Question: Is using an "ess" or an "ix" or any other feminine suffix on a word useful? More accurate? Or does it resign feminine authors, poets, etc. to a lesser linguistic position?

My response: Personally, I tend not to get offended by language unless it is purposefully meant in a derogatory way. Acknowledging that our language is by default masculine, I don't blame people for using 'he' generically or anything like that, as long the language isn't intended to be offensive.

[It irks me, but I think it's more ignorance than malice.]

That being said, the thing about suffixes that is many of them are meant to be diminuitive endings. Eg, 'suffragette' was used as a disparaging term for certain suffragists. That's the main reason why feminine suffixes offend me. Some are added to show that the feminine form is something less than the regular form; others are added to show that the feminine form is something different from the regular form. Either way, it's not progressive language.

Counterpoint:"That being said, the thing about suffixes that is many of them are meant to be diminuitive endings. Eg, 'suffragette' was used as a disparaging term for certain suffragists." - Lauren

OK, outside of the historical context, let's look at that word. "ette" is a diminuitive form, that's a given. If the word were 'Suffragess" which only means a female suffragist, would you feel the same way?

"That's the main reason why feminine suffixes offend me. Some are added to show that the feminine form is something less than the regular form; others are added to show that the feminine form is something different from the regular form. Either way, it's not progressive language." - Lauren

Ok, I like the term "progressive language". My question is, what defines progressive language? Is gender neutral language progressive? Or is it a cop-out? I'm not sure.

English certainly has gender implicit within it. It also still has titles of ownership, i.e., "Mrs." and "Miss". Russian, for example, only has one feminine title -"Ms", if you will, just as we have only one title in modern usage for men. (We used to have "Master" but that was descriptive of age rather than marital status.)

Certainly, when the gender of the subject is unknown, a gender neutral term is appropriate - "chairperson" or simply "chair" as opposed to "chairman"

If we know the chair is a woman, does calling her chairwoman diminish her power?

If it does, then I think it better to challenge the perception than to make the language less specific. Denying our gender seems to me to be an admission that they are right to devalue us based on gender.

"Call me an actor not an actress because actress means I'm less than an actor." Is that a message we want to send?

Or would we be better off saying "I'm an actress and I deserve respect."

Rebuttal: "Ok, I like the term 'progressive language'. My question is, what defines progressive language? Is gender neutral language progressive? Or is it a cop-out? I'm not sure." - Morgaine

The final outcome of progressive language, in my opinion, would be a language completely devoid of gender references.

"If we know the chair is a woman, does calling her chairwoman diminish her power?" - Morgaine

It doesn't diminish her power, exactly. What it does is set her apart. A chairwoman is different from a chairman - be it positive, negative, or neutral, we're still perpetuating a language of difference, and I think that is against progress.

"'Call me an actor not an actress because actress means I'm less than an actor.' Is that a message we want to send?" - Morgaine

Again, I don't think in modern parlance "actress" means "something less than an actor." It only serves to set women apart and divide people who do fundamentally the same thing into categories that aren't really necessary. I think you can judge Susan Sarandon against Dustin Hoffman just as easily as you can judge her against Meryl Streep. It seems so arbitrary to me.

I'm not the kind of feminist who preaches for sisterhood. On a political, social and cultural level, I call for equality, I may even side with women [simply because they are women], in every case where women are set apart as something less than or different from men. But on a personal level, I don't tend to like women any more than men. I don't believe your genitals automatically determine anything about you. I'm not protesting for cultural androgyny, but I think in many many instances, sex alone is not a very good method for dividing a group.

I'll keep this short, because I know I'm straying off the topic to a larger issue: I don't think my genitals determine my gender, or my personality, or my existential essence any more than the fact that I have red hair does. In any random mixed group of ten people, perhaps I'll have as much in common with and different from the men in the group as the women in the group. I am united with all women on a political level precisely because I think sex is a ludicrous way to divide people. My feminism is rooted in changing the fallacious cultural norms and stereotypes that set women apart from men.

I don't want my language to be complicit in patriarchal values or ideologies of difference. To me, that's what "progressive language" is about.

Afterthought: "If it does, then I think it better to challenge the perception than to make the language less specific. Denying our gender seems to me to be an admission that they are right to devalue us based on gender." - Morgaine

One other thing -- I know this may seem like I'm playing The Semantics Game, but I feel this is important. There is a big difference between biological sex and social gender. Sex=genitals=male/female. Gender can mean a whole variety of things. There are an infinite number of gender expressions. I don't believe in terms like 'masculine' and 'feminine,' and my gender is definitely not female, whereas my sex is decidedly female. Gender is a lot more personal than that.

But it isn't a matter of denying our sex, either. I don't feel like I need to assert and reinforce my sex in everything I am and do. And I don't see it as an admission that they are right, either. An admission that they are right would be insisting upon defining yourself in masculine terms, perhaps, or less extreme, a woman using nothing but 'he' as the generic pronoun. That's where you give in. Neutral language, for example using 's/he' is all about integration. I don't see how 's/he' or 'actor' or 'chairperson' can be equated with giving up your biological identity at all.

And finally, I would agree that perception is the issue, first and foremost. Perception is where it begins. But both perception and making language - not less specific - but more neutral are crucial.

----------

(Feel free to critique this; I haven't spent a lot of time thinking out my argument. But I love We Have Brains and everyone who contributes to it.)