Ship of Fools: Off with that person's head!

Thread: Off with that person's head! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026304

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The State of Washington has declared illegal words such as "freshman" and "penmanship" as indicating gender bias.

Come off it! Doesn't the Washington legislature have bigger fish to fry, such as collapsing bridges, maybe?

You can't legislate how native speakers use their native tongue. Or is "native" politically incorrect also?

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

It's the laws that are being re-written.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

That's laws for you. Isn't there a place where horses can't shit in the street on a Sunday?

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The State of Washington has declared illegal words such as "freshman" and "penmanship" as indicating gender bias.

I've only heard 'fresher' used at UK universities, rather than 'freshman'. Maybe they could adopt that term?

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

*Checks link*

They're not declaring these words illegal, they're just changing the way the actual laws are written so that they're inclusive. Is this just pragmatism, to make it absolutely clear that the letter of the law applies equally to men and women?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

It's already clear. A "freshman" is a "first year student" regardless of gender. A perfectly good word is being deprecated. No one ever considered using "freshwoman" to denote a first-year co-ed (oops, another gender-heavy word).

Of course, "handwriting" is moot anyway since nobody actually does it anymore. But it never meant the same as "penmanship". "Penmanship" denotes the relative quality of the handwriting, not its existence.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Freshman has been replaced almost universally by first year student in the North American student services profession.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

What's the fuss all about? I think it's good that the USA is finally catching up with the rest of us.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

When I accepted my current church-musician job, the committee asked me what 'title' I would like, in the Sunday bulletin, etc. I said I thought that "Organist-Choir Mistress" would be okay. They decided on "Director" instead of mistress.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
They decided on "Director" instead of mistress.

Why not "Directress"?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Because it's not a word?

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

To most native English speakers, "making words illegal" or "banning words" sounds like making it a crime to use those words. That's ridiculously far from what this law does.

Most universities now use "first-year student," and all the first-year students call themselves "freshmen." That doesn't mean that those students are somehow violating a ban on the word freshman. It means that the university has changed its policies to use a different term, for its own purposes.

So who cares?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If you're complaining about the stylistic inelegance of the vocabulary used to write laws, you have a long and torturous road ahead of you.

[Smile]

[ 08. July 2013, 20:41: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Because it's not a word?

Sure it is.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I don't think I'd trust m-w as a source myself, and I said that before I took a random word that applies to both genders, editor, made up a theoretical feminine form, editress, and looked it up. Seriously. As a female editor, I rather suspect I'd have heard that once in my life if it were a word rather than a particularly appalling* combination of letters that is definitely not in common usage. Editress is not a word and neither is directress, IMO.

*For some of us who are extremely nerdy about words. Maybe less so to the rest of you more sane people.

[ 08. July 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Don't be a nerdress Gwai. [Razz]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Editress is not a word.

I think I'd prefer editrix myself. Sounds more, erm, racy, don't you think? [Two face]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
What's the fuss all about? I think it's good that the USA is finally catching up with the rest of us.

Oh, we were doing pretty well at inclusive/non-sexist language for a long time. But we backslid. As near as I can tell, that became obvious in early in Dubya's first term. I don't know if there's a connection--maybe Texans and/or Republicans don't like inclusive language?

I'm so sick of hearing "Man" and "mankind" again. And then there's using "Congressmen" for a mixed group. And on, and on. Even in well-respected media. Even NPR and PBS.

So I'm glad whenever I hear inclusiveness coming back. Changing "penmanship" is maybe a bridge too far, but I can live with it.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I think I'd prefer editrix myself. Sounds more, erm, racy, don't you think?

Isn't there a private board for that sort of thing?
[Razz]

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...I'm so sick of hearing "Man" and "mankind" again. And then there's using "Congressmen" for a mixed group...

Well, erm, Congress can be a pretty loaded term as well.

Posted by basso (# 4228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Well, erm, Congress can be a pretty loaded term as well.

"Loaded" is apparently a traditional condition of Congress.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Changing "penmanship" is maybe a bridge too far.

What will they make of churchmanship, I wonder?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I'm so sick of hearing "Man" and "mankind" again. And then there's using "Congressmen" for a mixed group. And on, and on. Even in well-respected media. Even NPR and PBS.

Frankly, I'd rather go the other way. HM The Queen is Duke of Lancaster, and not its Duchess, and Lord of Mann rather than Lady of Mann.

To me, that is a more empowering stance than inventing a new word that means "there might be a woman in this job". Because of course there might be a woman doing a job that used to be traditionally male. "I have this job that has been done by men for the last thousand years, and I have a uterus" is to me a much more powerful statement than "you have to change what you call this job because I'm a woman".

But then I'm widely accepted to be rather odd.

And yes, "male nurse" should be consigned to the dustbin with "woman police constable".

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I'm so sick of hearing "Man" and "mankind" again. And then there's using "Congressmen" for a mixed group. And on, and on. Even in well-respected media. Even NPR and PBS.

Frankly, I'd rather go the other way. HM The Queen is Duke of Lancaster, and not its Duchess, and Lord of Mann rather than Lady of Mann.

To me, that is a more empowering stance than inventing a new word that means "there might be a woman in this job". Because of course there might be a woman doing a job that used to be traditionally male. "I have this job that has been done by men for the last thousand years, and I have a uterus" is to me a much more powerful statement than "you have to change what you call this job because I'm a woman".

But then I'm widely accepted to be rather odd.

And yes, "male nurse" should be consigned to the dustbin with "woman police constable".

I don’t think that helps the argument at all, it just exposes another layer of hell worthy patriarchy
The reason the queen is a Duke and not a Duchess and a Lord not a Lady is because Dukes and Lords outrank Duchesses and ladies. Male titles take precedence, that’s why the Duke of Edinburgh is not king but a king’s spouse can be a queen. By and large hereditary titles for females, such as duchess, are merely taken from the male relative who is a title holder such as husband or father.
Usually a woman is not allowed to inherit a male title, even if there are female heirs, so if there are no male ones, the title ceases.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

And yes, "male nurse" should be consigned to the dustbin with "woman police constable". [/QB]

And of course, a male midwife isn't a midhusband....

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Washington state's laws will no longer use gendered terms that are a part of the way sexism is institutionalized in our culture. And this has your panties in a twist, Amanda? Seriously? You? You've got that cute little gender-bending screenname but you object to serious attempts to treat women as real people?

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

A midwife is someone (male or female) who is with a wife/woman. When men can give birth we will have midhusbands.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
They decided on "Director" instead of mistress.
Why not "Directress"?

"Directress" sounds too close to "Negress" in my book. I know that's not what you meant at all, I'm just saying it reminds me of negress.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
you object to serious attempts to treat women as real people?

Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Words often reflect our actions and shape our society.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Editress is not a word.
I think I'd prefer editrix myself. Sounds more, erm, racy, don't you think?

Anybody that calls me an editrix had better duck. Distinguishing between male and female practitioners of the same profession, doing exactly the same kind of work, is just plain demeaning and patronizing, and incredibly dated. Society and language have both moved on, thank God -- get over it.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
you object to serious attempts to treat women as real people?
Actions speak louder than words.

Speaking and writing are actions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Someone who makes espresso drinks is a barista. This is a feminine word in Spanish but is used in English whether the person is male or female. I don't see a lot of really manly™ men up in arms about this (granted I don't watch Fox News).

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

It may be feminine in Spanish, but it's not feminine in English, which I'd say is relevant.

Up-in-arms or not, I'd say many of us as people and as institutions--the textbook where I am an editor does not use gendered language except when gender is relevant--are trying to change our language.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It may be feminine in Spanish, but it's not feminine in English

As I said, yes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Barista is Italian and while Italian does have masculine and feminine nouns, masculine nouns ending in ista and cida remain unchanged.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Barista is Italian and while Italian does have masculine and feminine nouns, masculine nouns ending in ista and cida remain unchanged.

Spanish too: policía, dentista, periodista, etc., although they do say la mujer policía for a lady cop.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

Most universities now use "first-year student,"

Most universities in England always did. The students themselves can call new students "Freshers", but that's not quite the same as first-years. The implication is more like "newbie". You sort of grow out of being a fresher sometime in the first few months. Its not a word anyone much uses afte the first fortnight of term. Or at all after Christmas.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It may be feminine in Spanish, but it's not feminine in English, which I'd say is relevant.

Well, yes. But there are no gramatically feminine words in English any more. Haven't been for the best part of a thousand years. We have words that describe female and male people (or other creatures) but that's a lexical distinction, not a grammatical one.

If we have a tiny vestige of grammatical gender its the use of pronouns like "she" and "he" to stand for inanimate or unsexed or abstract referents like nation states or ships or computer programs or God. But its pretty marginal. I suspect its really a metaphorical connection of whatever object you are talking about with supposed qualities of one sex or the other, and not grammatical gender at all. And because we don;t have real grmmatical gender we don't "get" it in other languages and tend to read a sexualisation into their usage that maybe isn't really there.

But that's fine. We can do without grammatical gender. We don't have a future tense verb form either but we can talk abotu tomorrow. (We we don't really have a a present tense either, in normal usage - it exists but we don't actually use the simple present tense form of most of our verbs to talk about simple present actions, but about continuous ones, states of affiars, habits, this current sentence being an example [Biased]

)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why do you leave "he" and "she" used to refer to persons of known gender out of your dismissal of grammatical gender? We do have grammatically masculine and feminine nouns -- any that elicit the gramatically-gender-specific pronoun. Man. Woman. Actress. Waitress. You're redefining grammatical gender beyond all limits in your effort to make a point that seems unnecessary.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're redefining grammatical gender beyond all limits in your effort to make a point that seems unnecessary.

Are you confusing grammatical gender with physical gender? If they were the same, then copulation would be much more rampant than it is. Oh wait . . . . [Biased]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why do you leave "he" and "she" used to refer to persons of known gender out of your dismissal of grammatical gender? We do have grammatically masculine and feminine nouns -- any that elicit the gramatically-gender-specific pronoun. Man. Woman. Actress. Waitress. You're redefining grammatical gender beyond all limits in your effort to make a point that seems unnecessary.

Except that actress and waitress are already disappearing from common usage (people are just calling their servers "waiters" and actresses "actors"), following aviatrix and editrix (ix=ess in these cases). Just like Lady Policeman, Lady Priest (Rectrix? Padressse? Madre? Vicaress? Curatina?) and so on.

Pretty soon it will be just man and woman, boy and girl.

John

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Because if you take a piece of well-formed English speech and replace "she" with "he" throughout the syntax remains the same. You have changed the meaning, not the grammar.

You can't (always) do that in a language with grammatical gender. You have to change other things as well.

Come to think of it we do have the agreement between she/her/hers and so on, so you are right about that. But its pretty vestigial compared with what most other European languages have. (And often breaks down in colloquial speech in at least some varieties of English, including that of the south-east of England. People can, and do, use "they" and "their" for an individual of known sex). So yes, English has a tiny bit of grammatical gender. But hardly any.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
It's already clear. A "freshman" is a "first year student" regardless of gender. A perfectly good word is being deprecated. No one ever considered using "freshwoman" to denote a first-year co-ed (oops, another gender-heavy word).

I am surprised by the constant use of co-ed to refer to female students in the US. I recently read a book by a woman and she used this term frequently. I can't believe that this term is deemed acceptable it just makes female students seem so "secondary" as though males are the main game and females are a sort of add-on to me.

If an all female College "went co-ed" as we say in Australia (we use the term purely as an adjective to refer to mixed gender high schools), would the male students be referred to as "co-eds" for ever thereafter? Would it be acceptable to refer to non-white students as "non-segs" or "co-races"? [Disappointed]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I am surprised by the constant use of co-ed to refer to female students in the US. I recently read a book by a woman and she used this term frequently. I can't believe that this term is deemed acceptable it just makes female students seem so "secondary" as though males are the main game and females are a sort of add-on to me.

That term has puzzled (and annoyed) me for years.

When in college I lived in women's dorms and also in a co-ed dorm. They're not the same.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

It's a weird usage too, because I live in the US, and while I see the word regularly in some books, I have almost never heard anyone actually say it.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Actually, I'm puzzled by the fading-away of "actress." I can certainly see no reason, for example, that the gender of a committee head need be indicated by separate words like "chairMAN" and "chairWOMAN," since it's pretty rare that the chairperson's gender is at all relevant to committee-doings.

I have a friend who does community theater, though, and it's equally (or maybe even more) rare that men play women's roles or women play men's roles (at least for anything beyond spear-carriers). STM it would make sense to keep the gender distinction in "actor" and "actress."

My friend directed a couple of one-acts several months ago, and had a list of auditioners. A couple of people on her list had names like "Pat Smith" and "Lee Brown" -- names which often go to people of either sex. Though she knew their ages, weights, and heights, she couldn't decide which roles to ask them to read for until she clapped eyes on them. The designation "actor" or "actress" could have saved a little time and shuffling.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Porridge, do you know anyone who actually says chairwoman though? When I have gone to such meetings, lately it's always just been "the chair," and if it weren't, it would be chairman.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Just like Lady Policeman, Lady Priest (Rectrix? Padressse? Madre? Vicaress? Curatina?) and so on.

A recent contributor to a comments thread on the Catholic Herald, denying that any Anglican could be a priest, merely a minister, coined the term 'ministrette' for women.

[ 11. July 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: argona ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Three thoughts on "actor/actress".

Firstly, its what women actors want to be called. That should trump anything else.

Secondly, the "ess" suffix has a somewhat diminutive sound to it, especially when it is added to a word without a suffix, such as poet. This does not apply so much to words with an "or" suffix, but there is still a suggestion in the sound of a lesser status.

Thirdly, there has been an implication of an iffy status about words feminised in this way. (Think about the effect of using "priestess" to describe women in ministry - you know it is used deliberately to call up inappropriate suggestions in the mind.) In the case of "actress", there is that phrase "as the actress said to the bishop". Something is meant there which the word actor would not carry, and it is not complimentary to the woman, who is being set up against the probity of the prelate. Or supposed probity. The "ess" suffix can be construed to be carrying a hidden snigger.

As for auditions - wouldn't the Pats and Robins and Hilarys be going for parts which would make their gender clear?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Three thoughts on "actor/actress".

Firstly, its what women actors want to be called. That should trump anything else.

Do they?! Are all actresses of one mind on this? Does AMPAS know?

quote:
Secondly, the "ess" suffix has a somewhat diminutive sound to it, especially when it is added to a word without a suffix, such as poet. This does not apply so much to words with an "or" suffix, but there is still a suggestion in the sound of a lesser status.

I don't detect the diminutive sound. I doubt anyone thinks less of Meryl Streep's performances because she's won Best Actress Oscars rather than Best Female Actor Oscars.

('Female actor' seems very cumbersome.)

quote:
In the case of "actress", there is that phrase "as the actress said to the bishop". Something is meant there which the word actor would not carry, and it is not complimentary to the woman, who is being set up against the probity of the prelate. Or supposed probity. The "ess" suffix can be construed to be carrying a hidden snigger.

On this basis presumably the word 'Bishop' should be banned too? A story of a senior clergyman engaging in extra-marital tomfoolery isn't exactly flattering.

quote:
As for auditions - wouldn't the Pats and Robins and Hilarys be going for parts which would make their gender clear?

Perhaps they just threw their hats (bowlers, stetsons, flowery ones) into a general ring?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Things were so much simpler in Shakespeare's day...
[Biased]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Weren't they, though? Much ado about nothing, he would probably remark.

We should probably also include in this discussion the use of "Esquire" (abbreviated "Esq.") as an honorific for lawyers. Historically, an esquire has always been a gentleman. Should the word also apply to women lawyers?

A partner (a woman) at a major New York law firm once opined that the honorific "Goodwife" (abbreviated "Gdwf.") could be applied to women attorneys in place of Esquire.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

How appalling, as if a lawyer need be anyone's wife.

Besides, it's historically inaccurate. Goodwife was the counterpart to goodman, unless I am wrong.

Mind, I see the issue re Esq...

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

You're not wrong.

FWIW, I stopped being addressed as Esquire some 40 years ago. Never see it used, not even by my barrister/solicitor.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
In the case of "actress", there is that phrase "as the actress said to the bishop". Something is meant there which the word actor would not carry, and it is not complimentary to the woman, who is being set up against the probity of the prelate.

That's more due to "actress" being a euphemism for "prostitute" at the time the phrase was first coined.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
In the case of "actress", there is that phrase "as the actress said to the bishop". Something is meant there which the word actor would not carry, and it is not complimentary to the woman, who is being set up against the probity of the prelate.
That's more due to "actress" being a euphemism for "prostitute" at the time the phrase was first coined.

Marvin, I was being oblique, and subtle about that. I thought I had given enough to show which way the argument was going.

And Anglican't, many actors of the female persuasion have stated their preference of being actors. Does it have to be unanimous before their preference should be observed? And as for not detecting the diminutive effect of "ess", sometimes the detection depends on the detector. Detectoresses are more likely to notice it. Note the usages of doctor, and doctress. Mary Seacole was a doctress. Doesn't have the equivalent status, does it? As a deaconess is not the equivalent of a deacon.

While researching this answer, I have come across the suggestion that in ancient Greek the parallel ending could also be a diminutive.

Word Reference discussion

And here is an answer from Yahoo (OK, not the world's most definitive source) to the question "What is the female of instructor?"

quote:

An instructor.

I presume you're thinking of the -ess suffix that we see with some words (for example, baron vs. baroness, or steward vs. stewardess). This comes originally from the same origin as the French -ette suffix, which is a diminutive. It is from a time when women's work meant less than men's - so a lot of "lesser" positions held by women came to have the -ess suffix in earlier times. I'm not making a political point here - it is perfectly correct to use the feminine forms for words that have them, like princess or actress (although these days "actor" can also mean both a man or woman). The reason for the history lesson is that lots of words, especially for skilled work, never came to have a feminine diminutive form (either because traditionally women didn't hold the job, or because the women who did so were uncommonly qualified and so didn't get stuck with the diminutive, lesser job title). So today, there is no such thing as a "pilotess" or a "journalistess." Similarly, for both men and women we say "instructor," "litigator," and "doctor."

Yahoo on the subject

I'm not convinced it is correct about the connection with "ette" - where the female/diminutive identification is much more obvious. There is an "esse" form.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Restricting grammar to syntax exclusive of semantics is so last year.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Secondly, the "ess" suffix has a somewhat diminutive sound to it, especially when it is added to a word without a suffix, such as poet. This does not apply so much to words with an "or" suffix, but there is still a suggestion in the sound of a lesser status.
I don't detect the diminutive sound. I doubt anyone thinks less of Meryl Streep's performances because she's won Best Actress Oscars rather than Best Female Actor Oscars.

AIUI the diminutive sound was often intended with "poetess".

It is simpler to use the same word for people doing the same job.

[ 11. July 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: JoannaP ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And Anglican't, many actors of the female persuasion have stated their preference of being actors. Does it have to be unanimous before their preference should be observed?

I've ranted on before, I think, about how I don't see the argument that a minority of people should determine how everyone speaks, so I'm loathe to return to that subject, but who are these people? You say 'many' but there are presumably equally many women who are content with the word 'actress'. Why should one group exclude the other? The phrase 'actors of the female persuasion' is cumbersome and if there is a convenient shorter word or phrase it ought to be used.

quote:
Note the usages of doctor, and doctress. Mary Seacole was a doctress. Doesn't have the equivalent status, does it?

To the extent that Mary Seacole had any formal medical qualifications or knowledge, I understood that they were in nursing? The Wikipedia article on Seacole describes her mother as being a 'doctress' and defines that as 'a a healer who used traditional Caribbean and African herbal remedies'. Does that compare to an 19th century doctor?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And Anglican't, many actors of the female persuasion have stated their preference of being actors. Does it have to be unanimous before their preference should be observed?

I've ranted on before, I think, about how I don't see the argument that a minority of people should determine how everyone speaks, so I'm loathe to return to that subject, but who are these people? You say 'many' but there are presumably equally many women who are content with the word 'actress'.

On what basis would you make such an assumption?

quote:
Why should one group exclude the other? The phrase 'actors of the female persuasion' is cumbersome and if there is a convenient shorter word or phrase it ought to be used.

"actor" seems to be the preferred term. It's not like we have a special term for male actors, so why do we need one for female actors?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

I'm not convinced it is correct about the connection with "ette" - where the female/diminutive identification is much more obvious. There is an "esse" form.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following etymology for "-ess":
French -esse, from Com. Romanic -essa, from late Latin -issa, from Greek -ισσα ( from -ikyā: cf. the Old English fem. agentive suffix -icge from -igjôn-)

And "-trix" comes directly from the Latin feminine agent noun ending.

I'd provide a link, but OED's behind a paywall, so not much point.

So "-ess" doesn't seem to be derived from the French diminutive "-ette". In all those languages listed in the etymology of "-ess", nouns take a grammatical gender, including Old English.

But to my mind, the matter isn't linguistic, it's sociological. The masculine version is the unmarked term, and the feminine is marked, thus making the feminine not the norm, or even "other".

If we really believe that men and women are equal as human beings, citizens, professionals, and workers, then it behooves us to speak of them as equals, and use the same terms for both.

Sorry to be very un-hellish.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On what basis would you make such an assumption?

On the basis of its continued, frequent use without widespread vocal opposition.

I once heard a Hollywood actress (it may have been Jodie Foster, I don't quite remember) claim that she wanted to be called an 'actor', but that was about 10-15 years ago. I've never heard anyone else make a fuss about it.

quote:
"actor" seems to be the preferred term. It's not like we have a special term for male actors, so why do we need one for female actors?

So what should the Best Actress Oscar be called?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not like we have a special term for male actors, so why do we need one for female actors?

I'm surprised we're not calling them "theatrical interpreters".

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
]So what should the Best Actress Oscar be called?

The Independent Spirit awards calls that award "Best Female Lead" (And they have "Best Supporting Male"- "Best Supporting Female", respectively.

Seems pretty tidy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Truly, for equality's sake, there would not be separate awards for best female and best male, no matter how it is labeled. There would only be Best Actor No one whats to go that route as it would eliminate an award from the ceremonies. One less chance to win, one less chance to show that win.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Wo[e/mb]-man.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
As for auditions - wouldn't the Pats and Robins and Hilarys be going for parts which would make their gender clear?
Perhaps they just threw their hats (bowlers, stetsons, flowery ones) into a general ring?

Exactly. They signified they'd be willing to try out for “anything” -- not very informative.

quote:
. . . We should probably also include in this discussion the use of "Esquire" (abbreviated "Esq.") as an honorific for lawyers. Historically, an esquire has always been a gentleman. Should the word also apply to women lawyers?

A partner (a woman) at a major New York law firm once opined that the honorific "Goodwife" (abbreviated "Gdwf.") could be applied to women attorneys in place of Esquire.

Several lawyers of my acquaintance, all female, use Esq. It’s common in the US.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"actor" seems to be the preferred term. It's not like we have a special term for male actors, so why do we need one for female actors?

Actors generally impersonate male characters.
Actresses generally impersonate female ones.

If you advertise an “open call” in Backstage for “actors” when you really need to cast two women age 25-30, you’re apt to raise a lot ire among people who needn’t have bothered but whose agents urged them to suit up and attend.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
[QB]But to my mind, the matter isn't linguistic, it's sociological. The masculine version is the unmarked term, and the feminine is marked, thus making the feminine not the norm, or even "other".

If we really believe that men and women are equal as human beings, citizens, professionals, and workers, then it behooves us to speak of them as equals, and use the same terms for both.

Sorry to be very un-hellish.

The man who started the thread apparently thinks that speaking of women and men as equals is what's hellish. I'm still wondering why that is.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The man who started the thread apparently thinks that speaking of women and men as equals is what's hellish. I'm still wondering why that is.

You have read that into the OP but it simply isn't there.

What's hellish is the notion that just because a word contains the letters "man" somewhere inside of it, that must mean it applies only to men. A woman is just as capable of being a freshman as a man is, and she is just as capable of writing with good penmanship (or exhibiting the qualities of good churchmanship, or firing a weapon with a high degree of marksmanship, etc. etc.) as any man.

I pass no judgment on the relative merits of a woman's standing as a freshman, or the quality of her penmanship, or the worthiness of her churchmanship, or the accuracy of her marksmanship, compared to those of a man.

If the State of Washington (or anyone else) wants to believe that such concepts require words not containing the letters "man" in order to clarify that they apply equally to both sexes, it's their business, not mine.

[ 12. July 2013, 00:49: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If the State of Washington (or anyone else) wants to believe that such concepts require words not containing the letters "man" in order to clarify that they apply equally to both sexes, it's their business, not mine.

If it's none of your business, what business did you have starting a thread on it?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Some resources for discussion:

-- Article on non-sexist language, from AcademicKids.com.

-- Handout on gender-sensitive language, from Univ. of North Carolina.

-- "Does Media Sexism Hurt Female Candidates?", from About.com's Women's Issues section.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

First link not found. Try again (or go to Purgatory)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

First link didn't work.

Having read the second, I am reminded of a few things.

1. That male human beings have already modified the language by using "man" usually for them and then expecting people to use it in its original sense for all people as if it didn't carry that idea of maleness. Male humans should have a prefix, as wif-man>woman does. It is wer, cognate with vir, so wer-man. Only people would now think it meant a shape changer as in werewolf. (Note that these were originally male! But etymology isn't meaning, is it?)

2. The eight year old children's response to a worksheet I did for a literacy hour topic on male/female words. Along with bull/cow, fox/vixen, lion/lioness, king/queen, I sneaked in doctors and nurses and headteachers. And sure as eggs is eggs, they thought the female of doctor was nurse (despite TV programmes with male nurses). and got really stuck with headteachers. It was a useful teaching opportunity.

3. I want us to return to pre-18th century usage for women's titles. I want to be Mrs, not Ms, which carries political weight as well as absence of marital information. And I really want computer forms to allow me not to use a title at all.

4. I remembered a school book on nature in gardens that used pronouns other than it to refer to various creatures. Discussing the predatory habits of spiders (while omitting the bit about females eating males) the writer used she, as if all spiders were female. After reading this and thinking it a little inappropriate, while often found in literature, I came across the discussion on the noble social habits of bees, in which the workers were referred to by "he", which is just plain wrong. (The writer did use "she" of the queen. Drones were not mentioned.) At this point I decided to check the author's name. Guess what gender.

So it was Mary Seacole's mother who was the doctress - sorry about that - but the term is still not the equivalent of doctor, is it? Which is the point. Of course, in other languages there is still respect for the female form, as in Italian with dottoressa (going by what I read in novels, anyway). (One thing I found while searching was someone's mother whi insisted on being called manager in her job, because she felt the term manageress carried less authority.)

If a woman in the theatre wants to be called an actor, she should be. If she wants to be called an actress, she should be. It isn't for others to decide. (I have strong opinions about men wanting to be called Father by people outside their religious group when Jesus said something about only calling God Father, but when I meet someone who wants that epithet, I'll use it. It's a matter of good manners.)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Mea culpa. Correct link is:

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/n/no/non_sexist_language.html

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If it's none of your business, what business did you have starting a thread on it?

I can express an opinion, can't I? Isn't that what a rant is?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If a woman in the theatre wants to be called an actor, she should be. If she wants to be called an actress, she should be. It isn't for others to decide.

I'm not so sure about this. Two points:

1. We don't, on the basis of individual preferences, decide on the meanings of words; this violates the "social contract" which language essentially is. It's confusing and unfair for me to expect you to communicate effectively with me when I, off my own bat, decide that "chair" actually means "potato" and request that you pick up 5 pounds of chairs for me at the supermarket.

2. The point of non-sexist language, particularly in naming professions and occupations, is to halt the stereotyping of certain jobs being appropriate only for certain genders. Firefighters, cops, doctors, and so on can be male or female; it's sensible to use language that supports and reinforces that idea.

The same is not true of actors and actresses. These aren't stereotypes; they're essential characteristics of the job. Roles, by and large, ARE cast by gender; that's exactly what makes gender-specific language appropriate in this instance. Just as it's inappropriate to cast a Caucasian thespian in an Asian role (where Asian thespians can be assumed to be available), making him/her up to appear Asian, neither do we usually expect male thespians to play women, or female thespians to play men (yes, yes, I know that Persons Female and Famous have played Hamlet, but frankly, that's mostly just a publicity stunt).

In this case, gender is one essential aspect of the job, and calls for a job title which helps make the gender distinction clear. It saves trouble, as noted above, when advertising for dramatis personae (stage personnel, extremely loose translation).

So, on the possibly too-charitable and decidedly un-hellish assumption that the OP is simply suggesting that non-sexist language requirements can be carried too far, I'll hold out for actor/actress.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

But you are not denying that actor can validly be used to refer to women too, right? As long as that is true, I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to self-determine. Sure a female word for people whose gender allows them to more naturally play female characters would make sense, but to insist that women call themselves by a word that has regularly been used for prostitutes seems a bit much.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Mark Rylance and other Shakespeareans have performed as women at the Globe. Not to mention various Dames in pantomime. And Principal Boys who are women. The actors who, while female have played male parts in Shakespeare have done it in all seriousness. Dare I mention Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams? Cross-dressing in theatre is fairly common.

And Adrian Lester has performed as Henry V without "whiting up" if we are mentioning cross-race acting.

Funny old place, theatre. You are supposed to suspend disbelief.

There is a fairly ghastly phrase about at the moment - "check your privilege". I don't like it. But it is supposed to suggest that it should be the person who feels discriminated against who gets to define the situation, which seems fair enough. Men do not get to choose what a woman is called, according to this. The woman does.

[ 12. July 2013, 15:00: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

In this case, gender is one essential aspect of the job, and calls for a job title which helps make the gender distinction clear. It saves trouble, as noted above, when advertising for dramatis personae (stage personnel, extremely loose translation).

So, on the possibly too-charitable and decidedly un-hellish assumption that the OP is simply suggesting that non-sexist language requirements can be carried too far, I'll hold out for actor/actress.

Okay.

but just FYI, from someone "in the biz" (but far away from Hollywood or Broadway) I'm an actor. I'm not pushing some agenda, it is bog standard in the stage world at this point that we are all actors.

of course we're still cast based in part on our innate physical characteristics. But we're not defined by them. I've only ever been called an "actress" by people outside of the biz.

the term "actress" is as outdated as "stewardess".

seriously, folks. this is old news.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

If you advertise an “open call” in Backstage for “actors” when you really need to cast two women age 25-30, you’re apt to raise a lot ire among people who needn’t have bothered but whose agents urged them to suit up and attend.

sorry, missed this before. chances are this ad would say "cast call" or "open auditions" and then list the roles: 2 females, age 25-30, one african-american, one caucasian. musical ability a must, dance experience preferred. preference given to actors skilled with chainsaw maintenance. must be willing to rehearse on evenings and weekends. blah blah blah.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
the term "actress" is as outdated as "stewardess".

seriously, folks. this is old news.

The point being that nobody's using "steward" either, though. These folks are now "flight attendants," neither maleness nor femaleness being in any way essential to the job.

And not every advertiser can afford the wordage in your hypothetical ad. However, economizing by using "actors' when you're casting an all-female production will likely cause confusion.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

my point was that they likely won't say "actors" at all. more like "open auditions for female roles" with dates and times. And collectively, I've only ever seen the term "actors" never "actors and actresses" we're not treated as separate professions.

if I saw an ad asking for "actresses" I'd assume the director is an amateur, and I'd stay away. The term just isn't used, except perhaps within rehearsal, i.e. "The little actress's room is the one on the left"

[ 12. July 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: comet ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
. . . to insist that women call themselves by a word that has regularly been used for prostitutes seems a bit much.

With all due respect, piffle. I'm not trotting out the OED for this, but I suspect it's been at least a generation, maybe two, since "actress" has served as a commonly-used euphemism for "prostitute," at least where I live.

And yes, I think it's perfectly acceptable to label a group of male and female thespians as "actors," and no, I don't think the suffix "-or" conveys any automatic assumptions about normative gender assignment the way "mankind" does.

I do think that a female amateur named Pat or Robin who turns up at community theater auditions with no headshots (not many amateurs have these) and willing to "take any role" could help out the staff by labeling herself in a gender-specific way.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If it's none of your business, what business did you have starting a thread on it?
I can express an opinion, can't I? Isn't that what a rant is?

Of course. But then you're saying it's part of your business.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Dare I mention Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams? Cross-dressing in theatre is fairly common.

It's fairly common, yes, and if you want to do Shakespeare as Shakespeare himself did, then everybody understands we're working in a different context than exists in contemporary theater. But this is to miss the point. If specific gender assignments did not apply to acting roles, cross-dressing would be completely without point or purpose. If it doesn't matter what gender the player is, then you can cast Meryl Streep as Tootsie instead of Dustin Hoffman, and thereby lose the entire point of the movie.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
. . . to insist that women call themselves by a word that has regularly been used for prostitutes seems a bit much.
With all due respect, piffle. I'm not trotting out the OED for this, but I suspect it's been at least a generation, maybe two, since "actress" has served as a commonly-used euphemism for "prostitute," at least where I live.

I remind you of the meme discussed above about actresses and bishops. It wouldn't be funny if the actress was not being related to sex.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
. . . to insist that women call themselves by a word that has regularly been used for prostitutes seems a bit much.
With all due respect, piffle. I'm not trotting out the OED for this, but I suspect it's been at least a generation, maybe two, since "actress" has served as a commonly-used euphemism for "prostitute," at least where I live.
I remind you of the meme discussed above about actresses and bishops. It wouldn't be funny if the actress was not being related to sex.

But the two uses of the word are completely separate. If people say 'Meryl Streep is an actress' they aren't thinking 'Meryl is a slutty whore', are they?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If it's none of your business, what business did you have starting a thread on it?
I can express an opinion, can't I? Isn't that what a rant is?

Of course. And you can look like a complete ass doing it, because anyone who has a problem with legislation saying that laws will be written in non-sexist language is a complete ass.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
. . . to insist that women call themselves by a word that has regularly been used for prostitutes seems a bit much.
With all due respect, piffle. I'm not trotting out the OED for this, but I suspect it's been at least a generation, maybe two, since "actress" has served as a commonly-used euphemism for "prostitute," at least where I live.
I remind you of the meme discussed above about actresses and bishops. It wouldn't be funny if the actress was not being related to sex.
But the two uses of the word are completely separate. If people say 'Meryl Streep is an actress' they aren't thinking 'Meryl is a slutty whore', are they?

Actually, I do think that if I said "Jane is a doctor, Ethyl a secretary, and Meryl is an actress, who do you think is most likely to sleep with you tonight" that most people would say Meryl.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Well I would have gone with Jane, myself...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There was a piece in today's Guardian about parts for women in Hollywood films.

Female actors

Throughout, being the Guardian, the article uses actor, as you would expect, except in one place.

quote:
The unhealthy preponderance of female characters whose primary function is to guide the male protagonist out of his malaise throws into relief the fact that most movie representations of women are male constructs – and not all those males understand the opposite sex as intimately as their own. Some day, Nathan Rabin's identification of the "manic pixie dream girl" trope will be seen as the movie equivalent of isolating the polio virus. In the meantime, struggling actresses across Hollywood are tearing off their Zooey Deschanel wigs, crying: "What am I doing wrong?"

One thing to note here is that it is not only what women are called, it is what they are called upon to play. These parts are not the equivalent of parts by Shakespeare, Ibsen or Beckett, or even Aeschylus or Aristophanes. They are not usually actual people, but projections of men's ideas of women. Not completely real, less than the male characters.

So you have a word which has for part of its history carried a negative meaning other than the apparent one, and describes, in many cases, parts which are also lesser than the male parts.

It also carries an impression of youth, since, as many women in the profession complain, there are very few parts for mature women.

If women in the business don't want this collection of disparaging cobwebs clinging to the word used to describe them, that is their choice, and if the business is happy with that it is not the concern of anyone outside the business to challenge it.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I remind you of the meme discussed above about actresses and bishops. It wouldn't be funny if the actress was not being related to sex.

The meme, which is pretty antique (I can't recall ever hearing a joke or witticism starting with this meme in my lifetime, and I'm not young, though I've read it in books published in the UK early in the last century), consists mainly in throwing together two characters from disparate spheres, morally, socially, and ethically. Contrast makes it funny, and yes, a hint of sex is certainly part of that context.

However, even before women were generally active in it, theater was always a "suspect" context. Actors, even when all-male casts were the norm, were regarded in many periods of history as living on the fringes of society -- roguish, licentious, unreliable, possibly larcenous, and on and on.

Respectable people in various historical periods weren't any happier to marry their daughters off to actors than they were to discover their bishops cavorting with actresses.

I believe Master Will S. tooted off to London and his subsequent playwriting career only after marriage.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

However, even before women were generally active in it, theater was always a "suspect" context. Actors, even when all-male casts were the norm, were regarded in many periods of history as living on the fringes of society -- roguish, licentious, unreliable, possibly larcenous, and on and on.

well, some things never change.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Max Beerbohm, writing theatre criticism in the 1890s, attempted to pioneer the term 'mimes' for all players, male and female. Ahead of his time.

Btw, if you ever come across his collected reviews (certainly Out of print and I don't know if it's made its way into electronic format), leap on them. He is watching the last, florid examples of the Victorian melodrama (not long after to be reborn as cinema of course). He preserves such wonderful curtain lines as - 'I go forth to fight in the Thirty Years War!'

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Porridge, do you know anyone who actually says chairwoman though? When I have gone to such meetings, lately it's always just been "the chair," and if it weren't, it would be chairman.

It should be chairperson -- neither chairman or chairwoman.

But it should NOT be that annoying term that I absolutely loath, "the chair", because it is not a piece of furniture that is doing the presiding.

[ 12. July 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I'm sure plenty of people think 'chairperson' is equally loathsome.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I was going to write but one word...

Smurfette. for reference

then decided it may not be an adequate response.
If the purpose of a thing is have gender, when the purpose of all other things is to have character, then we have a problem. And all the time this problem exists, we need to be a bit careful with language.

When children no longer think that there is a term which can be universal, and then there is a female version, then we can have gender specific terms. But I think we may find that we end up with non-gender specific words instead.

'male midwife/male nurse' is as wrong as 'woman police constable' and people are making steady progress on changing to ungendered words. Players is good, I like it.

Did you know, porridge and Amanda, that back in the day, there were a lot of women primary teachers, and text books for teachers were almost unique in having feminine pronouns used throughout? When men started to seriously take on primary teaching there was a swift outpouring of outrage at the inappropriate gender bias which was very smartly responded to, with text books immediately reprinted to be non-specific. Interestingly, when women complained of the opposite bias in engineering, medical, law, etc etc etc etc they encountered a much less obliging ear. Surely they can read for context? Surely there is no actual obscuring of meaning? How can it possibly be offensive or demeaning or psychologically creating a disadvantage in any way? Really, women should be flattered...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

So, on the possibly too-charitable and decidedly un-hellish assumption that the OP is simply suggesting that non-sexist language requirements can be carried too far, I'll hold out for actor/actress.

Well, I don't know - why pick on sex? We don't have a special word for "black actor," do we? If I am looking for someone to portray Rosa Parks, I don't advertise for a "Blacktress," even though we all know that I'm not going to hire anyone white.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Anyone who has a problem with legislation saying that laws will be written in non-sexist language is a complete ass.

Thank you for clarifying what you think of me. Good to know.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
But it should NOT be that annoying term that I absolutely loath, "the chair", because it is not a piece of furniture that is doing the presiding.

It's called metonymy, and it's fine.

ETA: Looks pretty stupid, though, if I misspell it.

[ 12. July 2013, 22:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Anyone who has a problem with legislation saying that laws will be written in non-sexist language is a complete ass.
Thank you for clarifying what you think of me. Good to know.

Ms. Amanda, you did kind of act like that. I often like your witty posting--but not this thread, which was a really poor choice.

I and many other women are angry at the way American society's treatment of women and girls has backslid so much--and language is a part of that.

If this were about another category than gender--say, race or religion or sexual orientation--would you be ok with excluding people???

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ms. Amanda, you did kind of act like that.

Well, we all do once in awhile. I wouldn't dispute that. But that's not the same as being a complete ass, which I really don't think I am despite what Ruth thinks.

quote:
If this were about another category than gender--say, race or religion or sexual orientation--would you be ok with excluding people???

No, I am not OK with excluding anyone, anywhere, ever. Again, my point was that I don't think the words in question are in and of themselves exclusive. To say that we can no longer use the word "freshman" because it means only men, and doesn't include women, is just plain silly, in my opinion. I don't think that "freshman" is gender-exclusive. I would never use it to mean men only. Others are entitled to their opinions, but that's mine.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ms. Amanda, you did kind of act like that.
Well, we all do once in awhile. I wouldn't dispute that. But that's not the same as being a complete ass, which I really don't think I am despite what Ruth thinks.

This sounds like an irregular verb.

I am being a bit recalcitrant
You are being an annoying jerk
He is being a complete ass.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I think the first line of that should read:

I am being firm to principle.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think the first line of that should read:

I am being firm to principle.

Well said.

I am being firm to principle.
You are being a recalcitrant jerk.
He is being a complete ass.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Is now a good time to mention that I read the thread title as 'Off with that parson's head'.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Again, my point was that I don't think the words in question are in and of themselves exclusive. To say that we can no longer use the word "freshman" because it means only men, and doesn't include women, is just plain silly, in my opinion. I don't think that "freshman" is gender-exclusive. I would never use it to mean men only.

Miss Amanda, the core of what you seem to be saying is:
"My personal internal feeling about something is the fundamental universal truth for all."

Which, for the pragmatic part, is probably mostly correct. Most everybody who uses "freshman" probably has no particularly sexist meaning¹ in mind.

Except that we're not talking about "everybody". We're talking about a governing body, specifically about how it words its legal creations. For a law-creating body to be extra-conservative with respect to sexist language... I feel pretty OK about that, and I suspect you do too. And it's doubtful that it's the most-awkward aspect of legalese they feel obliged to employ.

None of which has any effect on what anybody else can or can't use, regardless of what they want it to mean.

¹ Although, there is no doubting that words like "freshman" are a product of a profoundly sexist era. A word with a sex embedded in it has sexist baggage, and always will. Languages with forced gender for every noun are probably trapped in this regard.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
"My personal internal feeling about something is the fundamental universal truth for all."

That's certainly not what I intended to convey. If that's how it came over, then mea culpa.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

It can get very silly indeed. When I was in the Navy many years ago they were rewriting directives (instructions, and so on) to be gender non-specific and, in true Navy fashion, insisted it be done for *everything.* So in a document discussing maternity leave, we ended up with "pregnant personnel" and some amazingly tortuous attempts to avoid ever saying "she" or "her."

They still refer to "ordnancemen" and "radiomen" and "airmen" (to say nothing of "boatswain"). Some things are just embedded in the language and have pretty much lost their gender connections.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If an all female College "went co-ed" as we say in Australia (we use the term purely as an adjective to refer to mixed gender high schools), would the male students be referred to as "co-eds" for ever thereafter?

I went to a women's university. There was litigation while I was there over the single-sex policy. The student editorial board of the campus newspaper decided that, if the school went co-ed, that male students would be referred to as co-eds for ever thereafter.

However, as things happened, the campus newspaper ceased to be an independent publication shortly before the first men were admitted. As an official publication of the university, the newspaper had constraints that it didn't have when it was independent. So the men were never referred to as co-eds.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

There are elements of visibility and pragmatism in this. People who put out fires are now called firefighters, but people who make fires by shovelling coal on steam locomotives, who once shared the same descriptor (to the total confusion of many non-native English speakers) are still called firemen.

Is this because (a) there is no convenient genderless term that doesn't sound ludicrous (steamships had stokers, but no-one seems inclined to transfer that to the railway, except in a mechanical context) (b) there aren't enough of them to make it worth anyone's while to try and change things (c) they are nearly all volunteers on heritage railways who don't want to rock the boat (with the corollary that most of the (male) volunteers are of the dinosaur persuasion anyway) or (d) none of the above?

[ 15. September 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: Signaller ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The State of Washington has declared illegal words such as "freshman" and "penmanship" as indicating gender bias.

Come off it! Doesn't the Washington legislature have bigger fish to fry, such as collapsing bridges, maybe?

You can't legislate how native speakers use their native tongue. Or is "native" politically incorrect also?

I just had a moment where careful wording would have helped understand collapsing bridges. The Seattle NPR station was talking about the re-opening of the bridge which has collapsed and other bridges in the state that were fragile (capable of collapsing with a single member failure) or deteriorated. They said that although the one that had collapsed was fragile it had not deteriorated. However many of its peers were both deteriorated and fragile.

It took me a moment to figure out from the surrounding context that they meant other bridges and not the piers under the bridge. Fortunately we don't have to worry about decaying nobility in the U.S.

;-)

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
There are elements of visibility and pragmatism in this. People who put out fires are now called firefighters, but people who make fires by shovelling coal on steam locomotives, who once shared the same descriptor (to the total confusion of many non-native English speakers) are still called firemen.

similarly, around here all official documents tend to refer to "anglers" while everyday Joe Sixpack still says "fisherman" no matter the fun bits of the person in question.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Words often reflect our actions and shape our society.

This.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I have to say that I'm absurdly inconsistent. I would never use 'poetess', and don't generally use 'actress'. I do say 'waitress', as does pretty much everyone I know ('waitron', although evidently seriously proposed in the 1970s, now sounds like a joke).

Landlord/Landlady is another gender specific job title that doesn't seem to going anywhere any time soon.Comedian/Comedienne seems to be about a 50/50 split.

In certain church circles, its not uncommon to refer to 'a foundress' or 'a benefactress'. We also refer to a woman who leads singing at Evensong as 'a cantrix' (if a man does it, then he's a 'a cantor', obviously). I find all of these uses charming, if a bitself-consciously antiquarian, and I don't think there is any intention to imply that a woman in one of those roles is anything less than a man. Of course, Catholics of all stripes invariably refer to Mary as 'mediatrix'.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

I am in favour of gender equality but I also have respect for the English language. And therefore I too am inconsistent, because the language is, and sometimes it can be gracefully changed to be more inclusive, and sometimes it can't.

For example, when I see constructions like :" Every student must remember their homework" --a clumsy effort to avoid a personal pronoun, where "his" might have been used in the past to mean all students--I am horrorstruck. No, I do not want to go back to "his" meaning "his or her" ! I agree that no longer sounds inclusive.
But why can't people be bothered to recast the sentence?!
"All students must remember...their homework."

I can't really comment on "freshman" as I grew up and went to university in the UK. (I first encountered "freshman," "sophomore" etc in the charming American novel Daddy-Long-Legs as a teenager, and was baffled.)

But I too use "waitress" and I don't think it has anything demeaning about it. I think I might use "actress" too sometimes, but I quite understand why female actors might not like it...

In the armed forces, it's interesting that "airman" (as mentioned above) has been retained for women as well as men...I wonder what the women in question think?

Anyway, I believe (though it's not very hellish!) that there must be a happy medium between sticking to very exclusive language on the one hand and committing horrible distortions of English on the other.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Choirmistress [Mad]

As a female organist friend says: she in nobody's mistress - and certainly not her choir's.

After all, we talk about a "Master's" degree - female MAs don't have a "Mistress'" degree.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This particular problem would be solved by referring to the 'choir leader'.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not so.

The person who leads the choir is the Head Chorister.

The person who trains/directs the choir is the musical director or choirmaster.

Two different people: one who sings, the other who teaches how to sing and conducts the singers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, I suppose Anglicans have their own formal terminology for these things.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be called a choirmaster anymore than I'd want to be called a chairman. I'm not male.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

Is choirmaster really the normal term in the Anglican choral tradition? I'm more familiar with 'director of music' or 'organist'. Confusingly, the organist is often the one who conducts the choir, leaving it to the sub-organist (or the organ scholar, ass appropriate) to actually play the instrument. The situation is quite different from in the French system, where the 'organiste titulaire' really is primarily tasked with playing that instrument, and does not (in my admittedly limited experience of French churches) usually conduct the choir.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Is choirmaster really the normal term in the Anglican choral tradition?

Yes, I think it is the normal term. At least in the rare situations where there is a choirmaster who is not also the organist. Its a word I hear more often on Rado Three than in real life, but it is I think a usual word.

I suspect that the number of churches who can afford two organists, or an organist and a chiormaster, is exceeded many times over by the number who can't even aford one. Many many times over.

[ 16. September 2013, 16:36: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[qb]
I suspect that the number of churches who can afford two organists, or an organist and a chiormaster, is exceeded many times over by the number who can't even aford one. Many many times over.

But partly made up for by the fact that an astonishingly high number of Anglicans in the pews turn out to be competent organists. At my current parish, in addition to the organist and his 'assistant' (which is not a permanent post), the curate and one of the churchwardens can play passibly, as can the sacristan and one of the men in the choir. One of the servers, having been an organ scholar at his College in earlier years, plays more than passably. [Smile]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:

For example, when I see constructions like :" Every student must remember their homework" --a clumsy effort to avoid a personal pronoun, where "his" might have been used in the past to mean all students--I am horrorstruck.

Not this old bit of fake grammar again. | [Disappointed]

Constructions like "everyone must remember their homework" are normal standard English, they've been part of normal standard English for the entire history of the language, pretty much ervery major writer uses them (Including Shaokespeare and the AV Bible so obviously God has spoken!)

The idea that they are wriong is just a silly piece of nonsense thought up by some semi-literate nincompoops in the 19th century. Ignore then and speak English.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well said, Ken. Language is defined by usage.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Is choirmaster really the normal term in the Anglican choral tradition?
Yes, I think it is the normal term. At least in the rare situations where there is a choirmaster who is not also the organist.

If I may be allowed a further, most un-Hellish tangent, if 'choirmaster' really is the norm, then it's by no means overwhelmingly so.

If we take quick survey at what would generally be thought the bastions of the English choral tradition (conveniently divided into college chapels, cathedrals, royal peculiars, and parish churches), we will find them divided as follows:

At King's, Cambridge, Stephen Cleobury is the 'Director of Music', and is assisted by a large staff, including an 'Assistant Director of Music', two 'organ scholars', and two 'teachers' (music teachers, not to be confused with the teachers at the school where the boys are educated)
At St John's, Cambridge, Andrew Nethsingha is the 'Director of Music', and is assisted by two 'organ scholars'

At Westminster Cathedral Martin Baker is 'Master of Music' and is assisted by an 'Assistant Master of Music' and an organ scholar.
At St Paul's Cathedral, Andrew Carwood is 'Director of Music', and is assisted by an 'Organist & Assistant Director of Music', a 'sub-organist' and an organ scholar.
At Christ Church, Oxford, the Cathedral Choir (there is a separate college choir), is headed up by Stephen Darlington as 'organist', and assisted by Clive Driskill-Smith as 'sub-organist', and by two organ scholars.
At Canterbury Cathedral, David Flood is the Director of Music and is assisted by an 'Assistant Organist' and an organ scholar.
At York Minister, Robert Sharpe is the Director of Music, and he is assisted by an 'Assistant Director of Music' and an organ scholar.
At Southwark Cathedral, Peter Wright is the 'Cathedral Organist / Director of Music', and is assisted by an 'Assistant Organist' and an organ scholar.
At Llandaff Cathedral, Richard Moorhouse is 'Organist and Master of Choristers' and is assisted by an 'Assistant Organist' and a 'Second Assistant Organist'.
At St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, Duncan Ferguson is 'Organist and Master of the Music' and he is assisted by an 'Assistant Organist'

At Westminster Abbey, James O'Donnell is 'Organist and Master of Choristers', and is assisted by a sub-organist, an assistant organist, and an organ scholar.
At St George's Chapel, Windsor, James Vivian is the 'Director of Music' and is assisted by an 'Assistant Director of Music' and an organ scholar.
At The Chapel Royal, Hampton Court, Carl Jackson is the 'Director of Music' and is assisted by an 'Organist.

At All Saints, Margaret Street, Tim Byram-Wigfield is the 'Director of Music' and is assisted by an 'Associate Director of Music' and an organ scholar.
At St Margaret's Westminster, Aidan Oliver is the 'Director of Music' and is assisted by an 'Organist.
At St Marylebone Parish Church, Steven Grahl is 'Director of Music', and is assisted by an 'Assistant Director of Music' and an organ scholar.
At St Bride's, Fleet Street, Robert Jones is the 'Director of Music' and is assisted by an Assistant Director of Music.

[Many apologies to those who feel that their church has been left off this list! It's selective, possibly dated, and doubtless London-centric].

From the above list, it seems that we can conclude that the actual title 'choirmaster' is extremely rare in the English choral tradition (although one or two people do have fairly similar titles). Most churches use a title that is, in fact, gender neutral (either 'director of music' or organist). That doesn't change the fact that none of them actually have female directors of music, and only a small handful have female assistants or organ scholars. Being an organist is still very much a bloke's game, which is unfortunate.

[ 16. September 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

A very long list indeed, but it appears to concentrate on cathedrals, colleges and grand London churches. Hardly a good sample.

If you went about average CofE parish churches, you would find lots of choirmasters and organists.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What he said. We were talking about "Normal". None of those places is a normall Anglican Church.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What he said. We were talking about "Normal". None of those places is a normall Anglican Church.

But they are typical enough to be representative of the sort of place that has several full-time (or even part time) musicians on staff. Even if they're not strictly representative, they're the sort of place everywhere else will be emulating.

I suspect that 'choirmaster' probably lingers on for school choirs (I think that that was the title of the teacher in my prep school who picked out the musically talented boys, i.e. not me, an coached them through the RSCM grades, but then that was a very long time ago indeed and I don't remember that far back with any real clarity).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Constructions like "everyone must remember their homework" are normal standard English, they've been part of normal standard English for the entire history of the language, pretty much ervery major writer uses them (Including Shaokespeare and the AV Bible so obviously God has spoken!)

The more awkward usage is when "they" is used in a clearly singular context (rather than just the linguistic proctologist singular above [Big Grin]

)

Such as, for example "The candidate for examination should arrive promptly. They should wait on the chair provided until they are invited to enter the examination room."

One can easily rephrase this to avoid the awkwardness.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
There are elements of visibility and pragmatism in this. People who put out fires are now called firefighters, but people who make fires by shovelling coal on steam locomotives, who once shared the same descriptor (to the total confusion of many non-native English speakers) are still called firemen.

Is this because (a) there is no convenient genderless term that doesn't sound ludicrous (steamships had stokers, but no-one seems inclined to transfer that to the railway, except in a mechanical context) (b) there aren't enough of them to make it worth anyone's while to try and change things (c) they are nearly all volunteers on heritage railways who don't want to rock the boat (with the corollary that most of the (male) volunteers are of the dinosaur persuasion anyway) or (d) none of the above?

Probably most volunteer stokers are nostalgic antiquarians who see the period usage of the gendered term as the least of the hardships of stoking a wood or coal engine by hand.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Constructions like "everyone must remember their homework" are normal standard English, they've been part of normal standard English for the entire history of the language, pretty much ervery major writer uses them (Including Shaokespeare and the AV Bible so obviously God has spoken!)
The more awkward usage is when "they" is used in a clearly singular context (rather than just the linguistic proctologist singular above )

Such as, for example "The candidate for examination should arrive promptly. They should wait on the chair provided until they are invited to enter the examination room."

One can easily rephrase this to avoid the awkwardness.

Yes, leorning cniht, this is really much more the sort of thing I meant. I agree that "everyone...their," while I still don't like it, especially in written language, is more standard and sounds much less awkward and "wrong" than your example here.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Under some circumstances I really like the singular they. For instance: Q: Whose car is that? A: I don't know, but they sure don't know how to park!

I'm not sure what the difference is besides that the previous examples are all formal stilted language such as one might indeed see in an examination setting.

[ 16. September 2013, 20:18: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
If I may be allowed a further, most un-Hellish tangent

AHHH! My eyes! My eyes!!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Under some circumstances I really like the singular they. For instance: Q: Whose car is that? A: I don't know, but they sure don't know how to park!

"She" is the traditional pronoun here, surely? [Devil]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

of course. "She" couldn't take the time to park, because "she" actually had something important to do, like rip the testicles off some smirking man who thinks a faulty shrunken chromosome makes him magically good at something so vital to life as getting an automobile between two arbitrary lines.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Succinctly put, comet. (raises beer.)

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

The traditional response to 'why are women bad at parking' (which is nonsense btw) is 'Men keep telling them that this much (indicates tiny distance) is six inches'.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
The traditional response to 'why are women bad at parking' (which is nonsense btw) is 'Men keep telling them that this much (indicates tiny distance) is six inches'.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

After spending many years as a member of the grammar police I have come to terms with the use of "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.

The fact is, such a pronoun is needed in a world where people object to the use of, e.g., "he" to mean "he or she." There have even been a few clumsy attempts to invent one. "They" has the benefit of being close to hand and already widely used.

Language, and especially English, is an evolving creature. When bits of it stop working for our society we don't scrap the whole thing and start over, we adapt what we have.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The trouble with grammar police, is that the burglars have tip-toed into the building, or maybe picked the locks, anyway, gained easy access, and then set about nicking some stuff, tampering with other stuff, or whatever, and then made an easy getaway. And meanwhile the police were looking the other way, and pompously pronouncing on whether a sentence should begin with 'and'.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0