Post by Peter PercivalPost by Robin StevensPost by BtmsPost by FennyOn Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of
modern invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language,
spilling of fixing the form is also a relatively new one.
"Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the
Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress
were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women.
Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly
preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."
The OED can be used to prove that almost _anything_ "new" one objects to
has been used for centuries. (Or, sometimes, _was_ used centuries ago
but has fallen out of use.)
In the case of the term(s) act*r*, I fear that for my generation,
whatever had been the case in the near or distant past, the terms
were/are actor and actress, with no implication that either is
superior/inferior. I find the use of actor for an actress slightly
irritating, because I _assume_ it means a male, and the double-take I
have to do when it becomes clear what's going on gives me momentary
confusion that can make me miss a word or two of the conversation (or
whatever).
I _do_ sympathise with the desire for gender-neutral terms; I think some
are quite clever - firefighter, for example. (And I have no objection to
Ms [which is for a slightly different but related reason], other than
the difficulty of pronouncing it.) However, the appropriation of the
male term for the purpose doesn't work. (A male would never call himself
an actress, I [don't] think!) I appreciate the problem, and I don't have
a suggestion: the nearest I can get is thespian, but that can sound a
bit pretentious and/or imply a certain kind of act*r*.
Post by Peter PercivalPerformers of both sexes must be rare. I know that in recent times we
have all learned that the male/female distinction is not as clear as it
once seemed, but still performers who are male+female? Existing no
doubt, but rare surely?
There are non-binary folk around, inside and outside the acting
profession, but society isn't sure how to work with them/us.
Post by Peter PercivalBtw, aiaou in thinking it's jolly good that people feel more and more
free to say who or what they are rather than just pretending that they
are one of a very few possibilities that society has for too long
deemed "right"?
YANA. (On the other hand, some seem more inclined to - sorry, and down,
boy! - shove their particular <insert term here> down our throats than
others.) On the whole, I prefer it when people live and let live, as
long as it doesn't impinge on anyone _else's_ way of life (which in some
cases it can't help doing). This applies to sexual orientation,
religion, politics, ...
Post by Peter PercivalIt also pleases me that queers are increasingly happy to call
themselves "queer" and treat that splendid word as if it is not some
kind of obscenity.
Though the term has been narrowed: WIWAL, I _think_ - unless it was just
my innocence - that its interpretation as "peculiar" wasn't necessarily
automatically overwritten by "homosexual". (In the same way "gay" has
been narrowed - though I don't mind that so much as that community
needed a _short_ non-derogatory term. [I wonder why they picked that
word though!])
[]
Post by Peter PercivalPost by Robin StevensPersonally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to
a bishop of either sex.
!
Post by Peter PercivalPost by Robin StevensObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Fisher of men?
VG!
There was a brief discussion at 8:5x this morning on toady about whether
bishops should stop wearing mitres. (Naturally, they had someone from
each camp.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
A closed mouth gathers no foot.