

Titles - ambler0
http://daringfireball.net/2014/05/titles

======
zachlipton
Gruber's second footnote really sums it up for me:

"You know you’re in poor company when you’ve chosen the same word as
Valleywag’s Sam Biddle, who describes Cotton as “the queen of evil tech PR” in
his headline, and quotes an anonymous source who describes her as “wicked
witchy”. Jiminy."

Even by Valleywag's phenomenally low standards, an anonymous source describing
a female executive as "wicked witchy" is atrocious.

~~~
Khaine
I think its really interesting. I did not associate any of the words gruber
did with Queen. I think if you don't have those negative associations, then
the usage does not appear sexist.

I can understand why people might think that its sexist, I can also understand
how it can be used in a manner that the writer did not intend to be sexist.

I struggle with this. Most of the time its hard enough to convey the message
you want, without then having to second-guess every word you use to see if
someone somewhere might consider it offensive in some way

~~~
ambler0
Well I think Gruber himself actually summed it up quite well:

"There’s almost never a good reason to use a different word to describe a
woman’s job than the words you’d choose if the position were held by a man."

I don't think it really matters what specific connotations you personally have
for the word "queen". What matters is how the conversation subtly becomes
about the person's gender instead of their job in these articles.

