I’m sure all of you have realized that the term ‘actress’ has become something of a dirty word. All the actresses in Hollywood now refer to themselves as ‘actors’. They think they are standing up for new freedom, justice, equality, and progress but they are only lobotomastically toeing the latest Politically Correct Party Line. So much for originality.
Now, I can understand why some women want to get rid of words like doctoress, professoress, acountantess, bus driveress, and whatever.
Those are sex-neutral roles. A woman doctor does the same work as a man doctor. There are no special rules for a female accountant than those for a male accountant. So, sexual identity doesn’t or shouldn’t matters in many professions. Specifying that a person is a WOMAN is irrelevant and even dismissive. It’s as if to say a male accountant is THE accountant whereas a female accountant isn’t quite up to par.
BUT, the issue is different in acting because 99.9% of acting roles are sex-specific. A man or a woman can be a doctor, but in most cases, men play men, and women play women. Audience look for, want, and expect different qualities from male actor and from female actors–aka actresses. Even when women play traditionally male roles–especially in action movies–, we respond to their toughness differently. We see female action heroes as HOT SEXY BABES than merely as tough killers. Because acting roles are sex-specific, it makes sense to distinguish between an actor(male) and actress(female). Of course, ‘actor’ can have a general meaning denoting anyone in the profession of acting. “Man” and “mankind” can be used the same way. Even so, when we get down to the nitty gritty, males take on actor roles and females take on actress roles. Sure, a man CAN play a female role and a woman can play a male role, but that’s usually for comedy–we realize right away how funny it seems. (and, thank god guys no longer play female roles in shakespeare plays. that must have been so gay).
By the way, if radical feminists are so intent on getting rid of -ess to denote woman, why not get rid of wo- as well. Why should we distinguish between MAN and WOMAN. Maybe women should be called ‘man’ too. If differences between sexes were purely artificial constructed, then even the concept of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are flawed. There are only men and that would include those with penises and those with vaginas.
Finally, conservatives and libertarians complain of political correctness, YET THEY USE THE TERM ‘GENDER’. ‘Gender’ connotes that sexual differences are NOT real but merely the construct of culture. So, if they use the term GENDER, they’ve already given into PC. So, the term to use is ‘sex’ and ‘sexual’, not ‘gender’. (Worse, ‘gender’ sounds so soft goo goo.)
I would agree that culture does play a significant role in defining what is masculine and feminine BUT I disagree with the LEFT in a fundamental way. It’s obvious that cultural differences are rooted in genuine and verifiable BIOLOGICAL DIFFERNCES. Culture rises from biology. Culture can be used to restrict OR expand a man or a woman’s freedom of choice in relation to nature. For example, men are generally stronger than women, so men have naturally been warriors and women have been homemakers. So, this division of the sexes has been based on biology. But, some women are stronger than men and would probably make better warriors, a biological fact. But, if a culture commands that ALL women must be homemakes, even tough women must make home while even wussy weakling men must go into battle.
So, culture can be a curse or blessing when it comes to freedom. Culture, by establishing a world of ideals and laws, can liberate us from brutal biological constraints. Or, culture can oppress us from realizing our natural aspirations by forcing THIS group to only do THIS while THAT group must only do THAT. The Left follows the Roussean line that Nature is benign and wonderful, and therefore, all the oppression we see in the world are the result of CULTURAL oppression. The Left argues that if we get rid of cultural hangups and return to nature–like in Woodstock–, there will be peace and harmony. The Right is fearful of human nature and therefore looks to cultural restraints to keep the Beast-Within locked inside the cage.
Anyway, isn’t it funny how the Left tries to have it both ways. On the issue of men and women, they say the differences are mainly cultural, therefore they insist on the term ‘gender’. As with the issue of race, they reject the notion of biological differences or factors.
BUT, when it comes to the issue of HOMOSEXUALS, the Left adamantly claims that HOMOS were born that way, their orientation has NOTHING to do with culture, and that’s that. (I agree that’s true in 99% of cases.) The LEFT operates in BAD FAITH but is comfortable doing so because it flatters itself on being SUBVERSIVE and JAZZY in toying, fooling, and messing with lame-square society. What’s really funny is that many white leftists are really lame square boys and girls who think they are so cool, subversive, and avant-garde because they listened to some jazz, kiss Obama’s ass, and read Chomsky. What a bunch of sorryass lame square losers who ONLY think they are so hip, cool, and radical.