![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Observation
Jan. 22nd, 2005 07:42 pmI was just leaning against the radiator (for good reason - the house is bloody freezing today, and I do wish I knew why as my toes feel like they're about to drop off) and half-looking out of the window, half-reading a magazine open on the windowsill. It was this week's Time magazine, to be more specific, open at a double page article about the science of sleep, and I was only really skimming it because I'd read it before. While I was standing there, I happened to look at a supplementary part to the main article - a first person account, with the reporter's name, "Andrew Sullivan." And I blinked. I was sure that article had been written by a woman.
I'm avoiding Biology revision, you understand; much more fun to stand by a warm radiator and puzzle over why I thought that article had been written by a woman when I first read it. It seemed natural to look more carefully at the picture, but that wasn't an awful lot of help; it showed a gender non-specific figure with two pillows over their head. So I did the obvious thing, and read the article again, looking through it line by line wondering if I habitually made assumptions about the gender of a writer by the style of the writing. It's a good article - about sleep apnoea - but because of its being a first-person account of one person's experience with the affliction, has a distinct author's voice and style. I had no objection to reading it again.
And then I got to the inevitable section describing how difficult it is to self-diagnose sleep apnoea, because, well, it happens when you're unconscious. It's generally people around you who realise you have it, rather than you yourself. The writer in question had only discovered he had it on the advice of "[my] long-suffering boyfriend."
I blinked again. Ah.
I'm not going to come over all philosophical about it - I have no time; Biology is going to kill me where Chemistry failed - but I thought it was an interesting observation to have made, both about society's ingrained assumptions in general and the way my mind, at least, unconsciously picks up cues. Ever since Rice-Oxley went through that phase of experiementing on us (she objected to my calling it human experimentation) and made me aware that my own mind works slightly unusually (it took several rounds of Kim's Game to come to this conclusion) I've been interested in this.
In other, unrelated news - Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, M*A*S*H, Desperate Housewives (which I've been meaning to watch), Frasier (ditto) and Battlestar Galactica (ditto) are all on tonight. I have an exam on Monday.
And, oh, yes - Angel DVDs on the floor by my feet. Argh.
Also on the argh front - started playing with the iPod today, only to find I can't, because this computer runs on Windows ME and the software wants XP. Grrr. Argh.
I'm avoiding Biology revision, you understand; much more fun to stand by a warm radiator and puzzle over why I thought that article had been written by a woman when I first read it. It seemed natural to look more carefully at the picture, but that wasn't an awful lot of help; it showed a gender non-specific figure with two pillows over their head. So I did the obvious thing, and read the article again, looking through it line by line wondering if I habitually made assumptions about the gender of a writer by the style of the writing. It's a good article - about sleep apnoea - but because of its being a first-person account of one person's experience with the affliction, has a distinct author's voice and style. I had no objection to reading it again.
And then I got to the inevitable section describing how difficult it is to self-diagnose sleep apnoea, because, well, it happens when you're unconscious. It's generally people around you who realise you have it, rather than you yourself. The writer in question had only discovered he had it on the advice of "[my] long-suffering boyfriend."
I blinked again. Ah.
I'm not going to come over all philosophical about it - I have no time; Biology is going to kill me where Chemistry failed - but I thought it was an interesting observation to have made, both about society's ingrained assumptions in general and the way my mind, at least, unconsciously picks up cues. Ever since Rice-Oxley went through that phase of experiementing on us (she objected to my calling it human experimentation) and made me aware that my own mind works slightly unusually (it took several rounds of Kim's Game to come to this conclusion) I've been interested in this.
In other, unrelated news - Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, M*A*S*H, Desperate Housewives (which I've been meaning to watch), Frasier (ditto) and Battlestar Galactica (ditto) are all on tonight. I have an exam on Monday.
And, oh, yes - Angel DVDs on the floor by my feet. Argh.
Also on the argh front - started playing with the iPod today, only to find I can't, because this computer runs on Windows ME and the software wants XP. Grrr. Argh.
