A recent recipient of a post-graduate university degree made the papers by insisting that her diploma read: Mistress of Arts. The implication was that to adopt the ''masculine'' form of Master of Arts would be to submit to patriarchy.

Once again the feminist pendulum swings irresolutely between denying the importance of gender, and emphasizing it. My sister prefers to be known as an actor, not an actress. But isn't actor the masculine form? Should there be a neutral term: ''acter,'' perhaps? But then what do we call a waiter? ''Waitor?''

It strikes me that there is no need for any dogmatism on behalf of either masculine or feminine forms. But neither should we yield to anarchy. The rule should rather be: 1. Use a feminine form where femininity is clearly relevant. 2. Use the male form where gender is irrelevant, unknown or ambiguous.

If this sounds suspiciously traditional, it is - mostly. The strongest argument for male usage in the generic is precisely that ''the world is changing.'' It is the most graceful way of skipping over the question of gender, where the sex of the person is irrelevant. The use of only one gender in such cases does not imply masculinity, if that is neither intended nor understood by the convention. And what is intended and understood by convention changes with time and circumstance.

Words have no meaning but what we give them; they cannot stand on their own. If ''chairman'' ever meant ''man,'' it cannot possibly do so today - pronunciation alone ought to be a clue to where the emphasis lies. The point is especially clear when the title precedes a feminine name: ''Chairman Mary Smith.'' And the more times we see ''Chairman Mary Smith,'' the more will we understand it means ''Mary Smith is in the chair,'' not ''Mary Smith is (or ought to be) a man.'' Call her ''chairwoman,'' and she's not in the chair, she's a woman.

This is not a blanket condemnation of gender distinctions. The criterion should be relevance. There might be some worth in keeping the distinction between ''actor'' and ''actress'' - they do, after all, play different roles. But ''poetess'' has deservedly fallen into disuse.

A good rule of thumb is: Does the word describe the person or their position? ''Businessman'' and ''businesswoman'' probably serve a useful purpose, for the persons so described are commonly of interest for their individual characteristics, amongst which is certainly their sex. But a ''chairman'' or ''spokesman'' is a rank, defined only with reference to an organization. Since either man or woman may and do occupy such posts, gender is irrelevant.

Possibly because they are so hideous to the ears, such neologisms as ''chairperson'' and ''spokesperson'' have been singularly unsuccessful in winning popular acceptance. A text search shows ''spokesmen'' quoted in The Post over the last five years outnumber ''spokeswomen'' by 10 to 1, and ''spokespersons'' by 50 to 1. Moreover, when ''spokesperson'' is used, it's three times as likely to be a woman as a man. Who's fooling whom, here?

Social circumstances change, and language follows, sometimes by the emergence of new words, more often through evolution in the meaning of existing words. The language is littered with words that mean something entirely different today than they did two centuries, or in some cases two decades, ago. Indeed, I dare say almost every word has changed in meaning in some degree.

Ideological word-fiddling, on the other hand, is based on the opposite belief: that changes in society flow from changes in language. It is impossible to produce even one example of such linguistic determinism at work. The rising status of women in society must inevitably neuter once masculine forms. No one yet was ever imprisoned by a dictionary.

By calling attention to gender, where gender ought properly to be ignored, linguistic engineering only achieves the opposite of what its proponents would desire. Consider this example: ''He who laughs last laughs best.'' Change that to: ''He or she who laughs last laughs best'' and immediately gender enters the mind, where before it was absent. Questions arise: Which do you mean, men or women? Are you sure women are as likely to laugh best when laughing last as men? Perhaps some sort of study is required.

Long usage and convention have effectively buried gender in such instances; changing sex roles in society have made such sublimation altogether appropriate, implying not the exclusion of women, but the unimportance of gender; substituting gender-specific or stilted ''neutral'' terms is therefore not only inappropriate, but counterproductive.