Shed electrics

[ban-all-sheds]

I use/used that term only because it appears that a substantial proportion of the people in question no longer like to be called "actresses", I suppose because they feel that it makes it sound as if they are doing something (maybe an 'inferior something'?) different from their male counterparts.

I do not think that ignorance and/or evidence-free determination that an "-ess" word signifies inferiority is a reason for fiddling with the language.

I wouldn't say that I have succumbed to anything, other than perhaps the apparent wishes of those women who do acting. When they were all happy to be called actresses, there was no problem - we had actors and actresses, with no need to give any additional indication of gender.

And manageress, waitress, hostess, stewardess.....

Is this Female Prince Eugenie?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I see nothing ludicrous about that. The "Dr Who" character is known to metamorphosise every year or two, and there are plenty of female doctors (whether medical or otherwise), so I see no reason why the character can't metamorphosise into a female

Indeed not, as there's already a precedent for a Time Lord regenerating as a woman. Female Time Lord? Time Lady?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It must be nearly the weekend, if the Electrics UK forum is, yet again, changing into a "Words" one

Shall we discuss the tautology of "Lady Mayoress"?

 

[JohnW2]

I do not think that ignorance and/or evidence-free determination that an "-ess" word signifies inferiority is a reason for fiddling with the language.

You would have to take that up with the people concerned.

I think their point probably is that if one acts, manages, waits, hosts, polices, runs a post office or whatever, then gender should be irrelevant, but having different words perpetuates the idea that there is some difference (in addition to the obvious one!) between men and women who do the same job or activity. In other words, it's probably not primarily a matter of "fiddling with the language" but, rather, is an attempt to remove those aspects of language which tend to perpetuate the historic attitude that women are in some way inferior to men.

I see you subscribe to the weekend playground as well!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Shall we discuss the tautology of "Lady Mayoress"?

No point in re-doing that one - use the forum's search facility.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think their point probably is that if one acts, manages, waits, hosts, polices, runs a post office or whatever, then gender should be irrelevant, but having different words perpetuates the idea that there is some difference (in addition to the obvious one!) between men and women who do the same job or activity.

Aside from the obvious one ??? So, there is one and to deny it is futile.
The result of that, though, is the ridiculous need for "male actors" and "female actors".
Oh, I know, we could have an appropriate suffix.

In other words, it's probably not primarily a matter of "fiddling with the language"

Well, it is.

but, rather, is an attempt to remove those aspects of language which tend to perpetuate the historic attitude that women are in some way inferior to men.

I do not see it doing that but you seem to be the one putting forward this presumption.

I see you subscribe to the weekend playground as well!

I fail to see the significance of the day. The subject arose.

Perhaps we should revert to the original usage and we can all be men. That'll cheer them.

 

[stillp]

The result of that, though, is the ridiculous need for "male actors" and "female actors".
Oh, I know, we could have an appropriate suffix.

Why don't we speak of "male actresses" and "female actresses?

 

[securespark]

No, that's not true SS.

Maybe misguided, but the spelling was wiman meaning "woman-man".

"adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)).

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why don't we speak of "male actresses" and "female actresses?

Because there is no need ???

Imagine - Is George Clooney an actress? No? Then the new Dr.Who is NOT an actor.


I suspect I know the reason why calling actresses actors came about but that really would cause John to get all P.C.

 

[JohnW2]

Why don't we speak of "male actresses" and "female actresses?

Quite so - and I think that probably illustrates why some people (mainly women) have been trying to change the words that people use - in an attempt to move people away from the mindset of a male-dominated society.

I think you'll find that most of the words we are talking about (actor, manager, host etc.) are not (and probably never have been) actually gender-specific (even if often, in the past, 'assumed' to relate only to males), so, language-wise, the female versions were never really needed - the 'need', if there ever was one, is sociological rather than linguistic. In any event, it is only in a very few cases that we have ever had gender-specific words for occupations etc., so the issue doesn't arise widely.

The actual answer to your question is, I presume, that, historically, all, or virtually all, actors were male (just as were managers, post-masters etc.), so there would have been no rational reason to call them 'male actresses' (or whatever) - even had the female word existed at the time.

Male midwives are generally (and certainly in their contracts and job descriptions) just called "midwives".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think the rest of your post is worth answering, but:

Male midwives are generally (and certainly in their contracts and job descriptions) just called "midwives".

Well, it's disgraceful; they jolly well ought to be called midhusbands - and so did the women.


Stop it, John. It's politically correct nonsense.

Have you been on courses telling you how to write reports using all this nonsense?

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect I know the reason why calling actresses actors came about but that really would cause John to get all P.C.

Hmmm - as I said, you'll never find me "getting all PC", but you might often find me saying sarcastic or rude things about 'PC'!

However, I do respect the wishes of people to be called whatever they prefer, for whatever reason, in any era of time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Hmmm - as I said, you'll never find me "getting all PC", but you might often find me saying sarcastic or rude things about 'PC'!

Go on then.

However, I do respect the wishes of people to be called whatever they prefer, for whatever reason, in any era of time.

That is "being all P.C.". Some people need to be told to stop being stupid.

I don't know if the new Dr.Who feels she wants to be an actor or not, but I suspect it's those reporting it who are being P.C. for fear of upsetting the few.

 

[rsgaz]

So, if a woman climbs into one of these...

...then what is it called?!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think their point probably is that if one acts, manages, waits, hosts, polices, runs a post office or whatever, then gender should be irrelevant, but having different words perpetuates the idea that there is some difference (in addition to the obvious one!) between men and women who do the same job or activity. In other words, it's probably not primarily a matter of "fiddling with the language" but, rather, is an attempt to remove those aspects of language which tend to perpetuate the historic attitude that women are in some way inferior to men.

Jolly good.

Given their (quite justified) complaints of the pro-male bias in the film industry, I wonder how many female actors would welcome the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deciding that henceforth there would only be one Best Actor award, and one Best Supporting Actor and so on, all to be competed for on an "equal" footing by men and women?