In the context of paragraphs, the sentence might be clear; but standing alone, the intended interpretation of the sentence is ambiguous.

Grammatically, the reader should look to the immediate antecedent of a pronoun to identify its meaning. They”, rather than’men’, is preceded by ‘they’; absent any other context the reader should conclude that women are fostering the belief that men are in the top job. An author should write so clearly that readers don’t need to pause and deconstruct the grammar of a sentence.

I want to speak up and revise the book. How can women make a man think he is in charge of his own

• affairs?
• How can I make my boyfriend feel like he is in charge?
• Can women let men think that they are in charge?
• Like all women, she had the ability to make men think they are in charge, especially when they use her as their partner.
• Is it true that women are learning to lead while still letting men in and out should men not be involved in anything?

Personally, I think the construction “have the ability” is clunky, direct, and ineffective, so I would use an active expression like the final example above.

.

I agree that it’s ambiguous, since there are two possible antecedents for “they”: “women” and “men”. Is this shock surprising? How does the pronominalization work? What is that question?

I posted an answer to an aforementioned question on Quora, in order to give some context for the question. William Cantrall discovered that the pitch agreement between antecedent and pronoun could sometimes determine the intended reference of a pronoun. What was described in a paper read to the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) in the late 60s?

I tried saying the phrase with falling pitch on “men” and “they”. I tried saying the example sentence. This still seems to me to be ambiguous. What should I do? Which are falling pitch on “women” and rising pitch on “men” and “they”, or the “they” should refer to “men”. What do you think of them?

What are you saying?