Also, kudos for wariness on "witch hunts". The desired long-term goal here is for people to be treated the same regardless of gender. It'd be easy to get distracted from that.
I strongly dislike like the way this article implies men are the only perpetrators of sexual harassment and women are the only victims, but fundamentally the idea of corporations allowing for the idea that we can be biased and need to recuse ourselves because of our weaknesses is a good one.
I felt the same exact way. Though we know sexual harassment is abundantly happening where a man is the harassing party, this article seems to imply that all men are fundamentally flawed.
It would be interesting to know why you think that. IIRC, I talked about "if you are a victim of sexual harassment" and carefully avoided gendering that part. As best I could, I framed it as "Currently, men are primarily the ones in positions of power and we currently have a climate that is actively vilifying men in general and I would like to not see us keep going down that road." Given that I am advocating we not go down a route of witch hunts actively looking for men to accuse, I don't see how I could have written that part without gendering it at all.
So specifics as to why it sounds that way to you (or anyone who felt it sounded that way) would help me improve my writing.
Cool to talk to the writer directly. You're first selected quote is indeed not gendered. I could not find your second quote. Perhaps that is from another piece you wrote?
The article overall is very gendered: 14 instances of the word "woman" nearly all in the context of women being victims, none as perpetrators, and no mention of men as victims.
7 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 32.1 ms ] threadAlso, kudos for wariness on "witch hunts". The desired long-term goal here is for people to be treated the same regardless of gender. It'd be easy to get distracted from that.
So specifics as to why it sounds that way to you (or anyone who felt it sounded that way) would help me improve my writing.
Thanks for commenting.
The article overall is very gendered: 14 instances of the word "woman" nearly all in the context of women being victims, none as perpetrators, and no mention of men as victims.
The second one is not a quote. It is more like a TLDR of the overall article.