I refer to Mark O'Neill's 'Model modern Chinese woman now deal-maker' (Sunday Money, September 23). I was completely flabbergasted that a modern-day journalist could write what seemed to be a sympathetic and positive profile of a successful Chinese businesswoman (for most of the article) but then finish with the following: 'When the two [Ms Yang, the successful Chinese businesswoman, and her husband, Mr Wu] go to parties, the most common introduction for Mr Wu is as the husband of Yang Lan. 'When I hear this, I ache a little, but the feeling passes after two seconds,' he said. 'I am proud of my wife.' To make up for this, Ms Yang treats Mr Wu as the chief executive at home. 'I do more of the chores, being a parent and doing household repairs.''
It seems the journalist is trying to put this woman in her place, evidenced by another comment: 'If she is more famous than her husband, he wins in terms of education and business experience' which is followed by a list of his achievements. My expectation after reading the headline was that it would be a profile of a successful Chinese businesswoman, not her husband. Is it the journalist's main intention to assuage the sensitive male ego?
ANNA-LISSA HAYWARD
Sheung Wan
