An exchange that wouldn’t have been at all surprising in, say, 1950:
"Jo,
As much as I appreciate your reply, I think this manuscript is perahps [sic] too heavy for you.
Don't get me wrong, I am not remeaning [sic] your professionalism, it's just VERY profound and maybe too much for a female to edit.
A delicate mind I do not want editing this.
Best regards,
Etc"
Jo Caird called on deep reserves of patience to respond:
"Dear Etc,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Thanks too for your candid (not to mention eloquently expressed - although I believe the word you were looking for was 'demeaning', not 'remeaning') appraisal of my intellectual and professional capabilities. It's reassuring to me, as a 'female' (again, I believe you mean 'woman') of delicate sensibilities and feeble judgement, to know that considerate gentlemen such as yourself exist to protect me from that which I lack the depth of character to understand.
As to how you've assessed that I am too weak-minded to work on, or even indeed to read, your manuscript, given that we have never met, or even spoken on the phone, I can only speculate. I wish you, in any case, all the best with it.
Have a lovely weekend.
Kind regards,
Jo"
H/T to Tim Harford for the link.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JoCaird, Nicholas Russon. Nicholas Russon said: Old stereotypes can still thrive in niche ecologies (@TimHarford) – http://is.gd/g1zdu […]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Old stereotypes still thrive in niche ecologies « Quotulatiousness -- Topsy.com — October 14, 2010 @ 13:18