Authoress

This is the place to post questions and discussions on usage and style. The members of the Wordwizard Clubhouse will also often be able to help you to formulate that difficult letter.

Authoress

Post by trolley » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:12 am

I don’t think I’d ever heard this term until a few days ago. A woman was being introduced on a television program…”Mrs. Soandso, home-maker, mother, teacher and authoress”. If it was some hyper vigilant attempt to be politically correct…they couldn’t have missed the mark by a much greater margin. Various dictionaries claim the word is old-fashioned, outdated and derogatory. I just thought it was strange because it was pretty clear what her gender was when they introduced her as “Mrs.” and stated that she was a mother. I didn’t notice too many people getting their knickers in a knot over being nominated in any actress categories, at the Golden Globes last night, though.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by gdwdwrkr » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:14 am

Probably those who were not nominated had knotty-knickers.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by trolley » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:18 am

I think I rented that VHS movie, once.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by Erik_Kowal » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:53 am

There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why certain occupations or roles have generated separate designations for males and females, and some have not. Ditto why some female designations are often regarded as derogatory or demeaning compared with the similar terms used for their male counterparts, while some other female designations are not.

Cases in point:

Authoress, actress, waitress (derogatory), but not priestess, policewoman, heroine, murderess (non-derogatory).

(That list is based on my perceptions, but of course yours may be different.)

It occurs to me that there is NO male equivalent for 'milkmaid', whether as a designation or as an occupation.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by Phil White » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:31 am

In particular with "actor/actress", we seem increasingly to have been seeing a trend towards the use of "actor" for both men and women. It would be very odd to see "author/authoress" go in the opposite direction.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: Authoress

Post by gdwdwrkr » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:04 pm

"It would be very odd to see "author/authoress" go in the opposite direction."
Could mean "we seem increasingly to have been seeing a trend towards the use of 'authoress' for both men and women".
Which, of course you did not mean.
Though I have noticed the trend toward the feministically-over-compensatorily-used "she" and "her" as pronouns for baby.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by Phil White » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:14 pm

Ah, quite so. I shall try to be a little less ambiguous.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: Authoress

Post by gdwdwrkr » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:36 pm

You're the best!
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by BonnieL » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:27 pm

Our local weekly had a front page headline about an "authoress." Haven't seen that word since the last time I read Little Women. We know the young man who wrote that (husband was his Latin teacher), so I might say something the when I see him.

Feminine endings on words are slowly going away - good riddance.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by Phil White » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:05 pm

Quite so, although "eau de toile" does not have quite the same ring about it.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: Authoress

Post by trolley » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:16 pm

The actor/actress debate is a bit confusing to me. I wonder who it was that decided that all thespians, regardless of gender, should now be referred to as “actors”. I somehow doubt that it was the actresses, themselves who took offence to the term “actress”. I’m sure that many of them are offended by the term “actor” used to describe them as it may seem to somehow reduce the importance of their gender. There are times when the use of a feminine suffix is useful in avoiding misunderstandings.
“Sean Connery marries French actor”…What?
Calling them “female actors” doesn’t quite seem right, either. Is that man who specializes in female roles, or is that woman who acts? If it’s the latter, then I wonder how all these child psychologists got their degrees at such an early age.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: Authoress

Post by tony h » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:27 pm

trolley wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:16 pm
The actor/actress debate is a bit confusing to me. I wonder who it was that decided that all thespians, regardless of gender, should now be referred to as “actors”.

I did quite a lot of work with film and TV drama production in the mid 90s and all the people in front of the camera were actors, and sometimes "the talent". I never heard actress being used.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

Re: Authoress

Post by Bobinwales » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm

It has always puzzled me why the common acronym LGBT separates "Lesbian" and "Gay", surely lesbians are gay.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: All those years gone to waist!
Bob in Wales

Re: Authoress

Post by tony h » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:56 pm

Bobinwales wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
It has always puzzled me why the common acronym LGBT separates "Lesbian" and "Gay", surely lesbians are gay.
Good point. Although I refuse to use "gay" in that way as I think taking it away from its original meaning has robbed the rest of us of a useful word and a delightful state.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

Re: Authoress

Post by Shelley » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:53 pm

Bobinwales wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
. . . surely lesbians are gay.
I dunno, Bob, some bigoted snipers have accused them of having no sense of humor at all!
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Post Reply