[DanBC]

>I never asserted that a text can't be overtly (even offensively) male gendered. That part I agree with. However, the over-zealous post-modernism rewrite does not always make the end result gender-neutral. On the contrary, the article shows that the end result looks silly and idiotic.

You didn't read the study, did you?

[jasode]

I did. I contend you're reading too much into the study by American Psychological Association by the authors Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay called, “Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality.”

They polled 96 random women.

The study in its limited form did not (or even try to) differentiate the characteristics of any women who would find terms such as "intimate" in an engineering post as patronizing and incongruous.

I'd prefer not to alienate those type of women. To do so would run counter to the objectives the article is trying to promote!