We have been asked to continue the discussion on the journalists of the Daily Telegraph using colour designations such as “nude” and “blush” in a thread of its own, so like a good little member, I’m starting it in case others want to comment on it.
It has been said that the royal family embracing Meghan and her mum as family members shows a new openness for a multi-coloured society on the parts of the upper classes in the UK.
I contend that the Daily Telegraph is NOT there.
@BunsenBurner , @lookingforward, the Telegraph journalist(s?) used the term “nude” precisely for the pale beige accessories (shoes and handbag) Oprah Winfrey sported. No way no how does “nude” in any way match her skin tone. There is nothing “neutral” (or, as a matter of fact, “nude”) about it, and it should have stared ANYONE in the face.
Nor would Serena Williams at any time of year blush to the colour of her pale pink dress. Though in this case l might give a fashion journalist a pass for not realising what “blush” actually means. Well, they should really, but might not.
No pass on “nude”. It’s “neutral” on white people and no one else, and disregards the existence of people of colour in the world of fashion.
Getting of my soapbox now. I was so sure I was pointing out an obvious faux pas but apparently default white skin colours are still common usage?
I think anyone can take offsense at anything. When most people hear the word nude as a color they know what color that is—light tan/bone color no matter what color their skin happens to be. Same with blush as a color most people envision a soft pinkish color. Lots of common color names are derived from things seen in everyday life. Plus nude can denote a spectrum of shades as can blush as can a color like royal blue or gray or brown or yellow or turquoise or fushia. But the words are so common people get a visual connotation. If people visualize nude as the color of a fair skinned person does it really matter? I say not so much. If designers use nude in a portfolio of nylons they may have a range of colors to fit different skin types but they probably aren’t all called nude individually because nude is already ascribed to a light color. They might have nude, tan, brown, ebony or something like that and almost all people can grasp where that is on the color spectrum. It is not an imperative of any kind to try and create a new vocabulary in my opinion.
I guess I consider nude and blush to be colors. No question they got the names for those colors from white people, but sky blue is a color and the sky can be blue or gray or white or red or orange. Sky blue is still sky blue even if it is a dress or painting or sofa. There are blush roses, and to me that is a certain shade of pink.
In my life, Crayola determined the names of colors. and I so desperately wanted the box of 64 with the built in sharpener.
Yeah. Google. There are entrepreneurs making “nude” lingerie in shades from beige to dark brown.
I didn’t look past that or the Laboutins, but I’d bet it goes further.
Well, nude just means naked.
My native language uses the equivalent of “skin-coloured”, and yes, when I google image that word, I get lots and lots of pale beige underwear, with just the occasional full spectrum of human skin colours in pantyhose.
Granted, immigration from Sub Saharan Africa is a very recent phenomenon, but still…
It was awkward at first to say flight attendant instead of stewardess and mail carrier instead of mailman, but we got used to it. And now, if the flight attendant on your next flight is a man or your mail is delivered by a woman, it feels normal. The words are part of that feeling. If the job titles hadn’t been changed, a female mail carrier or male flight attendant might still seem deviant.
The same thinking applies to color designations that imply that skin tones other than those of light-skinned Caucasians are deviant. There are other words that can be substituted with no loss of meaning and a gain in inclusiveness.
Not really in my opinion, mailman is still very common whether your deliverer is a male or female. The words that transitioned easier were the words that already had male/female derivatives like actor/actress or steward/stewardess or waiter/waitress. Nude is just a color description. Someone might come up with a single word that conjures up the right visual concordance but I am not holding my breath.
I think it’s funny that when I’m doing drafting work for a company, I’m referred to as a “drafter” but the guys who do the same type of work are referred to as “draftsmen.”
In many cases, we didn’t need to convert to a female form. Remember how awkward it was to say chairwoman or patrolwoman when simply “chair” would have done it. We were self conscious, then. We could have said patroller, but nooo.
Many actresses prefer actor. Ie, without the gender connotation.
So if you Google, you’ll see nude in various skin tones. The time has come. Fine by me.
Men could be called drafters. It may be who says draftsman that explains it.
(Remember when many of us were assumed male based on our posting style?)
Oh, I know that men could be called drafters. I’ve just noticed that if someone is referred to as a drafter in a conversation, I’m pretty sure it’s a woman!
Interestingly, the gender distinctions are asymmetric here, at least now. Dictionaries commonly define “actor”, “steward”, and “waiter” as a “person who …” (i.e. not gender-specific), but “actress”, “stewardess”, and “waitress” as a “woman who …” (i.e. female-specific). There are probably some who use only the former terms regardless of the gender of the person in question, while others use both types of terms, using the former terms in a male-specific manner distinct from the latter terms that are female-specific.
