Conference thebay::joyoflex

Apparently you are, in fact, the only person so bothered. I've been
thinking about it for a long time, and I've decided it's O.K. with me.
I sort of like that English is so full of nouns-as-adjectives -
"brick wall", "gasoline engine", "ice cream man", "criminal lawyer".
Yeah, it makes for some ambiguity sometimes; but on balance I think
it makes the language more expressive.

Besides, not every female is a woman. The words may have identical
extensions (fancy logical way of saying they define the same set of
objects), but that's not all there is to "meaning". "Female" is fine
for passports, resumes, and questionnaires, but "woman" sounds more
human to me.

-John

The thing that bothers me about "woman writer" is that one never (or
hardly ever) sees "man writer". It isn't the grammar that's in question,
just the implication that "writer", unmodified, cannot be female. And
since that leads us back to a topic that has been well and thoroughly
addressed in SOAPBOX, I will leave it there...

-b

When I was a kid back around the dawn history, it was common to hear
the phrase "man teacher".  In Everett, Mass. we even had a "man librarian".

Dave C.

re .3
"man teacher" or "man librarian" yes, but why then is it "male nurse"?


Cheers,
Dick

One reason for "male nurse" is to prevent the nasal at the end of
"man" from running into the nasal at the start of "nurse".

English has quite a few examples where nasals wandered across
word boundaries.  For example, the Spanish word for "orange",
"naranja" came into English as "a norange" -> "an orange".
I believe "otter" and "uncle" underwent similar transformations.

Martin.

Which is, of course, a whole nother topic.

	HRB

But they still don't call James Michener or Harold Robbins "man
writers." If you've got a name like Studs Terkel, there would be 
no question which gender you are, but most women's names are 
enough explanation to identify the writer as a woman.

beck

RE: .0 (woman writers)

I met a woman writer once in a tattoo parlor....

Sort of like 'battered women.'  I'm glad the police find the culprits before
they get around to deep-frying the women.

--PSW

    Re: .0
    
    Typically, when we use phrases such as "woman writer", I think we
    just be lazy, and are using it as a contraction for the phrase "woman
    *who is a* writer".  In that sense, then, I'm not so sure that it's
    "woman" that is being used as an adjective to modify "writer", but
    "writer" being used to describe the "woman".
    
    In this respect, and as has already been pointed out in an earlier
    reply dealing with using nouns as adjectives, I'm not so sure that
    phrases such as "woman writer" as a) incorrect, or b) demeaning.
    To me, "woman writer" emphasizes the "woman" -- again, "not all
    females are women" (earlier reply).  The "writer" describes her
    occupation, or 'status'.  "Woman" remains the subject; you wouldn't
    use "writer woman", would you?
    
    Frank   8-|)

    re: .9 "O sinner man, where ...."    :-)

    Re .9:
    
    Nouns may be used as adjectives, as in "The newspaper reporter asked a
    question.".  Clearly, "newspaper" is not being used as a noun, for the
    newspaper did not ask a question.  The reporter asked a question, and
    "newspaper" tells us what type of reporter did the asking.
    
    
    				-- edp

    I think you've put your finger on why I don't like "women writers."
    Nouns shouldn't be used as adjectives when there's an adjective
    that will do as well.  This is the source of much of the concrete-block
    prose favored by bureaucrats:  "marketing technology solution,"
    "customer services systems engineering."
    
    On the other hand, if we absolutely eschew nouns as adjectives I'll
    have to give up phrases like "concrete-block prose," so the issue
    is clearly not that simple.
    
    	HRB

    What do you think of "writrix" and "authoress," Victorian words
    that have slipped into a merciful oblivion?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I'd never even *heard* of writrix.  I think it's one of the
    truly awful words.
    							Ann

    When a writrix goes to a restaurant, is she served by the waitrix?
    
    -bs

Is writrix what General Mills makes when they run out
of corn, wheat, oats and rice?

    Sounds like an operating system to me.
    
    	Jon

    Re: .13  "Authoress" is still current here.
    
    The only -trix I can think of is executrix (f. of executor), legal
    term, accent on second syllable in both cases.
    
    Anne is probably a Notrix :-)

    Prosecutrix.
    							Ann

      Fellatrix.

    Realtrix might be appropriate.

    
    Prostitutrix

    Along with "executrix" is "administratrix", which is very similar
    except for the fact of intestacy.

    By the way, how do you pronounce "executrices"?

    Re .24:
    
    > Along with "executrix" is "administratrix", which is very similar
    > except for the fact of intestacy.
    
    No, no, "administratrix" is very similar to "administrator" except
    for the fact of intestacy (and other body parts).
    
    
    				-- edp

    This stuff sounds AWFUL!  All of these -ix and -ess words come from
    a language developed in more sexist times when it was assumed that
    "people" were white males, and anything to the contrary MUST be
    clearly spelled out, (so the white males don't slip, I suppose,
    and treat these "deviants" as equals!).  How many people have heard,
    for example, "This black guy who..." or "She's a black singer.."
    when you NEVER hear "I know this white guy who..."
    
    The term woman writer seems the same to me.  The factual info here
    is that the person is a writer, but the side information is that
    the writer is NOT MALE, and that seems to be a very important point
    that must not be missed!  One reply suggested that the term was
    most likely used to describe a woman first, and the fact that she
    was a writer second, but I don't think so.  If it was already
    established that the subject at hand was a woman, it would then
    be redundant to say that she was a woman writer!
    
    The implication is clear that if you are NOT a white male, THAT is 
    a more important distinguishing characteristic of you, (to white 
    males, that is - no one else seems to be on the whole so obsessed),
    than ANYTHING that could possibly follow.  And it's SO important to 
    them to know, that even if it sounds silly, it's better than nothing!
    Woman writer is SILLY.  Who writes women?  Executrix is dumb.  If
    the "executor" is Canadian, shouldn't we invent an additional word for
    it?  What if the duties are performed by the offspring of an American
    soldier and a Vietnamese woman?  What will they call THAT one?
    
    Point?  The only professions where gender identification is relevant
    is wet-nurse and sperm donor.  Why even are male hookers called
    gigolos?  So we can think of something "different" when we think
    of guys doing it than when we think of girls doing it?  You bet.
    The first image of the male hooker is someone happy, in control,
    and pretty well-paid.  That's not the first image of a woman hooker.
    Therefore, simply hooker won't do.  It needs to be seperated
    into happy/sad, good/bad, fun/desperate, male/female, gigolo/prostitute, 
    executor/executrix, writer/woman writer so that the "proper" conno-
    tations can be conveyed.
    
    Yech!
                                                                   
    Sandy

    I have a slight aversion to -ix and -ess suffixes (ah! is a suffix
    a woman, er, ah female sufferer?). I tend not to use them. So, to
    me, Meryl Streep is an actor, not an actress, and so on. The only
    one I still tend to use is "waitress", simply because "waiter"
    just doesn't sit right. And the genderless alternative that some
    restaurants actually use --- "waitron" --- makes me want to vomit.
    
    Of course, there's the really strange feminine form of "baker" ---
    "baxter".
    
    --- jerry

    Meryl Streep an actor?  I've been meaning to get my eyes tested
    - maybe I'm overdue.  To me, and I suspect most people, the word
    "actor" implies as much male-ness as "actress" implies female-ness.
    Ditto waiter/waitress.  Whether it is useful to be able to deduce
    the sex of someone who acts, or waits, in conversation is a different
    debate.
    
    As for "waitron" (promise you made this up?) - sounds all Greek
    to me.
    
    Jeff.

    re .28:
    I hope your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote that.
    
    I've heard (on television no less) females-who-act referred to as
    actors. And it makes perfect sense to me.
    
    ACTOR may imply male to you but it is not implicit in the word.
    
    "Actor" - A theactrical performer. 
    			- American Heritage Dictionary 1983
    
     "-or" - One that performs the action expressed by the root verb.
    
      It does not give a gender, it does not say "a male who performs..."
    
    I see no reason to maintain the distinction of actor/actress,
    aviator/aviatrix etc,etc.
    
    But I can already see an exception. A producer is talking to a 
    manager, "I need an actress to fill this role" is a bit easier
    than "I need a female actor to fill this role" both are clearer
    than "I need a woman to fill this role" since that latter could
    mean anyone picked off the street.
    
    To say,"She is a good actress" is redundant. "She is a good actor"
    is correct.
    
    And what's wrong with female waiters? Isn't "waiter" one who waits
    on a table?
    Actually, no, here the dictionary is inconsistant, but that don't
    make it right!
    
    Ho Hum, so much for the dictionary.
    
    sm

    On second thoughts, perhaps I'll buy the "actor" one in context.
    But is your dictionary (and mine) really inconsistent in describing
    a waiter as "a male person who waits at table".  Surely it is just
    reflecting common (and therefore correct? - see others) usage?
    
    Jeff

    .29
    
    I know *I* am being inconsistent in not feeling comfortable about
    using "waiter" as genderless, but that's *my* problem. But you're
    entirely correct in my reasons. An actor is "one who acts".
    
    re:.28
    
    No, I most emphaticly did *not* make up "waitron"!
    
    --- jerry

    re .30:
    
>    But is your dictionary (and mine) really inconsistent in describing
>    a waiter as "a male person who waits at table".  Surely it is just
>    reflecting common (and therefore correct? - see others) usage? 
    
    I agree it is reflecting common usage, but to be consistant shouldn't
    it also define "actor" as a *male* person who acts (that *is* the 
    common usage, after all)?
                  
    sm

    An interesting inconsistency in the language is the existence of
    the word "sculptress" (although it is almost never used nowadays) and
    the lack of a corresponding feminine form for "artist".
    
    Bernie

"Waiter" is sexless, though the predominance of females in historically
low-paying waiter roles has given "waitress" some connotations of its
own.  There is nothing even remotely sex-dependent in waiting on a table,
so having a female waiter is fine.  "Waitron" was recently cited in a
newspaper story as being the current word in Provincetown, MA.
Some other places use "waitperson".  Actually, "waitron" sounds more
feminine than "waiter".

"Actor" and "actress" are, however, distinctive because they really
can't be substituted for one another.  Unless, of course, you do it the
olde Shakespearean way!  (How did they view Frank Oz for his role as
Miss Piggie in "The Muppet Movie"?  He could have run for "best actress")

    re .34:
    
> "Actor" and "actress" are, however, distinctive because they really
>  can't be substituted for one another.
    
    Why not? 
    
    Oh you mean a male 'actron' cannot play a female character and
    vica-versa. Well, have ever heard of context? I think I would not
    be confused should someone say that Meryl Streep is a fine actor.
    
> How did they view Frank Oz for his role as
> Miss Piggie in "The Muppet Movie"?  He could have run for "best actress")
                              
  What about Dustin Hoffman as "Tootsie"? Or 'whats-her-name' from
    "year of living dangerously".
    
    I think what sould be done is come up with the male version of "actor",
    since "actor" is genderless, and "actress" is female.
    
    ACTRON, WAITRON, -TRON, all sound like robots to me.
    
    sm

Now we have even MORE inconsistency, .29 uses "inconsistant" and .30 uses
"inconsistent".  Which one is for females :-?

Speaking of inconsistency, "actor" is "-or" and "waiter" is "-er".  Perhaps
one ending implies gender, and the other merely implies "one who" ?

/Eric

    	'or' is a Latin based ending, and at least in terms of declension
    was masculine. My Latin is now too rusty to remember if they had
    a feminine equivalent ending, or ever used 'or' in an obviously
    female context.
    
    	Why all the worry? One of the glories of the English language
    is that it has more words than any other (we stole from everyone),
    which allows finer shades of meaning, and more information to be
    carried by a single word. Can't we just settle on the following
    definitions :-
    
    Actor   -  A male person who acts
    Actress -  A female person who acts
    Actron  -  A person who acts and I'll thump you if you open a door
               for me.
    
    	Dave

    re .37:
    
    > Actor   -  A male person who acts
    > Actress -  A female person who acts
    > Actron  -  A person who acts and I'll thump you if you open a door
               for me.

    Actron  -  A robot that acts
    Actress -  A female person who acts
    Actor   -  A person who acts
    Act___  -  A male person who acts
    
    sm

Re: .37

	I also am quite rusty in my latin, but I believe "uxor" meant 
"wife" which would be an "or" ending in an obviously feminie use.

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Whether a word is masculine or feminine has no bearing on whether
    it refers to men or women. And what is true in Latin has little
    bearing on English. The Latin word "virtus," meaning the quality
    of being manly, is a feminine word.
    
    	Jon

    Artist is often feminized in the French manner
    
    as artiste.
    
    I like the expression Lady Author myself -
    
    give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

    Re: -.1
    
    I'll take your word for it, although I've never heard "artiste"
    used to mean female artist.  Perhaps it is more common in England.
    In P. D. James's novel _Innocent Blood_, she consistently uses the
    term "murderess," which is practically unknown on this side of the
    Atlantic (the term, that is, not the phenomenon, which is quite
    common here).
    
    Bernie

    Re .42 [Re .41]  "Artiste" is definitely not used in England with
    the meaning of a female artist.  An "Artist" is someone who paints
    things, an "Artiste" is someone who performs, usually on the stage,
    circus, etc.
    
    Jeff.

    
    
    
    
    
    
          What about Asterix and Obelix the Gauls 8-) ...
    
    Graham.

    In French 'artiste' is one of the nouns which are either 
    masculine or feminine, depending on what they represent.
    So you can correctly say a woman is 'une artiste', and 
    'un artiste' about a man.
    

    I'll kill the first person who refers to me as a "woman writer"
    -- but not as slowly and painfully as I'll kill the first one who
    refers to me as a lady author!
    
    --bonnie, who is no lady

    Lady writer?
    

    Is a "lady writer" anything like a "lady killer?"
    
    

Re:  "Woman writer" "Lady author" etc.

This reminds me of a newspaper article reporting a hearing, and trying
to be nonsexist:

	"...was attended by four selectman and four selectpersons"

By the way, Bonnie, a good slow death is to arrange for a trolley
car to grow in the victim's stomach - SLOWLY.

/Eric

    A trolley car growing in the stomach? Good heavens, that sounds
    just like being pregnant!
    
    --bonnie
    

    Re last few:
    
    A trolly car could be removed by a form of Caesarian delivery, so
    that's no slow death.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Tie him to the track? Another excellent idea, but somewhat
    melodramatic, don't you think?
    
    --b
    

Re:   Comparison of trolley car growing in tummy vs. a baby

Uh yah, similary, but the stretch marks are a bit more severe when
you're through.

    RE .46 As you wish. I will not refer to you as a lady (but
    maybe we use that word differently ? )

    So what's wrong with words like "authoress" and "poetess?"
    
    
    John M.

    Why distinguish? I'm a writer. If what I have to say
    is valid, why the <beep> do you care what my sex is? 
    
    --bonnie
    

    	At least it's traditional. For many centuries English speakers
    have been using the unneccessarily precise terms of "bulls", "cows",
    and even "calves" when all they were interested in was a piece of
    meat.

    RE: .56
    
    So what's wrong with knowing someone's sex?  People aren't "just
    writers," as you point out, they are either female writers or male
    writers.  Knowing the person's sex helps the reader visualize the
    author:  Was Joyce Kilmer a man or a woman?  It also gives the reader
    some clue as to what honorific title to use when referring to the
    author.  For instance, if the preface to a book begins, "Joyce Kilmer
    was an American author..." you could confidently start a report on it
    this way: "I find Mr. Kilmer's work trite." 

    Author/authoress also gives you an idea of the author's experience.
    What if you were reading a critique on a book called, "What It's Like
    to be a Woman" by Alice Quigby.  It obviously makes a difference if
    Alice Quigby is a woman or a man. 

    To me, author/authoress is just a form of affirmation.  Call me old
    fashioned. 


    John M. 

Re:    Why do you beep what sex I am ?  I'm a writer, o.k. Why should it
	matter what sex I am??

Reminds me of a joke:


A (male) company executive interviewed three women for one available
potision as "executive secretary".

They were each given a test, to see how they would handle a hypothetical
situation.  The situation was that they were inadvertantly paid $100 EXTRA on
a weekly paycheck.  "What would you do ?", asked the executive.

The first applicant explained that she would immediately point out
the bookkeepping error to her boss.

The second applicant said she would probably keep the money and assume
that there was some legitimate reason, so why ask.

The third sharply explained that she would INVEST the $100 for a year,
and then pay back money AND the interest to the company !

Guess which one he hired and why.

Have you figured it out yet ?

Don't give up so easily.

The one with the big tits, of course!

The joke is over.

You've passed the punchline.

Of course if you read the joke you know which line was the punch line.

So why all the extra sludge ?

Merely for you lazy bums who thought you could get away with skipping
to the end of this reply and peek at the punchline.

Hah.  Gotcha!

    Re .58:
    
    > So what's wrong with knowing someone's sex?
    
    Nothing is wrong with knowing it.  However, so many people do bad
    things with the knowledge that you should respect the wishes of those
    people who do not wish to have it treated with any significane.
    
    > Knowing the person's sex helps the reader visualize the author:  Was
    > Joyce Kilmer a man or a woman?
    
    The reader has no need to visualize the author.
    
    > People aren't "just writers," as you point out, they are either
    > female writers or male writers.
    
    Or skinny writers or black writers or blonde writers or old writers or
    Jewish writers.
    
    > It also gives the reader some clue as to what honorific title to use
    > when referring to the author.
    
    This is totally unnecessary.
    
    > For instance, if the preface to a book begins, "Joyce Kilmer was an
    > American author..." you could confidently start a report on it this
    > way: "I find Mr. Kilmer's work trite."
    
    I could confidently start a report on Joyce Kilmer's work.
    
    > Author/authoress also gives you an idea of the author's experience.
    > What if you were reading a critique on a book called, "What It's Like
    > to be a Woman" by Alice Quigby.  It obviously makes a difference if
    > Alice Quigby is a woman or a man. 
    
    For the small percentage of such books, the sex of the author may be
    relevant.
    
    
    				-- edp 

>    > Knowing the person's sex helps the reader visualize the author:  Was
>    > Joyce Kilmer a man or a woman?
>    
>    The reader has no need to visualize the author.
>    
>    > It also gives the reader some clue as to what honorific title to use
>    > when referring to the author.
>    
>    This is totally unnecessary.

Thank-you for deciding these things for me.  I used to think it was the 
sort of thing that people get to decide for themselves, but you've 
cleared that up.  

Up to now, I had foolishly read biographies of authors that I enjoyed, and 
I had misguidedly thought it helped me understand what they wrote and 
why they wrote it.

Likewise, I had wrongly been taught that the use of honorifics was a 
mark of respect, and was "polite."  In earlier times, if we thought 
someone was an anal orifice, we fell back on politeness.  It was 
supposed to make fist fights less common.  I'm glad I don't have to do 
that any more.
				>>>==>PStJTT

    I wouldn't mind about the distinctions being discussed here were it not
    for the fact that the information is almost always used to discredit
    the woman in question, or to limit her interests and range of work. In
    my very limited and so far brief career as a fiction writer, two people
    have already asked me "Why are you, a woman, writing these stories
    about men and war?"  Well, because it interests me, that's why. I worry
    about world issues like justice and duty and honor and integrity. I
    don't care to recount stories about how my grandmother's generation
    dealt with masculine repression and violence or how I came to be
    a feminist, yet many people think that's all a woman should be 
    writing about. (An attitude prevalent among supposed feminists, 
    by the way; sexism works both ways.) Joyce Carol Oates and Ursula 
    K. LeGuin come to mind as examples of writers who have been criticized
    more for their unfeminine choice of subjects than for their literary
    merits. 

    True, denigration is not inherent in knowing someone's gender. 
    True, it can be enormously enlightening and informative to 
    understand the writer's background (including gender, sexual 
    preferences, hair color, and favorite brand of tea) and personality. 
    I'm very fond of literary biography myself, and I am sure that 
    if I were a man I would not be writing the same thing I write now.
    
    But why is my sex the *FIRST* thing you want to know about me? It
    happens that I write mostly science fiction when I'm not writing
    computer books. The most relevant things to know about me are what kind
    of scientific training I've got, whether I know any computer languages,
    what my theories of human development are. My sex no doubt influenced
    how I interpret this stuff, but it has no direct bearing on understand
    my work. (Granting that understanding my work is not nearly as hard as
    understanding Joyce Kilmer or Joyce Carol Oates. Besides not being
    published yet.) 
    
    I don't mind your being polite. I don't care whether you call me Mrs.
    Schutzman, Ms. Schutzman, or Miss Randall. I don't care how you
    visualize me. But I do resent anyone thinking that my gender (which is,
    after all, an accident of my birth!) is so much more important than
    anything else about me that it is the only distinction that matters. 
    
    --bonnie, who always tries to listen to the other side even when
    they're wrong

Re: .62

I think we both agree.  I agree that gender is no more important than 
work history in understanding an author.  You dislike having the 
information mis-applied to your work.  I dislike having it hidden and 
being told I don't have any need to know it.

I think that mis-application of information is something that's 
impossible to escape.  If you were a man writing "young girl coming of 
age" stories, you'd get the same questions you get as a woman writing 
war stories.  You have to decide if the people who ask these things are 
the people you need to answer.  In some cases, just because words can be 
strung together into a question, people assume that it's a sensible 
thing to ask. "Why do you, a woman, write war stories?" is no more 
sensible that "Would you rather Boston or by bus?" but it sounds more 
like there's thought behind it, so you sometimes feel compelled to 
answer.  People who ask it pointedly should be ignored.  People who ask 
it because they're groping for some point of conversation should be 
guided to more reasonable topics.

Honorifics have come up in this file before.  I see them as a very 
useful device.  Not only can they be used to avoid confrontation between 
people who are not especially friendly, but they are a mark of respect 
to people you don't know or a mark of formality between people who have 
no reason to be familiar.  When I first came to DEC, I found the habit 
of using a person's first name without asking permission to be very 
rude.  Over time I've come to use it, but I still am not comfortable 
with it.  I don't mind the use of "Ms" to conceal marital status, I 
don't care who's married and who isn't.  I wouldn't mind a single 
honorific that would serve both sexes, I mostly don't care who is male 
and who is female.  I do object to no honorifics at all, because that 
removes certain distinctions in personal interaction that I don't 
believe should be removed.  

But all that is beside the point of the note.  "Woman writer" is just a 
phrase people sometimes use to convey information and sometimes use to 
convey stereotypes.  Like "Black writer" it both contains information 
and assumptions.  I don't imagine there's a way to make people use only 
the information and only the way you'd like it used.  And I don't think 
that it's reasonable to dis-allow the coupling of the two words.  It's 
an imperfect world...
						>>>==>PStJTT

    I'm sorry to have to observe that until fairly recently, being a
    writer who was of the feminine gender was considered something of
    a handicap.  Thus, in science fiction, for example, the writer "Andre
    Norton" used that name because it seemed to imply that the writer
    was male (and she does write entertaining stories); in esoteric
    literature, the occultist Dion Fortune was (and is) assumed by many
    to be a male, when in fact she was a female.
    
    Now, frankly, if something's well written, I could care less whether
    the author's male, female, hemaphroditic, or AI.  But there's still
    that hangup, though, _Deo gratia_, there's less of it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    In re: .62
    
>                           -< let's discuss this rationally >-
>    
>    I wouldn't mind about the distinctions being discussed here were it not
>    for the fact that the information is almost always used to discredit
>    the woman in question, or to limit her interests and range of work. In

Whew! It gets real warm around here sometimes! :*).
    
    <Flame off>
    
    This discussion is pretty emotional. Probably because the issue
    affects one personally ( not intellectually ) if at all. It's possible
    that we cannot discuss this issue rationally because it is not a
    rational issue.
    
    I feel that if somebody is unduly concerned about gender ( mine
    or yours ) in a context where it's not *really* relevent, it's because
    I am concerned that person will generalize. I suspect each of us
    occasionally generalizes about some group or the other, particularly
    when under duress. For example:   
    
>    for the fact that the information is almost always used to discredit
>    the woman in question ....
    
    seems to be dangerously close to a generalization about people who
    generalize. Hmmm...
    
    I've got a few hobbies; the one I am most dedicated to is weight
    lifting. Any generalities or stereotyped visions come to mind?
    
    I understand & feel the heat here on an issue that is *very* sensitive
    to some and not even an issue to others. If I could generalize,
    doesn't each of us wish to be free of inappropriate generalizations
    where 'inappropriate' is in the mind of the receiver? 

    Dear M[r][s] Taber:
    
    Please note from my attempt to devise an appropriate honorific that
    I have no idea what your gender is. Nothing in your notes or your
    opinions indicates whether I am talking to a man or a woman. Note
    also that this is an inherent characteristic of communication via
    NOTES -- unless the other person chooses to disclose details of
    his or her personal appearance, no one knows. We deal only with
    the ideas. 
    
    And that is why I'm going to say that we don't quite agree. It's not
    simply that people misapply gender information or use it in a context 
    of semantic nonsense.  My gender is generally considered obvious enough
    from my name; this has never made me wish to adopt a more neutral or
    masculine pen name. Having it known that I am a woman is inherently no
    more disturbing than having it known that I wear glasses. 
    
    However, when you express your desire to use a term like "authoress"
    or "poetess" to describe someone, you are saying that the gender
    of the person who wrote the work in question is THE SINGLE MOST
    IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THAT AUTHOR.  The author's gender is sometimes
    relevant, as some of your examples point out. However, in most literary
    discussions, it's not important. You can discuss the meaning and
    impact of Andre Norton's work for a long time without knowing or
    caring whether she's a he or a she. 
    
    Starting out the discussion by deciding "are we dealing with male or
    female here?" has the effect of "gender-izing"  <ugh> the whole world.
    It says there are no issues an author can discuss outside the context 
    of his/her gender. You have drawn a line that categorizes ideas 
    according to physical structure of the speaker. 
    
    You may say that this line has no meaning, but its very existence makes
    it easy to assign values to the items on either side of the line.
    Whether you say that the women's work is inherently better than the
    men's, as is common in the feminist press, or that women's is
    inherently less worthy, as the old school would have it, is immaterial.
    
    --bonnie
    
    

>    Dear M[r][s] Taber:
>    
>    Please note from my attempt to devise an appropriate honorific that
>    I have no idea what your gender is. Nothing in your notes or your
>    opinions indicates whether I am talking to a man or a woman. 

That there is nothing in the notes to indicate is not accidental.  That
there is nothing in the opinions is because there is nothing that would
link opinions on this subject to sex. I'm sure you agree.  However, this
sexual anonymity has caused problems in the past for both men and women
who for thier own reasons have decided I was female.  I'm not.  Does
this knowledge change how my note reads now?  I would like to think that
it wouldn't.  But in a real world, I know it does. 
    
>    However, when you express your desire to use a term like "authoress"
>    or "poetess" to describe someone, you are saying that the gender
>    of the person who wrote the work in question is THE SINGLE MOST
>    IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THAT AUTHOR.  

You may be confusing me with some other reply.  I don't believe I've 
ever supported "authoress" (yech --- ugly, discordant sound.) or 
"poetess."  But I don't think that I fully agree that using those terms 
makes the sex of the person in question the most important fact.  Some 
people use those terms just because they were taught it is correct.  
Some use it because they feel that it is proper respect when the sex of 
the person is known.  That we in this age don't like the usage doesn't 
mean that it is wrong of others to use it.

More over, when you say 

>    Starting out the discussion by deciding "are we dealing with male or
>    female here?" has the effect of "gender-izing"  <ugh> the whole world.
>    It says there are no issues an author can discuss outside the context 
>    of his/her gender. You have drawn a line that categorizes ideas 
>    according to physical structure of the speaker. 

you are really just speaking for yourself.  There are situations where 
I'd agree with you, and situations where I wouldn't. You can't know the 
motivations of this hypothetical person.  To you, it may mean that all 
those restrictions apply.  To the speaker it may not.  In a real 
instance, you would be in the presence of the person speaking and there 
would be other clues as to meaning.  But when there is ambiguity in the 
written word, the interpretations you choose reflects more on yourself 
than the author.  I agree say that calling someone an "authoress" 
immediately implies sinister purpose.
					Mr. >>>==>PStJTT

    All though I shouldn't presume to interpret someone else's mental    
    state or feelings, I think that what really annoys the subject of
    terms like "woman author" or "black poet" is that such terms are
    essentially patronizing.  The person who uses them is
    (intentionally or not) calling our intention to the fact that
    X is not a "real" author, but merely a "woman author" or a "black
    author" and not to be taken with full seriousness.
    
    Am I close to the mark? 

    Would anyone mind too terribly much if I were to jump on one of my
    favorite hobby-horses and mention that very few authors have a gender,
    but all the ones I know of have a sex?
    
    Thanks, I knew you'd understand. 
    
    Very few authors have gender (but lots of nouns, especially in French,
    do). However, authors are most often of one sex or other. For the
    record, I don't think it's any of the reader's business which. 
    
    	Jon

The old Bennet Cerf gag was "gender is no replacement for sex."  I know 
the rule but it's rarely follwed these days.  It goes on the endangered 
list with "whom."   The problem, in my mind, is that the word "sex" has 
become coupled (forgive me) with the act, and using it too much inveites 
ribald responses.  Try not to let it get you down.
						>>>==>PStJTT

    Dear Mr. Taber (may I call you PStJTT?),
    
    I apologize. When I wrote my previous note, I incorrectly recalled
    you as the author of the "authoress" note. It was, in fact, Mr. John
    Mitchell. Or perhaps Ms. Mitchell using a name normally considered male
    these days. This mistake was unauthorized. And dumb.

    When I said that choosing a gender-specific term like 'authoress' over
    a gender-neutral one like 'author' had the effect of dividing the world
    into two classes, I did not mean to make a blanket statement about
    human relations at all times and in all places.  Certainly my reaction
    tells you a great deal about me, perhaps more than it tells about the
    speaker. However, in our society at this time, I don't think a person
    can make a choice like that without implying such a division. 
    
    You're certainly right about the differing motivations that are
    possible.  I've known many men who used similar terms meaning nothing
    but respect.  Unfortunately there are too many men (and women) in
    this society who talk about 'respecting' a woman when in fact they
    mean she's not competent to handle real life.  (I don't intend to
    cast aspersions on the integrity or motivation of anyone present
    in this discussion, merely to point out that it does exist.)
    
    As for the reply that says that authors have sex, not gender -- I don't
    have sex nearly often enough. Maybe that contributed to my choice of
    words. I always thought the two were interchangeable when you were
    referring to which sex organs a body carried. (Maybe I've had too many
    psychology courses.) If they're not, I'll be glad to talk about sex. 
    
    --bonnie
    

    Man writer.  White writer.
    
    
    				-- edp

RE: .71

Yes, 'twas I who penned "authoress" and "poetess."  I like the terms.  To
me, "author" means a male writer of prose and "poet" means a male writer
of poetry.  An authoress or poetess is a female but deserves *equal* respect
in my book.  Frankly, I agree with both .62 and .63.  And yes, "poetess"
and "authoress" can be used negatively, but then, so can a lot of things.

As for honorifics, I am very much for them.  I like "Mr." for all men and
"Ms." for all women.

And that's the way it is, Friday April 10, 1987.

Mr. John M.

    Re .71 last para......
    
    Perhaps we need a JOYOFSEX conference ..... but then again, I'll
    bet there's one already!

    Dave Bowers (.68) and edp (.72) have hit my nail squarely on the
    head!
    
    Is a woman writer or authoress somehow different from (less than?)
    a writer or author?  I think not; one who writes is a writer.
    
    The Wall St. Journal had a front page article a couple of years
    back about how firemen's wives resented firefighters' sharing living
    quarters with their husbands (their choice of words, not mine).
    Is this a real distinction when talking about someone's ability
    to perform her/his job or avocation?
    
    Karen [a Systems Analystess  8-)  ]

    _Words and Women_, by Miller and Swift, points out many good reasons
    why it is unnecessary and detrimental to call women in any group
    or profession by a "feminized" version of the name used for men.
    
    One of the many issues they discuss is the phenomenon of creating
    a "feminized" version of the name *only* when men start to get into
    a previously women-only field.  The idea is that men can't be
    associated with something female, so they appropriate the usual
    title, making it the "default", and create a special version for
    the women still in the field.  An example they give is "seamster".
    It used to mean a person who sews, when women were the only ones
    who did this.  Then, when something happened in history (I forget
    what) to make men join the field, they became called "seamsters"
    and women were turned into "seamstresses".
    
    The feminine ending of many of these words gives a slight connotation
    of a diminutive, along with a "feminitive", I think.
    
    	@V@

    	I am ashamed of all the contributers here in this note who are
    trying to restrict the English language in the name of sexual equality.
    If there were a word for a "tall blonde haired blue eyed writer
    of detective novels" I would use it at every conceivable opportunity.
    The extra precision available may be irrelevant, but there is a
    delight in choosing the most precise or appropriate word that all
    participants in this conference should enjoy.
    
    	It may be a myth that the Eskimo language has 200 words for
    different types of snow, but if I were an Eskimo I would attempt
    to use each one correctly, and even try to introduce more if there
    seemed to be a use.
    
    	Incidentally, the last reply (.76) reminded me of an American
    word that I have never had explained, though it sometimes appears
    in the news, "teamster".  Are there also teamstresses?
    
    		Dave
    

    teamster - one who drives a team (of horses, oxen, etc.),
    evolved into one who drives a truck.
    
    "teamstress" applies if the horse is a mare, or "horsess."
    
    Reductio ad absurdum and other pedantry to you.  :-)
    
    pbm
    

    M[r][s] Monahan is correct that the additional precision of sexist
    nouns is a desirable use of language, and I would certainly not fault
    his or her desire to be as accurate and correct as possible, just as I
    do not fault Mr. Taber's desire to be polite and respectful in modes of
    address. 
    
    One trouble with this desire is that our society on a whole is not
    interested in precision as such; even if you could devise a good
    word for "blond blue-eyed writer of English descent" and get it
    to be generally used, 90% of the newscasters and journalists in
    the country would probably use it wrong. (Not that being a minority
    makes you wrong, it just leaves you with an uphill battle at best.)
    
    The other problem is that this kind of precision isn't closely related
    to the worker or professional we're trying to describe. Characteristics
    such as one's sex or eye color are not determined by one's own efforts.
    If anyone deserves the credit, it's one's parents. Being a lawyer,
    however, or a writer, or a teamster, or a seamster, is a matter of
    one's personal determination, skill, learning, and effort. To
    distinguish people of any profession according to any classification
    based on physical attributes which are not under individual control is
    to implicitly belittle them. It strongly implies that none of their
    effort or skill matters -- in the end, the accident of birth becomes
    their total worth. 
    
    Classifying people according to the kind of work they do makes sense --
    trial lawyers, corporate lawyers, legal-services lawyers;
    science-fiction writers, soft-core porn writers, scriptwriters;
    dressmaker, coatmaker, curtain-seamer. (I made that one up.)  This
    also allows categories to overlap. One can seam dresses one day
    and coats the next. One can't change whether one is a white writer
    of English descent.
    
    Note that I'm not saying such information is never relevant. I'm
    saying that categories determined by physical characteristics, when
    applied to areas that do not depend on they physical, become limiting
    rather than descriptive.
    
    --bonnie
    
    
    

    Way, way back in the mists of time, when "Ms" was first coined
    and controversial, I saw a letter in the letters-to-the-editor
    column of some magazine which proposed a solution so rational,
    so simple and so obvious that it was clear it would never be
    adopted:
    
    	Call _everyone_ "Mr.", "poet", "actor" etc.
    
    This avoids all the problems mentioned in previous notes.  The
    fact that few would support this solution shows that human beings
    find eachother's sex a matter of vital import at all times.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Re .80:
    
    Or supply everyone with an honorary doctorate.  Then we'd all be
    "Dr."  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
>    The feminine ending of many of these words gives a slight connotation
>    of a diminutive, along with a "feminitive", I think.
    
But what you're saying is that's how you perceive it.  It has nothing to 
do with the words.  If I combine the two words "Irish" and "poet" to 
make "Irish poet" is that being patronizing?  Some people think there is 
a class of poetry called "Irish poetry" and if they hate it, they'd 
think I was being patronizing; if they like it they'd think I was being 
worshipful.  But would either of those be what I meant?  

A case can be made that "woman writer" or "Irish poet" are so vague and 
cause so many conflicting assumptions in the listener that they should 
not be used.  But there can be no case made for outlawing them from the 
language.  

It's a lovely, grand scam to say that various groups have been repressed
all these years because of the language.  It's pleasant to be able to
say "No, it wasn't me... it was the language."  It's like the old gag
"The devil made me do it."  It's not my fault; not my responsibility, it
was that nasty old language.  Ostrobogulous piffle! Trying to control
what people can and can't think by controlling the language is just too 
Orwellian to take.

I don't think there are many people who aren't aware of the social 
changes for various minority groups (and a majority group in the case of 
women.)  People are in different states of change right now.  The old 
resist change, but die off.  The young embrace change and proselytize. 
People in the middle change or resist according to how it affects them. 
The need for changing the language isn't as great as the need for 
letting time pass.  

If you don't want to use "woman writer" by all means don't.  I rarely
do, unless the author's sex has a bearing on the discussion. I don't
use "black writer" or "Irish poet" unless it has something to do with
the discussion either.  But when it does (or I think it does) then I use 
the terms without apologies. 

Probably no one will try to force you to use the terms if you don't like
them.  (Unless you get a class assignment, "write a report on two women
writers, three Irish poets, four black musicians and a blue-eyed, white
male book-reviewer of European extraction.")  But in the exuberance of
using freedom of choice with the language, don't deny it to others who
want to use terms that don't fit your political persuasion.  

"The richness of a culture can be measured in its diversity."  (I forget
who said it. ) And the health of a culture can probably be measured in
the tolerance with which it allows diverse opinions to co-exist. 

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Amen, Mr. Taber. 
    
    And Mr. Bishop -- you may call me Mr. Randall if you like. Or just
    "sir" will do nicely.
    
    --bonnie
    

    I agree that we're in a time of change; but the change that is
    happening (and I welcome it!) will slow and stop unless people (like
    me) encourage what they prefer.  I would never force anyone to use
    or not use certain terms, but I do attempt to use rational discussions
    to get other people to agree with me.  (And that, I feel, is the
    highest purpose of language!)
    
    It's true that adjectives (such as the "woman" or "Irish" qualifying
    "writer") are necessary and desirable for communication.  However,
    often the picture evoked, which is created by both the actual words
    themselves and the context in which society uses them, can be
    disparaging or negative.  In the field of semantics there is a great
    deal of discussion about archetypes; for example, the archetype
    of a bird is the "Platonic ideal" of a bird.  It is possible to
    measure how people think of actual birds compared to this ideal.
    A robin turns out to be "100% bird", whereas people perceive ostriches
    and penguins to be somewhere around "10% bird".  Of course, this
    is absurd; they're all 100% bird.  But tell that to the people who
    perceive the various cues otherwise.
    
    My experience has been (and I've seen evidence from studies) that
    the moment a writer is identified as "female", there is a dip in
    the reader/hearer's perception of the "writerness" of the writer
    in question.  I even do it myself, very *very* unintentionally,
    and I'm female.  Woman writers are 100% writer, but many, perhaps
    most, people perceive otherwise--even if it's to a small degree.
    
    I don't want to ban the term "woman writer", just get people who
    use it to think about what they really mean by it.  It's not as
    simple to figure that out as it seems.  All discussion that doesn't
    sink into flaming is good for all of us!
    
    	@V@
    
    	(editor by trade and linguist by college major)

    I know I started all this by violently objecting to "woman writer",
    but this discussion has changed my mind -- at least a little bit.
    I can see some justification to a phrase like "woman writer," in
    situations analogous to "Irish poet". 
    
    After all, I am a woman, and to mention that adjective is not
    necessarily derogatory.
    
    However, I don't think that argument applies to feminized words
    like 'authoress' or 'seamstress', which make the distinction both
    inherent and permanent.  An adjective indicating my womanhood (or
    my Scottish or my Czech ancestry, for that matter) might be necessary
    under some circumstances. Calling attention to my sex under all
    circumstances is not necessary.
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    A few points that have not been made on this subject.
    
    When I was a kid, it was common in the print media to see people referred to
    as Jewish writers, poets, musicians, scientists, etc.  In the current
    edition of the Oxford Companion to English Literature, such phrases
    are still used.  The entry for Saul Bellow, for example, includes
    the phrase "born of Russian-Jewish parents".  The only emotion I
    ever felt as a child, and still feel today, about such comments
    is pride.  Perhaps part of the issue here is that (based on what
    I have seen in this discussion) women do not seem to feel
    pride when they encounter terms like "authoress" or "sculptress,"
    but resentment.  Why is that?
    
    Another point that no one has yet addressed is that of courtesy,
    which I think is relevant.  People should be addressed by the terms
    they prefer.  It is traditional and a matter of simple courtesy.
    When I was a kid, the terms "Negro" and "colored" were in common use.
    Many whites did not want to stop using those terms because they
    felt they did not mean anything derogatory or demeaning by them.
    It is very important to note that that is not the issue; it does
    not matter what the person _using_ the term thinks.  If blacks are
    offended by the terms, then it is a matter of courtesy (that adults
    extend to other adults) not to use those terms on those who are
    offended.  It does not matter whether we can understand the reasons
    why they find the terms offensive, we need only know _that_ they
    find them offensive.  No one who is not black can experience emotions
    that arise purely from being black.  Therefore, no one who is not
    black is justified in contradicting statements that emanate purely
    therefrom.
    
    Likewise, if any woman prefers, for whatever reason, not to have
    terms like actress, aviatrix, or poetess applied to her, we must,
    out of common adult courtesy, comply.  I think it also means that
    we should feel no compunction in applying the terms to women who
    prefer them.  Of course, in most cases, we don't know what individual
    women prefer and, until the issue is decided (as "black" has been)
    we should use the masculine forms (actor, aviator, etc) because they
    are less likely to offend.
    
    Bernie                    

As the one who started the "ess" controversy, I would like to state that
I would NEVER use this term if I knew the person to whom I referred would
be offended by it.  Otherwise, I might well use it.  

Something that has been overlooked is the importance of consistency.  My
grandfather was a civil rights activist who was instrumental in getting
newspapers to drop race designations.  There was a time when many papers
would refer to a murderer, say, as a "Negro murderer" if he happened to
be black.  The effect was to tie in the "Negro" with the "murderer" (white
murderers were just "murderers").  As you can see, the designation made a
difference in this case because it was inconsistent.  "Black murderer" would
be fine and dandy if Caucasian murderers were always referred to as "white
murderers."

Now in the case of -or and -ess, the problem is once again one of consistency.
If -or is ALWAYS understood to be male and -ess is ALWAYS understood to
be female, then there is no problem.

This brings me back to the time-worn subject of Shades of Meaning.  The
suffix -ess does not connote inferiority, but it does infer a difference.
(By the way -ess is NOT diminutive, -ett is).  Look at the difference it
makes in the following examples:

    I walked into the sleazy chamber and faced my dominatrix. 
    I walked into the sleazy chamber and faced my dominator. 

The function of the person is the same, but the *shade of meaning* has changed.
"Dominatrix" conjures up visions of a woman in a black bikini and spiked
heels.  "Dominator" makes one think of a man in a leather jockstrap and
hob nailed boots.  Here's another example:

    Suddenly, a lion sprang at us from out of the bush!
    Suddenly, a lioness sprang at us from out of the bush!

Does it matter to the person being attacked what the gender of the lion
is?  No.  But it makes a difference to the reader.  Could there have been
cubs nearby?  Was it a rogue?  Was it after food (lionesses do the hunting)?

Such specifications even make a difference in titles:

   "Diana the Huntress"
   "Diana the Hunter"

The feeling here is one of feminine savagery vs. masculine savagery, although
the function of a huntress and hunter is the same.  Good poets and writers
recognize the difference and use it to their advantage.

Maybe I'm just too yin/yang in my outlook.  I do not see an "authoress" as
being inferior to an "author" and appreciate the richness resulting from
the added suffix.  But I agree that this form is dying out.  Oh well.  Another
treasure chest from the galleon of English is beaten upon the rocks of
commonalty... 


John M.
   

    Re: .86:
    
    > we should use the masculine forms (actor, aviator, etc) because they
    > are less likely to offend.

    Even less likely to offend if you call them generic, rather than
    masculine, forms!
    
    Re: .87

    > The feeling here is one of feminine savagery vs. masculine savagery,
    > although the function of a huntress and hunter is the same.

    "Huntress" invokes a much greater feeling of savagery in me :-).
    "Hunter" invokes a vision of Elmer Fudd.
    
    Jeff.    

    Re .87:
    
    On "lion" versus "lioness" -- lions (males) will hunt in their
    "bachelor" period, and _can_ hunt when in prides, but the lionesses
    are the usual ones (males often will stand out in plain sight of
    a herd, far enough away not to be considered enough of a menace
    for the herd to move, but close enough so that if herd members get
    a whiff of lion[ess] on the breeze, they'll think it's him, while
    actually the female[s] is creeping up on them).  Also, females have
    no manes, as males do.                        
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .87:
    
    The subtle (in retrospect) distinction between black and white
    subjects in Southern newspapers wasn't usually as obvious as
    "the Negro man," for example.  It was handled something like this:
    if the subject, let's say a woman, was white, the paper referred
    to her as "Mrs. Smith."  If black, she was "the Smith woman."
    
    With regard to the feminine forms of nouns and titles, I've always
    found it intersting that the business world has few such distinctions:
    there are no technicianesses, manageresses, presidentesses,
    engineeresses, programmeresses, etc., yet it is the business world
    that is most frequently accused of perpetuating the arbitrary
    distinctions between men and women in employment.
    
    pbm
    

    It may be worth pointing out that I learned my sensitivity to sexism
    in job titles from a friend of mine who was an Army Nurse -- served in
    Vietnam and the Middle East, worked at two or three hospitals, decided
    delivering babies and caring for newborns was the most worthwhile, and
    went back to college for an advanced degree in obstetrical nursing,
    was the kindest and gentlest nurse those babies ever saw.
    
    And had trouble even getting a raise because he's a 6'2" man with
    a bushy moustache.  The department job list read:
    
    Nancy Whosis, nurse
    Joan Somebody, floor supervisor
    Mary Jones, nurse
    Rick Ayers, male nurse
    .
    .
    .
    
    Women used to throw him out of their rooms and ask for a "real nurse"
    even though he was by far the best nurse on the floor.
    
    He used to blow his stack clear through the roof when somebody called
    him a male nurse.  The person addressing him might have been merely
    polite or precise, but Rick was the one who had to face the
    consequences every day on his job. 

    --bonnie

    This is no doubt a picky detail, but as I read it, the pronoun 'her'
    in 'her daughter' seemed to refer to the 'colleague,' not to the
    'wife', making all participants in the sentence female and the marital
    situation somewhat, er, unusual, and perhaps increasing the motive
    for murder by axe. Would that make it a sex axe?? Never mind . . .

    --bonnie

    Richard Wright (_Native Son_) is a Black author.
    How about Bill Cosby?
    
    Sean O'Casey was an Irish playwright.
    Was George Bernard Shaw?    

    Re .92, .93:
    
    Most headlines are space sensitive, leading to the silly probability
    that the (alleged) murderer would called a "LADY TEACHER" -- even
    though what she would be reported doing is hardly ladylike.
    Newspaperese can do things like that, or even _coin_ words like
    [pardon, but this is a demo, _not_ a suggestion] "TEACHERESS" for
    space reasons.  A tabloid headline would likely be something like:
    "LADY TEACH AXES FEM FAMILY"  <sigh>  Of course, the _National
    Inquirer_ type headline would be worse ...
    
    Re .94:
    
    George Bernard Shaw once was speaking in Ireland when people in
    his audience called for him to support the teaching of Gaelic in
    the schools.  He let that go for a few calls, then replied, "If
    you keep this up, I'll deliver the remainder of my speech in Gaelic,
    and none of you will be able to understand it."  He continued his
    speech without further interruptions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    On the other hand, perhaps we are interpreting the newspaper article
    incorrrectly. Instead of being similar to "woman writer", perhaps
    the writer intended to be similar to other descriptive phrases about
    teachers, to wit: history teacher, home economics teacher, Spanish
    teacher.  In that event, we would in fact be dealing not with a
    teacher who is female but a teacher whose subject is woman.
    
    --bonnie, trying hard to be silly
    

    Seemingly redundant words may carry specific shades of meaning.
    
    "Author" is not masculine gender, and does not only reply to persons
    of the male _sex_; it is not sex-specific at all.  Ditto for "aviator",
    "poet", etc.  "Nurse" can be viewed as an anomaly in that its history
    refers to an act that only females could perform, hence the perceived
    (questionable today) need for the term "male nurse".
    
    But the word "authoress" does carry implications.  To wit, Ursula K.
    LeGuin is an author, but Barbara Cartland may be an Authoress!  Perhaps
    I'm being a bit of a wag, but "authoress" implies that femaleness is
    _central to the job_, which seems to be the case among Harlequin
    Romances and their ilk.  I suppose there may be poetesses writing for
    some "ladies'" magazines.  (Can an authoress be male?  I suppose,
    if he fakes it well enough.)
    
    Ergo, Bonnie Randall Shutzman is definitely not an authoress!  She's
    a writer, and a woman, but the two are not related.

    RE: .97
    
    OK.  I'll accept that.
    
    
    
    John M.

    I can accept that, too....
    
    --bonnie

    Re .95:
    
    I always admired Variety's style.  For the murder in question:
    
    			FEM SCRIBE OFFS TRIBE
    
    No?
    
    pbm
    

    Re .100:
    
    That would be one, though perhaps
    
                        FEM SCRIBE NIXES TRIBE
    
    would be a bit more showbiz.
    
    Maybe this would be the basis for a new word game...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                   

    Again, from the latest issue, May '87, of OMNI, the opening paragraph
    of the opening article in the Continuum section shows an expample of
    the problems invloved with knowing and not knowing the sex of the
    author.  The article was written by K. C. Cole.
        
    	"Several year ago, when I was writing a physics column for a
    	science magazine, I received mail from fans and fanatics offering
    	everything from simple praise to elaborate disproofs of Einstein's
    	theories.  As I always signed my articles "K. C. Cole," these
    	letters were addressed to "Dr. Cole" or "Mr. Cole."  Never did
    	it occur to any of my readers that "he" might be a "she."  On
    	occasion, a caller would ask for "Dr. Cole"; and I would say,
    	"Speaking."  His voice then would drop in a disappointed "oooh."
    	What could a girl know about physics?"

    And what do you want to do about Dr. Renee Richards, who wrote 
    a number of articles when she was a man and at least one book now
    that she's a woman? (I'd hate to have to write this autobiography....)
    
    Or Amber Blake (I think I have the name right), popular Harlequin
    writer, who is a husband-and-wife team? 

    --bonnie
    

    Re: .102, 103
    
    Seems clear to me; ask them what they prefer.  If they express no
    preference or if the subject is dead, then choose a form that you
    think works best and take a sentence or two to explain your choice
    to your readers.
    
    Bernie

    	Re: several recent replies.
    
    	The murdered woman was a friend, and I did not expect to see
    her a subject of lexical discussion, but...
    
    	One of the suggested motives for the murder was sexual jealousy,
    and there does not seem any convenient way to discuss this without
    referring to the sex of either murderer or victim.
    
    		Dave

    from < Note 15.27 by AKOV68::BOYAJIAN "Forever On Patrol" >,
    where she discusses the use of 'waiter' and 'waitress':

    >  ...   And the genderless alternative that some
    >  restaurants actually use --- "waitron" --- makes me want to vomit.
      
    Isn't "waitron" a robot waiter (or waitress, or wait-thing?)
    
    (Hmmm... When we start making self-reproducing robots, will we have
    "waitroness"es?)
    
    

    Re .107:
    
    My wife and I went in to Ken's Steak House the other night and were
    told on the menu, if we wanted to see the wine list, we should ask
    our "waitperson."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re:.107
    
    �from < Note 15.27 by AKOV68::BOYAJIAN "Forever on Patrol" >,
    where she discusses the use of 'waiter' and 'waitress':�
    
    She? Who's she?
    
    --- jerry

    re .109 (Jerry):
    
    >She? Who's she?
    
    The title character of a book by H. Rider Haggard.  The late 1930s
    movie from the book was _lots_ better than its remake.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
                                          

    re:.110
    
    Steve, I would expect you to know better. SHE may be the title
    of the book, but the character's name was She Who Must Be Obeyed.
    :-)
    
    --- jerry

    Re .111 (Jerry):
    
    Of course I know what her name was.  I just said she's the "title
    character."  There's a world of difference there.  If the title
    _She_ doesn't refer to She Who Must Be Obeyed, just _whom_ does
    it refer to?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Yes, you're right, Steve. I sit humbly abashed.
    
    --- jerry

    "Woman pilot" and "black judge" draw your attention to something
    newsworthy or unusual (like "male stripper" or "even prime").
    As such the terms seem to be anti-sexist and anti-racist in intent.
    							Nigel.

    Then I hope we will soon see the day when the fact that a pilot
    is a woman is not newsworthy.
    
    --bonnie

  Re  .114/115

     Yes, and more even prime numbers!

    Re .114
    
    As would "man gives birth" or "white heavyweight champion" .
    
    It's not really sexist or racist , but maybe in these unenlightened
    times , not the norm .
    
    John J

    As the old story goes, "Dog Bites Man" is not news, but "Man Bites
    Dog" -- now *that's* news!
    
    Which brings up the memory of an article on the effects of the
    rapidly growing computer industry on the average person. The
    cover of the magazine displayed the headline: "Bytes Dog Man".
    
    --- jerry

    I suppose the traditional code bummer would get the headline,
    "Man dogs Bytes."

    I can certainly live with mentioning the sex of an author; good or bad
    taste rests in when and why you get around to it, how much information
    you are conveying at the time (tangential reference? biography?), etc.
    
    And I can live with -ess and its mates for occupations in which women
    have duties peculiar to their sex, though such practice certainly can
    go astray.  (I'll defend `dominatrix' and `actress', but what shall we
    do with `stewardess' vs. `steward'?)
    
    It's about CONNOTATIONS that I get pickier than (e.g.) John Mitchell:
    
    15.87>	If -or is ALWAYS understood to be male and -ess is ALWAYS
    15.87>	understood to be female, then there is no problem.
    15.87>	
    15.87>	The suffix -ess does not connote inferiority, but it
    15.87>	does [imply] a difference.  (By the way -ess is NOT
    15.87>	diminutive, -ett is).
    
    The -or conveys agency.  The choice is not between -or and -ess, but
    between -or and -oress (or -ress, when it's easier on the tongue). 
    That is, the choice is between the base or root agent-word, and that
    word modified by adding -ess.  The male "naturally" inherits the word
    itself, the fe-male gets a derivative of it.  I bet this does matter,
    in the unspoken background to speech where attitudes are shaped.
    
    Thus -ess connotes something not just different but secondary, if not
    explicitly inferior.  As for diminution, -ess SOUNDS like a diminutive,
    specifically the diminutive -ette.  Note how easily -ette is picked up
    for feminine designations: suffragette, majorette, usherette still live
    today.  Fowler thought these arose "playfully and ignorantly" -- a
    dangerous combination, when you stop to think about it.

    Re .26

    > How many people have heard,
    > for example, "This black guy who..." or "She's a black singer.."
    > when you NEVER hear "I know this white guy who..."

    Who is "you"?  When is "NEVER"?
    
    Around 16 years ago, in the States, a friend mentioned something
    about some "white dudes."  Then she remembered that I'm white, and
    apologized.
    
    Around 12 years ago, on a U.S. TV program ("The Jeffersons" I think),
    one black character started to tell another black character a joke,
    "There were these two white dudes...."  A third black character
    interrupted them, "Not in front of the waiter!" and a white waiter
    appeared in the scene.
    
    Re .86

    > No one who is not black can experience emotions
    > that arise purely from being black.  Therefore, no one who is not
    > black is justified in contradicting statements that emanate purely
    > therefrom.

    Since the author of .86 and I are both Jewish, we know a little
    bit about having a background where our ancestors were slaves.
    We also know a little bit about racism, though the discrimination
    is not really racial and does not depend on visible differences.
    
    As a Caucasian in Japan, I know a little bit about racial
    discrimination on the basis of visible differences.  Koreans in
    Japan are not black but I'll bet they know even more about racism
    than blacks do in the States.  People of Chinese race in Indonesia
    know quite a bit too.
    
    I'll bet that a white dude could learn these feelings a little bit
    by living in Harlem for a while, but I don't offer to prove this
    one.

    	While .121 and preceding may be effective writing it is outside the
    scope of the conference. Discussions about how language reveals
    prejudices (or class, sex, place-of-birth) are valid. Discussions about
    whether a particular prejudice, sex or place-of-birth is valid should
    be taken elsewhere.

    Ah, I understand.  Sorry.
    
    Here's a better one.
    
    My mother once told me that Sears' first serviceperson had come
    to fix an appliance.  I imagined this really old guy who had stayed
    a long time on the job because he liked it.  It seemed a little
    odd because I thought Sears was more than 100 years old, but maybe
    their service department was started more recently.
    
    It turned out that my mother meant Sears' first FEMALE serviceperson.
    
    Now who's throwing human wrenches* into the efforts to criminate**
    the language.......
    
    *To avoid falsely blaming innocent monkeys......
    
    **Back-formation from discriminate, of course..........