4 ms·
That's an article specifically about differences. It's even in the title. Women are being used as a contrast. They are not omitted from the majority of the disc
by xenihn 7y ago
That's an article specifically about differences. It's even in the title. Women are being used as a contrast. They are not omitted from the majority of the discussion. That omission comes with the implication that a set of problems is exclusive to one group, instead of those issues being shared between both (with different degrees of severity).
>Anxiety problems can look different in men. When people think of anxiety, they may picture the excessive worry and avoidance of frightening situations that often plague those who suffer. These afflict men, too. But there’s a growing recognition among psychologists that men are more likely to complain of headaches, difficulty sleeping and muscle aches and pains. They are more likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety, so what looks like a drinking problem may actually be an underlying anxiety disorder. And anxiety in men often manifests as anger and irritability.
This paragraph is also about women, even if they are not explicitly labeled.
>They (men) are more likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety
Also means
>(Women) are less likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety
You can use this for the rest of the article in order to determine how the author views anxiety in both genders. It's not an exclusionary discussion or analysis. You should be able to understand this from the title alone.
You picked a pretty bad example. Maybe you can find something better if you dig a bit deeper. I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't find something further back in my comment history :)
- krapp 7y agoOk, I think I understand. You'll object to any woman-focused article that doesn't explicitly limit its topic to issues which only affect women, unless it also gives equal time to men for any issue conceivably shared by both genders? Still seems a bit pedantic and defensive, but ok. >Maybe you can find something better if you dig a bit deeper. I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't find something further back in my comment history :) Not worth the effort, I didn't need to look deeper to find your particular bias on this subject, but thanks for conceding my point.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]