The Times article on Emily Bridges part 3:
The current version of the article has been amended. Fair Play for Women pointed out an error 9 hours ago.
That sentence has been deleted.
He or an editor must have changed it. He’s grumpy about it though.
It…wasn’t shouty.
Anyway. Section 195.
Section 195 ftw.
Comments
4 responses to “Shouty”
Of course it was shouty. After all, aren’t women always shouty and shrill, unless they are meekly answering men’s questions the way the men want them answered? A woman spoke up for women, she was shouty.
And “journalists” wonder why we call them stenographers. Just report, don’t analyse, don’t dig, don’t seek the truth.
I can imagine his boss might now very well be shouty. I would be if he were working for me and screwed up that badly on a reporting job. In public. In my paper.
In one of Deborah Tannen’s books she writes about the idea that ‘women talk too much’–at the end she mentions that women are perceived to ‘talk too much’ not compared to men (because obviously we don’t) but compared to silence.