Was it necessary to put female in the title?

[classic33]

Because all the other threads don't say male cyclist down.

Yesterday at 22:22
Was covered by a seperate paper, so why post the same incident twice?

 

[Dan B]

Not sure how relevant this is but reading back issues of a local newspaper from the '70s it was remarkable how just about any story featuring any woman mentioned in whatever context would contain a description of her appearance and probably her marital status. So something like: 'Blonde Lawyer Wins Case. The petite 30-year-old said: "..." etc
These 'simple descriptors' betray and surely reinforced a (perhaps) unthinking attitude of 'she's successful but take heed ladies and listen up gents cos this is the important bit, she's a bit of a looker and one day there's a fair chance she'll pack it all in and have a man's children.'
There's no way that same paper would write stuff like that these days and that's cos people questioned it. Others wouldn't have given it a second thought until then.
Going back to the OP, 'Was it necessary to put female in the title?' is an excellent question. I say that as a feminist who tries not to be sexist but probably fails more often than he thinks.

This. Risex4, take note

 

[craigwend]

 

[MarkF]

Yes MarkF, your assumption is pretty normal, but that doesn't make it unassailable. Can you explain exactly why it might have been "an appropriate time to use an adjective"?

It was already, clearly, explained in the post you quoted?

 

[Risex4]

This. Risex4, take note

Of what?

As I said, sexism requires context, either in the tone or body of what is said.

These people understand where I'm coming from and that's enough for me. As for the rest of you, either you're trolling or you're never really going to get it because frankly you might not have enough of those four (OK three, the last one's a bit of a mishmash) adjectives, and to be honest I can't be arsed to explain it any further.

Oh, I see. Because I don't adhere to your point of view, I instantly may not be intelligent, thoughtful or sensitive. Thats genius.

 

[srw]

I admire your tenacity Adrian, but I really wouldn't bother.

How long before YellowTim finds this thread?

 

[srw]

Of what?

As I said, sexism requires context, either in the tone or body of what is said.

So the context of the culture we live in doesn't count?

 

[marknotgeorge]

OK everyone. People I know personally - and people I know only through here but have a positive feeling about through their general style of posting - understand what I meant in my OP. The ones I know personally are intelligent, thoughtful, sensitive, and of an egalitarian cut of jib, so I'm making the assumption that the others are similar.

These people understand where I'm coming from and that's enough for me. As for the rest of you, either you're trolling or you're never really going to get it because frankly you might not have enough of those four (OK three, the last one's a bit of a mishmash) adjectives, and to be honest I can't be arsed to explain it any further.

Ouch. There's a big wodge of Disapproval right there. Just as I was beginning to see where you were coming from. I'm still not sure I completely agree, and I don't like the implications much - it makes communication (not especially my forté as I'm sure you've gathered) even more difficult for one thing. And the reason I don't is not because I lack any of the big four - I suspect I've too much of at least one - but because I'm pretty literal in my thinking.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Not Disapproval, just exasperation. Like I said, I can't be arsed.

If you'd had this attitude and ignored potsy's harmless mistake, it would have stopped me disliking your posts even more. You do seem to come across as argumentative and opinionated, to me anyway.

 

[MarkF]

User13710, after a few earlier less than grown up responses from yourself, when you subsequently asked a poster "Do try and be a bit more grown up in your responses.", it wasn't a surprise to see you quickly move to "Can't be arsed".

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Ha! So predictable, and what has being a woman got to do with it? True colours are showing perhaps?

 

[MarkF]

That's because I have explained what I mean very clearly, more than once, to many people's satisfaction, and I'm not prepared to keep on doing so.

Nah, You lost it way back.

Calm down! What a lot of hysterical men on this thread.

 

[marknotgeorge]

Not Disapproval, just exasperation. Like I said, I can't be arsed.

Ah. Well, in my personal lexicon, Disapproval is a catch-all for all kinds of negative reactions...

... and I'm overthinking the rest of the sentence.

 

[Risex4]

Calm down! What a lot of hysterical men on this thread.

Sexist. Reported.

God forbid that a woman should be argumentative and opinionated!

Sexist. Reported.

 

[Spinney]

This has run its course and descended to name calling - thread locked.

I was thinking this as you posted, User30090...