View Single Post
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Jan-15-19, 11:32
CityGirl8 CityGirl8 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 701
 
Plan: Protein Power, IF
Stats: 238/204/145 Female 5'8"
BF:53.75%/46.6%/25%
Progress: 37%
Location: PNW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
On a side note, when I first read the original Star piece, I stopped at the "the women" and thought that, while it may be a correct characterization of the CCTN group (if individuals in the group are all women, no men) or even of the two women interviewed (the two doctors are indeed women), it gave me the impression that it wasn't a very serious group as a whole. You know, it's just a bunch of women (or just a couple of women), as opposed to what the group is actually composed of in context - physicians and health professionals, both genders (I checked, it ain't just a bunch of women). I'm not sure how else to explain this impression I got. Got it. Imagine if the two persons were men, the group was the same (both men and women, physicians and health professionals), and the phrase started with "the men" or "the dudes" or "the guys", or even if nothing was different but the two women were referred to as "the chicks" or "the gals". The two women interviewed are indeed women, but that has exactly no bearing whatsoever on the topic of the Star piece, the group's purpose and goals or its composition.


I had the same reaction. It made it sound like it was just a couple of women with no qualifications sitting around a kitchen table staging a letter writing campaign.

But I wonder how much of that is me? When I hear people described by their gender do I assume that they're less qualified. As someone who was raised as a vocal feminist, it's a horrifying thought. Still, if their qualifications were given earlier and the sentence said "the men," I'm not sure I would have noticed anything.
Reply With Quote