Feminist comediennes banned from facebook

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The only reason ‘actress’ still exists as a term is because of industry awards - the Oscars for example. Maybe it’s because I avoid the right wing press that I haven’t heard the term ‘comedienne’ since Jenny Eclair started out.

But let’s look at this in context. First, feminist comedians aren’t going to use the term. Humph did. Secondly, the Graun used the term ‘comedian’. Humph changed it. We know Humph doesn’t like feminism, he’s made that clear in numerous posts. Therefore I think it is reasonable to take the view that he used the word calculatedly to demean.

That is ridiculous. I used the correct term to describe a female who works in comedy, if anything it is you who wants to assume that the masculine form is the default.

What I am really pissed with myself about is in that pointing it out the fact that Humph thinks it’s a good thing that women trying to stand up to rape threats get banned on FB when others doing far worse don’t has got lost. Until there’s a level playing field this isn’t right. It’s not a good thing.

It was not women who were standing up to rape who were banned, it was women who referred to men as "scum" who were banned.

[Nearly Sane]

There are situations still where you need to distinguish the gender.

"Sarah Bernhardt was the first actor to play Hamlet" - blatantly untrue

"Sarah Bernhardt was the first actress to play Hamlet" - a notable point

Fair point but that would be very rare, and indeed you don't need to use the term actress/female actor there, you could just use female.

[Shaker]

No, just "out of favour" works pretty well.

The thing is, you are busy here trying to police people's language

Not that that I think Rhiannon was doing any such thing, but other forms of language are 'policed' (racist terms; homophobic epithets; encouraging/glorifying terrorism etc.) and I assume (but don't know) that you have no problem with that. So the issue you have presumably isn't with the policing of language.

[Harrowby Hall]

Fair point but that would be very rare, and indeed you don't need to use the term actress/female actor there, you could just use female.

So, there is a simple and precise word which immediately indicated all the features of the individual which are appropriate in this circumstance. Why force people to use a more complex construction to provide exactly the same information? This is one of the sillier outcomes in recent times of perceived "political correctness" influencing the way in which people use language.

Are you (and those you are siding with)  saying that a language such as French or German (which uses cases - called "genders" - which classifies nouns and adjectives as "masculine" or "feminine" because they reflect the sex of the individual to whom they refer) is anachronistic and sexist?

In French, a male actor is either acteur or comedien and a female actor is either actrice or comedienne.

[Shaker]

That is ridiculous. I used the correct term to describe a female who works in comedy, if anything it is you who wants to assume that the masculine form is the default.

For those of us not from the 1930s there's no longer a perceived need to distinguish in career terms on the basis of sex. There are no 'masculine' or 'feminine' terms - actor is quite sufficient for anyone, male, female or transgender, working in that profession. To distinguish between a male actor and a female actor serves what purpose, precisely? (Possibly the largest organisation for thespians in the US is SAG - the Screen Actors Guild. It's not called SA&AG. As Rhiannon pointed out AMPAS still uses the term actress for some reason). We don't have sex-differentiating terms in other fields - doctoresses or teacherennes - or if we did we've consigned them to history's dustbin so I see no need why we should cling on to the few unfortunate examples that did arise. Goodness knows why - possibly because until relatively recently in historical terms women weren't even allowed to act professionally or do many other things. Do you think that might be something to do with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should they?

When are you going to remove all your lies about what Christ said and did (allegedly)

Ha Ha Ha He He He Ho Ho Ho.

[Shaker]

So, there is a simple and precise word which immediately indicated all the features of the individual which are appropriate in this circumstance. Why force people to use a more complex construction to provide exactly the same information? This is one of the sillier outcomes in recent times of perceived "political correctness" influencing the way in which people use language.

Lock the thread, we have a winner!

[Nearly Sane]

So, there is a simple and precise word which immediately indicated all the features of the individual which are appropriate in this circumstance. Why force people to use a more complex construction to provide exactly the same information? This is one of the sillier outcomes in recent times of perceived "political correctness" influencing the way in which people use language.

Are you (and those you are siding with)  saying that a language such as French or German (which uses cases - called "genders" - which classifies nouns and adjectives as "masculine" or "feminine" because they reflect the sex of the individual to whom they refer) is anachronistic and sexist?

In French, a male actor is either acteur or comedien and a female actor is either actrice or comedienne.

See Shaker's rep!y to Humph. Why do I need to be told the gender of a person doing a job by the title?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See Shaker's rep!y to Humph. Why do I need to be told the gender of a person doing a job by the title?

Are folk not making a wee fuss over this because they like being linguistic policemen?

[Nearly Sane]

Are folk not making a wee fuss over this because they like being linguistic policemen?

Surely the question is whether it is a valid point, not what strange motivations you have decided to attribute to people?

[Harrowby Hall]

See Shaker's rep!y to Humph. Why do I need to be told the gender of a person doing a job by the title?

In ninety nine times out of a hundred - you don't.

And by the way, you mean "sex" not "gender".

(Off topic and not (I hope) a derail, but Vlad has now had more reincarnations than Dr Who.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For those of us not from the 1930s

Shaker, fighting a faux sexism with ageism..........I demand this forum change it's name to ''Atheists say the Darnedest things'' immediately!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In ninety nine times out of a hundred - you don't.

And by the way, you mean "sex" not "gender".

(Off topic and not (I hope) a derail, but Vlad has now had more reincarnations than Dr Who.)

Am I allowed to mention I am now played by an actress?

[Shaker]

In ninety nine times out of a hundred - you don't.

What would the one exception be?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

possibly because until relatively recently in historical terms women weren't even allowed to act professionally or do many other things. Do you think that might be something to do with it?

That was the Restoration. How old are you? 

[Shaker]

That was the Restoration. How old are you? 

Considerably younger than you, evidently.

As for the other things, it was 1876 before a woman could officially qualify as a doctor. (Elizabeth Anderson did so first in 1865 but had to have a cunning plan to sneak in round the back). And then there's suffrage ...

[jakswan]

[quote author=Rhiannon link=topic=14936.msg708620#msg708620 date=151250087
What I am really pissed with myself about is in that pointing it out the fact that Humph thinks it’s a good thing that women trying to stand up to rape threats get banned on FB when others doing far worse don’t has got lost. Until there’s a level playing field this isn’t right. It’s not a good thing.
[/quote]

I think Facebook policy is to ban both. I skim read the article but the ban was not for defending rape threats but for hate speech?

[Owlswing]

Shaker, fighting a faux sexism with ageism..........I demand this forum change it's name to ''Atheists say the Darnedest things'' immediately!

In that case I demand that it be changed to "Christians talk total rubbish"

[jeremyp]

Fair point but that would be very rare, and indeed you don't need to use the term actress/female actor there, you could just use female.

I would argue that you need to convey that Bernhardt was both female and an actor. In fact, you might say it needs to be emphasised that we are talking about professional actors.

[jeremyp]

Not that that I think Rhiannon was doing any such thing,

Of course she was. She's trying to admonish people for using the word "comedienne"

but other forms of language are 'policed' (racist terms; homophobic epithets; encouraging/glorifying terrorism etc.) and I assume (but don't know) that you have no problem with that. So the issue you have presumably isn't with the policing of language.

No I am very uncomfortable with the idea of policing language.

[jeremyp]

What would the one exception be?

If you are discussing which Oscar an actor is up for and who they are up against.

If you are casting a role that is explicitly one gender or the other.

If you are trying to explain why the casting of the actor for the Thirteenth Doctor is a landmark.

If you're trying to explain why a particular comedian being banned from Facebook is unfair.

[Udayana]

... We don't have sex-differentiating terms in other fields - doctoresses or teacherennes - or if we did we've consigned them to history's dustbin so I see no need why we should cling on to the few unfortunate examples that did arise. Goodness knows why - possibly because until relatively recently in historical terms women weren't even allowed to act professionally or do many other things. Do you think that might be something to do with it?

Presumably the sex-differentiation terms came about in precisely those cases where sex did make a difference. Dispense with them where it no longer does. Never any point in "comedienne" as opposed to comedian though.

"Facebook moderator" must be a predominantly male career I expect.
 

[Shaker]

If you are discussing which Oscar an actor is up for and who they are up against.

Circular argument. That's merely because of the Academy's continued insistence on using the word 'actress', not a justification that they're right to do so. It's an is but not an ought. Simple solution - don't. Best Actor Oscar covers everyone. Job done.

If you are casting a role that is explicitly one gender or the other.

Like Hamlet, for instance?

If you are trying to explain why the casting of the actor for the Thirteenth Doctor is a landmark.

You're doing a sterling job of making my case for me. Why is it a landmark? Casting of the what?

If you're trying to explain why a particular comedian being banned from Facebook is unfair.

A particular what?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Circular argument. That's merely because of the Academy's continued insistence on using the word 'actress', not a justification that they're right to do so. It's an is but not an ought. Simple solution - don't. Best Actor Oscar covers everyone. Job done.

You may find the last paragraph of this interview interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/nov/19/denise-gough-people-places-and-things-new-york-angels-in-america-interview

[Shaker]

You may find the last paragraph of this interview interesting

Any particular reason why? It's one person's opinion - others are available. Here's another one:

As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: 'An actress can only play a woman. I'm an actor – I can play anything.'