Letter: The feminine form

Tuesday 01 February 2005 01:02 GMT

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: The actor/actress question (letters, 31 January) derives from a mistaken belief that feminine forms are somehow inferior. Yet prince and princess, widow and widower, even king and queen, show this is by no means the case.

As a self-appointed but ardent male feminist I would implore the sisters to lay off this sort of linguistic interference. Feminine forms are distinctive in themselves. In general additions of this kind are a sign of respect and even reverence, as with prefixes such as Sir and Lord, or suffixes like OBE, JP or even MP. Do not masculinise. For that means that the male forms, and the men, are intrinsically preferable - which we all know to be rubbish.

IAN FLINTOFF

London SW6

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: The feminine form

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering