memory, spin, (on flaunting one's sexuality)

I had originally intended to write a post that started with an article about how female doctors who wear clothes which emphasize their secondary sex characteristics get less respect from patients than other doctors. This would have been an example of how women in general take flack for wearing “racy” clothes in professional (and, for that matter, nonprofessional) contexts. I would have gone on to discuss how traditional male garb (that is, formal men's clothes, such as suits and dress shoes) also serves to emphasize secondary sex characteristics: height, breadth of shoulders, etc.

This is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21essa.html
"When Young Doctors Strut Too Much Of Their Stuff"
by Erin N. Marcus, M.D.
November 21, 2006
The New York Times

The reason I'm not writing that post (sort of) is that when I went back to find the article, I discovered something odd. It leads with a collage of photos of (presumably) female doctors in “racy” clothes. But if you pay attention, the one study it cites remarks that patients prefer that white coat to either “racy” female clothes or formal male clothes. (Various anecdotes do concern specifically feminine clothes). It's interesting, then, the way the story is spun, and the way I remembered it: those pictures fixed in my mind the point of the story; the words (the facts) did not.