Personally, I find the decision to modernise language in such a way that it conveys less information than its previous version odd. 'Actress' tells me in one word what 'female actor' tells me in two.
Marsh's argument is that in most cases the sex of the subject is irrelevant.
"There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes - and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse or songstress."The subject certainly seems to arouse passions. When I mentioned it earlier, it even awoke the wrath of the art desk - usually immune to all discussions of house style. Their verdict: the abolition of 'actress' is "ridiculous". This sub-editress/sub-editrix is inclined to agree.
No such fripperies for Sally Baker, who in her Feedback column on Saturday tackled the tricky subject of reporting suicide. When does information become too much information, or, worse, an instruction manual? And when is it acceptable to print a picture of a public suicide? It's not something I have ever had to confront, here in the world of trade magazines. But an interesting - and important - read.
What I'm against is modifications of the language being hailed by feminists as the unravelling of another clever male plot against women.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the problem with the current setup is that you often have a special word for females and a word that could be male or female. If someone says "actor", does it mean male or female?
There's always going to be ambiguity, so why not make everything as neutral (or neuter) as possible? Did I mean an old actor or a young actor? Was the actor a good actor or a bad actor? At least the tabloids help us out a bit by always putting the person's age in after their name ;-)
I'm all for making language as gender neutral as possible. Standardizing on singular they is one of my hobby-horses.
Hello Micheal,
ReplyDeleteWelcome and thank you for your comment.
Ah, those feminist types, eh. What will they think of next? Hehe. I'm not sure I have witnessed such hailing, but I don't doubt its existence.
For me, it's pointless changes that get my goat. 'Chairman' to 'chairperson', for example. I get it, I really do. But... sigh. It smacks of laziness - changing language so that it cannot cause offence, instead of using skilful writing to achieve the same end.
What's next - a 'female waiter'? I'd rather just stick with the sex (as the actress said to the bishop). If we have just one word, 'waiter', it does convey that the person brings food. But how to begin to picture them?
Of course, this point is easily countered. 'Doctor', for example, is gender-neutral and we get along just fine. No need for Fowler's 'doctress' (see David Marsh's article).
But I for one think these inconsistencies hold a certain charm. And when the complexity of the language is purposefully reduced, I get waves of 1984-inspired fear. I can't read the words 'female actor' without mentally adopting a Dalek voice.
And... at the bottom of it all, a terrible fear. If all the complexity is removed, what refuge then for the poor sub-editor?
And as for the singular they...!
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more to this response Substuff, or should I address you as Substuffess? I could always attempt a Dalek Female Substuff if you want but it just wouldn't scan right. If all the complexity was removed then we might just as well all speak Esperanto and live in a magnolia coloured world.
ReplyDelete