If a king and a queen crack out a male child, he will be a prince. If the child is female she will be a princess. Does anybody dispute this? Is there anyone out there who would prefer the princess to be called prince? Would it be better if our queen's only daughter was called Prince Anne?
When I was a boy, public buses did not only have drivers: there was a second adult who sold tickets and checked passes. If that person was a man, he was known as a conductor. If the person was a woman, she was known as a conductress. Was there anything wrong with that?
Lying under an acacia tree on the plains of Africa a lion may be flicking away flies with his tail. Next to him there will probably be lionesses - adult females. Is there anything wrong with calling them lionesses?
Now it used to be that the accepted term for a woman who writes poetry was poetess. Increasingly, that word has been discarded in favour of the masculine version - poet. Some women writers seem to bristle about the term "poetess" as if it was somehow demeaning or suggestive of second class writing.
The same applies to the world of acting. Once we had actors and actresses but the term "actress" is now in decline and many women who appear on the stage or in film seem to prefer the masculine term. They're all actors now.
Being a simple Yorkshire fellow, I must say that I find these shifting lexical sands rather confusing. About it all, there seems to be some tenuous connection with feminist thinking - as if in certain instances the feminine versions of particular nouns have become strangely unacceptable. At the same time some other -ess words appear to have escaped scrutiny - princess, lioness, hostess, headmistress, sorceress, heiress etc.. What's going on?
____________________________________________________________
I posted the above just after midnight and took this picture through our kitchen window at 6.30am this morning. Not white... but whiteness:-
I think that in some instances, the -ess added to a word did indeed signify (even if subtly) a diminution of the original word/meaning. So yes, a "poetess" was given less credence or significance than a poet. An "actress" may have gotten less respect and often quite a bit less salary than an actor. This may not feel comfortable to admit and no, it does not quite go along with a lioness as opposed to a lion. BUT, a lioness is undoubtably a female version of a lion. And as such, she is the one who bears the cubs and so forth whereas an actress does the exact same work as an actor and same with a poetess and poet. I think that eventually we may do away with "prince" and "princess" although we are certainly not there yet. Same with "sorceress" and all the rest of the examples you've given.
ReplyDeleteGender is a pretty huge deal to me as I have a transgendered son and I've thought about this a lot.
Yes, it may be uncomfortable to have to adapt to, as you say, the "shifting lexical sands" but I feel certain, dear Mr. P. that you can do it. It has nothing to do with being a simple Yorkshire fellow but instead, more to do with the willingness to understand.
Thank you for your considered reflection upon this interesting language point Ms Moon.
DeleteAs I was falling asleep last night another thought struck me. The -ess has, as, has you said about some of our language- sexism woven into it. You would NEVER refer to an actor as "a male actress" or a conductor as a "male conductress." Or even a lion as a "male lioness!" The very thought is absurd! Which goes right to the root of the situation. The male version of the word is by definition THE definition of the word. Which at one time passed without comment because, well, that's just the way of it. Which is a bit absurd. You certainly HAVE opened a can of worms with this one and there's so much more to consider. I fear it would take a true and learned historical linguist (aka diachronic linguist) and/or an etymologist to unthread how these things work over time. But the very fact that there are such positions of people who study language and the history of it reveals that language is no more unchanging or static than human culture is.
DeleteAnd we haven't even begun to discuss how some languages (like Spanish) assign a gender to every noun, some seemingly at random.
I will go away quietly now. But you DID certainly pique my interest!
Your extra points are very relevant and you are so right to suggest that masculinity has been a dominant force in the development of the English language. It certainly is absurd to talk about male actresses but interestingly we do talk about male nurses - for the assumption is that a nurse will invariably be a woman.
DeleteI remember when the first male 'Ward Sister' was appointed in a certain Liverpool Hospital. It was decided that he couldn't be titled 'Sister' so was titled 'Charge Nurse'. That is a title now generally used for the old post of 'Sister' . I notice, though, the practice does vary and one hospital I know has both male and female charge nurses. Another had (has?) female Sisters and male Charge Nurses. C'est très interessant n'est pas?
DeleteDid "Ward Sister" come from a time when most nurses were nuns? We never use that term in the US. A charge nurse is a charge nurse, no matter what the gender. And a male nurse is something we've had to get used to- the idea of one AND the name. Is this because "nursing" is another term for breastfeeding? So is the etymology of the word "nurse" based on the idea of someone who tends the ill and wounded the way a mother tends her child? Oh- just looked it up. The word "nourish" comes from the same root. So interesting. Maybe I need to go back to school.
DeleteI worked with a male Staff Nurse (who, I believe, became the first 'Sister' with the title Charge Nurse in that hospital) back in the late 'Fifties/early 'Sixties. I have always assumed the term Sister came from nurses having been nuns. My Oxford English Dictionary is silent on the origin of a hospital sister but does confirm that nuns who were members of a 'nursing sisterhood' bore that title. For information the origin of 'nurse' is late Middle English: contraction of earlier nourice, from Old French, from late Latin nutricia, feminine of Latin nutricius ‘(person) that nourishes’, from nutrix, nutric- ‘nurse’, from nutrire ‘nourish’. The verb was originally a contraction of nourish, altered under the influence of the noun. So now we know.
DeleteI had never connected "nurse" with "nourish" but it makes sense as does the speculation about "sister". Thank you Professors Moon and Edwards!
DeleteWhat Mary said, so gently and beautifully. I'm a 77 year old woman who was happy to see a bunch of the -esses disappear, and with it some of the patronization I felt they carried when I was growing up and in young adulthood. You have probably not been in a position to notice the patronization. Perhaps the words that have survived with esses intact are ones in which the power of the position or state does not seem diminished by the ess, for whatever reason (the lioness is a good example).
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to worry about shifting lexical sands, I'll join you on the loss/misuse of perfectly good words for which there are no replacements, like disinterested becoming uninterested, fortuitious becoming fortunate (maybe these aren't as degraded in England as badly as they are in the States). Cheerio!
And after Ms Moon, thank you for fortifying her argument Sally. Te degradation of language and the disappearance of excellent words is a process that we also observe here in the birthplace of the English language.
DeleteWhat's going on is something has always gone on. Our language slowly changes. sometimes we know why and sometime it just doesn't make sense. Usually the change is so slow that we don't notice it until it's over.
ReplyDeleteAnd when it's happened it's too late to protest.
DeleteI'm with Ms moon on this.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to add that headmistress has been usurped by the gender neutral principal. Hostess is a word I rarely hear, perhaps because the whole idea of having a host is becoming less popular and heiress is another word which I think is losing usage
I guess that in England, the word "headteacher" has gained greater currency in recent times. "Principal" for school leaders is uncommon.
DeleteI love Ms. Moon's response and I agree with her. Language does slowly change over time and while some of it I may not like I do think these situations are good.
ReplyDeleteYes. I loved Ms Moon's response too. Sexism is not only present in society, it is also woven into the language we use.
DeleteI think this goes further than language. You said that once it's happened it's too late to protest. As a general comment, of course, that's correct. In this case, however, I wouldn't want to object. When it first happened I found the change irritating linguistically. Then I realised the linguistics were irrelevant. Why do we need to differentiate between male and female poets. Note that there is no word 'composeress'. Our secondary school has a Rector regardless of sex (or gender) not a head teacher (which is the usual term in Scottish schools so far as I am aware).
ReplyDeleteI think that you have opened up a wondrous can of worms. You have certainly awaked my little grey cells this morning.
Well that's good. I am glad to have given you a little food for thought and you make a good point about "composeress". By the way, is a man who uses sewing needles a "seamster"?
DeleteI just had the same thought, Mr. P! About the seamster/steamstress. I think at the very least we can all agree that the English language is NOT consistent at all. Never has been, probably never will be.
DeleteIn genealogy, I keep seeing Executrix.
ReplyDeleteExecutrix? I thought that was a character in those Asterix the Gaul comic books!
DeleteIt's political-correctness b/s going out of control! And it annoys the hell out of me.
ReplyDeleteAn actress will always be an "actress" as far as I'm concerned; and that is what I call them...same applies to the rest.
I wonder what the PC brigade would call a female sheep. They'll wake up one day and want to change it from being a called a "ewe", you know. They'll try to ram their new idea down our throats!
I would prefer not to have anything rammed down my throat - unless it's a bacon and egg sandwich! I will also keep using "actress" but "poetess" seems to have already faded away from general use.
DeleteI'm with Lee on this one...especially on "actress" and "actor". I think I have always used "poet" for both sexes. In Oz we have our own special words too ..eg. Jillaroo and Jackaroo for stationhands.
DeleteWow! I can't believe you're getting snow! Yeesh.
ReplyDeleteThere are some -ess words that have rightly faded away already -- Jewess and Negress come to mind. This is what happens when you speak a living language. It evolves! I'm not a fan of actress, or comedienne either -- actors and comedians can be any gender. And I'm glad we've done away with stewardesses in favor of flight attendants. (Though admittedly I sometimes use both actress and stewardess out of lazy habit.)
OK, I just read the above comments. I think Ms. Moon hits the nail on the head when she points out that the male version of the word ("lion") IS the thing, the default, whereas the female version ("lioness") is a dimunition and therefore somehow lessened.
DeleteYes. The lion/lioness point was most apposite.
DeleteBut Lee- I don't think that anyone is arguing that there should not be different words for male and female animals of the same species. A hen is a female chicken and lays eggs. A rooster is a male chicken and fertilizes eggs. And crows. A ewe is a female sheep, the ram is the male. This is not sexist at all as far as I can see. Nor would anyone who is rational see these names as being un PC. It's not the same at all as calling a woman who does the same job as a man a name which indicates her gender in doing it. An author and an "authoress" (rarely used now) do the same job. Why should they be referred to in a way which indicates their gender? But the man who writes is still a man and the woman who writes is still a woman although when describing their job title, both are merely authors.
DeleteIt was a hard day for me when I realized that language has always been evolving and that it will be ever thus :) But I'm over it now. That was a long time ago.
ReplyDelete