I was listening to Nolan this morning, and I caught a conversation between Jim Wells and a normal man. Jim was for sticking up for good old sporty with ‘Man of the match’ or ‘Woman of the match’ , rather than any of this woke nonsense. Right, Jim. What we have we hold.
Once upon a time, the English language had a little pink ribbon problem. We couldn’t just have an actor — no, a woman had to be an actress. A poet became a poetess, as if she were dabbling delicately in verse between fainting couches. The job stayed the same; the suffix did the heavy lifting of saying, “Yes, but female.
These gendered titles weren’t invented to flatter. They quietly implied that the default professional was male, and women were a charming variation on the theme. An actor acted; an actress acted… but differently, somehow. A poet wrote literature; a poetess wrote feelings. Possibly about flowers.
Over time, this started to feel a bit absurd. If a woman performs Hamlet with the same lines, the same stage, and the same existential dread as a man, why does her job title need extra syllables? No one calls a male nurse a nurser. Or a female doctor a doctress (mercifully). The work is the work.
So language did what it sometimes does when society nudges it hard enough: it simplified. We dropped the ornamental endings and kept the substance. Actor now means someone who acts. Poet means someone who writes poetry. Radical stuff.
There’s also a quiet confidence in using the same word. It says: you don’t need linguistic training wheels. You belong fully in the category. The name isn’t borrowed or adapted; it’s yours.
That’s not to say actress or poetess are insults — many people still use them fondly, and awards ceremonies cling to them like sequins. But in everyday speech, gender-neutral titles feel cleaner, fairer, and frankly less Victorian.
In the end, dropping the suffix wasn’t about erasing difference. It was about recognising equality — and saving a few unnecessary letters while we were at it.
No comments yet.