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