why is it pro women to say "actor' rather than actress?

Good on the Germans. They actually scrapped usage of the male form "Frau Bundeskanzler" as teh official title, because they thought it was impolite.

"The German post-war chancellors were officially addressed as "Herr Bundeskanzler", however Angela Merkel is officially addressed as "Frau Bundeskanzlerin", the female form of the title. Use of the mixed form "Frau Bundeskanzler" was deprecated by the government in 2004 because it is regarded as impolite. [ [http://www.n-tv.de/589342.html "Frau Bundeskanzler" oder ... "Frau Bundeskanzlerin"? - n-tv.de ] ]"

Just googled for Merkel, and every news report refers to her as Bundeskanzlerin (rather than as Bundeskanzler). It is a profound difference and the language works at the subconscious level and changes perceptions and historical precedents profoundly.

On 'Only Connect' last week some tosspot called Jane Campion a 'directoress'

FFS.

in a way, it is similar to the way we address the Queen, with the word queen, a female form, rather than as just the Regent, which would be a neutral form.

wow, thanks vesuvia, that is great. This is from wikipedia, and shows the significance of the female term Bundeskanzlerin, and why it breaks so many past precedents.

"In German politics the Chancellor is equivalent to that of a Prime Minister in many other countries. The direct German equivalent of Prime Minister, Ministerpräsident, is used exclusively for the heads of government of most German states (called Länder in German).

The current Chancellor of Germany is Angela Merkel, who was re-elected in 2009 after her first election in 2005. She is the first female Chancellor. In German she is thus known as Bundeskanzlerin. That word was never used officially before Angela Merkel, but it is a grammatically regular formation of a noun denoting a female."

In a "triumph" of German linguistic consistency, the current German leader Angela Merkel has a title that was specially created for her (and any women who follows in her footsteps). She is the Bundeskanzlerin (woman chancellor) of Germany, not the Bundeskanzler (chancellor).

'At work my gender is utterly irrelevant'

I don't think gender is irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, why do we want to see more women in positions of power, more women in the boardroom, more women MPs etc.? I think there is a difference between the genders. I think women MPs can give a different perspective and can fight for different priorities which help women.

'Why on earth does 'femine-ness' need emphasising? Do people need advance warning - watch out, she's a woman!'

I think femaleness does need emphasising, because it is has been historically underrepresented in positions of power, influence and authority for millenia. This has affected perceptions. These perceptions need to be changed. Role models are important, because they change perceptions and aspirations. That's why TV programmes have positive female role models. People should be reminded, "she's a woman". Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and one of the greatest leaders the country ever had. It needs emphasising.

It should no longer be acceptable to tell female employees to start thinking about getting botox treatment, because they are getting older, when this doesn't apply to men. It needs emphasisng and reiterating that women in power is the norm. Language helps make that change. Neutrality in language hides that change. Female root words need to be reclaimed and we should be proud of being called an actress rather than an actor. The same thing was done by black people and gay people, who have reclaimed language and changed perceptions.

Actor was originally applied to both men and women and linguistically is neutral "one who performs in plays". the root of actress on the the other hand is "female who does something". I know which word I would choose to describe myself as!

Manager - "one who manages", manageress "woman who is in charge of a shop, department, canteen, etc" the later definition according to the World Dictionary (no etymology). I am not a manageress.

Minister (as in politician) "high officer of the state". Given that Maggie Thatcher had an obviously feminine name, and was quite clearly a woman I can't really see that changing the title would have done anything positive at all, rather it would be saying , "oh we can't possibly call her Prime Minister, because she's a woman you know, and only men can be Prime Minister".

At work my gender is utterly irrelevant, and I don't see why that should be any different when referring to soldiers on the news etc. It's not in any way relevant that they are male or female. No less or greater a loss if it is a male or a female soldier. Why on earth does 'femine-ness' need emphasising? Do people need advance warning - watch out, she's a women!

Really interesting discussion. I'm not convinced that neutral terms such as 'Chair' are based on 'an underlying masculinity' though. Wasn't it Women's Libbers who first pushed for neutral terms?

The receptionists at my doctor's surgery have managed to get past the neutrality of 'Doctor' by always refering to 'the lady Doctor'. It's pathetic.

We are not on an equal footing yet, but we will be in time. Things are changing, the past is over. The use of language with a female root helps to embed that change in people's minds. Neutrality is like the drab clothes of communists, it is so-called equality, but it denies the unique contribution of women.

If they are used equally, which they are not.

There is no equality to start with so it does not balance anything at all. Just a romantic notion that we are on an equal footing.

I think 'manageress' is a great word and should be used widely, because it changes teh perceptions of people. It has increasingly become "cringeworthy" as a neutral/male term was used instead. That way men felt safe that the "monstrous regiment of women" was not taking over powerful jobs. The use of these female specific terms is too shocking for their consciousness and they prefer safe neutrality. I think it shakes things up by using female terms.

I like French and German with their unique female forms. We can't use those, because the way that the English language developed, means that these forms were lost to us. We only have certain terms that werre derived from these languages left - such as aviatrix, governess, mistress, actress etc.
We shouldn't lose them, because losing them is losing the feminine to a sea of neutrality (which is based on an underlying masculinity). English has no concept of fenale specific engineers or writers etc., so we shouldn't artificially create them, just as we shouldn't artificially destroy the only female specific terms we still have. I like languages which make gender distinctions, but English does not do it much. I think we should celebrate female difference and uniqueness as much as we can do in our language, by making use of female terms rather than employing terms that are used by males to describe themselves.

When I got my first mangement job in a bank, a (female) friend would always insist on introducing me as a "bank manageress" It made me cringe even then.

It's done in all professions now, Fire-fighter, headteacher...You very rarely hear the differentation which my frinnd thought was correct.

None and they never will be. But that stays the same in the plural form anyway so still ends up with women being excluded.

If "90% of actors supported the writers' strike" would you think 90% of male performers, or 90% of the combined total of men and women, for example.

Do you think we should adopt female forms for all professions then? She-archaeologist? Historienne? Writeress? Engineerina?

'while we continue to differentiate where it really does not matter'

I think differentiation matters everywhere. I like the term aviatrix rather than aviator and I like the term actress rather than actor. I think using terms like aviator and actor come from a male root in language, and men are therefore happy to use them as a pretence of neutrality, but they would never accept female language roots as being neutral. Their usage plays into the hands of male superiority and hides the unique, different female component.

no I didn't get time to read that thread. I will try and find time to read it.

'You're seeing "neutral word is used for men" and thinking this is a coincidence'

no I don't think it is a coincidence, I think it is deliberate and is used to promote male superiority. The word "actor" is not neutral, it is male, just like the French "acteur" is male. That is why Sir Laurence Olivier was an actor and not an actress. Dawn French is now denying her unique femaleness, by calling herself, what she believes is a neutral term, "actor". But the male supremacists must be laughing up their sleeves, since the so-called "neutral" term of actor, is the same as the historical male term for somebody who acts. Dawn French is now described in terms that a male was always described as, and thinks that that is a neutral term. How many "neutral" terms are female rather than male?

I like freedom too but while we continue to differentiate where it really does not matter, we are signing up to conform to the rules written for women by men.

But it is a neutral word. There is a neutral word that could be used for anyone. Men at some point have decided it's a great idea to label women with an extra syllable, in order to mark them out as women.

You're seeing "neutral word is used for men" and thinking this is a coincidence - no it's a tactic to make women in the professions look different. Same as using "hackette" instead of "journalist" for female journos - it's a derogatory term.

Did you read Alex's post on the other thread, about the (Greek) male MPs who were most upset that there is no "female form" of MP, and wanted a new coinage to make up this lack?

I think we change things by using language to emphasise the feminine, not hide it under the use of neutral terms. It's similar to the terms God and Goddess. There is a distinction and it does matter. Writing the female terms out of the lexicon is not helpful.

I don't like the politically correct trend towards neiutrality, as it hides the feminine. It is a bit like left wing communist thinking in China, where they all had to wear the same drab clothes. I like freedom and distinction. I don't like neutrality, because it hides the truth and the human soirit, and it is most often used to deny the feminine and promote the masculine.

Why don't they make the neutral word for someone in the acting profession an "actress" instead of an "actor"? They would never do that, because they think that actor is male and is therefore superior. People like Dawn French then buy into this hidden way of thinking, by calling themselves "actors".

Surely this is all about the function not the form? Why does the sex need referencing?

And what EaM said about the surprise factor. That's more powerful for changing minds than whatever claig is advocating. All that encourages is reference to same sex peers, rather than all people doing the same job.

We are playing by men's rules if we perpetuate the terminolgy -rules of language and writing that men decided on and employed.

'the more stereotype breaking thing is to abandon the use of "female" before gender neutral nouns unless it is in some way extremely relevant.'

agree, using female before a gender neutral noun, reinstates female as secondary every time. That's why i like female specific terms, like actress. We don't have enough of them in the English language, because many of them were dropped grammatically. But, we should keep hold of the ones that we still have. As times change and women are represented in all positions of power equally and predominantly, it would be a shame to still perpetuate the neutral(male) words for professions, when the reality was in fact the opposite.

Languages have evolved naturally over centuries. To change actress to actor is an artificial action created at this moment in time in order to try to use language to try to blur the distinction between male and female actors. i think it is political correctness and domne with good intentions of helping women to achieve equality. But, I think it is misguided, and is in fact buying in to the concept of women being unequal to men, which is why this special manipulation of language is being used, in order to theoretically restore balance. But, I think in the end , it will have the opposite effect, and will work in the interests of men. It will hide female terms such as actress and governess and mistress etc. and use meutral terms like actor (which coincidentally happen to be male terms). So it will hide the reality of the changing roles of women, and their increasing power, under this neutral term.