Slightly off topic: Are there no male executives left in the world? All that politically admirable use of 'she' was linguistically very jarring, and an unnecessary distraction from a fine article. Have we not pretty much agreed on 'they' as being the gender-neutral acceptable alternative to 'he'?
If the idea of female executives it that shocking to people, it's probably a good idea to sometimes use a female gendered "generic" executive. Had the author said "he" rather than "they" I highly doubt that anyone would have made this comment. Further if they had, any complaints about it would be ridiculed as overly feminist or sensitive.
A lot of people fine the use of a collective pronoun (they) for a singular generic to be extremely jarring. The argument against using "they" is actually pretty good - as when it is unexpectedly countered it can cause confusion in the reader, causing her to re-read the sentence wondering what this group that suddenly appeared is. Even when readers know the modern usage of they/them, they will be caught off guard.
Until we all can read "she" in a "male role" and notice it as odd, or until there is a singular, gender-neutral, non-dehumanizing pronoun (calling people "it" is bad too), the use of "she" for generics is a darn good idea.
Well - except in traditionally female roles, then perhaps we should use "he" as the generic pronoun. (e.g. talking about daycare providers, nannies, nurses, etc as "he" in the generic gets equally weird responses).
Using "she" is confusing in a similar way as using "they" - just to a lesser degree.
If typical executive is a male, then using "she" needlessly attracts reader's attention due to the unexpected word usage.
Granted, using "she" helps making overall idea of female executive more acceptable, but main focus of this article is "hiring experienced/old employees", not "shifting cultural norm to making females more acceptable for executive roles".
This is disingenuous to an appalling degree. How does shifting the cultural norm happen if not by doing things that aren't (currently) the cultural norm? Why does one have to toe a line when she doesn't find that OK?
Equally disingenuous is the notion that the author must strip out everything not related to the point as you dennisgorelik sees it (as opposed to the author keeping exactly what the author wants to keep in the article). Perhaps in an article about finding the right experienced employee, where a major theme is "you have to look at it a bit differently than you'd expect", the use of the unexpected gender is a subtle reinforcement point. But sure, people who write never try to use multiple methods to get the idea across - that would be silly and go along with everything most writing courses/books/guides suggest. It must be a political agenda.
