Article 452 of the ‘non-gender-specific’ role descriptors in the Language English retired the word “Actress” in 1997.

Oh Tuomas. <3

yeah it kind of amazes me that anyone had to explain this considering that he’s HOLDING UP A SIGN WITH PHOTOSHOP INSTRUCTIONS

I didn’t read the damn sign!

lol ‘the actress’

― schalke nult fear (nakhchivan), Friday, December 16, 2011 2:21 PM

^^

tuomas is that the first time you became aware of zooey d??

Tuomas that actress is Zoey I can’t be bothered to actually look up how you spell her last name. She’s pretty popular her as the cutesy indie actress of the past couple years and the subject of at least one v popular ILX thread.

He’s pulling a lex on us

I think I’ve seen her in a trailer for some other movie too. Is she not an actress, then?

(xx-post)

Wait, this is not actually Tuomas, is it?

It’s funny to us because pretty much everyone in the US/UK would know her name, that’s all.

Fake Tuomas? Geir, stop that will you?

Okay, I didn’t know she was such a “thing”. I’ve never seen her in any other movie.

Using the phrase “actress”, not specifying gender in the period poll, I seriously think this is an imposter.

x-post—It’s OK, you’re not missing much.

Yes, Real Tuomas would know who she is

It’s funny to us because pretty much everyone in the US/UK would know her name, that’s all.

― ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ (~curious orange~), Friday, 16 December 2011 14:27

yah i think it’s perfectly acceptable to not know who she is but quite funny in an ilx context

anyway i reckon sandbox tuom is real, maybe too real but still real

I’ve always thought “actress” was a bit stupid (there is a gendered ending equivalent to “-ess” in Finnish, but it’s old-fashioned and nobody uses it anymore), but I thought it was the only grammatically correct term? If not, I’ll start using it “actor” then.

Nah, hardly anyone calls actresses actors

Helen Mirren probably does, but I’m struggling thereafter

I was looking at Zooey Deschanel’s filmography, and apparently she was in Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which I have actually seen. I guess she wasn’t that memorable in it, because this was the first I time I paid attention to her, and she does have a pretty distinctive face.

pls someone post mirren pic thx

it’s gradually becoming adopted but few people would say ‘the actor playing the love interest of the protagonists’ brother’ wrt eg zooey

i’ve gruon accuostuomed tuo her faaace

Tuomas, never change.

Yeah, there are two threads devoted to her on ILX: one on ILE and another on ILM. (She’s also a singer.)

She’s probably best known for the movies (500) Days of Summer and Elf, although now she is the star of a popular US sitcom, too.

This thread and others like it are just perpetual Sociological Images 101 in terms of the *presentation* of female sexual attractiveness vs male sexual attractiveness.

Genuinely not criticising any individuals on this thread, but just find it really strange and perplexing. Can anyone find me the equivalent of heartthrob dudes, straddling bicycles in their skivvies? I mean, seriously, not that “man pin-ups” calendar thing. Even heartthrobs I don’t find attractive, but maybe people like Mark Ruffalo or Ryan Gosling that the ladies of ILX find attractive? I am just wondering what the equivalent is, and how they are represented.

Stating again for the record, I’m not trolling and apologies in advance if I offend any men with this line of questioning, I am just interested in this. The presentation of heartthrob men in their underwear. What’s it look like?

― Thomosexual II (Fotherington Thomas), Friday, 16 December 2011 11:02 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

At this point you’d posted two pictures of Thom Yorke just in shorts and Andrej Pejic showing off his chest and with his legs spread. Just sayin’.

Ok and then after reading this rest of the thread I see that had been pointed out many times.

I’ve already been told several times to lay off this thread of conversation, but my point was: these kinds of images (all images of Pejic, images of Yorke in shorts) are very much the exception in the portrayal of men in popular culture (with seemingly only very specific areas where men are portrayed in those ways: boybands and beefcake actors aimed at women, and also sports figures) but they are much more common in the portrayal of women, regardless of the setting.

I have to search through quite a lot more images, and often much more deliberately, to find a picture of Thom Yorke portraying him in that kind of way, than if I type “zooey deschanel” into GIS and they come up in the first row. Why is it so much harder for me to find what I want to see?

It’s a numbers game and it’s about expectations. I just find it weird, OK?

I did a GIS search for “Olyphant” cuz I’m not sure who he is and google auto-filled with “Timothy Olyphant shirtless.”

Why is it so much harder for me to find what I want to see?

Because Titillating Thommy Yorke’s probably not that into getting photographed in sexy poses/clotheses? And there’s not really that much demand for it either, tbh.

would shush, more pics!

Also, probably the same reason every time I type “Freaky” towards “Freaky Trigger Popular” in GoogleSearch, it always autosuggests “Freaky Friday” first.

Ummm the fact that Zooey D and Thom Yorke come from totally different spectrums of pop culture might have something to do with it. Zooey D should be compared to someone like Jake Gyllanhal or Gosling, who always be showing themselves off as popular young actors are likely to do. Whereas the equiv to Yorke or Aphex is... PJ Harvey or someone? And she hasn’t been seen dressed more like this today-

—

Of course I’m not saying that men are as equally sexualised or exploited or whatever. I just think maybe the ‘how people post to ws’ thing is a misnomer.

(totally ws peej, obv.)

Because PJ Harvey has *never* been photographed in her skivvies, amirite? RONG.

Because Titillating Thommy Yorke’s probably not that into getting photographed in sexy poses/clotheses?

I could write paragraphs about his changing attitudes towards his body and being photographed over the past 20 years, but this isn’t the place. There is certainly the demand, though.

Anyway, more pics. Whatevs.

Peej did a bit of that early on in her career but not much lately (unless you have the pics, heh heh)

FT shut up and post more pix. You want to discuss politics of WS hie thee to a thread on the topic. Be forewarned: it will consist of you talking to yourself and tuomas scratching his head as you both try and figure out what it means to be human.

And she hasn’t been seen dressed more like this today-

I don’t like 212 but Azealia Banks herself is super cute.

Fotherington Thomas: here

LOL @ bottom right

Z S you are my HERO and I love you forever carry your books home from school do your taxes for free kinds of love. You have just MADE my afternoon!

lol, no problem. but i have to admit that i felt gross making that. gonna take a shower, brb

Genuinely not criticising any individuals on this thread, but just find it really strange and perplexing. Can anyone find me the equivalent of heartthrob dudes, straddling bicycles in their skivvies? I mean, seriously, not that “man pin-ups” calendar thing.

Kind of all over the place—male actors are expected to be ripped these days to an absurd degree, even comedic guys like Stanley Tucci and Joel McHale. Young male actors are constantly photographed shirtless.

That Ari Graynor shoot I posted is actually less an example of how starlets are sexualized than most—she’s portrayed more in the vein of ‘it’s so hot when my girlfriend lounges around in one of my shirts’ and she’s stunningly hot but not in a rail-thin model way. Curvy is too often damning with faint praise (or used to describe model-thin women with big boobs), but she legit is.

model thin women with big boobs are legit curvy stop hatin on the way-thin

No, they’re thin women with big boobs, jesus, darra. Like what you like but don’t be disingenuous about it for chrissake.

milo, I noticed what you say about that model, still would say some things but the intent of the photos but this isn’t the place obv as everyone has agreed.

*about the intent of the photos

i felt gross making that. gonna take a shower, brb

Maybe not the best wording itt, tbh.

I noticed what you say about that model

I did too. When I saw the pictures last night I did a double take because her body was a) awesome b) so damn refreshing to see which is both wonderful and incredibly sad at the same time.

Maybe not the best wording itt, tbh.

aahahahahaha

not being disingenuous, boobs are curves?

I like my boobs like my post-punk, angular as fuck.

They’re the (only) kinds of curves sexy women are “supposed” to have, that are policed equally as much as how thin everything ELSE on one’s body is supposed to be. You, as a dude, will probably think/say, “But all of them are awesome!” but that is not reflected in media.

Noted comedic actor Stanley Tucci

but it’s as much policing in another direction to claim a girl with boobs and eg slim hips *can’t* be described as curvy- imo, and not disingenuously. There’s certainly no inherent value judgement or ‘should’ involved.

dear god why didn’t we make this a new thread

I’ve only seen him in Devil Wears Prada and Julie/Julia over the last few years, I didn’t know what else to call him

and that high-school remake of The Scarlet Letter

Stop defensively mansplaining about how I should feel about the demands on women’s bodies. There is value judgment EVERY IOTA OF THIS THREAD and in the whole societal conversation on every aspect of female physical beauty.

Agreed. That said, I really really hate the term “mansplaining” and find it pretty offensive.

OMG I met a female mansplainer the other week! For real! I nearly fell off my chair because it was the first time I’d ever encountered one. I wish there were a different term for it now, but this one will have to do because, well, I’m lazy and I like the shortcut of it.

xp Let me know when you come up for another word for it that you like better.

I wish there was a better term, believe me. :(

if that’s what i was doing i’m sorry? I don’t know where i’ve told you or insinuated what you feel or should feel. My last sentence (just trying to reply to your own use of ‘should’) in the post was rushed because i’m at work, and if it’s clumsy again, apologies.

OMG @ “mansplainer”, I feel like my life was a little better five minutes ago when I didn’t know the term existed.

The problem is, the “man” in “mansplain” doesn’t ~have~ to refer to the male gender, but the inherent assumption of automatic greater knowledge due to unspoken privilege. If you can get all that in a snappy 2-syllable phrase, we’re laughing.

There are still people left on ILX that are unfamiliar with the term “mansplaining”? Really? Guess it was a positive thing that Thom’s irresistable belly drove me to this thread, in a small way, then.

I mean I understand the concept of what it refers to, but I honestly 100% had never heard the term itself until today.

ditto, thank god

I pretty much hate all words that do that type of thing though, “mansplain”, “bromance”, “manscaping”, like worst trend ever.

Do you hate all neologisms, or just the ones that draw attention to previously unremarked areas of male behaviour?

Definitely somewhere between the two.

definitely a sexist kind of marketing driven application of “man-” to all kinds of things, to make clear that it’s ok for men to do it or have it.

but that’s not really of the same species as “mansplain”

i.e. I don’t hate all neologisms, I just hate “cutesy” (for lack of a better word) ones that are most often used to describe a new cultural trend that really isn’t a new cultural trend at all

Fair enough. Because I tend to reserve my hatred for neologisms like “vagazzle” and shit like that—because on your latter count, you know, I just feel a bit “welcome to our world”

Well yeah it just sorta happened that all of the examples that popped into my head were of the, “OMG men do this too” variety.

I’m not sure the concepts of bromances and manscaping and so on were unremarked on before—bromance is just a dumb and conceivably offensive (‘it’s so not GAY, god no’) take on male friendships, isn’t it?

bags are for women, men have “manbags”

hair removal is for women, men have to “manscape”

etc.

anything conceivably feminine has to be (semi-jokingly, lest you be led to think seriously about it at all) re-named to be man-suitable.

You know what? I’ll make a deal. We’ll take manbag and manscape and bromance away if you can get rid of “actress” and “lady doctor” and “female musician” and every other damn ugly phrase that gets applied to women and only women? Kay? x

i’m not arguing with you? i think these terms originate from the same place

fwiw I just posted this on the girls thread as to why the term bugs me a lot

x-post—It just seems to me to imply that it’s something that all and only men do which I don’t think is actually the case. That’s why I was saying that I’d prefer a term like FT was suggesting. One that encapsulates the phenomenon as FT stated above and doesn’t seem so damning and exclusive.

Yeah, I kind of feel like that (entirely justified) vitriol is aimed at the wrong people here?

xxxp—I don’t see how any of those are akin to neologisms that are designed to make cultural prejudices against being perceived as feminine or gay okay (manbags, etc.). Actress? I don’t know how that can conceivably be offensive.

Goole, I don’t think these terms actually do originate from “the same place.” Or at least, not in the same way?

Because I think that the “lady X” and “-ess” terms come from a place of diminishing and othering women because we can’t have or be the ~real~ thing.

While the “Man-” terms—perhaps they come from a marketing perspective? But I guess that is the same place, because the whole reason that men have to have a ~special~ Man-thing rather than just a thing (associated with women) is because the association with ~women~ and ~what women do~ is considered so awful and icky that a dude who wouldn’t be caught dead carrying a handbag feels OK carrying a Manbag?

But then that’s all that “marketing of masculinity” stuff which comes from the same place of OMG gender panic, so if that’s what you mean by “coming from the same place” then yes they are.

Anyway, I really think that someone needs to post a picture of an attractive person quite soon because this is quite a derail. I’m not allowed to post any more Thoms so Pyth or CO, do you have anyone to add?

I never post anyone but Steve McQueen, so you can just imagine another Bullit still here if you like.

“cultural prejudices against being perceived as feminine or gay” = based on the idea that being feminine sucks = sexism

Judging women on their femaleness first (as in the case of “actress”) and their ~stuff they do~ second (with a side order of men = real thing, women = weird special lady thing) = also sexism

No, I think that part of me is hibernating or something right now. I can’t think of anyone. I guess that hot picture of Paul Newman is my go to but I can’t be bothered GISing it now so

HOT PAUL NEWMAN PIC HERE

my fucking head is killing me

Ok here

omg I feel a lot better now

How about Lemmy and Stacia? I would happily smash either of them in those days.

Hott dudes = better than yoga at making heads not hurt. Proven by science.

lol

Judging women on their femaleness first (as in the case of “actress”) and their

That’s no more a judgement than ‘actors’ being male. Language has gender, that’s just kinda the way it works.

Milo, there’s this whole book by Dale Spender, called Man Made Language about ~exactly~ this issue. Perhaps you could read it, and digest some of its points about the way language is used to constrain women (and also men but mostly, problematically, women) before you attempt to “mansplain” “gender” in “language” to me, OK? Thanks.

enough of the girltalk in this thread.

There is an intrinsic judgement in mansplain, manbag, etc. (that can be sexist against women—or against men) that does not exist in “actress” or “lady doctor.” Lady doctor or female musician can be diminutive, but that derives from the context of whatever else is said (‘female musicians can only be bass players’ or w/e)—identification by gender is not inherently judgemental.

Actress, more than the others, is a strange word to bring up in this argument.

Not true. Like I said, read Dale Spender and get back to me. I really cannot have this conversation with you until you actually know what the hell you are talking about.

Or you could make the argument you’re alluding to, rather than relying on authority.

What is sexist about ‘actress,’ beyond being gender-identified?

How does that work in languages where basic nouns have genders?