At the Gazette, that paper’s editorialist has a new editorial entitled, Our Views: Support K. Andreah Briarmoon and her ramblings at your own risk (subscription req’d).
Readers may recall that I’m opposed to Ms. Briarmoon’s light and trivial discussion of litigation – it’s a serious matter, worthy of careful reflection. Ms. Briarmoon takes a more casual approach, but casual has no place in litigation; I reject her method.
See, on this point, A Game It’s Not.
(I’ve also felt that the Gazette probably uses stories about Ms. Briarmoon to make municipal critics, generally, look silly.)
Still, why does the editorialist begin, in each of five consecutive paragraphs, with a description of her as ‘this woman’?
This woman suggested….
This woman lost….
This woman keeps….
This woman has lost….
This woman wants….
I often wonder, after reading a Gazette editorial: Can this be the product of an editorial board? Could more than one person possibly have thought this was any good?
As a rhetorical effort, the editorial is another failure, and the repeated emphasis on her gender is simply overdone.
A more insightful writer would also have understood that there’s a context to ‘this man’ and ‘this woman’ that’s different, as women have not had the same opportunities in society. One might wish that the context were the same, but we do not yet live in the conditions of gender equality.
The Gazette‘s editorials are often deficient, in reasoning and composition, but here I think we find a worse perspective, whether by ignorance or intention.
Ms. Briarmoon, it seems, isn’t the only one with a problem of understanding.