If she calls herself an actor, does she have some 'splainin' to do?

March 5, 2006 5:40 PM

When did actresses start calling themselves actors?

Isn't the term 'actor' intrinsically male? Isn't the term 'actress' intrinsically female? Did I miss a memo or something?

posted by Wild_Eep to writing & language (37 comments total)

No longer much left to the notion that things are "intrinsically" this or that but rather culturally determined. Ladies who fly planes are aviators or pilots; ladies who act are actors; head of academic departments remain chairmen (or , ugh, chairs), the guy deliverying the male is a mailman and if it is a lady, it is a mailman. The last holdout: a woman who does dominant stuff sexually is and remains a dominatrix, and a guy who does that sort of thing can not be called by the same name.
posted by Postroad at 5:49 PM on March 5, 2006

I remember this starting (or at least I became aware of it) in the mid/late 80s, when I was in theatre school. That was the same period when people were trying to make the language less sexist -- server instead of waitress and all that.
posted by grumblebee at 5:49 PM on March 5, 2006

I think it's a tactic to stop gender-specifying certain words describing jobs--"flight attendant" instead of "steward"/"stewardess," for example.

And please, I'm not advocating it, so don't flame me as though it was my idea.
posted by maxreax at 5:51 PM on March 5, 2006

When learning german in school, I was taught that women in a profession were described with an '-in' ending. 'Lehrer' (teacher) 'Lehrerin' (female teacher)

Is 'actress' considered offensive?
posted by Wild_Eep at 5:52 PM on March 5, 2006

The loss of gender in the language has been going on for centuries, first in the loss of gender of ordinary words (which lives on in French, for example), and now in the loss of gender in gender specific words. I feel it's only in the last few years that it has become acceptable to call an actress an actor, but it's a welcome introduction in my opinion. Also note that comediennes are often referred to as comedians now too.

It seems to be another step in the natural simplification of our language over time.
posted by wackybrit at 5:52 PM on March 5, 2006

Is 'actress' considered offensive?

I've never met an actress who was offended by it.
posted by grumblebee at 5:55 PM on March 5, 2006

No, 'actor' is not intrinsically male. It is gender-neutral unlike 'actress'. You will get the occassional old-school actress dressing down someone with an imperious "I am an actress".
posted by tellurian at 5:55 PM on March 5, 2006

I've never met an actress who was offended by it.

Yeah, but have you met an actor who was offended by it?

Isn't the term 'actor' intrinsically male?

Yeah, but so is doctor. Do you want them called doctresses too? Language changes.
posted by scottreynen at 6:24 PM on March 5, 2006

Wild_eep, German's a more highly gendered language than English anyways. This may in part be due to grammatical gender and such [which left English long ago but are maintained in German]; it may also be due to the fact that English is a somewhat less regular language, without a relatively standard way of feminizing nouns. There were already many non-gendered occupation-related words. [For example, Madame Curie was never called a scientrix or a scientess.] English has already lost other parts of language that related languages have maintained - where's the English formal you, or plural you? It would appear that it's currently losing gender in occupation-related words. Although that's partly a conscious attempt to be politically correct, it also has the effect of simplifying and standardizing a part of the language that was pretty irregular.
posted by ubersturm at 7:03 PM on March 5, 2006

In a similar vein, I (a girl) call myself a waiter rather than a waitress. It just sounds silly to me to 'invent' a new word for a job. (And I realise that it's not always invented, but that's how it often feels.)
posted by jacalata at 7:07 PM on March 5, 2006

jacalata - I'll bet you hate the term "server" as much as I do. Restaurant MeFites unite!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:16 PM on March 5, 2006

You know, female writers used to be called authoresses. I think that's probably the closest parallel you'll find.
posted by booksandlibretti at 7:22 PM on March 5, 2006

Isn't the proper term nowadays "waitron?"

Not that I'll ever be able to say it without giggling.
posted by anjamu at 7:25 PM on March 5, 2006

Sometime in the late 1970s- early 1980s. By the time I got to college it wasn't unusual to have interviews with female actors in magazines/newspapers, where in the mid 1970s those interviews would be with actresses (even if it was the same person). It was, as far as I could tell, part of the wholesale gender-neutral-ification of American English.

There are still a few 'grande dame' holdouts, but pretty much anyone who works on stage/screen is an actor now (unless she's a starlet).
posted by jlkr at 7:29 PM on March 5, 2006

An interesting question, if only for the breadth of opinions revealed in a search on the issue. Besides common curiosity, the question presses hot-buttons. As might be expected, the change-over in usage from actress to actor has been seized as another screaming point by radical right misogynists (one or more of those terms are likely redundant) to spew on feminists and their purported attempts to emasculate the English language.

A more balanced view, though somewhat biased the other direction, is an interesting mini-history on the term actress versus actor, as well as a broader use of the female "ess" and "ix", that can be found at the chicklit website. (Perhaps one of the chicklit writers is a MetaFilter poster; the site mention seems familiar.)

Several references claim that actresses object to the term because it has historically been used by prostitutes and wayward women. Normally, one might discount that claim, but a Project Gutenberg book provides a concrete demonstrattion of why female actors might shun the actress title. Copyright 1910, the work is titled "Our Stage and Its Critics" by Edward Fordham Spence, and an edited excerpt of the period piece certainly shows how a less-than-stellar regard for actresses.

"...with two or three exceptions, the so-called actresses have had no position of importance in the legitimate ranks of the profession....it might be that the blue-blooded youths captured these charmers of the musico-dramatic department in order to enjoy a selfish monopoly of lovely voices, but such is not the case. Two or three of the ladies who have won their way to the "hupper succles" possess talent... The ruck and run of them, however, have triumphed owing to advertisement in subtle and also in crude forms.

Really the actresses of legitimate drama, whom one should call the actresses, have a grievance not merely in the fact that the peerage does not woo them (since in a good many instances the bride has paid dearly for her elevation), nor merely because women of the oldest profession open to the sex miscall themselves actresses when in trouble—the term actress being like the word "charity"—but because their title includes many persons of notoriety who, if forced to rely solely upon their talent, could hardly earn a pound a week in true drama....

Many young ladies, who twenty years ago could not by any decent means have got their likenesses exhibited to the public except in shop-window photographs, now simper at us fifty-two times a year, or more, and are sometimes described as "the celebrated actress," though a few of them never get beyond the dignity of a single silly line in the book of a musical hodge-podge. Miss XXX smiles at us from her 40-h.p. "bloater car" which has cost a larger sum than eight years of her salary, and the simple-minded think she must be a great star to be able to afford such a luxury, not knowing that she herself is the luxury which someone else is unable to afford...." [EOQ]

Yeeow. Let none of my friends ever be labeled an actress.
posted by mdevore at 7:47 PM on March 5, 2006

I'm not exactly sure where I got the impression but somehow I have the understanding that a woman calling herself an "actor" is trying to separate herself from the connotations of a person who gets roles because of how she looks, or because she is a celebrity, or whatever. She is trying to say that she is serious about the craft, and is not just some piece of eye candy that only cares about her close-up shots being in soft focus and so on. I'm not sure if this is a viewpoint shared by many people in the business or even if I'm understanding it correctly, but I do have the sense that some women prefer the "actor" label for reasons along these lines.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:49 PM on March 5, 2006

wackybrit writes "Also note that comediennes are often referred to as comedians now too."

"Comedienne" is an awful word, though. A French word forced into English, it's always been awkward, and I, at least, welcome its death.

I think "actor" and "actress" both work well. The best reason for keeping the latter is to give away two extra awards without having to create the (potentially condescending and trivializing) categories of "best supporting female actor" and "best female actor". Having separate categories seems odd, anyway, as the old leading man, leading lady structure is long dead.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:07 PM on March 5, 2006

mr_roboto writes "'Comedienne' is an awful word, though. A French word forced into English, it's always been awkward, and I, at least, welcome its death."

Just to clarify my own comment... The phonemes necessary to make the word "comedienne" distinct from the word "comedian" aren't natural to an English speaker. It's pronunciation therefore always seems forced and artificial.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:12 PM on March 5, 2006

The last holdout: a woman who does dominant stuff sexually is and remains a dominatrix, and a guy who does that sort of thing can not be called by the same name.

Actually, as I've mentioned before, "dominatrix" is a silly term used by porn producers and women who sell their services. Within the BDSM community, the terms used are top, femdom, domme, or mistress. The first of these is gender neutral. Also, I sometimes hear the male version of "domme," "dom," applied to women too, although not often. But then, they're both just forms of "dominant" which is, again, gender neutral. And then there are terms like "daddy" and "sir" which I've seen applied with equal frequency to gay male tops and lesbian tops. And, of course, "sub," "submissive," "slave," "bottom," and "masochist" apply to women as easily as they do to men.
posted by Clay201 at 8:38 PM on March 5, 2006

Rhomboid, I agree with you.

I've always thought of it this way: Are men and women who are acting (or writing, or flying planes) both doing the same job? Then why would we have different names for what they are doing?

To me, "actor" sounds like the default, "actress" therefore like an offshoot; the man acting is considered to be normal, the woman acting to be a novelty or aberration. Because you never hear someone having to specify "male actor" (or "male doctor" or "male pilot").
posted by occhiblu at 8:40 PM on March 5, 2006

I believe that the Screen Actors Guild has always accepted women, but has never been the "Screen Actors and Actresses Guild". So, um, what was your question?

I agree the trend toward women being introduced as so and so, an actor on, say, television interviews really got going during the 1980s, and the 1990s were the period when there was the most static about it -- e.g. people assuming that women calling themselves actors were making some kind of annoying statement. So, Wild_Eep, you may want to check that inbox once in a while. ;-)

Really, you have to admit that Hollywood is one of the places where people (especially women) get hired mainly for their looks, and an "actress" is barely a step up from "starlet". Somebody like Jodie Foster or Judi Dench, though, wants to be known as serious about their craft.
posted by dhartung at 9:02 PM on March 5, 2006

The Screen Actors Guild awards "male actor" and "female actor." The Oscars go to actors and actresses.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:19 PM on March 5, 2006

Jewess seems to have slipped out if the language too, and with it all iys attendent associations.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:37 PM on March 5, 2006

of … it's.

Shit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:37 PM on March 5, 2006

According to Robert Hendrickson's Word and Phrase Origins, words which ended with the feminine termination "-ess" were used at least as far back as Chaucer. In the 19th century, a Sara Josepha Hale sought to revive and make popular the terminology. She had a whole slew of suggestions, such as actress, doctress, murderess, songstress, and teacheress, to name a few.

Personally, as one person put it, I agree that actor is at least culturally intrinsically male. The fact that one of the previous posters felt the need to write "female actors" indicates at least some evidence that in society, we hear actor and think a man.
posted by Atreides at 9:46 PM on March 5, 2006

When I brought this up in a discussion with a knowledgeable friend, I was told that -or is not a gender specific suffix like -er is. Assuming he was right, then actor is gender neutral and only actress is specific. A woman might choose to use the broader term if she'd rather be defined by her work as opposed to her gender.
posted by cali at 10:01 PM on March 5, 2006

I try not be judgemental about such things, but...

Whenever I hear a woman referring to herself as an "actor," I get a flash of yet another self-important personage sitting in a chair, stage right, opposite a fawning James Lipton, and by God, I want to shut something off.
posted by paulsc at 6:35 AM on March 6, 2006

The fact that one of the previous posters felt the need to write "female actors" indicates at least some evidence that in society, we hear actor and think a man.

Yes, and when we hear cook or president or criminal we also "think a man." It's called sexism, and it doesn't have anything to do with suffixes.

Whenever I hear a woman referring to herself as an "actor," I get a flash of yet another self-important personage sitting in a chair, stage right, opposite a fawning James Lipton, and by God, I want to shut something off.

Yup, it's called sexism.
posted by languagehat at 6:57 AM on March 6, 2006

the guy deliverying the male is a mailman and if it is a lady, it is a mailman. - Postroad

Actually, it's a Mail Carrier or Postal Carrier.
posted by raedyn at 7:11 AM on March 6, 2006

It's called sexism, and it doesn't have anything to do with suffixes.

In other cases, it sure can be. In this case? Where many, if not most here, grew up with men being called actors, and women being called actresses?

Is there anything intrinsically demeaning in the term "actress"? Or is it just my sexist world view which is preventing me from identifying said demeaning factor?

Honestly, I'm all for Feminism, but in this situation, its ridiculous. Why don't we just drop the word "woman" and apply "man" to both male and female? Egads, lets drop female for a whole sale use of male! Where will the horror stop?!
posted by Atreides at 7:18 AM on March 6, 2006

Nothing in language is intrinsically anything. But when we had "poetess" and "authoress" in more common use, they took on a sort of dancing bear connotation-- Ohhh, isn't that cute, she thinks she can write real poetry! Give her a pat on the head! By separating them out from the stream of "real" authors and poets, it was easy to take them less seriously.

I don't think the parallel with "actress" is exact, but it does give me enough pause that I'm likely to use less gendered terms most of the time.
posted by Jeanne at 7:36 AM on March 6, 2006

"Why don't we just drop the word "woman" and apply "man" to both male and female? "

This is actually points up the reason that "actress" is valid, where "aviatrix" is not.

In acting, unlike aeroplane flying, the sex of the person IS important. There are women's parts and there are men's parts (I'm obviously referring to the parts of a production here, not parts of the body...)

An obvious differentiation by sex seems extremely useful, and not sexist.

Producer: Johnson, we're casting for big show tomorrow. Get me some actors to audition for the part of the nurse.

Johnson: Uh...male actors or female actors, boss?

Producer: Female actors, for Chrissakes, Johnson, it's a NURSE.

Hope my sexist stereotype of a nurse doesn't hurt my non-sexist explanation of an actress.
posted by verylargecorp at 8:10 AM on March 6, 2006

Johnson's a moron. As is your producer.
posted by klangklangston at 8:30 AM on March 6, 2006

I understand that actor / player was used in a gender-nonspecific way prior to Chaucer and the feminine suffix was added later to create new words that worked better in various poetic rhyme schemes.
posted by luriete at 9:00 AM on March 6, 2006

In acting, unlike aeroplane flying, the sex of the person IS important. There are women's parts and there are men's parts

Yes. There are also parts for 35-year olds and 75-year olds, parts for children and parts for adults, parts for blacks and parts for hispanics and parts for caucasians and parts that are not race-specific, parts that require smoking, parts that require someone comfortable with nudity, parts that need to be cast so that the actor looks like the actor playing her mother, etc.

Do you want a separate word for each of these?
posted by occhiblu at 9:01 AM on March 6, 2006

In other words, when you priortize gender to such an extent that you feel uncomfortable when it's not specified, even though it's hardly the only important criterion by which you're judging, casting, or describing the person, then it would seem to point to sexism.
posted by occhiblu at 9:05 AM on March 6, 2006

It's funny, to me, when you replace actor/actress with "player", then I don't care about having a male and a female version. After all, all the men and women are but players, as Elvis said.

I guess it's just a personal thing, that "actress" let's me conjure up images of Bette Davis (which is a good thing) in a way that "actor" never could.
posted by verylargecorp at 9:24 AM on March 6, 2006