to object to terms such as manageress or authoress?

[MaundyBra]

It was mentioned on another thread but was really a side issue, so I've started another one.

yes, certainly.

IME the status is

KING / QUEEN (as in monarch)
PRINCESS
PRINCE
QUEEN (as in wife of KING)

Princes are ten-a-penny
Kate is much more interesting to people, and wil lbe more powerful than either Willaim or Harry, just as Diana was than charles.

Why is the consort a Queen when she's married to a king, but just a Prince when married to a Queen?

Because the title KING is more prestigious than QUEEN

Wouldn't offend me in the least...seems trivial.

I'm amazed by what people are offended by now....police giving a warning to women walking late at night down and alley...and now this!

She might be more interesting she will certainly be less powerful which is the point.
You are rating women as to their prestige and interest to others, not by their power. Mainly because women have less than men.

Winter - why do you think that?

• I think Diana had more power than charles. Look at what she did to change the way people looked at AIDS, for instance.

• I think Kate will have more power than Will.

Nether Princes nor Princesses command formal power, but in their ability to influence the world, and the way people think and behave: give me a princess any time. No one takes any notice of William, what charity is he supporting at the wedding? Do you know? Do you care? meanwhile Kate has got everyone talking about bullying and may have (quite subtly) put Downe House out of business. That's power

Power to sit around simpering and looking pretty next to sick kiddies. Some power that is.

I don't care about either of them, I think they are over-privelidged parasites that should be sent to a council estate with the dole to live on, but its the principle of the thing.

We don't need job names to mark us out as female. If I meet you in a professional capacity, you can see I am a women. Why you would need to give me a particular label to signal that I don't understand, other than the belittle and diminish my standing via linguistic means.

Oh, I agree with that.
Author , manager. Poet .

WinterOfOurDiscountTents "should be sent to a council estate with the dole to live on"

Is this some sort of achievement these days? God help us!

So... are we saying that princess and queen are okay then because they have power? that doesn't seem to fit in with the principle.

If not then we need to make sure all those mugs and things have Prince & Prince on them.

No, not power, but because it is not an individual achievement, rather a status (of power).

Professionals (which princess are NOT), should be treated as professionals irrespective of gender.

Sad it is that two great Russian poets of Silver Age Marina Tsvetaeva and Anna Akhmatova both insisted to be referred as "poets" and not "poetesses" and here we are almost 100 years later having this discussion...

er what? of course it isn't, which is the point.

This came up with the advent of female mayors.

So "Mayoress" = wife of mayor
But "Mayor" = mayor, male or female. Because Mayoress already has the above, different meaning.

Here's one council's current take on it.
Form of address for the Mayor is "Lord Mayor", male or female.
"Lady Mayoress" = wife or female companion of mayor
"Consort"/"Escort" = husband or male companion of mayor

Agree it's interesting Queen and Princess have escaped the "diminutive" aspects of gendered titles. Presumably because their use hasn't historically been limited to "wife of". (You tell Queen Boadicea she ain't in charge: I'll hold yer coat.) So Queen has two well-established meanings, whereas Mayoress has only one.

If ever heard anyone introduced as the Mayor's 'escort' I would find it hard not to snigger.

Onager, I think the point is not that all gendered job titles reflect (create!) a lack of power for woman, but that some do.

The WPC/PC thing is a clear example of very, very deliberate power play.
King/Queen, waiter/waitress don't seem to be.

So people are generally wary of gendered titles in case they're the former type. It's right that we should ask of each example, "Why is a gendered title being used here."

But even when they are irrelevant, like waiter/ess, they're, well, irrelevant. So either way, get rid of them all.

sometimes they are relevant. eg before you parted with your money tou'd want to be very clear whether you were hiring a dominator or a dominatrix

Totally agree winter. I think it is almost unacceptable in serious circles to address female actors as actresses (not sure it is true for tabloids). Should be same here and for all professionals. I do not regard being a "princess" a profession, so they are off the hook.

in serious circles in the USA

subborn but then it is part of the job description, surely

True, Winter.

in serious circles here in the UK to. At work no one refer to their manageress.

the fact that actress is still heard illustrates that they are not held in universal respect.

Sorry stubborn I referred to media. Actor is definitely not an accepted term for female actors and I do not think it is an issue of respect. The first time I heard "actor" in reference to an "actress" it kind of hurt my ear (it was "An Actors' Studio" programme on cable about 15 years ago). Now I am used to both, but think that professionals would prefer 'actor' for box sexes. Maybe what makes "actress", "waitress", "hostess" acceptable is the sexual entertainment value (only in the eyes of the receiver) of services they provide. I do not know.

Actor is definitely not an accepted term for female actors in the UK