In defense of ‘Actress’, sometimes a movie may have more substantial roles for men in which case it could be an apples to oranges comparison with men’s roles. That should not be the case with writing and directing which in theory all are working toward the same standard.
What do you say when you want to get a server's attention at a noisy restaurant and you have not remembered their name (even though it had been eagerly disclosed at the outset of the relationship)? I find myself resorting to "Excuse me, Miss?" or "Excuse me, Sir?" though it feels weird. Or I just suffer without my refill of Diet Coke or whatever. If we are to continue down this genderless title path, I think we need a a gender-neutral, anonymous form of address other than, "Hey .... you."
“Comedian” and “comedienne” sound so similar that it’s kind of moot, but since you ask, comedienne does sound better; that little flourish in the last syllable gives it a more soothing resonance. Authoress would be an improvement, too.
The logic behind the desire to rub out gender specific nouns, as I understand it, is that they are objectionable because they are segregationistic or something, but I’d bet that there is even less support for this idea among the general public than there is among Hispanics for transitioning to “Latinx” (and I’ve noticed that the press are gradually pulling back from their attempts to cram that insipid term down our throats, no doubt because they noticed how much it was despised by Latinos and Latinas). But even more than the lack of any real clamoring for any of these changes, I would argue that most feminine specific nouns, whether written in print, or enunciated in speech, have an aesthetic quality and poetic grace that gives them value and makes them worth preserving (and using). “Actress” is more elegant than “actor”; “directress” is more elegant than “director”; “benefactress” is way more elegant than “benefactor”; even “murderess” sounds better than “murderer”. At least, that’s my take. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong when trying to explain jazz to someone who wasn’t a fan: some folks, if they don’t get it, you just can’t tell ‘em.
I’m sure I’m not persuading anyone that is dead set against word preservation, but just so I’m clear, which of the following should also be rubbed out: duchess, heiress, hostess, seamstress, temptress, dominatrix, countess, songstress, mistress, and princess. All of them? Some of them? If not, why not?
Okay, I guess I'll defend best actor/actress. A standard movie has one director, one costume designer, one cinematographer, one writer or group of writers (who all share the award if they win), one producer or group of producers (ditto), etc. But a standard movie (or play, or musical, or book, or opera, or ballet, or story of any sort for that matter) tends to have both a male lead role and a female lead role. Not always, of course, but still quite often. (Think of your favorite movie, whatever it is, right now. Chances are there was a lead actor and a lead actress.) The same cannot be said for the other distinctions raised, like age, race, or ethnicity. For that reason, "best actress" doesn't suggest to me something bizarre like "best Asian actress," but the natural result of listing all the important jobs in a typical film and making each of them eligible for special recognition.
And I don't exactly recoil at the gender parity inherent in the set-up. Enforcing gender parity in various realms can, in the language of the kids, powerfully disrupt patriarchy. This idea is expressed in multiple venues today, especially in Europe. German political parties are often co-led by a man and a woman. Gender quotas are increasingly common in Europe for boards of directors.
But, you may say, what about our non-binary friends? Well, I have very mixed feelings about that category. I fear that it's an outgrowth of a backward conflation of sex and stereotypical gender characteristics, such that "woman" in the minds of the kids now necessarily means or connotes "feminine." But why isn't that itself an ugly, misogynistic attitude? It certainly strikes me that way.
Now did I vote for the monkey tweet because it was funny, or because you spelled it "musuem"?
4 of the 5 visual Tweets this week were great. Kudos!
Regarding gender neutral titles..."waiter" "actor"....much ado about nothing. C'mon people, aren't there slightly more pressing issues to worry about?
These snowplow names are fabulous!
In defense of ‘Actress’, sometimes a movie may have more substantial roles for men in which case it could be an apples to oranges comparison with men’s roles. That should not be the case with writing and directing which in theory all are working toward the same standard.
‘Parade reported Friday’? That’s the first I’ve heard of Parsde since they stopped printing.
We like newspaper editorials supporting one candidate over others. Then we know to vote the opposite-esp. with the Trib. They rarely disappoint.
What do you say when you want to get a server's attention at a noisy restaurant and you have not remembered their name (even though it had been eagerly disclosed at the outset of the relationship)? I find myself resorting to "Excuse me, Miss?" or "Excuse me, Sir?" though it feels weird. Or I just suffer without my refill of Diet Coke or whatever. If we are to continue down this genderless title path, I think we need a a gender-neutral, anonymous form of address other than, "Hey .... you."
The Shartlesville image is a mystery to me. How does it relate to Taco Bell? It is either a wild stretch or too subtle for me.
Eric -- you're OK with Brandon Johnson being owned by the CTU? How do you think it'll work out with them running the city?
Gillian - l
LOL
“Comedian” and “comedienne” sound so similar that it’s kind of moot, but since you ask, comedienne does sound better; that little flourish in the last syllable gives it a more soothing resonance. Authoress would be an improvement, too.
The logic behind the desire to rub out gender specific nouns, as I understand it, is that they are objectionable because they are segregationistic or something, but I’d bet that there is even less support for this idea among the general public than there is among Hispanics for transitioning to “Latinx” (and I’ve noticed that the press are gradually pulling back from their attempts to cram that insipid term down our throats, no doubt because they noticed how much it was despised by Latinos and Latinas). But even more than the lack of any real clamoring for any of these changes, I would argue that most feminine specific nouns, whether written in print, or enunciated in speech, have an aesthetic quality and poetic grace that gives them value and makes them worth preserving (and using). “Actress” is more elegant than “actor”; “directress” is more elegant than “director”; “benefactress” is way more elegant than “benefactor”; even “murderess” sounds better than “murderer”. At least, that’s my take. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong when trying to explain jazz to someone who wasn’t a fan: some folks, if they don’t get it, you just can’t tell ‘em.
I’m sure I’m not persuading anyone that is dead set against word preservation, but just so I’m clear, which of the following should also be rubbed out: duchess, heiress, hostess, seamstress, temptress, dominatrix, countess, songstress, mistress, and princess. All of them? Some of them? If not, why not?
Okay, I guess I'll defend best actor/actress. A standard movie has one director, one costume designer, one cinematographer, one writer or group of writers (who all share the award if they win), one producer or group of producers (ditto), etc. But a standard movie (or play, or musical, or book, or opera, or ballet, or story of any sort for that matter) tends to have both a male lead role and a female lead role. Not always, of course, but still quite often. (Think of your favorite movie, whatever it is, right now. Chances are there was a lead actor and a lead actress.) The same cannot be said for the other distinctions raised, like age, race, or ethnicity. For that reason, "best actress" doesn't suggest to me something bizarre like "best Asian actress," but the natural result of listing all the important jobs in a typical film and making each of them eligible for special recognition.
And I don't exactly recoil at the gender parity inherent in the set-up. Enforcing gender parity in various realms can, in the language of the kids, powerfully disrupt patriarchy. This idea is expressed in multiple venues today, especially in Europe. German political parties are often co-led by a man and a woman. Gender quotas are increasingly common in Europe for boards of directors.
https://www.politico.eu/article/leadership-duos-draft-power-sharing-gender-equality-european-parliament/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors#:~:text=Public%20companies%20will%20require%2020,suspended%20remuneration%20of%20board%20members.
I found this experiment in radical feminism among Kurds in Syria, where it's required that women share leadership positions, downright inspiring:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/43dmgm/the-most-feminist-revolution-the-world-has-ever-witnessed
But, you may say, what about our non-binary friends? Well, I have very mixed feelings about that category. I fear that it's an outgrowth of a backward conflation of sex and stereotypical gender characteristics, such that "woman" in the minds of the kids now necessarily means or connotes "feminine." But why isn't that itself an ugly, misogynistic attitude? It certainly strikes me that way.