we have... just as we do...

We have a large number of actors, just as we do with actresses.

Yes.

HifaMoHi,We have a large number of actors, just as we do actresses.Is the sentence above correct?Thanks.

It is too elaborate for the meaning.The reader wonders what would have been lost by using a simple "and": We have a large number of actors and actresses.

Also, it is strange to see "do" echoing "have". Having is not something we normally actively

Could anyone else comment on this?

The original sounds a bit unnatural to me. There's also the point that may female actors these days do not like to be called 'actresses'.

What's wrong with 'We have a large number of actors'?

SurferWe have a large number of actors, just as we do with actresses.

No

SurferWe have a large number of actors, just as we do with actresses.

That doesn't sound right...

fivejedjonThe original sounds a bit unnatural to me.

Strange ... the original sounds just fine to me (at least, for someone, like me, who still thinks of "actors" as being male).

fivejedjonThe original sounds a bit unnatural to me. There's also the point that may female actors these days do not like to be called 'actresses'.What's wrong with 'We have a large number of actors'?

The OP wasn't asking whether it was politically correct. Maybe it's a line of dialogue meant to be spoken by a Hollywood sexist pig.

enoonThe OP wasn't asking whether it was politically correct. Maybe it's a line of dialogue meant to be spoken by a Hollywood sexist pig.

Fine. I can only deal with the information given.

Learners, especially those who speak languages in which the word used for a job title will depend on the *** of the person performing the job, need to know that this