Actor

LuckyBenski · Sunday at 16:03

Dis86 said:
Now this is the kind of fact I can enjoy!

Wait til you hear about Caecilius

Malt_Vinegar · Sunday at 18:14

Scam said:
I don't think @Nitefly cares what they're called. He's just pointing out that nowadays the term "actress" is a smaller subset of "actor". I don't know why you're making it more complicated than that?

Which is exactly what I said?

dowie · Sunday at 19:28

Malt_Vinegar said:
@Nitefly
No need to re-read, I understand what you are saying completely (refer to my point B), and surely you see how by lumping (some?) actresses into the actors category has caused this?
Its just an example of set theory!!

Previously Actors and Actresses were discreet sets, where there was no intersection. Meaning the discussed statement had no more of less meaning for actresses over actors (unless if one is prejudiced!)

Now if we start moving the definitions, and saying that they are no longer discreet sets, but Actors now contains some of the previously defined Actresses set, the Actresses set is by definition now diminished. It's maths.

Actually yeah I'd agree with that, it can subjectively carry some implication that "actress" is lesser. That's not a foregone conclusion via mathematics etc.. a smaller set doesn't imply there's necessarily anything inferior about it's members. Rather it's the sort of revealed preferences of some actresses/female actors using "actor" in preference to "actress".

Also, they're still "discreet" sets, I think maybe you meant to say "disjoint" there, (I was going to say distinct but that would be wrong as the sets are still distinct).

krooton · Sunday at 19:52

Sythe79 said:
Only by context, a troupe of actors has always included both the male and female cast, it's only at the individual level actor has defaulted to male traditionally and then only because there was a term specifically for females, there is no male only term for an actor.

Likely because the early days tended to not have women in acting roles, women were often portrayed by younger men/boys. Maybe that has an aspect to actress being seen as 'lesser' to 'real' actors and diminishes women who act?

Women on stage | Royal Shakespeare Company

Beatrice, Cleopatra, Rosalind, Portia, Lady Macbeth – how did Shakespeare’s audiences see these amazing women come to life?

www.rsc.org.uk

I don't know, and don't really care, as stated, language is constantly evolving, no doubt the language that those of you who seem to have a bee in their bonnet use, would make no sense to our great/grandparents (skibidi rizz!).

Sythe79 · Sunday at 21:00

krooton said:
Likely because the early days tended to not have women in acting roles, women were often portrayed by younger men/boys. Maybe that has an aspect to actress being seen as 'lesser' to 'real' actors and diminishes women who act?

Women on stage | Royal Shakespeare Company

Beatrice, Cleopatra, Rosalind, Portia, Lady Macbeth – how did Shakespeare’s audiences see these amazing women come to life?

www.rsc.org.uk

I don't know, and don't really care, as stated, language is constantly evolving, no doubt the language that those of you who seem to have a bee in their bonnet use, would make no sense to our great/grandparents (skibidi rizz!).

No one has a "bee in their bonnet" (nice misogynistic phrase to use) it's a thread about why a generally gender-neutral language has a few professions that are. All I've said is for the most part they probably came into use because they were useful, like any word comes into common usage. It's not a judgement on whether they should or shouldn't be used today, again it really isn't that deep.

Uther · Sunday at 21:05

Lots of actors and actresses won awards at the Baftas this evening in London. Has nobody told them?

Lopéz · Sunday at 21:41

D.P. said:
Gender referring to human gender is relatively recent. so das Mädchen is perfectly reasonable neural.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't der Mann, die Frau, der Jung.....

[FnG]magnolia · Sunday at 21:48

Can we have a thread where people aren't just offended because words change?

Is the patient is breathing?
What address are you calling from?
What number are you calling from? (so we can call you back if you get cut off)
What is the reason for your call?

OP: BUT THEIR NAME!

ES: Get stuffed.

Uther · Sunday at 21:50

[FnG]magnolia said:
Can we have a thread where people aren't just offended because words change?

Is the patient is breathing?

What address are you calling from?

What number are you calling from? (so we can call you back if you get cut off)

What is the reason for your call?

OP: BUT THEIR NAME!

ES: Get stuffed.

But you post those sort of threads all the time, why suddenly ask permission?

[FnG]magnolia · Sunday at 21:56

Uther said:
But you post those sort of threads all the time, why suddenly ask permission?

I'm not asking permission, I'm stating my opinion. OP is upset about other people's words (lol) and would like them to explain to him (her) why he (she/they) is out of touch.

Uther · Sunday at 21:57

[FnG]magnolia said:
I'm not asking permission, I'm stating my opinion. OP is upset about other people's words (lol) and would like them to explain to him (her) why he (she/they) is out of touch.

'Can we have a thread where people aren't just offended because words change?'

LuckyBenski · Sunday at 22:46

krooton said:
skibidi rizz!

[FnG]magnolia · Sunday at 23:01

Uther said:
'Can we have a thread where people aren't just offended because words change?'

Ok, that's fair. I was confused by you linking it to my threads. "But you post those sort of threads all the time" isn't true, IMO.

krooton · Sunday at 23:17

Sythe79 said:
No one has a "bee in their bonnet" (nice misogynistic phrase to use) it's a thread about why a generally gender-neutral language has a few professions that are. All I've said is for the most part they probably came into use because they were useful, like any word comes into common usage. It's not a judgement on whether they should or shouldn't be used today, again it really isn't that deep.

Zefan said:
A non issue if it was natural, but it isn't, it's been pushed by those with an agenda. Insert language is thought, slippery slope, yada yada etc.

Sythe79 said:
No one has a "bee in their bonnet" (nice misogynistic phrase to use) it's a thread about why a generally gender-neutral language has a few professions that are. All I've said is for the most part they probably came into use because they were useful, like any word comes into common usage. It's not a judgement on whether they should or shouldn't be used today, again it really isn't that deep.

Zefan literally said it wasn't natural, sounds like he might have some hivedwellers buzzing around his engine.

Sythe79 · Sunday at 23:29

krooton said:
Zefan literally said it wasn't natural, sounds like he might have some hivedwellers buzzing around his engine.

What do you call a male seamstress ? That doesn't sound natural either. Bar-maid was probably in use before barman. The term 'home maker' is gender-neutral, but the assumption is pretty much that they are always women. It's almost like English is inconsistent, doesn't follow any rules and often makes little sense.

Freefaller · Monday at 09:12

RxR said:
So what do we call actresses who do or don't produce milk?

Gary.

bigmike20vt · Monday at 09:16

arknor said:
police men, firermen etc probably all gone to the land of equality

not really...... i dont think anyone would mind if you called a male copper a police man or a female copper a police woman . When i was at school they were called far worse (though the same word for both men and women police... maybe those scallies were more progressive than i gave them credit, i dunno!

obviously would seem weird if you called a woman a fireman or policeman tho.................. that said, firefighter sounds cooler anyway. (at least no wanna be contrarian seems to have an issue with human however....... I am surprised some bright spark hasnt decided that is sexist)

I dont see the harm in calling a female performer an actress.

And i am told you should not call a refuse collector a binman regardless of their sex... but perhaps they were just overly touchy!. (my cousins father in law was a bin man.... it paid really well but i digress)

BTW for the record anyone can call me what ever they want so long as they pay me a fair salary (funnily enough it is relevant, my job is currently going through a name change at the moment involving weeks of meetings and polls and messages from HR on what we can and should call ourselves on our CV).

bigmike20vt · Monday at 09:18

Sythe79 said:
What do you call a male seamstress ?

I dont know and not gonna cheat with google but i would guess Seamster

edit... i did google after the fact.... gold star for me

Lopéz · Monday at 11:16

Sythe79 said:
No one has a "bee in their bonnet" (nice misogynistic phrase to use)

What makes the phrase "bee in their bonnet" misogynistic?

Werewolf · Monday at 11:21

bigmike20vt said:
I dont know and not gonna cheat with google but i would guess Seamster

edit... i did google after the fact.... gold star for me

lol

IIRC there are a bunch of other titles for what is basically specific parts of the work, or depending on what garment/quality of work you're looking at but most people just think of seamstress or tailor when there are a bunch of very specific job titles involved between and I don't think some of those are gendered at all.