To whom does the first sentence of this NYT review refer?
Few relationships are as complex as that between a living author and his biographer. In a startling recent example, Nadine Gordimer — the South African writer who helped bring the world’s attention to the evils of apartheid and won the 1991 Nobel Prize for her efforts — had a bitter falling out with Ronald Suresh Roberts, the young biographer to whom she had granted extraordinary access during his five years of research.
One has to admire the NYT’s paleolithic style for its wholly successful combination of obfuscation and misogyny. Apparently, even in an article about a Nobel laureate, the NYT’s world is a place where men are still the only ones whose deeds merit comment — and, therefore, if someone other than a man accomplishes a deed that merits comment, she must be referred to as a man.
I know stuff like this is nothing new. But it’s still stupid, and still infuriating.
And the article was, apparently, written by a woman. Sheesh.
From today’s Chronicle: “Any time a new board member starts his tenure at our college, I jump at the chance to offer my own version of orientation.”
Since we’re talking about board members for universities, I realize that we’re very likely going to be talking about a man, but still.