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.
People like Jim have made such an issue of these words. It is almost like some sort of religious dogma. Piers Morgan is the same. Personally, I would still use words like actress and poetess or lioness (give me strength!) I don’t mean it in a domineering way and I wouldn’t take issue with someone who refuses to acknowledge them. Some religious nuts will use the issue to keep women and girls in their place. Jim strikes me as a good old fundamentalist Bible believer. Old Testament especially.