Thread: Lets Change the word man,its offensive

Originally Posted by Looper

When it comes to actors and actresses why should we not refer to them as actors and actresses.

They are employed in roles that are delineated specifically by gender.

An actor is a male person employed to play male characters in TV stage and film drama.

The role of Hamlet must be played by an actor because Hamlet is a male character so the role of Hamlet is not open to actresses by definition.

The role of Ophelia must be played by an actress because Ophelia is a female character and so the role of Ophelia is not open to actors.

What about Widow Twankey

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/ga...ke-in-pictures

The 18th-century actor Charlotte Charke played many male characters including Shakespeare’s troubled Prince of Denmark.

The French actor and theatre manager Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet on stage in Paris and London in 1899, and then in a 1900 film. She was the first actress to play the part on film.

...and so on, it appears empirical research does not agree with Looper's claims!

Words such as actor, poet, author, steward, waiter, host etc never really had a gender assignment and so should never have had the "...ess" suffix.
Words that defiitely connote gender could indeed be adjusted in these times of equality when women are fire-fighting, policing etc.

Never heard of a soldieress, and that's a good example for my first sentence above. There was no need to change the word describing the occupation even though it had always been traditionally done by men.
Cooks were traditionally women. What's the masculine suffix to denote a male cook? A masculine suffix for prostitute? Never heard of the male owner of a brothel called a Sir.
Inequality! Men need to take ownership of these female-centric words and have masculine suffixes added to them.

"Cooker" and "prostitutor"?

Originally Posted by Looper

Do you consider it to be moral progress for society to conjure up an artificial cultural blind-spot when it comes to the distinction of gender?

Gender is a very real and significant feature of a sexually reproducing species such as humans.

Men and women are on average significantly different in many physical and psychological traits.

Gender distinction is not something culturally embarrassing to be swept under the carpet in a confusion over how to deal with the separate and totally valid political goal of equal opportunity.

A bit of reason and logic in a sea of politically correct shite.

Originally Posted by baldrick

Can I still beat my manservants

Only if you beat your women servants equally.

I am all PC now,have dropped male and man off, so now it is fe and wo.
This femnazi rubbish is going to backfire when I use it on them describing something.

Hehe, yeah, in the 80's the feminazis insisted they were "wimmin" because the resenteed the "man" in their label.

^no, it's womyn.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

A bit of reason and logic in a sea of politically correct shite.

Nah, merely a red herring.

Threads like this always bring out the troglodytes from the undergrowth.

Ahh, yeah. That's it. Same effect though.

I think he made some good points..... if we let a small group of people change something they are offended on, then we may as well change the whole English dictionary. It is the whole overboard political correctness thing again.

Some job words do have male and female variants and some don't.

In some cases there is a good reason to make the distinction and in some there is not. But the bottom line is that men and women are significantly different on average in physical and psychological attributes so continuing to make a distinction is reasonable in either case.

Jobs that involve skills that differ on average between men and women are more deserving of a distinction.

Some activities within certain job roles will be better suited to a man or a woman.

It is useful information to know whether a police officer assigned to physically aprehend a violent offender or strip search a suspect or interview a rape victim is a police-woman or police-man.

There is nothing wrong with continuing to use these terms.

The push to actively abolish linguistic gender distinction is pointless posturing political silliness of pythonesque proportion.

Originally Posted by Thailandbound

I think he made some good points..... if we let a small group of people change something they are offended on, then we may as well change the whole English dictionary. It is the whole overboard political correctness thing again.

Indeed imagine the gruntled overpowered the disgruntled, by the way is offended on a Canadian usage never seen it before ?

Originally Posted by Looper

It is useful information to know whether a police officer assigned to physically aprehend a violent offender or strip search a suspect or interview a rape victim is a police-woman or police-man.

I believe they already use the word police officer these days. If not, then they should.

Originally Posted by Looper

The push to actively abolish linguistic gender distinction is pointless posturing political silliness

I agree.
But as I pointed out with words like "author" and "poet", it's been going on for a long time, while other occupation nouns that never indicated a gender connotation (except for that imbued by traditional roles) but were female jobs customarily, have not changed. Nurse. Cook. Prostitute.
Inequality by the womyn feminazis.

Originally Posted by Thailandbound

I believe they already use the word police officer these days. If not, then they should.

Why should they? What is the political or moral imperative behind this assertion?

I have given a number of reasons and situations where it is useful to distinguish between a policewoman and a policeman.

What is the harm of continuing to make a useful distinction?

Originally Posted by Looper

What is the harm of continuing to make a useful distinction?

None. On the contrary, it's indeed very useful.

Originally Posted by Looper

Why should they?

Why should a woman in the police force be called "policeman", don't you find that just a little bit odd?

Originally Posted by stroller

Why should a woman in the police force be called "policeman", don't you find that just a little bit odd?

Yes, I like the police officer lingo.

Originally Posted by stroller

Why should a woman in the police force be called "policeman"

She shouldn't. She should be called a police officer or a policewoman depending on the situation and whether making a gender distinction is useful in that situation, which it often is.

Even if it it isn't useful in a particular situation it is not doing any harm to use the term policewoman. Or do you think it is doing harm?

Originally Posted by Looper

I have given a number of reasons and situations where it is useful to distinguish between a policewoman and a policeman.

How about a job ad for a police officer?

"The position involves being able to conduct a body cavity search on both women and transgender citizens, but not men who claim to be "real" men because we have the transgender officers already tasked to that effort..."

Originally Posted by CSFFan

How about a job ad for a police officer?

I think it is useful that the majority of police officers are policemen since men are on average physically stronger and psychologically better at coping with potentially physically aggressive confrontation than women.

But that is really a separate discussion.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

How about a job ad for a police officer?

"The position involves being able to conduct a body cavity search on both women and transgender citizens, but not men who claim to be "real" men because we have the transgender officers already tasked to that effort..."

Spurious argument. The police recruit all sorts, then assign them to duties.
Unless the force was really short of "persons" that could perform those duties, in which case it would be OK to advertise for women specifically, or transgenders specifically.

Originally Posted by Looper

on average physically stronger and psychologically better at coping with potentially physically aggressive confrontation than women.

But that is really a separate discussion.

Umm, I think women are just as capable to be physically aggressive as they are well trained.