|
28 Sep 15 - 10:27 AM (#3740308) Subject: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Bonzo3legs It's vital to preserve gender - waitress, hostess, temptress, lioness, actress, conductress, mayoress, heiress, poetess etc!!! Nothing is more annoying in a restaurant to be told that our "server" today will be Annabelle...................it's WAITRESS!!! |
|
28 Sep 15 - 10:48 AM (#3740313) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Dave the Gnome No it isn't. I don't care whether my server is male or female. Why do you? |
|
28 Sep 15 - 10:52 AM (#3740317) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Steve Shaw Antebloodydiluvian. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:05 AM (#3740322) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Bonzo3legs Because people are either male or female, and neuterisation is madness. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:10 AM (#3740324) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Teribus YOU might not care Gnome, but others might. I can think of a number of situations where for, lets call them cultural/religious reasons, it might not be considered appropriate for them to be served by a person of a particular gender, so it would be of no little advantage to know whether you will be served by a waiter or waitress before hand. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:13 AM (#3740325) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Dave the Gnome That is exactly what I said Teribus. "I don't care whether my server is male or female. Why do you? ". You have attempted an answer but failed to explain in what situation it would be not appropriate for Bonzo. I have no idea what his or her culture or religion is. Which is why I asked. In what situation would YOU consider it important? |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:20 AM (#3740330) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker yes.. I can imagine a certain bunch of mudcatters who might be mightily bewildered, absolutely horrified, if they popped into their local 'parlour', paid good money for an hour with a hostess... only to find three quarters of an hour in it was a bloke wearing a frock.......😜 |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:23 AM (#3740331) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Dave the Gnome I wish there was a like button on here :-D |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:36 AM (#3740335) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: wysiwyg Bonzo, it's not the PERSON whose gender is being made non-specific--- it's the WORK being done, hopefully FOR EQUAL PAY. ~Susan |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:51 AM (#3740337) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST The mix of terms in the OP includes some that have a gender specific meaning. Others are meaningless introductions of female specific equivalents of terms that are already gender neutral. That is clearly deliberate to justify the underlying sexist issue. Actress is rapidly going out of use without the need for a new word to describe people on the stage so I don't understand why the catering trade needs a new word for waiters. Mayoress is the consort of a mayor, dispite being emarassing to the husbands of female mayors it is actually gender neutral. A lioness on the other hand is definitely a female panthera leo |
|
28 Sep 15 - 11:54 AM (#3740338) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Bonzo3legs Yes but male serving in a restaurant is a waiter, and a female is a waitress - simple English really, I know it's gone wrong in various parts of the world, not least of which in England! |
|
28 Sep 15 - 12:05 PM (#3740341) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST Language changes. Live with it. Unless of course you're just trolling, as you often do? Best ignored, I think. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 12:24 PM (#3740344) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Bonzo3legs No, this is the ludicrous type of change introduced by political correctness. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:04 PM (#3740348) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: McGrath of Harlow I couldn't care less if the people serving me in a restaurant are men or women. But I cannot see any reason why they should not be referred to as waiters or waitresses, so long as they get paid the same. I take it is is still ok to refer to females lions as lionesses, and male ducks as drakes... But I'm not sure there is any logical basis for regarding sex distinctions in terms for jobs as unacceptable, but not applying that to the term "men" and "women". . |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:04 PM (#3740349) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST so.... errrrmmm.. is "political correctness" the feminised form of "political correctn".... ???? .. those bloody mental lefty femunists making words too difficult for old real men to remember... they want to bugger of back to mars or venus or wherever it is they need to bugger off back too...!!!!! 😠 |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:05 PM (#3740351) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker yeah.. that GUEST was me.. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:10 PM (#3740352) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Greg F. No, this is the ludicrous type of change introduced by political correctness. What is doubly ludicrous are those folks that go around bitching about "political correctness". Get a life, eh Bozo of the Tree Legs?. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:37 PM (#3740366) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Jeri Of course it's trolling. If how you treat a person you don't know depends on their gender, there's something wrong with your social competence. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:53 PM (#3740372) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: wysiwyg What Jeri said! |
|
28 Sep 15 - 01:53 PM (#3740373) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Backwoodsman I dislike restaurant staff being referred to as 'servers' - another example of the Americanisation of British English. It seems ridiculous especially as Americans refer to 'waiting table', not 'serving table'. Someone who 'waits table' must be a 'waiter', surely? Why can't we call them all 'waiters', irrespective of gender. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 02:14 PM (#3740381) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: GUEST,punkfolkrockess some here would probably rather call them all serfs or sl@ves.... |
|
28 Sep 15 - 02:24 PM (#3740383) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: DMcG I can see lots of reasons why it might be good or bad, interesting or better forgotten, desirable or undesirable. But I am blowed if I can come up with any reason why it might be vital. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 02:34 PM (#3740386) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Dave the Gnome Why can't we call them all 'waiters', irrespective of gender. Spot on BWM, and actors and comedians and poets etc. etc. And, above all else, people! |
|
28 Sep 15 - 02:38 PM (#3740389) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Uncle_DaveO Bonzo, I happen to harbor some agreement with you in general. BUT . . . You are fighting a losing fight here. The die is cast, by some caster or castress. It will not, I think, be uncastrated. Dave Oesterreich |
|
28 Sep 15 - 03:14 PM (#3740396) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: mayomick A German feminist of my acquaintance argues that there should be a word in the English language for a female doctor. She insists on using the word "doctoress", which she made up, even though I've told her that female Irish doctors would find it offensive. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 03:28 PM (#3740398) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: mayomick Feminist doctors would find it very offensive , I'm sure . My German friend(ess) also doesn't like it when women call each other "guys" . |
|
28 Sep 15 - 03:31 PM (#3740400) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: wysiwyg Look, if yer in the UK there is no way you can understand US nuances. Yer not the boss of us. |
|
28 Sep 15 - 03:39 PM (#3740403) Subject: RE: BS: Vital to preserve gender From: Richard Bridge A waiter or waitress perform identical functions. An actor or actress do not. An actor portrays men and an actress portrays women. |