It has been previously discussed here that serious stories—like those about, say, domestic violence, multigenerational parenting, gender bias and sexual harassment, stalking, and rape—frequently end up in the NYT “Fashion & Style” section (and the fashion/style/life/living/etc. sections of various other papers) because “style” sections are disproportionately staffed by female writers, who use whatever platform they’ve got to write serious stories. So I want to make it clear I’m not knocking the writer of this piece (who is, indeed, a woman). This is an editing failure. It’s a failure of relegating women disproportionately to the “style” sections in the first place, and it’s a failure of letting pieces that are demonstrably not “style” content run under that header, which ultimately has the effect of marginalizing the content. Stories about women, or gay couples, are “special interest” stories only in cultures where privileged classes are not expected to treat members of those populations as their equals. (via Shakesville: Is this story stylish, or fashionable?)
I <3 Shakesville.
