<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Audiences on The Findings Report</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/audiences/</link><description>Recent content in Audiences on The Findings Report</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:58:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/audiences/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>When Labels Matter</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/2017/03/12/when-labels-matter/</link><pubDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:58:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://www.findingsreport.com/2017/03/12/when-labels-matter/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Each and every day, we use labels in our communications. Half the time, we’re completely unaware of how frequently we’re using labels as a shorthand, or how much meaning may be packed and inferred by a simple word or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I was struck by this reality while reading &lt;a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/gloria-steinem-women-have-chick-flicks-what-about-men.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSteinem%2C%20Gloria&amp;amp;action=click&amp;amp;contentCollection=timestopics&amp;amp;region=stream&amp;amp;module=stream_unit&amp;amp;version=latest&amp;amp;contentPlacement=2&amp;amp;pgtype=collection"&gt;an excellent op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem in &lt;em&gt;The New York Times&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; a week ago. She challenged our use of the phrase &lt;em&gt;chick flick&lt;/em&gt;. Most people use “chick flick” to refer to a genre of movies that supposedly appeal to women more than men—usually romantic comedies and love stories. Though I much prefer Steinem’s definition:&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>