Hollywood award shows are always closely scrutinized for signs of who’s up and who’s down, what’s in and what’s out. They also recently gave a spin on a trend that has nothing to do with movie productions or red carpet dresses. It’s about the rules. Amid all the dazzle, you may have missed the fact that last year’s Golden Globes went where the Screen Actors Guild previously led: they praised not actors and actresses (leading, supporting or otherwise) but rather “actresses” and “actresses.” Male actors.”
After many years and many celebrations, it was a real change for the industry, but it came out of a long history. At least since the 1980s, I’ve heard calls to eliminate the use of feminine-labeled terms like “heroine,” “goddess,” “waitress,” “boss” — and yes, “actress.” (For some reason, I never quite caught the phrase “flight attendant” for “flight attendant,” and I still have to remind myself to make the substitution.)
Such terms might seem to imply that women who fill these roles are fundamentally different from, and perhaps less so than, the men who fill them. Appending a feminine suffix makes the masculine version the default, and makes the feminine word merely a copy or variation of it.
The call to use “actor,” “hero,” “god,” and “chair” to refer to women as well as men stems from the belief that the words we use can shape our thoughts. This was the opinion Subtract Most influential by linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf in the 1930s. The idea is that abolishing our gender terminology is a powerful gesture, a political act that affirms women’s equality and retrains our cultural assumptions.
A similar impulse has guided efforts to circulate inclusive language around race, gender identity, or any number of other sensitive topics. As these efforts have proliferated in recent years, the consensus about what is comprehensive and what is outdated has seemed to shift more rapidly. At times, it seemed as if the lexical ground was shifting beneath our feet almost every week—and not always for a clear purpose.
Recently, the tide seems to have turned against attempts to engineer the way people talk. Overall, I’m happy with it. But the terminology of gender abolition is a worthwhile endeavor and worthy of relief from our impatience.
The problem with replacing old terms with newer, allegedly more sensitive terms is that the replacement term inevitably carries the same negative associations that the old term accumulated. Psychologist Steven Pinker calls it a vicious cycle. Think of the procession from “disabled” to “disabled” to “disabled” to “differently abled,” changes made to avoid stigmatizing the people the term refers to. The ongoing renewal indicates that the efforts have achieved only intermittent success.
The introduction of a new term may suggest new ways of thinking, at least for some, and of spelling. But covering a hole in the roof with construction paper also blocks the wind, or at least some of it, for a period of time. It’s not actually a solution. The recent fashion to refer to “homeless persons” rather than “homeless persons” provides a useful example. The word “homeless” began as a bona fide alternative to words like “boom” and “bag lady.” However, over time, the same dismissive associations generated by those old terms morphed into “homeless person.” And you can be sure that if Unoccupied becomes the default, it will need to be replaced within a generation or so. Really addressing the epidemic of homelessness (homelessness?) would be a more important approach to the problem than changing what we call it, and I suspect “homeless” would say the same thing.
But gender abolition is a different case. Unlike creating euphemisms, combining two words into one does not introduce a new form that is subject to obsolescence. “She’s an Actress” simply phases out “Actress” and sends her on her way, along with the Studebakers, Peanut Butter Kugel, and Red Skelton. It does not create a new word ready to inherit the potentially dismissive air that “actress” connotes.
Of course, changing the words will not eliminate sexism. And I can’t help but laugh when I remember someone I knew who years ago vehemently insisted on calling his Walkman a “Walkperson.” But to the extent that this kind of language change can play some role in changing habits of mind, let’s form a new habit and pass it on to our children.