Should the common usage "Webmasters" be gender neutered into a separate webmistresses to describe female web site admin professionals?

Specifically why do we really need a term like web mistresses? Is it due to PC standards that say you shouldn't refer to a woman by a inherently male term?

I like to think that common usage comes from the way people prefer to use English. So if they stick to the term Webmaster, they are not necessarily doing so due to an inherent byass towards a male term.

  • 3
    I have fixed a few typos, but I absolutely had to leave "inherent byass", it's too cool a word. (^_^) – RegDwigнt Oct 26 '10 at 9:16
  • 14
    Using webmistress in addition to webmaster is the opposite of becoming gender neutral. – Kosmonaut Oct 26 '10 at 13:30
  • @RegDwight, why thankyou. @Kosmonaut why do you say that, I would actually argue the opposite where a second word is introduced soley to counter the gender byass of the first word. – Anonymous Type Oct 26 '10 at 21:22
  • I would have thought of the term "master" being more racist than sexist. – Dan Feb 17 '11 at 2:35
  • 1
    @user744, why would you say that? Master is no more inherently racist than describing the colour of someones skin is racist. – Anonymous Type Feb 20 '11 at 21:45

There is a strong tendency in recent English to eliminate gender-specific words. For example, most female actors do not want to be called 'actresses' (though there are a few that do want to).

For this reason, and because of Claudiu's point as well, I would suggest not coining any new words in "-mistress".

| improve this answer | |
  • Agreed. I think it would be best if we stop making gender-specific names. Where they are currently specific, keep them, but stop assuming anything about gender. Like, a man who calls himself a ___master would no longer be implicitly saying he is male, just that he is the one controlling ___. If we stop saying that the -er suffix is an indicator of gender, I think a lot of problems will just go away. Consider "controller", "officer", "lawyer", etc. No one assumes any of those is male. So we don't need "controlless", "officess", or "lawyess". – Aiken Drum Nov 2 '16 at 15:09
  • Actually, those would historically have been "controlleress", "officeress" and "lawyeress", @AikenDrum. The last two of these are actually in the OED. As it happens, "controlleress" isn't, and "controlless" is - but in the meaning "uncontrolled"! But I am not disagreeing with your point. – Colin Fine Nov 2 '16 at 19:00
  • Fair enough. :) I'd say the fact that I'm not even aware of the gendered terms is a good sign that they've fallen into disuse, at least. As an aside, what a horrible construct "officeress" would have been to use and say. No wonder they died out. – Aiken Drum Nov 2 '16 at 19:59
  • It qualifies "officeress" as "rare", but it has a citation as recently as 1979, from Norman Mailer, no less. And the NOW corpus contains a single instance, from 2012. – Colin Fine Nov 2 '16 at 22:05

Webmaster, to me, can mean a person of any sex. Additionally, 'mistress' has the connotation to me of an S&M mistress, or a concubine, etc., not of a female master, so saying Webmistress sounds pretty strange to me.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    The British organisation that used to be called the National Union of Schoolmasters and Mistresses has changed its name to the National Union of Schoolmasters / Association of Women Teachers, presumably for this reason. – Brian Hooper Oct 26 '10 at 19:51
  • @Brian how interesting. – Anonymous Type Oct 26 '10 at 21:25
  • @Brian: You may be confusing the NASUWT with the ATL, formerly called the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association after the merger of the Association of Assistant Mistresses and the Association of Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools – Henry Apr 27 '12 at 13:54

In my personal experience working at various web companies, both males and females were referred to as webmasters. Regardless of whether 'webmaster' has gender connotations, the term is becoming obsolete, so this will probably end up a moot point over time.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    "the term is becoming obsolete": could you provide some evidence of this? – Steve Melnikoff Oct 26 '10 at 10:41

As Kosmonaut said, "webmistress" is the complete opposite of gender neutral.

There is an actual trend toward gender neutrality in occupational terms: flight attendant instead of stewardess, mail carrier instead of postman, that sort of thing. There is also some tendency toward avoiding the -ress form of some occupations; actor for both genders instead of actor/actress is the most prominent example, but people do still use actress.

| improve this answer | |
  • "As the actress said to the bishop" wouldn't work so well otherwise. – Brian Hooper Oct 26 '10 at 19:52
  • no I disagree regarding your point of gender neutrality. Sure your examples are all correct, however those examples are for nouns that are already gender neutral, Webmaster is not. The usage of webmistress counterbalances, and would make it neutral, however I think your partially correct in alluding to the need for a new term that gets rid of the "master", and is therefore more inclusive. – Anonymous Type Oct 26 '10 at 21:28
  • 11
    @Anonymous Type: creating a new gender-specific term makes the language less gender-neutral, not more. Right now, "webmaster" can be used to refer to either a male or a female. If you decide that a "master" can't be female (whyever not?), and thus invent a need for the term "webmistress", then you've created a gender polarity where there didn't used to be one. – Marthaª Oct 26 '10 at 21:46
  • true interesting point. thanks for the explanation. – Anonymous Type Oct 27 '10 at 21:28

If you look at the International Webmasters Association website I think you'll find they're not an exclusive group.

The dictionary defines master as :

a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something:

a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation art, or science:

I think it's fairly clear that a webmaster is not a gendered term.

| improve this answer | |

Saying that "mistress" has a sexual connotation whereas "master" has not is really really sexist. It is exactly to avoid that kind of sexism that it is important that female version of job names exist : we do not want our names to be associated only with sexual things, but also with technical activities. Male words are NOT neutral, especially when you talk about technics. A male technician is a webmaster. A female technician is a webmistress.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    This is completely untrue. Master is not a ‘male word’ – it’s gender neutral. Mistress is explicitly gendered. It is sexist, of course, that mistress has different connotations than master, but that is unfortunately how it is. Master also has sexual connotations, but it also has a slew of non-sexual meanings which make the sexual one less likely; mistress suffers from the misfortune of having few other meanings in active use than the sexual ones. I can understand disliking being chairman as a woman, but master is, etymologically and practically, gender-neutral. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 16 '19 at 17:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.