Pink pink pink pink pink


Recommended Posts

Wherein the author reveals his misogyny. He supposes. And if you insist. Not really being sure if he minds that much.

I had a pink epiphany today at the supermarket. Right smack dab in the middle, it seems, of National Women's Health Month or some such locus on the calendar, wherein the politicians probably promulgated pointless proclamations, which is what they should be doing, rather than actually running our lives ... but I digress.

Every other friggin' product had pink on the label. Progresso soup, Lever body wash, Ritz crackers, milk, soda, every damn thing on my list, or so it seemed.

Now, it's not that I hate pink. Well, actually, I do. This despite a film musical I adore, "Funny Face" (reworking the Gershwins' songs, mostly, around Fred Astaire's dancing). It has mag editor Kay Thompson rhapsodize in the opening number about how she wants to set the trend — this being the conformist 1950s, not the conformist 2000s — to "think pink," in everything from toothpaste to beach balls to, this being a satire on haute couture, women's fashion.

My mother, requiescat in pace, adored pink. Apart from a stuffed bunny rabbit at age four, I never did. I came to rebel at her incorporating it into the house furnishings. It's been banished from my flat.

What tries my soul now, every Autumn, is the run-up to attention being paid to women's health, all garlanded in corporate stabs at pink. Remarkably similar in color hue and saturation, as it happens, which doesn't seem to be a high priority the rest of the year and over the rest of the spectrum.

It didn't get under my skin quite as badly before now. Perhaps because something called the Susan G. Komen Foundation seems to, in the past two or three years, have acquired a relative monopoly on private charitable turns, at least in the field of breast cancer research. The meme is "... for the Cure." 10K Fun Run for the Cure. Sirloin Burger Soup for the Cure. Pillsbury's XXX Flour for the Cure.

Anything repeated this endlessly, especially in that nauseating, not-quite-Pepto-Bismol shade of pink, has to eventually induce overload. When I passed a free-standing pink display from 20th Century Fox Home Video that had specially-pink-packaged discs labeled "DVDs for the Cure," I finally lost it.

This is a full month of attention, with a multi-corporate juggernaut emblazoned in PINK, for an undeniably deadly disease. I really don't begrudge this cause that attention, on one level. I've had relatives and friends who've suffered from breast cancer. A friend left to raise his children alone because of it.

Why, though, isn't even a fraction of this coordinated attention, in color, phrasing, or donation conduits, focused on prostate or testicular cancer?

I have come to wonder if men's health is being dismissed as not really mattering much, in this respect. Prostate cancer gets its ten days of donations at the grocery check-out donation jars, with no further publicity or anything beyond a pro-forma mention on one store poster.

Breast cancer gets the PINK special labeling on thousands of products. "Donate Now!" exhortations surrounding the touchscreen payment panels. Displays of donation cards in the front of the store. Huge, multiple posters. Mentions in the weekly store ads taking up nearly a quarter newspaper page. Constant announcements of Susan Komen Wants You for the Cure on the store tannoy.

It's unbalanced, to say the least, and it's finally getting to me. Can it be simple pandering to the supposed overwhelming female demographic in grocery stores? One that, from my own experience, is hardly lopsided — as I've gathered from shopping at all times of the day, night, and week.

I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille, as a troglodyte and bigot. I just can't see why this is happening, and I confess my ignorance at any more profound trend. All I know is that men's and women's cancers are just as deadly.

I wonder anew each year at what message this is saying to boys, already being battered by statists who want to take away the initiative and danger that they used to thrive upon in developing character grist. Are they now to assume, accompanying their mothers to the grocery, that only women's health arouses needed concern from the general culture? What does that say about setting their own priorities?

Maybe I'm just pinked out.

Edited by Greybird
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherein the author reveals his misogyny. He supposes. And if you insist. Not really being sure if he minds that much.

I had a pink epiphany today at the supermarket. Right smack dab in the middle, it seems, of National Women's Health Month or some such locus on the calendar, wherein the politicians probably promulgated pointless proclamations, which is what they should be doing, rather than actually running our lives ... but I digress.

Every other friggin' product had pink on the label. Progresso soup, Lever body wash, Ritz crackers, milk, soda, every damn thing on my list, or so it seemed.

Now, it's not that I hate pink. Well, actually, I do. This despite a film musical I adore, "Funny Face" (reworking the Gershwins' songs, mostly, around Fred Astaire's dancing). It has mag editor Kay Thompson rhapsodize in the opening number about how she wants to set the trend — this being the conformist 1950s, not the conformist 2000s — to "think pink," in everything from toothpaste to beach balls to, this being a satire on haute couture, women's fashion.

My mother, requiescat in pace, adored pink. Apart from a stuffed bunny rabbit at age four, I never did. I came to rebel at her incorporating it into the house furnishings. It's been banished from my flat.

What tries my soul now, every Autumn, is the run-up to attention being paid to women's health, all garlanded in corporate stabs at pink. Remarkably similar in color hue and saturation, as it happens, which doesn't seem to be a high priority the rest of the year and over the rest of the spectrum.

It didn't get under my skin quite as badly before now. Perhaps because something called the Susan G. Komen Foundation seems to, in the past two or three years, have acquired a relative monopoly on private charitable turns, at least in the field of breast cancer research. The meme is "... for the Cure." 10K Fun Run for the Cure. Sirloin Burger Soup for the Cure. Pillsbury's XXX Flour for the Cure.

Anything repeated this endlessly, especially in that nauseating, not-quite-Pepto-Bismol shade of pink, has to eventually induce overload. When I passed a free-standing pink display from 20th Century Fox Home Video that had specially-pink-packaged discs labeled "DVDs for the Cure," I finally lost it.

This is a full month of attention, with a multi-corporate juggernaut emblazoned in PINK, for an undeniably deadly disease. I really don't begrudge this cause that attention, on one level. I've had relatives and friends who've suffered from breast cancer. A friend left to raise his children alone because of it.

Why, though, isn't even a fraction of this coordinated attention, in color, phrasing, or donation conduits, focused on prostate or testicular cancer?

I have come to wonder if men's health is being dismissed as not really mattering much, in this respect. Prostate cancer gets its ten days of donations at the grocery check-out donation jars, with no further publicity or anything beyond a pro-forma mention on one store poster.

Breast cancer gets the PINK special labeling on thousands of products. "Donate Now!" exhortations surrounding the touchscreen payment panels. Displays of donation cards in the front of the store. Huge, multiple posters. Mentions in the weekly store ads taking up nearly a quarter newspaper page. Constant announcements of Susan Komen Wants You for the Cure on the store tannoy.

It's unbalanced, to say the least, and it's finally getting to me. Can it be simple pandering to the supposed overwhelming female demographic in grocery stores? One that, from my own experience, is hardly lopsided — as I've gathered from shopping at all times of the day, night, and week.

I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille, as a troglodyte and bigot. I just can't see why this is happening, and I confess my ignorance at any more profound trend. All I know is that men's and women's cancers are just as deadly.

I wonder anew each year at what message this is saying to boys, already being battered by statists who want to take away the initiative and danger that they used to thrive upon in developing character grist. Are they now to assume, accompanying their mothers to the grocery, that only women's health arouses needed concern from the general culture? What does that say about setting their own priorities?

Maybe I'm just pinked out.

You are quite observant. Now, being a male, what would be the color for male health?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Steve, you are quite right that women's diseases are getting more public attention than men's diseases. But I think what we're witnessing is a backlash. That is, for a very long time men and the illnesses of men tended to be the main focus of medical research and public attention, while women, relatively speaking, were ignored. Now, because of protests against this man-focused approach, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Presumably, one can hope that eventually some sort of balance will be achieved -- and you will no longer be pinked out. Or perhaps you'll become pink and blued out.

By the way, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was created by a man, the actor husband of a young woman who died of breast cancer.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are quite observant. Now, being a male, what would be the color for male health?

Luscious female! I mean, thinking about one! Photo that and get your color!

--Brant

Pink! <evil grin>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, you are quite right that women's diseases are getting more public attention than men's diseases. But I think what we're witnessing is a backlash. That is, for a very long time men and the illnesses of men tended to be the main focus of medical research and public attention, while women, relatively speaking, were ignored. Now, because of protests against this man-focused approach, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Presumably, one can hope that eventually some sort of balance will be achieved -- and you will no longer be pinked out. Or perhaps you'll become pink and blued out.

By the way, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was created by a man, the actor husband of a young woman who died of breast cancer.

Barbara

Barbara, you may be right about the relative focus on men's health issues in the past, compared with the clear shift towards women's health issues in recent years.

However, throughout the whole time period, the average lifespan for both men and women has been increasing. More significantly, throughout the whole time period, women have enjoyed (?) a greater average lifespan than men, by several (5 or so) years.

That being the case, why would there be any justification for a "backlash" from women??? More importantly, if "equity" is the standard, why shouldn't there a ~continuing~ emphasis on men's health (relative to women's)?

If the lifespan "have-nots" are the ones in need of more "attention," isn't it obvious that this greater focus on women's health issues is just rubbing salt in the wounds of those (men) who already are being left in the dust, lifespan-wise?

I also keep hearing that women own well over 50% of the wealth in the world. I don't know if this is true. But if it is, then they seem to have cornered the market on both biological and financial well-being! So, bully for them -- but where's mine? :poke:

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbara, you may be right about the relative focus on men's health issues in the past, compared with the clear shift towards women's health issues in recent years.

However, throughout the whole time period, the average lifespan for both men and women has been increasing. More significantly, throughout the whole time period, women have enjoyed (?) a greater average lifespan than men, by several (5 or so) years.

That being the case, why would there be any justification for a "backlash" from women??? More importantly, if "equity" is the standard, why shouldn't there a ~continuing~ emphasis on men's health (relative to women's)?

If the lifespan "have-nots" are the ones in need of more "attention," isn't it obvious that this greater focus on women's health issues is just rubbing salt in the wounds of those (men) who already are being left in the dust, lifespan-wise?

I also keep hearing that women own well over 50% of the wealth in the world. I don't know if this is true. But if it is, then they seem to have cornered the market on both biological and financial well-being! So, bully for them -- but where's mine? :poke:

REB

Roger, I don't know -- and I don't think anyone else does -- why women tend to outlive men. One could reasonably say that this should be an object of study and research. But it really isn't relevant that generally women outlive men if breast cancer, for instance, which kills women even in their twenties and thirties, was being ignored while the cancer rates for men were falling because of growingly sophisticated research. Since the earliest days of medical research, women's maladies were almost totally ignored. And those diseases that were relevant to women were studied only because they also occurred in men. In the blind tests of drugs, methods, etc., the patients were almost always exclusively men. That's why there has been a legitimate cry on the part of women that their diseases, too, be studied and investigated.

I remember that when I was diagnosed with breast cancer, in 1993, my first thought was: "Thank heavens it's the 1990's!" I thought that because of the quite recent work that had been done in the fleld, and in diseases of women generally. Surely you recall that it was not long ago when "women's troubles" were not even mentioned in polite society, and it was not expected that the medical profession would pay much attention to them.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbara, you may be right about the relative focus on men's health issues in the past, compared with the clear shift towards women's health issues in recent years.

However, throughout the whole time period, the average lifespan for both men and women has been increasing. More significantly, throughout the whole time period, women have enjoyed (?) a greater average lifespan than men, by several (5 or so) years.

That being the case, why would there be any justification for a "backlash" from women??? More importantly, if "equity" is the standard, why shouldn't there a ~continuing~ emphasis on men's health (relative to women's)?

If the lifespan "have-nots" are the ones in need of more "attention," isn't it obvious that this greater focus on women's health issues is just rubbing salt in the wounds of those (men) who already are being left in the dust, lifespan-wise?

I also keep hearing that women own well over 50% of the wealth in the world. I don't know if this is true. But if it is, then they seem to have cornered the market on both biological and financial well-being! So, bully for them -- but where's mine? :poke:

REB

Roger, I don't know -- and I don't think anyone else does -- why women tend to outlive men. One could reasonably say that this should be an object of study and research. But it really isn't relevant that generally women outlive men if breast cancer, for instance, which kills women even in their twenties and thirties, was being ignored while the cancer rates for men were falling because of growingly sophisticated research. Since the earliest days of medical research, women's maladies were almost totally ignored. And those diseases that were relevant to women were studied only because they also occurred in men. In the blind tests of drugs, methods, etc., the patients were almost always exclusively men. That's why there has been a legitimate cry on the part of women that their diseases, too, be studied and investigated.

I remember that when I was diagnosed with breast cancer, in 1993, my first thought was: "Thank heavens it's the 1990's!" I thought that because of the quite recent work that had been done in the fleld, and in diseases of women generally. Surely you recall that it was not long ago when "women's troubles" were not even mentioned in polite society, and it was not expected that the medical profession would pay much attention to them.

Barbara

Oh, absolutely. I am very glad that large segments of our society no longer have to "live in the shadows" or be relegated to second-class citizenship or human status. Women, gays and lesbians, racial and ethnic minorities, and others are getting the consideration that they were long denied, and this is all well and good.

As for tests of drugs, etc. being almost exclusively done on men, I wonder if this wasn't more just part of the thinking that led many to think that women should not be in combat. You know, it's incumbent on men to take on the protector role and run the risks, including not only combat but also potentially dangerous drug testing.

Part of this thinking derives from the paternalistic mind-set, that women are the "weaker" sex, and it is men's role to defend them by standing in harm's way.

But I think there is a level of psychology/temperament that underlies even this. Men, as a whole, simply ~seem~ more willing (or even determined?) to engage in risky behavior, despite increasing efforts by pacifist-minded educators and sociologists to drill it out of young boys. This alone, I think, goes a long way toward explaining why women tend to outlive men -- and why they eventually ~won't~, if they keep pressing for more medical attention than men, and for boys to stop being...boys! :-)

I don't think there was much mention of prostate or testicular cancer in the "old days" either -- and those are not exactly "women's troubles." :-) Thank goodness that we have had considerable progress not only in simply acknowledging and tackling these problems, but more importantly, in finding better treatments and achieving higher cure rates.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Women tend to outlive men because they are less susceptible to cardio-vascular disease. There is very little cardio in my ancestry and the men live into their 80s and 90s. The women have had it tougher overall for non-germane reasons, but Mom is now 93.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
Women tend to outlive men because they are less susceptible to cardio-vascular disease. There is very little cardio in my ancestry and the men live into their 80s and 90s. The women have had it tougher overall for non-germane reasons, but Mom is now 93.

--Brant

And cardiovascular disease has a huge lifestyle component so it probably means men treat their bodies worse than women, in general. I believe CV disease is on the rise in women and has been for quite some time probably due to more women working outside the home and falling prey to the same lifestyle problems men have developed - eating poorly, smoking, drinking, not enough exercise etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Women tend to outlive men because they are less susceptible to cardio-vascular disease. There is very little cardio in my ancestry and the men live into their 80s and 90s. The women have had it tougher overall for non-germane reasons, but Mom is now 93.

--Brant

And cardiovascular disease has a huge lifestyle component so it probably means men treat their bodies worse than women, in general. I believe CV disease is on the rise in women and has been for quite some time probably due to more women working outside the home and falling prey to the same lifestyle problems men have developed - eating poorly, smoking, drinking, not enough exercise etc.

Women are protected by estrogen until menopause, then they have to play catch up to the men for heart attacks. Doesn't mean anything you've said is wrong, just additional. 105 boys are born to 100 girls, assuming no abortions, to compensate for male fragility and risk taking and blockheadedness: "Yes, women smarter, in every way"!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very interesting and lovely piece of ivory sculpture. It's called "The Doctor's Lady" -- and it is of a very elegant, only partially clad woman lying down. The story behind it is that the doctor, who is not shown, stands behind her so that he can see her only from the back; she is facing away from him, so that she cannot see him at all. The doctor must examine her and diagnose her illness only by touching, from behind, the sexless, clothed parts of her body. The shamefulness of her half-naked body and and of what they are doing cannot be mentioned or acknowledged.

As you can imagine, the doctor's ability to diagnose her illness, however talented he may be, is nonexistent. But this is what the mores of the time required. Women of the period must indeed have been hardy in order to survive past childhood.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a very interesting and lovely piece of ivory sculpture. It's called "The Doctor's Lady" -- and it is of a very elegant, only partially clad woman lying down. The story behind it is that the doctor, who is not shown, stands behind her so that he can see her only from the back; she is facing away from him, so that she cannot see him at all. The doctor must examine her and diagnose her illness only by touching, from behind, the sexless, clothed parts of her body. The shamefulness of her half-naked body and and of what they are doing cannot be mentioned or acknowledged.

As you can imagine, the doctor's ability to diagnose her illness, however talented he may be, is nonexistent. But this is what the mores of the time required. Women of the period must indeed have been hardy in order to survive past childhood.

Barbara

I read somewhere that women in the late 19th C. America had a one in seven chance of dying giving birth.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a very interesting and lovely piece of ivory sculpture. It's called "The Doctor's Lady" -- and it is of a very elegant, only partially clad woman lying down. The story behind it is that the doctor, who is not shown, stands behind her so that he can see her only from the back; she is facing away from him, so that she cannot see him at all. The doctor must examine her and diagnose her illness only by touching, from behind, the sexless, clothed parts of her body. The shamefulness of her half-naked body and and of what they are doing cannot be mentioned or acknowledged.

As you can imagine, the doctor's ability to diagnose her illness, however talented he may be, is nonexistent. But this is what the mores of the time required. Women of the period must indeed have been hardy in order to survive past childhood.

Barbara

I read somewhere that women in the late 19th C. America had a one in seven chance of dying giving birth.

--Brant

Around 1900 a doctor had about a 50 50 chance of helping a patient in extremis as opposed to hurting him (her).

President McKinley died from the infection following his gunshot wound. The best doctors in the world could not save him.

The son of President Coolidge died of an untreatable infection.

For all the wonders of modern medicine the biggest advances by far came from public sanitation and antibiotics. The reticent doctor Barbara referred to probably couldn't have done much for his patient regardless of the amount of physical access. When that would have made a big difference you can be sure that the women patients told their doctors to cut out the BS and get on with the exam.

Patients have historically demanded the latest from their doctors, even if it killed them.

The best doctors do their best primarily by listening to their patients, not physically examining them inch by inch.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real sin done to women by doctors is by treating them as inferior beings and doing to them what they would never, could never, do to men. Like the total hysterectomy they did to aunt on about 1920 merely because she was an epileptic. They ruined her as a human being and she spent most of the rest of her life in the Ohio State (mental) hospital. Her father had a lot to do with that, but his intentions were good. Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
The real sin done to women by doctors is by treating them as inferior beings and doing to them what they would never, could never, do to men. Like the total hysterectomy they did to aunt on about 1920 merely because she was an epileptic. They ruined her as a human being and she spent most of the rest of her life in the Ohio State (mental) hospital. Her father had a lot to do with that, but his intentions were good. Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

--Brant

The frequency of total hysterectomies in the past is a medical disgrace. One wonders if the complementary operation on a male would have been diagnosed to easily and frequently...

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites
The real sin done to women by doctors is by treating them as inferior beings and doing to them what they would never, could never, do to men. Like the total hysterectomy they did to aunt on about 1920 merely because she was an epileptic. They ruined her as a human being and she spent most of the rest of her life in the Ohio State (mental) hospital. Her father had a lot to do with that, but his intentions were good. Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

--Brant

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." I think it should be "than," but I don't like it either. I hate grammatical rules; most of them are incomprehensible garbage. Who/whom? I just go by how it reads. Does anybody appreciate besides me the dictatorship of the grammarians?

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." [....]

The correct word there is "than," but your sentence has a problem of misleading word order as well. I think what you mean is that women have been more screwed over than men by doctors. ;-)

Grammar Nazi

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." [....]

The correct word there is "than," but your sentence has a problem of misleading word order as well. I think what you mean is that women have been more screwed over than men by doctors. ;-)

Grammar Nazi

___

This suggestions works, but it still sounds a bit creaky. Here are two other possible ways to improve the clarity:

1. More women than men have been screwed over by doctors.

2. More women have been screwed over by doctors than have men. (one extra word)

Bonus facetious rewording: More women have been screwed over by doctors than by men. :-)

Grampa Nazi

Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." [....]

The correct word there is "than," but your sentence has a problem of misleading word order as well. I think what you mean is that women have been more screwed over than men by doctors. ;-)

Grammar Nazi

___

This suggestions works, but it still sounds a bit creaky. Here are two other possible ways to improve the clarity:

1. More women than men have been screwed over by doctors.

2. More women have been screwed over by doctors than have men. (one extra word)

Bonus facetious rewording: More women have been screwed over by doctors than by men. :-)

Grampa Nazi

I'd go with 2. as sounding best to my ear, but I think we need a new word: "thean."

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." [....]

The correct word there is "than," but your sentence has a problem of misleading word order as well. I think what you mean is that women have been more screwed over than men by doctors. ;-)

Grammar Nazi

___

This suggestions works, but it still sounds a bit creaky. Here are two other possible ways to improve the clarity:

1. More women than men have been screwed over by doctors.

2. More women have been screwed over by doctors than have men. (one extra word)

Bonus facetious rewording: More women have been screwed over by doctors than by men. :-)

Grampa Nazi

Problem with your 1st and 2nd suggestions, Roger, is that you changed the meaning of what Brant wrote. I first gave the 1st as better alternate wording, and then edited upon realizing that I had changed Brant's original statement. He said "more screwed over," not "more women." These aren't the same. It could be that in particular medical instances, women receive more "screwing over" than men do without any implication as to whether more particular women than men receive such "treatment." One is a statement of comparative quality of particular interactions; the other a statement of comparative quantity of particular patients of the respective sexes receiving poor treatment.

Further wrinkle: Brant's not noticing that you'd changed the meaning now makes me wonder if what he meant to begin with was your suggestion instead of what he initially said!

The bonus facetious rewording is of course why I told him he still had a problem with misleading word order; the original was ambiguous as to whether a "by" was implied before "men."

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] Historically you can be sure women have been more screwed over by doctors then men. That means by men, of course; they rule the roost--or they are allowed to think they do (by women).

Can somebody help me here? I don't know if I should have used "than" here or "then." [....]

The correct word there is "than," but your sentence has a problem of misleading word order as well. I think what you mean is that women have been more screwed over than men by doctors. ;-)

Grammar Nazi

___

This suggestions works, but it still sounds a bit creaky. Here are two other possible ways to improve the clarity:

1. More women than men have been screwed over by doctors.

2. More women have been screwed over by doctors than have men. (one extra word)

Bonus facetious rewording: More women have been screwed over by doctors than by men. :-)

Grampa Nazi

Problem with your 1st and 2nd suggestions, Roger, is that you changed the meaning of what Brant wrote. I first gave the 1st as better alternate wording, and then edited upon realizing that I had changed Brant's original statement. He said "more screwed over," not "more women." These aren't the same. It could be that in particular medical instances, women receive more "screwing over" than men do without any implication as to whether more particular women than men receive such "treatment." One is a statement of comparative quality of particular interactions; the other a statement of comparative quantity of particular patients of the respective sexes receiving poor treatment.

Further wrinkle: Brant's not noticing that you'd changed the meaning now makes me wonder if what he meant to begin with was your suggestion instead of what he initially said!

The bonus facetious rewording is of course why I told him he still had a problem with misleading word order; the original was ambiguous as to whether a "by" was implied before "men."

Ellen

___

It's such an honor to be deconstructed.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now