firstfrost: (Default)
firstfrost ([personal profile] firstfrost) wrote2008-06-04 10:55 am

Women in Media

This article is really bugging me:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/06/02/the_write_time/

It's about women getting their PhDs while having children. Which is a fine thign to write about, and there are some interesting points in the article. The thing that is bugging me is that as far as I can tell, the article assumes that having children is *entirely* a woman thing.

I'm sure that women are still the ones doing the majority of the child-rearing. But I think that's a different statement than something like "Doctoral candidates are more likely to have babies these days for the simple reason that women make up a greater percentage of doctorate recipients than they did 30 years ago" which seems to take as a logical given the fact that having babies is something that women have to deal with and men do not.

In addition, I honestly cannot tell if the article is about three single mothers pursuing PhDs. There is absolutely no mention of a father, or any other partner, anywhere in the article, but neither is there a mention of a lack of one. I don't want to suggest that the idea of raising a child on one's own is what I object to, but I can't tell whether that's what they're doing, or if that's just what the article assumes that they're doing because the fathers couldn't possibly be relevant to the subject.

[identity profile] harrock.livejournal.com 2008-06-05 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
My experience with writing is that details and nuances can very easily turn into yak-shaving expeditions, and as far as I can tell, that's about the last thing any editor wants to see. So I can see someone in the author's position having the reflex of chopping out complication at all costs.

But it does make for an interesting guessing game about the actual facts and the author's thought process.