bts (07/08/82)
Discussions of how language ought to be are interesting, but standard usage is the real authority. How many genderless substitutes do you hear in everyday speech. In Chapel Hill, many restaurants refer to their servers as "waitpersons". (I know several places where it is spelled that way on the menu.) Is that common anywhere else? What other examples can you provide? Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill (...duke!unc!bts)
vhm55611 (07/09/82)
OK, here's a question for everyone... Why is it that occupational titles such as "butcher, baker, candle-stick maker, doctor, lawyer" etc., etc. are accepted as being non-gender-specific, but "actor, waiter" and a few others are assumed in our language/culture to be specifically male? I can see a problem with "mailMAN, chairMAN" etc. when we wish to be careful, but where did "actRESS, waitRESS" come from, while "butchRESS, bakRESS" sound totally ridiculous? "MailMAN" can easily be interpreted as 'a MAN who does something relating to the mail' or something like that, and "baker" means, by the normal rules of construction, 'someone who bakes.' Why has "waitER" come to mean ' a MAN who waits' rather than simply 'someone who waits'? Obviously the implication is often there in English, because of the existence of the words "waitRESS" and "actRESS". The question is, why are these two necessary while we seem to get along fine without a specifically feminine form of baker, doctor, etc.? 'ch/WOMAN' => 'chairPERSON', OK, no problem (OK fine, fer sure, fer sure...) 'actOR/RES' => 'actPERSON', no, I don't think so... anyone have any comments or better suggestions? {I suppose it's suicidal to make a statement like that last one, since I'm sure lots of people in netland have comments. Oh well, it's too late now.} -Vic Mitnick ...ihuxk!vhm55611 BTL Indian Hill South (312)979-1621
lambert (07/09/82)
I think the answer to Vic's question is that all the professions which have genderless names (butcher, baker, physicist, doctor, engineer, etc.) were, until recently (say 25 years ago) almost exclusively male professions, whereas those professions which have long included both sexes have separate names for men and women, i.e., actor/tress, waiter/tress. This works in the opposite direction, too. How many people, when they know a man who is in a job that has been traditionally held by women, must specify that he is a man. Thus, the title of "male nurse". This would explain the apparent inconsistency of professional names such as mailMAN, policeMAN, etc. That is to say that even those professions which don't have the word man in the title were still presumed to be all-male until fairly recently (25 yrs.). Thus, until women started to enter the professions on a large scale, all those names which are now non gender-specific did indeed carry with them the connotation of gender. Greg Barton
jdd (07/10/82)
I know several "actresses" who call themselves "actors". Cheers, John DeTreville Bell Labs, Murray Hill
bstempleton (07/12/82)
The only reason terms like actor and waiter got feminine forms is because those jobs were commonly held by women as well as men in the early days of women in the labour force. There are no 'bakeresses because there were no female bakers when the names were invented.