I appreciate the value of the illustrations, but it would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that women are merely materialistic, assessing prospective mates solely on their net worth. Geek communities are often not friendly places for women—some readers will accept the assumptions for the sake of argument, but some are likely to take offence.
Edited when MixedNuts pointed out how confused the original version was. My apologies.
it would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that women are not merely materialistic, but assess prospective mates solely on their net worth
That deep stacking of negatives is confusing. Did you mean: “This version assumes that women are materialistic—worse than just materialistic, it assumes that women assess prospective mates solely on their net worth. It would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that.”?
Sorry, I left an extra “not” and an extra “but” in. What a horrible sentence—I apologize.
Did you mean: “This version assumes that women are materialistic—worse than just materialistic, it assumes that women assess prospective mates solely on their net worth. It would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that.”?
I appreciate the value of the illustrations, but it would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that women are merely materialistic, assessing prospective mates solely on their net worth. Geek communities are often not friendly places for women—some readers will accept the assumptions for the sake of argument, but some are likely to take offence.
Edited when MixedNuts pointed out how confused the original version was. My apologies.
That deep stacking of negatives is confusing. Did you mean: “This version assumes that women are materialistic—worse than just materialistic, it assumes that women assess prospective mates solely on their net worth. It would be good to find a version that doesn’t assume that.”?
Sorry, I left an extra “not” and an extra “but” in. What a horrible sentence—I apologize.
Yes—thank you.