Why the term "Actress" makes sense and has relevance.

[No Bull Savage]

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.