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

[Greythorne]

I noticed that Dawn French is doing a MN webchat and she is described as an actor.

I know this is the way all Hollywood types refrer to themselves, but I don't get it. Why is actress derogatory?

I like it. why should we be ashamed of being women, as actress conveys and actor leaves ambiguous.

I remember in my cultural studies book at uni, there was a cartoon from the 20s with a fabulous female aviator and the caption was:
girl? I'm no girl! I'm an aviatrix!" and I love that.

Please can someone explain?

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 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.

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?

'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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

'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.

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).

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 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.

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

FFS.

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.

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 ] ]"

yet again, the mixed form "Frau Bundeskanzler" is really the male form Bundeskanzler (i.e. it isn't really neutral), because a male President could never be described as "Herr Bundeskanzlerin".

But does one mind seeing those German feminine nouns with the added "in" at the end of the regular male version? It does acknowledge a woman being there, but it seems to me similar to saying "female chancellor" when if it were a man, he'd just be "chancellor". But if they didn't have a new word, they'd have the issue of words that would be masculine or feminine according to who had the job, and that wouldn't seem right in a language with gender--or could it be?

French language pundits never seem willing to accept new words. I remember seeing instructions from somewhere where people were being told not to say "une soldate" (soldier with extra e on the end for the feminine) or "une ecrivaine" (writer treated the same way). It should be "une femme soldat" or "une femme ecrivain" so as to avoid creating new words--"a woman soldier" or "a woman writer".

I didn't know that about the usage of soldate and ecrivaine. I just looked it up. It is very interesting. It seems that feminine forms for job titles are widely used in Canada and are officially recommended in Belgium, but they seem to be discouraged in France, but are growing in popular usage there as well.

The Belgian "service de la langue francaise"
www2.cfwb.be/franca/femini/feminin.htm

says
"would feminine terms like magistrate risk shocking, upsetting, making laugh or indeed ridiculing?

It seems that the decree has helped to change the mentality. Little by little, slowly and surely , the use of feminine terms has become common, first in the media, the written press, radio and television, then in daily life, during election campaigns and finally in advertising."

I think this will be hugely important as it will change perceptions and operate subconsciously. I think the Academie Francaise is possibly resistant to its introduction in France. Le Petit Larousse accepted the feminine term écrivaine in 2008 in France.

But it is interesting that autrice as a feminine form for auteur was used as early as the 16th Century by some prominent literary figures. It looks like its use was perodically discouraged by men, such as Jules Renard in 1905, who wrote

"Women are looking for a feminine term for author. There is "bluestocking". It's pretty, and that says it all. Unless they would prefer plagiarist or ecrivaine."

I don't think there is any way of stopping the increasing use of femine terms, however the establishment seek to ridicule or discourage it. I think there will be a lot of opposition from the establishment in some countries, but times are changing and perceptions and usage have to change along with them. I think it is a good thing and will only help to accelerate positive change.

For reasons that have already been covered, I am in favour of actor for both etc. For people who see it as important in order to highlight the gender where women are under represented, do you think there should also be the same on the basis of ethnicity? I can't see where the argument for this would differ, yet it would seem odd to me that anyone would suggest this. Where do people see the difference?

I don't think it applies to ethnic minorities. Our language has no word for a black actor that differentiates them from a white actor, but historically, our language has developed from other languages such as French, German and Latin that do have masculine and feminine forms. We do have a term that differentiates a female actor from a male actor. We also have the word queen that applies uniquely to a female regent, and the word princess rather than prince. Should we start calling Diana, Prince Diana?

Fascinating debate.

I know some feminists who are now in their 90s and some of them insist on Madam Chairman (of X committee or Y institution). I disagree quietly but do not argue because they were fighting for women's rights (and getting flack for it) before I was even thought of.

Also know some men who insist on 'Chairman'. I ignore them too and use 'Chair' in all the reports I write.

Someone once described me as an 'editrix'. I fixed him with my very scariest steely glare. Don't think he'll ever make that crack again...