I’m all for this idea I just don’t see why it says woman instead of person. But, of course, this is the very same mistake men made. That’s why I decided to use this: to illustrate that no one means to exclude anyone when they make an affirmative statement. So it wasn’t that men historically left women consciously out of things like voting any more than this writer intended to leave men out of this statement. She’s not saying that men can’t have this experience. But when she wrote this it simply never occurred to her that it unnecessarily left men out. And this woman will certainly have a father and possibly brothers, maybe a mate and male children. So really good people can be accused of being heartless when in fact their actions are quite innocent. I recently heard a policeman say that after he left the Baltimore police force he could see that their day-to-day violence was largely unnecessary. It was an actual attack on law-abiding citizens by the government. But at the time he didn’t see himself as the government or them as citizens. He saw it as necessary or unnecessary to doing the job. We can get angry about that, or about gross male privilege or angry feminism, but that just creates more divisions. It’s better that we just focus on the positive intents of peoples messages and then we can do the rewrites ourselves. Because as in this case, it might say it’s for women but C. Joybell C. did write something that’s useful for all of us.