From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxk!vhm55611 Newsgroups: net.nlang Title: Re: genderless usage Article-I.D.: ihuxk.121 Posted: Fri Jul 9 09:03:09 1982 Received: Sun Jul 11 01:54:47 1982 OK, here's a question for everyone... Why is it that occupational titles such as "butcher, baker, candle-stick maker, doctor, lawyer" etc., etc. are accepted as being non-gender-specific, but "actor, waiter" and a few others are assumed in our language/culture to be specifically male? I can see a problem with "mailMAN, chairMAN" etc. when we wish to be careful, but where did "actRESS, waitRESS" come from, while "butchRESS, bakRESS" sound totally ridiculous? "MailMAN" can easily be interpreted as 'a MAN who does something relating to the mail' or something like that, and "baker" means, by the normal rules of construction, 'someone who bakes.' Why has "waitER" come to mean ' a MAN who waits' rather than simply 'someone who waits'? Obviously the implication is often there in English, because of the existence of the words "waitRESS" and "actRESS". The question is, why are these two necessary while we seem to get along fine without a specifically feminine form of baker, doctor, etc.? 'ch/WOMAN' => 'chairPERSON', OK, no problem (OK fine, fer sure, fer sure...) 'actOR/RES' => 'actPERSON', no, I don't think so... anyone have any comments or better suggestions? {I suppose it's suicidal to make a statement like that last one, since I'm sure lots of people in netland have comments. Oh well, it's too late now.} -Vic Mitnick ...ihuxk!vhm55611 BTL Indian Hill South (312)979-1621