(address)

6.3.1993.

 

Phillipa Ballard,
Complaints Executive,
Broadcasting Standards Authority,
PO Box 9213,
Wellington.

 

Dear Phillipa Ballard,

Thank you for your letter of 1 March 1993, which encloses a copy of David Edmunds' letter of 22 February 1993.

1. It is blatantly untrue to say that the gender of actresses is irrelevant to their occupation -- actresses virtually never play male parts, and (male) actors virtually never play female parts. Audiences also react very specifically and strongly to the gender of actresses and actors.

2. As Mr. Edmunds points out, we do not have a female term for a bus driver -- but nor do we have a separate female term for a shoplifter. If the fact that we don't have a separate female term for a bus driver is a reason for abolishing terms like "actress", then the fact that we don't have a separate female term for a shoplifter should be a reason for abolishing the term "gunman". Why should only occupational terms be involved ?

3. In fact, you could just as well argue that the fact that you have a separate female term "actress" means that you should have a separate female term for a female bus-driver.

4. Mr. Edmunds says that such terms as "actress" are unnecessary, because the gender of the person is not relevant to the occupation -- but he does not explain why the gender of a gunman IS relevant, while the gender of a shoplifter, abortionist, slanderer, baby-snatcher, etc. is not.

5. Many new and (some would say) ugly words have been created in order to replace "sexist" occupational terms. There is absolutely no reason (apart from anti-male sexism) why TVNZ could not replace "gunman" with "gunperson".

TVNZ should either avoid all terms (such as "gunman" and "chairman") which irrelevantly identify gender -- or it should consistently continue to use words like "gunman", "chairman", "actress", "hostess", and so on.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Zohrab

 

See BSA's decision: http://www.bsa.govt.nz/assets/PDF-Decisions/1993/41-9315041993Peter-Zohrab.pdf

 

Back to Letter No. 1