I see your point and I agree with the majority of it.
Amsterdam has a very long history of mayors dating back to the 14th century. This is this first woman to be elected, that's a news story.
This is this first woman to be elected, that's a news story.
That's where we disagree. Being the 'first female' anything isn't noteworth by itself. Not anymore.
It would have been relevant information to include in the article. But it is very patronizing to put it in the headline.
Is that all this woman has to offer the city? Is there nothing to her other than her gender?
Wouldn't her views, plans, or political associations be more important, and relevant, than her genitals?
The title worked to get me to look into her politics. I have never spent this much time on Dutch politics, ever. Now I know what party she's with and other tid bits about the Dutch and their elections.
The opposite.
My whole point is that women are not children, and they don't need a cookie or a pat on the head because they no longer act in a subservient way.
They are equals. Saying "That's good for a woman" is insulting and condescending.
I think this article is offensive to woman because it is praising a woman for doing what wouldn't be noteworthy if it was a man.