# How Offensive Is The Word "Jewess"? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 11, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175 "2014-05-11T05:10:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/41 "2014-05-11T19:45:11Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’ve mostly heard or seen the word spoken by Nazis in fiction so it has an offensive ring to it to me. This thread reminded me of an old Eric Ambler spy novel from the late '30s (“Cause For Alarm”). One of the characters who appears briefly is Mrs. Moskowitz, a secretary at an arms manufacturing company, and who Ambler describes (if memory serves) as a “harassed-looking Jewess”). It’s a casual stereotype by an author\* whose works never struck me as anti-Semitic, but it’s kind of jarring to a modern reader (who would also be taken aback by seeing an original edition of Agatha Christie’s [“Ten Little Niggers”](http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/321184776576?lpid=82)). _more embarrassing from a historical standpoint is Ambler’s gushing treatment of Communist characters, including a pair of charming Soviet agents who were busy saving the world from Fascism in a couple of his novels._\* Oddly, they never appeared in any of his books written after Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. 😃 \*\*very entertaining reads though. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/42 "2014-05-11T19:47:27Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I think its fine to use if your quoting a letter from the 1920’s. It’s mildly offensive today (I think mainly because it evokes the Jewish American Princess stereotype rather then simply because its old-timey, google the old SNL “Jewess Jeans” bit for an example), but not so much that you have to tip-toe around it if its clear your writing about a historical use of the word. Heh, that same skit came to my mind. The things they could get away with… And yes, if someone’s quoting from something written in the 1920s, people should chill about wording that is inappropriate in 2014. (Though now I am curious as to how come so many other nationalities/ethnicities/faiths got the _-man/_-woman form in English, but it ended up with Jewess and Negress…) ---
**Author:** ![Flywheel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Flywheel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flywheel)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/43 "2014-05-11T20:11:52Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Someone who would do this probably has a special way of referring to men who are Jewish if he needs to, as well. Related [article](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/teacher-accused-of-calling-student-jew-boy-to-be-fired.html). > [@](#): > > The controversy started last June, when then-board member Cindy Wilcox formally filed a complaint against Leko after she received reports that the teacher called a student “Jew boy” and made other offending statements. In the fall, the district placed a substitute teacher in Leko’s classroom so another adult was present. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/44 "2014-05-11T21:05:29Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Yes, and that points to the offensiveness. > > To have a separate morphology for the female has ties to animal husbandry and the way animals are referred to when they’re raised as property: _bull-cow_; _cock-hen_; etc. The underlying ideology of such word forms is that the referent is less than human. I’m not sure I agree with this. I’m acquainted with a woman who is now the associate dean in charge of diversity issues (or something like that) at a small college, who is CERTAINLY up on what is and is not the proper terminology to use, and she, a Mexican-born woman, refers to herself as a “Chicana”. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/45 "2014-05-11T21:46:24Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Of course, but none of these refer to a person’s ethnicity, and in English they’ve only been applied in these two ethnicities (as far as I can tell), so you can’t equate them. They’re marked lexicon. That’s as may be, but the assertion was that gendered nouns were always associated with animal husbandry: > [@you](#): > > The underlying ideology of such word forms is that the referent is less than human (which make it interesting so far as the “master” and the “mistress” on the plantation are concerned), and I was just pointing that up as the arrant nonsense it is. You can carry on desperately trying to defend this, or you can move on. The fact that there are gendered words for members of a few ethnicities, and for many farm animals, does not entitle you to ignore that there are gendered nouns for many professions and probably most of the titled heads of dear old England, and argue that the first is like the second while the third and fourth are beside the point. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/46 "2014-05-11T21:48:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m not sure I agree with this. I’m acquainted with a woman who is now the associate dean in charge of diversity issues (or something like that) at a small college, who is CERTAINLY up on what is and is not the proper terminology to use, and she, a Mexican-born woman, refers to herself as a “Chicana”. Other languages have gendered nouns as a matter of grammar. English does not tend to, and when nouns are deliberately gender-fied, it definitely raises my eyebrows. If someone is making a point of the sex of the person, I want to know why it matters. I don’t think this really matters for this OP, however. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/47 "2014-05-11T22:29:38Z")
If anyone would like to read it in context, PM me and I’ll send you the link. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/48 "2014-05-12T01:18:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I was avoiding coming right out and saying that, but that’s what it comes down to. I don’t see the need to sanitize the past, in fact I thing there’s a need not to sanitize the past. I would disagree with any notion that there is no need not to sanitize the past. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/49 "2014-05-12T04:37:37Z")
For the (fortunately very few) people who are saying, “oh, it’s no different from Duke/Duchess, etc.,” what’s your theory on why the terminology was never applied to other religions/races? Or am I wrong and 19th century folks actually wrote about seeing a Catholicess, Methodistess, Lutheraness, or Caucasianess? To me it reeks of the exoticism and otherness (which I guess is a female ‘other,’ heh) of specific minorities. I believe “Mormoness” was in use too, but you sure as heck don’t see it nearly as often (in fairness\*, there weren’t nearly as many during the time when such words were in common use). - A female fair? Crap, now everything looks weird! ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/50 "2014-05-12T05:09:21Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > I am reasonably sure a person who would refer to someone as a “Jewess” in 2014 (in a non ironic way) also believes we have horns under our hair and cause all the wars in the world. Oh. _Thats_ why you wear yarmulkes!!! Great job on the Central African Republic BTW. And Burma. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/51 "2014-05-12T07:33:58Z")
> [@choie](#): > > For the (fortunately very few) people who are saying, “oh, it’s no different from Duke/Duchess, etc.,” what’s your theory on why the terminology was never applied to other religions/races? Or am I wrong and 19th century folks actually wrote about seeing a Catholicess, Methodistess, Lutheraness, or Caucasianess? > > To me it reeks of the exoticism and otherness (which I guess is a female ‘other,’ heh) of specific minorities. I believe “Mormoness” was in use too, but you sure as heck don’t see it nearly as often (in fairness\*, there weren’t nearly as many during the time when such words were in common use). > > - A female fair? Crap, now everything looks weird! I can’t really speak for those who are saying that “it’s no different from Duke, Duchess etc”, because what I was driving at was the point about “differently gendered words imply that the people are to be regarded as livestock”, which ain’t so. It’s true that most ethnicities don’t have this unusual feature, but so far as “otherness” goes, you would have to argue for the “otherness” of sculptors, poets, murderers, and a whole lot more besides - and I don’t think that the people responsible for “earl/countess”, “marquess/marchioness”, “Sir/Dame” and so on were implying that these people ought to be despised. Since most of us these days would find it slightly artificial to even call someone “a Jew” or “a Negro”, naturally the gendered forms look even odder. But it weren’t necessarily so ninety-odd years ago. edit: One oddity occurred to me. A “governor” might be responsible for anything from a school to a state or province (or a steam engine), but a “governess” might have authority over nothing more than a nursery… ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/52 "2014-05-12T15:25:37Z")
I’s say it’s offensive because it’s sexist. We no longer use the word “doctress” or even “actress.” One word should be equally applied to both genders. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/53 "2014-05-12T15:28:14Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > I’s say it’s offensive because it’s sexist. We no longer use the word “doctress” or even “actress.” One word should be equally applied to both genders. ‘Actress’ and ‘waitress’ are still in frequent usage, and rarely found offensive. I don’t think people find gender specific terms offensive in and of themselves, it’s when there’s a history of discrimination behind specific words that people get bothered. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/54 "2014-05-12T16:18:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > ‘Actress’ and ‘waitress’ are still in frequent usage, and rarely found offensive. I don’t think people find gender specific terms offensive in and of themselves, it’s when there’s a history of discrimination behind specific words that people get bothered. Thespianist. ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/55 "2014-05-12T16:47:53Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > I have started a family history blog, and I want to write about some letters that my great great grandmother penned in the 1920s. In one of them, she talks about her grandmother being a “jewess”. I know it is an outdated and offensive term, but I don’t know if it’s “From a 90 year old letter so let it slide” offensive, or if it’s “Blacklist the site and boycott it, call for the author to be hung, drawn and quartered” offensive. > > Rather than reprinting the letter in full, I could quote from it and paraphrase to say her grandmother was [Jewish], but I did want to include an image of the letter which would obviously show the real wording. > > I don’t love the idea of editing history, but I hate the idea of casually offending people. > > Opinions? Advice? Simply provide some context, such that the letter is from the 1920’s, and that the term “Jewess” was used to refer to a Jewish women. I would assume that if your grandmother did not use it in an obviously pejorative manner, based on the framing of your question, so just a simple note should suffice. ---
**Author:** ![DETXL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/detxl/32/19366_2.png) [@DETXL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DETXL)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/56 "2014-05-12T19:01:40Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > ‘Actress’ and ‘waitress’ are still in frequent usage, and rarely found offensive. I don’t think people find gender specific terms offensive in and of themselves, it’s when there’s a history of discrimination behind specific words that people get bothered. I think it might go further than that; the history of discrimination is what makes it feel a little “off” when we turn adjectives into nouns _in general_, not just the gender-specificity. Particularly when it’s something innate and not an occupation. Irrespective of gender (unless there is a reason to think that Jewish women were more discriminated against than Jewish men?), there’s a difference between “you’re a person” and “you’re a .” When we say “a Jewish man” or “a homosexual woman” it’s clearer that “Jewish” or “homosexual” is a thing _that a human can be_, like “tall” or “long-haired.” When the adjective _becomes_ the noun and they’re just “a Jew” or “a homosexual” there’s an implied otherness to it that makes some people uncomfortable. Adding gender specificity to it just compounds that otherness and maybe it’s telling that when we make those gendered nouns from innate traits it generally shows up in marginalised groups (Jewess\*, Negress, Mulattress, Mooress etc.). - One of the few religious examples. There were, for the record, Jesuitesses, at least in the form of an order that Urban VIII suppressed, but not as the common term for a female Jesuit. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/57 "2014-05-12T19:24:46Z")
I wonder if I’d be thrown off the Airbus at 30,000 feet if I asked to speak to the aviatrix flying the thing. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/58 "2014-05-12T20:10:51Z")
I’m not aware of any aviatrix, including myself, who would find the term offensive. ---
**Author:** ![shantih](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f6c823/32.png) [@shantih](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shantih)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/59 "2014-05-12T20:41:51Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Other languages have gendered nouns as a matter of grammar. English does not tend to, and when nouns are deliberately gender-fied, it definitely raises my eyebrows. If someone is making a point of the sex of the person, I want to know why it matters. > > I don’t think this really matters for this OP, however. That this comment comes from a goddess makes me smile. Irony aside, I agree completely with the point you’re making. > [@DETXL](#): > > I think it might go further than that; the history of discrimination is what makes it feel a little “off” when we turn adjectives into nouns _in general_, not just the gender-specificity. Particularly when it’s something innate and not an occupation. Irrespective of gender (unless there is a reason to think that Jewish women were more discriminated against than Jewish men?), there’s a difference between “you’re a person” and “you’re a .” > > When we say “a Jewish man” or “a homosexual woman” it’s clearer that “Jewish” or “homosexual” is a thing _that a human can be_, like “tall” or “long-haired.” When the adjective _becomes_ the noun and they’re just “a Jew” or “a homosexual” there’s an implied otherness to it that makes some people uncomfortable. Adding gender specificity to it just compounds that otherness and maybe it’s telling that when we make those gendered nouns from innate traits it generally shows up in marginalised groups (Jewess\*, Negress, Mulattress, Mooress etc.). > > - One of the few religious examples. There were, for the record, Jesuitesses, at least in the form of an order that Urban VIII suppressed, but not as the common term for a female Jesuit. And I think this gets to the heart of why the term has become outdated; the unspoken assumptions behind it have become outdated, thank goodness. Still, in its historic context, I don’t see the particular instance in the old letter as being offensive, just a reflection of the lexicon of an earlier time. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175/60 "2014-05-12T20:56:30Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Yes. Having words like “duke” and “duchess” implies that nobility are one step above cattle. See also “hunter”/“huntress”, “sculptor”/“sculptress” and countless others. Also “stag”/“hind”, “cob”/“pen” (swans being well-known farm critters and all), “lion”/“lioness”… > Admittedly the only reason I would ever use the word “negress” is to provide another answer to the riddle “When is a door not a door?”. You rock. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-offensive-is-the-word-jewess/688175.md?page=4)