# waiter, waitress, or server



## cuchuflete

A highly regarded forera recently posted this in the Culture Forum:



> anyone wishing to be a *waitperson* in a restaurant


 Given the source, a colleague I respect and like, I was a little stunned. How, I asked myself, could an obviously intelligent person do such a thing to our language?

Maybe said forera will pop in and tell us.

In the meantime, another forera I hold in high esteem restored my faith in plain English, to the detriment of political kerrectitude, by writing this in the same thread:



> *waitressing*



I guess my opinion of 'waitperson' is obvious by now.  What's yours?


----------



## modgirl

I know this will be a big shock for you (for those who don't know; I'm being very sarcastic!), but I loathe the "person" terms: *waitperson*, *chairperson*, and such. I sincerely understand that people using them have the good intention of not offending, but the terms really are much more offensive to the English language, in my humble opinion only.

*Firefighter* to replace *fireman* is fine, though I'm not offended by the latter.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> I know this will be a big shock for you (for those who don't know; I'm being very sarcastic!), but I loathe the "person" terms: *waitperson*, *chairperson*, and such.


Eh, I don't want to get in to my opinion on the "person" and gender neutral forms, because, well, I've been there and done that here already.


On this topic specifically, I've always used waiter for a male, waitress for a female, and waitstaff as the plural.


----------



## Amityville

Is this a high class restaurant or a caff ? Click of the fingers. "Garçon!" but no one would say "Fille!" would they - too many unmeant implications.
I just thought that was interesting as a cultural sidelight, I've no strong feelings about waiter/waitress/waitperson. Waitperson may be useful if you need to refer to an individual member of the waitstaff whose sex is irrelevant or to deliberately emphasize that sex is irrelevant. It does grate on the ears a bit, especially if used repetitively in corporate literature, but no need to condemn and pigeonhole a person who happens to use it.


----------



## cuchuflete

With grated ears, I suggest that the substitution of a pc term for perfectly good words in English is much like the use of Spanglish or other foreign terms in Spanish, when perfectly good Spanish words exist.  

During the time I earned a modest livings as a waiter, I was a waiter.  I was not a waitperson.  My female colleagues were waitresses, and while quite proudly and vehemently feminist, they had no problems with the word waitress.  

When I read 'waitperson' I immediately thought, with compassion, of a room full of people sitting impatiently in a dentist's waiting room.  

If a male garbage collector is a garbage man, does that make the collective crew
'garbagepersonnel'?  If there are rules or guidelines for these quaint contortions of languages, who sets them?  What are they?  Do they aid communication while they attempt to remove any possible slight to the feelings of the readperson?

Sincerely,
Writeperson and curmudgeonperson,
Cuchuflete


----------



## GenJen54

> Maybe said forera will pop in and tell us.


AHA! I thought that looked like my offending snippet! And, alas it was. Please pardon my tardiness, I had to research the thread, and post!  

If it please the Court, I offer a plea of no contest and hereby offer my humble defense:

While I understand such a gender-neutral specific is offensive to other forer@s' grammatical tendancies (and ears), I argue that I have broken no rule, as the offending word _is_ found in modern dictionaries as a suitable substitute for the word waiter, or waitress. 

If one reads the sentence in its entirety, one would see I was merely making a gender-neutral substitution as the subject of the offending sentence was "anyone," which by its own nature, is, in fact, gender neutral. I simply opted to use one word, "waitperson," instead of using three words "waiter or waitress."

If it also please the court I wish to hearby offer a secondary plea of not-so-temporary insanity, as my preference for gender-neutral words to describe workers in the service industry comes from past traumatic experiences of having been badgered by endless taunts of "_waitress_, bring me more xxx," and "_waitress_, I need more xxx," during my formative years as a Univeristy student. 

Personally speaking, I have only adapted this use for service-level jobs, such as those in the restaurant and/or airline industries. If I were speaking of a female waitperson, I would describe her as "waitress;" likewise, a male waitperson would be "waiter." I also use "server" a lot, as well as prefer "flight attendant" over "stewardess." 

On the other hand, I do not abide by the same gender neutrality when speaking of positions of power, for example: Chairperson. In this case, I would use Chairman or Chairwoman. 

Having no further evidence to present on such matters, the defense rests. 

Now, would somebody bring me a beer?!


----------



## modgirl

We must not forget womyn (women) and herstory (history).  Actually, the use of those terms can be rather potent.


----------



## modgirl

Gen, after that display of a great sense of humor, we all need to *wait* on you and bring you beer!


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> We must not forget womyn (women) and herstory (history). Actually, the use of those terms can be rather potent.



Better potent, I suppose, than himpotent.  Is that what him gets after a histerectomy?


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Better potent, I suppose, than himpotent. Is that what him gets after a histerectomy?


 

  You are bad!  Bad, bad, bad (but quite clever).


----------



## cuchuflete

Your Personship!,

No aspersions on your character or deft command of the language.  I just wonder what's wrong with gender neutral use of the word  'waiters'.  Before about 1970 it was understood to mean both male and female  members of the crew.  Was it sexist to use a word that had been around for so long, and which meant neither more nor less than the collected staff of waitresses and waiters?  

I've had people yell, "Waaaaaaaaiiter!" at me, and it would have been no more nor less aggravating had they called me anything else, with or without possible gender connotations. 

It's in the dictionary. Point taken.   Usage, no matter what the motivation, does find its way into the dictionaries.  

You have committed no crime, nor is this body empowered to pass sentence.

It's not that I find it offensive...I really don't.  I just think it's sort of pointless to invent words just to assuage the sensitivities of political action groups and others whose paranoia or enthusiasm for a cause leads them to seek, and thus find, sexism where there is none.  

There are certainly cases in which real sexist behavior is associated with a word, and thus a new word is called for.  What gets my ewe is when supposedly literate journals like my college alumni magazine start using terms like 'alumni/ae'.  That's plain idiotic.  

You have acquitted yourself well, and if it please the court, this waiter, gender neutrally, will scurry off to fetch you a beer.  



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> AHA! I thought that looked like my offending snippet! And, alas it was. Please pardon my tardiness, I had to research the thread, and post!
> 
> If it please the Court, I offer a plea of no contest and hereby offer my humble defense:
> 
> While I understand such a gender-neutral specific is offensive to other forer@s' grammatical tendancies (and ears), I argue that I have broken no rule, as the offending word _is_ found in modern dictionaries as a suitable substitute for the word waiter, or waitress.
> 
> If one reads the sentence in its entirety, one would see I was merely making a gender-neutral substitution as the subject of the offending sentence was "anyone," which by its own nature, is, in fact, gender neutral. I simply opted to use one word, "waitperson," instead of using three words "waiter or waitress."
> 
> If it also please the court I wish to hearby offer a secondary plea of not-so-temporary insanity, as my preference for gender-neutral words to describe workers in the service industry comes from past traumatic experiences of having been badgered by endless taunts of "_waitress_, bring me more xxx," and "_waitress_, I need more xxx," during my formative years as a Univeristy student.
> 
> Personally speaking, I have only adapted this use for service-level jobs, such as those in the restaurant and/or airline industries. If I were speaking of a female waitperson, I would describe her as "waitress;" likewise, a male waitperson would be "waiter." I also use "server" a lot, as well as prefer "flight attendant" over "stewardess."
> 
> On the other hand, I do not abide by the same gender neutrality when speaking of positions of power, for example: Chairperson. In this case, I would use Chairman or Chairwoman.
> 
> Having no further evidence to present on such matters, the defense rests.
> 
> Now, would somebody bring me a beer?!


----------



## foxfirebrand

I'm married to a long-time waitress who's now a manager in a restaurant where she also "served tables" for some years.  My dislike of the _-person_ constructions should come as no surprise, but it has been softened some by terms like "waitstaff" and yes, even "waitperson."

For one thing, restaurant jargon is impossible to avoid or ignore.  

"Bad night?"
"Not really.  Just one asshole who needed to bitch so bad she kept it up even after we comped her.  And there was nothing really wrong with the food _or_ the service-- what she wanted just wasn't what she asked for, and somehow that had to be someone else's fault.  And the waitperson didn't wanna take that gracefully."

Anyway, obnoxious terms like that do soften after years of use.  Once my wife has settled in and relaxed a little, she reverts right back to English.

Another factor here is, some terms ending in _-ess_ are just as obnoxious as euphemisms.  Why call a female poet a _poetess, _if not to diminish her stature?  Even _actress,_ which doesn't offend my ear, is being replaced by treating the male-specific _actor_ as generic now.  Ignorance of Latin makes possible the lumping of _-or_ terms in with words like "troublemaker," which don't have always been appropriately used to describe women.  _Jew_ is a completely respectable and respectful term, unless delivered with a sneer-- but doesn't _Jewess_ make you cringe?  

Finally, humor can be a factor.  My wife was checking out a problem with one of our rental units, and the roommate of a new tenant (who hadn't met her) said, "Oh, are you the _landperson?_"  We still laugh about that one, and the Godzilla-like menace it conveys.  And such a fondness has evolved for the term, my wife once adopted it as an internet username.

That said, I think of _waitress_ as conoting affection rather than condescention, just as _governess_ conveys something respectful that "nanny" lacks utterly.  I'd hate to see it go obsolete, as could well happen with a word  as serviceable as _server_ in common use.


----------



## cuchuflete

I've been thinking about all the replies I've read here, and the origins of some of the gender neutral terms.  Once upon a time, when discrimination was more blatant and public (I'm not declaring it dead and gone, just reduced or maybe gone underground), there was an overreaction to the discrimination that spilled onto language.  

Words that just _might_ carry a sexual connotation were deemed unfit for further use, and replaced by some pretty awkward stuff.  The intentions were worthy, and the results sometimes less so.  

Rather than lamenting the shift from what for me are already sound and gender neutral words to some strange, odd-sounding concoctions that purport to be more neutral, I simply don't use the latter.  Cabin crew and flight crew are easier on the tongue and ear than stewards, stewardesses, and pilots and navigators.  But poets are still poets, for it is their art and craft I care about, and not their sex.

Some of the best saleswomen I know dislike the gender neutral 'account representative' as much as I dislike being called 'an account'.  I'm a gender neutral customer, thank you very much.  
Reading posts in these forums makes clear that many younger people have little historical and linguistic context older than themselves.  Just imagine the confusion they will create when reading hoary old works by E. Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis and O. Henry.  They will come across words like 'waiters' and assume these to be gender specific at all times.  This should make for some intriguing (old-fashioned term meaning 'what a crock!) literary criticism, or lots of small print footnotes in critical editions. 

The evolution of our language is inescapable.  That keeps it vibrant.  But sometimes I wonder if what we gain always outweighs what is cast aside, for reasons of temporary importance.


----------



## panjandrum

It is too late - too early in the morning - to consult with my restaurant staff specialist.  I'll do that in the morning.

In the meantime, I know she talks of *floor staff* meaning all those who are waiting at table.
I am almost sure that she uses *waiter* and *waitress* as simple descriptive terms with no value judgement at all.
There are (at least) two possible reasons for this.
1)  The need to enforce equality has not yet reached here.
2)  We have gone through the spurious equality concept and come out the other side with simple descriptive terms intact.


----------



## JLanguage

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I guess my opinion of 'waitperson' is obvious by now. What's yours?


 
Unnecessary and awkward-sounding. I remember back in fifth grade we had a school trip where the students in charge of kitchen duties were called "waitrons". I have not heard or used it since then, but according to dictionary.com it is a more appealing alternative to the cumbersome "waitperson". I, however, will continue to use waiter and waitress. That is the standard that despite what some may claim, lacks sexist connotations.


----------



## VenusEnvy

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I remember back in fifth grade we had a school trip where the students in charge of kitchen duties were called "waitrons". I have not heard or used it since then, but according to dictionary.com it is a more appealing alternative to the cumbersome "waitperson".


Wow, Jonathan. Waitron  sounds scary  . . .


----------



## mora

Poetess, sculptress, schoolmistress...gender specific English words for women's occupations that are now considered obsolete. That is the direction the language has been moving, and will continue to move. We still understand these words when we read them, even though we may no longer use them. The most natural way for the language to evolve is for the masculine gender form to come to include both men and women, such as we saw with poet and sculptor, and we are now beginning to see with actor. Waitperson is a ridiculous and quite uneccessary word, because waiter is available, and quite suitable for both men and women. I think we will see a time when all 'ess' suffixes denoting female occupations will seem as contrived as 'poetess'. 

Mora


----------



## modgirl

mora said:
			
		

> The most natural way for the language to evolve is for the masculine gender form to come to include both men and women


 
I agree wholeheartedly.  And, it started out that way!  For some reason, it seems most people think of the pronoun *he* as referring only to males.  However, it also means a person whose sex is unknown.  Unfortunately, that little fact is all but forgotten.


----------



## panjandrum

Consultation result.
The group of people who wait at tables are either *waiting staff* or *floor staff*. This fits with the other categories - kitchen staff and bar staff in particular.
As I suggested, she is quite happy to use, and hear, *waiter* and *waitress* - although neither is actually used very often in the restaurant.

Well, there you go: another comprehensive and unanimous survey, based on a sample size of one


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's be clear as mud here.  The sample was selected by a sampler, sex not stated, word _sampler_ appears to be gender neutral.  The samplee is of unstated sex, and _samplee_ is politically kerrect, if painfully neologistic. The interviewer of the samplee selected by the sample is....correct, based on a sample size of one. 

To keep this post within the style guide requirements of the English Only forum, allow me to point out another AE/BE discrepancy: "...people who wait* at *tables" [BE]  _vs  *on*_ tables.[AE]


----------



## panjandrum

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> To keep this post within the style guide requirements of the English Only forum, allow me to point out another AE/BE discrepancy: "...people who wait* at *tables" [BE] _vs *on*_ tables.[AE]


In BE there would also have people who wait *on* tables, or at least so I am led to understand. This happens at a variety of disreputable establishments.

Curious though - I hadn't really noticed that before.
In BE, "wait on" is more equivalent to "wait for".
Well actually, Panj, you are making a sweeping generalisation there, I am not so sure you are right. I think you should check this before you post.
OK, then, I wll post first then go off to search for a few references.

In the meantime, surely "wait on" is what servants such as "(people) in waiting" do?

It may add a little (though not much) to the credibility of my sample if I mention that she has been in the business as floor staff and manager for many years.


----------



## jess oh seven

i just say waiter or waitress, depending, obviously. or to refer to the job, "waiting". having a word specific to a gender in regards to a job or something isn´t sexist to me. i´d rather be called a "waitress" than a "server". i´m here to fulfill your every wish and serve you!! uh... NO.


----------



## comsci

Speaking of sexist terms, is "server" a good substitute for words like "waiter" or "waitress"?  I've found saying "server" to be a bit awkward and I'd like to know if it's idiomatic to say so.  Comments welcome.


----------



## .   1

I am not sure if the whole waiter/waitress storm in a teacup still exists in Australia but I do not know of another term.

.,,
Maybe I don't go out often enough to really comment.


----------



## comsci

Thanks .,, it's a recall from my high school English teacher that people should avoid using sexist terms but neutral terms whenever possible. e.g. police officer instead of a "policeman", spokesperson instead of "spokesman" The question here is whether "server" an acceptable and idiomatic word to say in places of "waiter" or "waitress" in daily, colloquial English. Do people say it in real life? I'm aware that the use of "waiter/waitress" is still quite common.


----------



## .   1

That is my experience as well.
It came into vogue about a decade ago and has pretty much evaporated by now.
The main people who use them now are politicians and their spin doctors.
I would feel self conscious.

.,,


----------



## foxfirebrand

My wife is a restaurant manager, and all four of my kids have worked in the food industry, growing up.  We use the word _server_ all the time, and I'm sure it's the default vocabulary term among young people-- in this relatively un-PC part of the country.

People my age still use _waiter_ and _waitress,_ and these terms have equal weight with _server-- _asked what kind of job they have, young people will just as likely say "I'm a waiter."

_Waitperson_ is by no means unheard-of, especially among the university crowd (the state U is in a nearby town), and another collective term used (mostly in the industry) is the _wait staff_, or just the _staff._ 

If you address a server as "waiter" or "waitress" you won't get a negative reaction on that account-- just don't say it in too peremptory or bossy a tone, please.  I don't think "server" is too common in this vocative sense.
.


----------



## comsci

Ok, so maybe it's an ideal thing to do but not so much practical in real life. I don't want to go into chat but maybe it has something to do with some feminism movements decades ago. It's especially hard for an ESL speaker to judge whether to use or NOT to use certain terms. Yikes!!

Point taken Fox and I always ask for a person in a gentle tone.


----------



## foxfirebrand

comsci said:
			
		

> Ok, so maybe it's an ideal thing to do but not so much practical in real life.


I think this is a good general description of "politically-correct" language.  English usage isn't proscribed by an _Académie,_ but the "PC police" can be faulted for trying to get away with exactly that approach, in their zeal to bring about social change.

The majority of speakers will not adopt the majority of PC changes the "social engineers" try to foist onto the language, and the ones that _are_ used are often used facetiously, or to parody the kind of people who always try to stay up-to-date with fads and trends.
.


----------



## southerngal

comsci said:
			
		

> Thanks .,, it's a recall from my high school English teacher that people should avoid using sexist terms


 
Whether your teacher believes this or not, there are actually two sexes!  The problem is that somewhere along the line, people somehow forgot that _he_ has the meaning of a person whose sex is unknown.




			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I think this is a good general description of "politically-correct" language. English usage isn't proscribed by an _Académie,_ but the "PC police" can be faulted for trying to get away with exactly that approach, in their zeal to bring about social change.


 
I agree.  Sometimes a person gets so wrapped up in _his_ or _her _or _their_ use of which word to use in _his_ or _her_ or _their_ vocabulary so that _he_ or _she_ or _they_ end up sounding somewhat ridiculous in _his_ or _her_ or _their _language skills.   

Maybe we should lobby for a change in the word *mother*.  It's sexist!  Oh wait, so is *father*!  If we can have *herstory*(instead of *history*), then we should have *fathim* instead of *father*....


----------



## comsci

That's why when my teacher first introduced these "neutral terms" that don't coincide with the norm students(native speakers) in her class including me as an ESL speaker were overwhelmed by it. You've made your point very clear and I understand it quite well. After all, there's nothing wrong with using neutral/PC/up-to-date terms but the majority of speakers won't necessarily comply, that's all.

Even among native speakers, preferences vary.

Thank you for all your input, it's really helpful.


----------



## comsci

southerngal said:
			
		

> Maybe we should lobby for a change in the word *mother*. It's sexist! Oh wait, so is *father*! If we can have *herstory*(instead of *history*), then we should have *fathim* instead of *father*....



Please...let's not go into these non-sense.


----------



## jimreilly

southerngal said:
			
		

> Whether your teacher believes this or not, there are actually two sexes! The problem is that somewhere along the line, people somehow forgot that _he_ has the meaning of a person whose sex is unknown.
> 
> *I have not forgotten that the tradition is to use he when the gender of a person is unknown; it is impossible to forget such a thing when it still so common. But I prefer to use he or she, or, sometimes, in informal writing s/he. I do this because I feel it is simply polite to do so, not politically correct.*
> 
> *I use waiter or server when the server is male, waitress or server when the server is female, server when I don't know which gender the person is (it might be impolite to check!) and servers when referring to servers as a group. This is neither difficult nor awkward.
> 
> Discussions carried to extreme points like fathim really don't help us very much, and very few people continue to use herstory.  Things tend to sort themselves out after a while.
> 
> I just came back from a Board of Directors meeting of an organization which has traditionally been composed of more women than men, and which deals more often with women than men. Men like me are still relatively recent arrivals in the organization. The women there were very polite and routinely used she or he when they could have very easily said she and let me do the necessary translating in my head. Their language was natural and only rarely self-conscious. I appreciate their consideration and good manners.
> *


----------



## comsci

Nice input, Jim.


----------



## rsweet

I don't think there's much feminist fuss made over words like _waiter_ and _waitress,_ but there is a problem with professions that have only a male version, such as _policeman, fireman_, etc. Using terms like _police officer_ and _firefighter_ are not only PC, they are also more accurate since these jobs are now performed by both men and women.


----------



## southerngal

I agree with your examples, rsweet.  However, when the word _person_ is a replacement for _man_, then some words just sound ridiculous.


----------



## panjandrum

Please see a lot of relevant comment from last September that is now at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## comsci

Thanks Panj. and sorry for not digging into it first before opening a new thread.


----------



## ewie

I was mildly reassured today to learn that the England femalepersons' football team are happy to call themselves _The Lionesses ~ _well, it's catchier than _The Footballplayingfemalelionpersons._

_(No, it's not wildly relevant ~ just thought I'd mention it.)_

EDIT: (To say something relevant) I would never in a million years use the term _server_ which, like AmE _little person_, strikes me as more of a _dys_phemism than a euphemism.


----------



## Parla

> I would never in a million years use the term _server_ . . .



How do _you_ refer to the person who *serves* you your food in a restaurant?


----------



## Rover_KE

comsci said:


> Speaking of sexist terms, is "server" a good substitute for words like "waiter" or "waitress"?  I've found saying "server" to be a bit awkward and I'd like to know if it's idiomatic to say so.  Comments welcome.


I find 'server' to be just fine, and use the word myself without the slightest trace of awkwardness.


----------



## ewie

Parla said:


> How do _you_ refer to the person who *serves* you your food in a restaurant?


I not only refer to them as _waiter/waitress_ but  actually address them as that too ~ I've yet to have one spontaneously explode on me with 'offence'


----------

