…And it’s not that I think the authors of the aforementioned gaffes are vicious, deliberate misogynists. It’s more that they were raised in a culture – as we all were – that has almost no idea how to process competent women (see also: America’s current presidential election). You can feel a faint confusion pulsing behind every word. A girl … doing things!?

….DON’T spend more time discussing female athletes’ makeup, hairdos, very small shorts, hijabs, bitchy resting faces, voice pitch, thigh circumference, marital status and age than you spend analysing the incredible feats of strength and skill they have honed over a lifetime of superhuman discipline and restraint.

DON’T refer to women in terms of men they know, are related to, work with or have sex with. Women are fully-formed, autonomous people who do things. We are not pets or gadgets or sex-baubles.

Of course, there is plenty of smart, nuanced, neutral Olympics coverage out there too, and live TV is hard, and people make mistakes. But the way we talk about women – particularly women at the top of their fields, women whose power and prowess is undeniable – has a tangible impact on the way we treat female colleagues, female job interviewees and female presidents. This is not an accident. It is the system working as designed.

Athletes are athletes. If you care about sports, write about sports. If you care about gender equality, write about sports.

How to talk about female Olympians without being a regressive creep – a handy guide | Lindy West | Opinion | The Guardian

“We are not pets or gadgets or sex-baubles.” Ha, classic!