you really think that threatening people with unpleasant consequences if they don't 're-educate' themselves in order to conform to your opinions is likely to be taken seriously?

As for people being insulted by my comment, if they are are upset by THAT comment, they must be looking for something to be upset about.

As for your 'rightwing' comment, that was funny. Do you usually make stuff up about people you don't know like this? It sort of makes you look bad. Not a good technique to use when trying to make a point as there are a number of people here who do know me and when reading that it will cause them to wonder what else you could be so wrong about! Yes, that kind of major faux pas can cause a person to lose a lot of credibility.

And could you please do me a favor? Stop painting all women as shrinking violets who get upset over every little comment. We are not delicate flowers, at least the women I associate with. It's insulting to women to assume that they are all likely to reach for the smelling salts every time there is a discussion where others just don't agree with them. And no, most of us don't take disagreement as a reason to have apoplexy. It happens.

I love a lively debate and don't much care that others disagree with me at times. It would be unnatural if they didn't. You otoh, seem to have a difficult time with different opinions and to be unwilling to simply accept that people are entitled to them. You can't win every argument, so you'd be better off just accepting that and not worrying about it so much.

[defendandprotect]

172. OK . . . we'll go with you being superior to others here . . .

:evilgrin:


I didn't expect you to "alter" anything --

I was suggesting that you rethink the superior attitude --

though I see you wish to adopt a martyr's pose -- so I guess that's out!

Your posts speak for themselves -- and if they have a familiar Camille Pagalia ring

maybe it's only an echo in here?

Certainly looks as though you have "apoplexy" . . . !!

Doesn't much look like you DON'T care that others disagree with you -- !!

Meanwhile, debate is about enlightenment -- let's try to get on with that -

The statues of JUSTICE and FREEDOM are female --

shall we change those words to offer a masculine form?

And, again, it is YOU who suggests that females are weakened by words which do NOT

express their gender. Yet, you seemingly do NOT make a similar claim that males are

weakened by words which do not express their gender? Why not?

[JerseygirlCT]

133. Yes. It also underlines male as the default.

Add to that the fact that actors are not always tied to gender, either. It's simply not the most important descriptor. They are actors because they act.

[UTUSN]

19. Because patriarchy/maleness is built into the language n/t

[whathehell]

20. Thank you!

[Oregone]

24. Trophies outsources to nation without 'e's on their keyboards

[caraher]

25. Reminds me of when men who give massages...

get called "masseuses"

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. Masseur is the male form.

You hear about chauffeurs, but why not chauffeuses?

:shrug:

I think in some cases it is good to have a gender distinction in the name. Since some jobs require a person of a specific gender. One of those is actor/actress, another is opera singer.

They don't say "Best Actor with a Vagina" or "Best Actor with a Penis".


I see nothing demeaning about "actress", or lady, or princess, or queen.

[caraher]

37. Yep

I do know that and am amused when it isn't used. Interesting how in some cases the gender distinction is considered important, in other ignored, and in still others the norm seems to be in transition.

[Marr]

58. Actually, you can say "chauffeuse".

In French, anyway. I think the word just passed into english as a gender neutral term, perhaps because the field is predominantly male.

[madamesilverspurs]

26. Maybe because 'thespianess' is too awkward?

[cartach]

29. Female actors.

They should never have been called actresses. Actor was never supposed to be gender specific Anyway did you know that the word manhole has been officially changed to personhole? Now ask yourself-what exactly is that supposed to mean? Another thing that pisses me off is at one time I could be happy and gay and now I can only be happy unless I'm a homosexual, which I'm not. Life should get simpler as time goes on but somehow it seems to get more complicated.

[theorbiter]

32. Political correctness run amuck...

Actress is a beautiful word in my opinion which conveys grace, talent and femininity. I find nothing diminutive about recognizing and embracing ones own gender and the differences said gender contains. This is not to say any gender is superior.
Manipulation of language in order to pretend that femininity and masculinity do not have differences is simply delusional. Words used to have meaning and it is a sad commentary on a society when they begin to become meaningless.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Would you call Thelma Schoonmaker or Chris Innis an "Editrix"?

Just askin'...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

146. Bellatrix? Aviatrix? Dominatrix? Executrix? Testatrix?

All perfectly good words.

"Bellatrix" is a star in the constellation Orion and means "female warrior".

Borrowed for Helena Bonham Carter's character in Harry Potter - Bellatrix LeStrange.

[sabrina 1]

76. Good post, I agree with you.

Epecially this:

Manipulation of language in order to pretend that femininity and masculinity do not have differences is simply delusional.

Viva la differance!

[ladywnch]

36. it has to do with history of the theatre

back in Elizabethan times (Shakespeare's age) only men could be on the stage......."a merry band of 'fellows"..... even playing women's roles. It was illegal for women to perform......as women began to get on stage it was still deemed "lewd, vulgar, obscene" for women to be on stage so they were all always referred to as 'actor's'

[EFerrari]

62. It was that way until after well after the war. It's funny because

the English preferred to have men in drag as the lesser of two "evils" where the Spanish chose to allow women to perform to avoid having men in drag on stage. lol

[ladywnch]

104. very true. it just cracks me up that these people are making so

much more of it.....political correctness, sexism, etc......... it's just several hundred years of history.....nothing more, nothing less.

[EFerrari]

107. Custom, which makes us customers.

lol

:hi:

[piratefish08]

43. Not sure. Here, let me ask my stewardess......

[defendandprotect]

49. Neutral speech . .. and I think it's a good idea --

And you're watching the Oscars????? Wow --

[johnaries]

56. Because "actor" and "actress" is inherently sexist. nt

[smalll]

60. Because no-one major in Hollywood counts as a real "actor" OR "actress" these days -

so they're just trying to throw us off by changing it up a bit. You know, trying to make us forget that they're all just well-promoted pretty faces who went down on the right people at the right time at some point. :shrug:

[Liquorice]

64. What an idiotic post. nt

[EFerrari]

75. Posts that start out with real questions often generate the best discussions.

[Liquorice]

77. The OP is just sexism, plain and simple. It's so rampant around here that it usually goes unnoticed.

But the "Best Actor with a Vagina" line is a pretty big giveaway as to this person's mindset. Also notice how few recommendations the posts about a woman winning best director for the 1st time ever have received. Not many... They've clearly been rated down. I wonder why.

[EFerrari]

79. That isn't clear about this OP.

As far as the other threads, that may be about the movie, not the awardee.

The biggest group at DU is women, per the last survey. Some of us are slacking. :)

[Liquorice]

80. Maybe you're right about the slacking, but why should only women be

happy about such an accomplishment? It seems like progressive men would want to celebrate that milestone too. I guess not. I did see the recs go down on the '1st woman director wins' post. It's interesting that it was being voted down. And that post had nothing to do with the movie, but instead was about a 1st for women. Maybe women just don't care? I can't believe that. My mom called me with such joy as soon as Kathryn Bigelow won. We both felt it was a major accomplishment and were very proud of Kathryn.

The reaction here was unfortunate and expected however, because I've seen so much sexism here over the years. I knew it wouldn't go over too well. And I was right.

[EFerrari]

101. It is a slighting of this benchmark to vote those two threads down

for any reason. Agreed.

[geardaddy]

110. Don't you mean the "awardess"?

;)

[EFerrari]

115. I'm not sure. What would the Wif of Bathe say?

"Experience, though no authority were in this world, is good enough for me"

[geardaddy]

120. Well, I'm not sure...

since I don't speak Middle English. ;)

[EFerrari]

121. What languages do you do, geardaddy?

I made a stab at ME but it sounded like I was mocking The Farmer's Daughter.

[geardaddy]

122. I did read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales

in HS English in ME (just the preface..."whan that April...") but the rest was in modern English.

I took German for a loooong time (age 9-17 at Waldsee) and grades 7-12.

I took Mandarin in college and spent four years speaking it in Taiwan and several years after that speaking it at home to my ex-wife.

I'm currently learning Welsh (my grandma's language) sort of on my own, but have taken a few classes here and there.

You? What languages do you do?

[EFerrari]

123. Only English and Spanish but can read the Romance languages.

For a while, I tried to learn Hebrew during my commuting hours. But, Welsh! That would be really interesting. :hi:

[geardaddy]

126. It is interesting.

I think Hebrew would be interesting :hi:

[Eric Condon]

81. The real question is

why so many people in this thread who I'm sure self-identify as feminist (like me) are ascribing so much weight to this issue when we live in a world of rape, sexual violence, genital mutilation, institutional oppression at the hands of religions and governments at home and abroad, proposed laws to "criminalize" miscarriages, etc and we're all sitting around debating a three-letter gender-specific suffix to a word describing the profession of what is ultimately a very small number of people.

My point is, THIS IS NOT A MAJOR FEMINIST ISSUE. There are always people who flock to these kinds of threads and nitpick language in the most self-parodically PC way possible. In the time it took some of these posters to claim "actress" is inherently sexist, or denounce the use of the word "bitch" on internet forums as if it were the biggest affront to women worldwide, how many girls living in backwards theocracies were stoned to death for being raped?

These linguistic inequities may well be the result of deep-seated patriarchal hegemony, but at this point, they have virtually zero practical impact on the actual lives of women in the world, many of whom would love to live in such a privileged environment that they could sit around debating whether or not "actress" is a sexist term.

[pipi_k]

90. Excellent points!!!

And indicative of the almost shameful leisure we have to sit here and nitpick over the use of a couple of letters in a word when there are women in other parts of the world who would LOVE to be able to sit around arguing this stuff. Unfortunately, they're fighting for their very lives and freedom.



I think if it's that all-fired important to people, then they should be able to be called whatever THEY want and not assume that everyone wants to be referred to in the gender-neutral just because they do.

[EFerrari]

100. Wait -- are you telling me what a real feminist should value?

:crazy:

[Eric Condon]

155. I'm not really sure what you mean by this

I'm not telling you anything. I was just trying to make a point about the short-sightedness of thinking that referring to women as "actors" rather than "actresses" is really scoring some sort of home run for feminism, what with all the horrors that women face on a daily basis all over the world. But feel free to disregard what I said. Since I'm a guy, I'm obviously incapable of any feminist insight. I'll get back to my Maxim article now. Sorry I interrupted this clear-headed, weighty debate.

[sabrina 1]

159. Well, I agree with you, for what it's worth.

Glad you interrupted ~ :-)

[Eric Condon]

160. Thank you.

I probably came off a little harsh before, which wasn't my intention. But I appreciate what you said, as well as the other insights you've brought to this thread.

[EFerrari]

170. There are arguments to be made for both sides. And it isn't partiularly

in the spirit of feminism to berate other people when they don't share your priorities at the instant that you demand they do. Enjoy your article.

[MineralMan]

87. The -or or -er suffix has nothing to do with gender.

It simply means the doer of something. Professors "profess." Plumbers "plumb." Anglers "Angle."

The -ess suffix was used to point out the difference between men and women doing the same thing, as a way to belittle the performance of the women doing the job.

As for "actor," there was a time in the theater when all roles were played by men or boys. Women did not appear on stage. When they began to appear on stage, to the shock and alarm of one and all, they were called "actresses." It was not a positive appellation.

Removing that distinction is an important step in recognizing that there is no difference in the job performed, based on sex. "Waiter" is a gender-free word.

[kenny blankenship]

93. Yeah! they should just call women "men"

and be done with it. No reason for the sexist term "woman" to exist.

[Nye Bevan]

112. Yeah! And the biased term "human"

should obviously be replaced by "huperson", or something.

[sabrina 1]

132. Lol, good point. It does get silly after a while doesn't it especially

with the real issues women face in the world, in countries like Afghanistan eg. But, it is interesting to study the history of language in different cultures and how it developed.

[Iggo]

94. Because they are actors. (n/t)

[Nye Bevan]

105. Are waitresses waiters? (n/t)

[Iggo]

106. Dunno, Ask 'em.

I asked actors and they say they're actors.

[Nye Bevan]

111. OK. I asked 753,000 actresses

and they said that they were actresses.

[Iggo]

128. Then that settles it.

[Laughing Mirror]

136. Only if they do more waiting than serving

In that case, server would be more accurate, and, of course, is gender neutral.

[Nye Bevan]

140. So why do you yourself use the term "waitress"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4884410&mesg_id=4900751

or was that post from before you became enlightened by political correctness and banished "waitress" from your vocabulary?

[Laughing Mirror]

142. Why do I use the word bartender, whether it's a man or a woman behind the bar?

In the post of mine you refer to, yes, the people serving food to people in their cars at that Mighty Mo's were young women exclusively (white women, by the way), and yes, women doing this work were called waitresses 40-50 years ago, the period I was referring to when I went to Mighty Mo's. So that is why I used the word waitress -- for that ring of authenticity of that time and place that would have been lost had I said servers.

But that Mighty Mo's is long gone. Society has changed. The language evolves. If you ever work with words, such as an editor, you learn to look for a better word when you can, something that describes better what the person's job is, whatever the gender. So server works better than waitress the way bartender (someone tending bar) is a better description of the job, than, say, barman or barwoman would be. What difference does it make who is pouring the drinks or taking my order? Why stick with waiter or waitress when the gender of the person doing the job is irrelevant and when there is a much better word to describe what function that person is performing? Why is waiter or waitress preferable to server? The person doing the cooking at the restaurant is the cook or the chef. That's usually all I need to know. If I need to know what sex the cook is, I can always inquire.

[Nye Bevan]

144. That's the problem with political correctness

It's hard to keep it up 100% of the time and you tend to twist yourself into knots explaining the times you slip.

[Laughing Mirror]

161. There is no United States of America style guide that dictates proper usage of words

So nobody's twisting anybody into knots here explaining to you why in one case one word would be used (waitress in the example you've dug out) and why in another case another more generic term would be used (server, for example, to mean all persons, male or female, serving food). Spoken and written, these are subtleties and nuances of the language that you seem resistant to acknowledge.
What does chosing the right word for the right situation have to do with political correctness? It has to do with finding the right word to fit the situation. That's why when we work with words, we try to use words that best express, in the clearest most economical fashion, what we need to say.

Gender issues aside, why go through all the trouble of saying "the restaurant's waiters and the waitresses" when "the servers" is not only fewer words and syllables, but is more accurate and more precise?

[The2ndWheel]

102. Pretend person

[bridgit]

103. Screen Actors Guild

http://www.sag.org

[Nye Bevan]

108. Because of nonsensical political correctness

"Actress" conveys more information than "actor" in the same number of syllables.

"Female actor" requires twice the number of syllables that "actress" does.

So why say "female actor" instead of "actress"? It's as stupid as replacing "history" with "herstory".

[EFerrari]

117. Except the usage pre-dates what the right calls "political correctness"

by decades if not longer.

[Lex]

138. We don't need 2 words.

And "political correctness" in and of itself is made up shit that the right would have you swallow.

[Nye Bevan]

141. I notice that you are not averse to using the word "actress"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2556878&mesg_id=2557144

or have you become more politically correct since you created this post?

[CTyankee]

147. I notice that you are linking to an archived post...that is interesting...nt

[Moochy]

157. Archivist hall monitor

sez what?

[Moochy]

156. My how utilitarian of you to optimize for fewest syllables

Resist Language Change, Og!

[Obamanaut]

125. It stems from the 1580s, comes from 'an agent or doer' - link

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=actor

[Mike 03]

143. Well, female Congresspersons are often addressed as "Congressman" in moder hearings.

My sister is a female practitioner of acting and she refers to herself as an "Actor."

[Darth_Kitten]

151. It's a generic term......

Imagine if they called a director a "directress"?

Actors are not defined by their body parts.

[Nye Bevan]

153. Yes. *Anyone* using the term "actress" is a *horrible* sexist.

Right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8793216&mesg_id=8793285

[Moochy]

158. What is your special porpoise?

[Nye Bevan]

162. It's fun to be the "archivist hall monitor"

when DUers start to solemnly proclaim that a perfectly good word has suddenly become an unacceptable sexist slur, and it turns out that they themselves were happily using that same term not so long ago.

[Moochy]

164. Keep Fighting Language Changes

That's what's important ..... to RESIST oppressive language changes!
Archaic Is as Archaic does.

[Moochy]

165. .

self-delete

[kenny blankenship]

166. It's shades of gray. They're all right as long as they don't imply the actresses are all thespians

for wanting to work outside the home.

[timtom]

168. Self-delete.

What I thought to be incredibly cute and clever, turned out to add nothing to the conversation here. All the bases have already been covered.