| Hi Deb, First of all, thank you for your e-mail—we always appreciate feedback, although I’m sorry you feel this way. Along with you and Lorna, yes, I agree, we should’ve included “Go Home To Your Husband,” but as the anecdote was told from “Jason’s” perspective, it only made sense, and the latter didn’t occur to me even when I proofread the column. (I’m glad Lorna smiled, though!) The actual point of the column was to portray how a young professional in this field (who happens to be male) may suffer due to the time constraints and demands of his profession—it wasn’t intended to imply that women in the field aren’t undergoing the same circumstances.
David Mantey and I in no way meant to exclude or marginalize women. I myself know the battles we must face, especially in a male-dominated industry. I deal with it at every trade show and industry event I attend. Also, this is an actual account rather than a story fictitiously spun to make a point. The wife of “Jason” is, in reality, a pharmacist and a young professional herself. The difference is she makes it home in enough time from work to fulfill plans. More specifically, she wasn’t just waiting at home for her husband, she and company were waiting on his late arrival to go to dinner.
While women liking to shop and men footing the bill, I must admit, is a stereotype, it was an innocent reference. Just because the men paid the bill doesn’t mean the women didn’t contribute. As far as how it “got through,” I thought it was a wonderful column that many readers—both men and women—would relate to, and by the response we’ve gotten so far, I still think it holds true. I will, however, be sure to be more sensitive to how some readers may interpret columns in the future. Once again, I apologize that we offended you, and I’ll be more careful in choosing how women are represented in this industry in the future. Thanks once more, and please don’t hesitate to contact me with any more concerns. I’d like to address this issue head-on. - Carrie Ellis, Editor |