I think this person not caring about the artists’ genders is important to be critical of. They clearly didn’t read the article, and neither had I before I edited this comment. So let’s talk about their first impression of the title.

What emphasis OP places on what they learned today is totally separate from the emphasis placed within the article. OP’s verb here is “hand-painted,” their emphasis is what really should determine whether they needed to put “female artists”

The way they put the “, by female artists” makes it seems like they learned that the frames were handpainted, not and that their status as females is a secondary piece of information.

So OP did not learn that feminine people were underpaid and uncredited in the workplace, therefore the TIL does not need the “female artists” to get the point across lol. The title is very broken English though

A question to ask ourselves: Why care what they’re gonna title it if we’re all gonna interpret this discussion and article our own ways? Especially if the intended main idea of this article is different than the observation(s) in this TIL.

So these artists being women is historically significant, for sure. Even though women have been major contributors since the beginning of time, the record has primarily been held by men so … ooh big shocker … the record has discounted women on most accomplishments.

I think that change in the cultural meaning of womanhood is reflected in u/WhoDidThat97 not giving a fuck about the artists being “female.” We’d all like to hope that gender/sex are not presently significant to artistic expression that is irrelevant to ones identity. Similarly, some would like to pretend that sexual and gender discrimination-alike are not presently significant in regards to artistic expression. However they are and have been, especially when it comes to work.

But I get it, my first thought when I saw this title was “oh by FEMALE artists?” I then realized that it makes most sense that they’d be referring to gender, in terms of gender discrimination, but female is also used to describe sex so it can be a bit confusing. I wasn’t looking at it from a 1902 perspective of gender until I read the article, neither was WhoDidThat. Only difference is this is an article that is.

If you want to understand history, you have to understand the structures of the past. You have to look at history through social meaning of the past, especially if you want to understand how they continue to shape the present.

So if gender is not a structure you see to matter in the present: cool, pass that on so we all get treatment in the workplace without regard to how we express. Doesn’t mean we can overlook the remnants of that structure and how it shaped/shapes things.

Also, the use of gender and sex interchangeably can be kinda confusing

“Female” as an adjective for a woman who is an artist vs “Female” as an adjective for someone who is female.

So my understanding is that sex is often a part of gender but gender is rarely ever a part of sex

Idk

tl;dr English tricky language, We all do our own thingy!!!