From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Because, as the lion said to the arch bishopess, "The penis-mitre man!",
he roared.
--
Cheers
Clive
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Anthropomorphism, or whatever the opposite of that is?

I'm sure I heard an actresses refer to herself as an actresses on the TV
the other day.

And what about seamstresses?
--
Ric
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 2026/4/23 0:4:54, Joe Kerr wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Anthropomorphism, or whatever the opposite of that is?

I'm sure I heard an actresses refer to herself as an actresses on the TV
the other day.

I support the general principle of removing the gender-specific aspects
of job titles, e. g. "firefighter".

However, I don't think it is right to - as in this case - take the male
version and apply it in general - if only because it causes at least
momentary confusion among those of us who grew up with the two terms.
Although I don't know what term to suggest - "thespian" seems a bit pretentious.

I'm glad some actresses are content to retain that title.

And what about seamstresses?

Interesting point! What was the male equivalent? I don't think I've ever
heard "seamster"; "tailor" maybe, but that (a) implies superiority (b)
is I think already used by some lady members of that profession.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's a pity, some of the people in my k/f have interesting things to
say apart from trumpeting their politics. Alas, I don't see those
things. - Snipe in eternal-september.talk, 2025-12-7
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Anthropomorphism, or whatever the opposite of that is?

I'm sure I heard an actresses refer to herself as an actresses on the TV
the other day.

And what about seamstresses?

A hem.
--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 23/04/2026 08:35, Mike McMillan wrote:

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Anthropomorphism, or whatever the opposite of that is?

I'm sure I heard an actresses refer to herself as an actresses on the TV
the other day.

And what about seamstresses?

A hem.

An unseamly remark.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

On 23/04/2026 08:35, Mike McMillan wrote:

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now >>>> say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

Anthropomorphism, or whatever the opposite of that is?

I'm sure I heard an actresses refer to herself as an actresses on the TV >>> the other day.

And what about seamstresses?

A hem.

An unseamly remark.

YourCOll have me in stitches.
--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

A woman could describe herself as an actress and (most?) people would
think it was her right to do so if she so chose.

Could one woman describe another as an actress without some kind of
negative response? I'm not sure.

I think a man could not use the term without a negative reaction.
--
Sam Plusnet
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 2026/4/25 20:44:11, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

A woman could describe herself as an actress and (most?) people would
think it was her right to do so if she so chose.

Could one woman describe another as an actress without some kind of
negative response? I'm not sure.

I think a man could not use the term without a negative reaction.

I think that is sad (unless he had sexist intent, which in the vast
majority of cases I don't think would be the case). But I fear you are
correct.

As I said earlier, we need a "firefighter"-like word, to use in place of
the one that makes us (some of us, anyway) immediately think of a male
(and "thespian" sounds too pretentious).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Money should enable life, not define worth.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 26/04/2026 13:18, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/25 20:44:11, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now
say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

A woman could describe herself as an actress and (most?) people would
think it was her right to do so if she so chose.

Could one woman describe another as an actress without some kind of
negative response? I'm not sure.

I think a man could not use the term without a negative reaction.

I think that is sad (unless he had sexist intent, which in the vast
majority of cases I don't think would be the case). But I fear you are correct.

As I said earlier, we need a "firefighter"-like word, to use in place of
the one that makes us (some of us, anyway) immediately think of a male
(and "thespian" sounds too pretentious).

If you go round referring to female acting persons as thespians there
will a whole lot of inappropriate, smutty and supposedly humorous
commenting. Some might actually be humorous, but it will be worse
than.calling them actresses.
--
Ric
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 26/04/2026 14:19, Joe Kerr wrote:

On 26/04/2026 13:18, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/25 20:44:11, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 22/04/2026 09:41, Jenny M Benson wrote:

If it is totally unacceptable now to refer to "Actresses" - we must now >>>> say "Actors" - why is perfectly OK to talk about the "Lionesses"?

A woman could describe herself as an actress and (most?) people would
think it was her right to do so if she so chose.

Could one woman describe another as an actress without some kind of
negative response?-a I'm not sure.

I think a man could not use the term without a negative reaction.

I think that is sad (unless he had sexist intent, which in the vast
majority of cases I don't think would be the case). But I fear you are
correct.

As I said earlier, we need a "firefighter"-like word, to use in place of
the one that makes us (some of us, anyway) immediately think of a male
(and "thespian" sounds too pretentious).

If you go round referring to female acting persons as thespians there
will a whole lot of inappropriate, smutty and supposedly humorous commenting. Some might actually be humorous, but it will be worse than.calling them actresses.

There was a time when calling a woman "an actress" was pretty much the
same as calling her a prostitute.
--
Sam Plusnet
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2