Should reporting of things that men do become less gender neutral?

[BrewsterToo]

I noted, after looking at the picture in this report, that the caption underneath says "Crowds with ISIS flags march past the provincial government offices in Mosul". In the photograph a crowd of men is seen walking on a street, not a woman in sight.

I was wondering whether it would help if captions like this actually state that these are crowds of MEN, not just crowds. Would it make it clearer and raise awareness that Isis is mainly a group of men, who do awful things to women, and not just some gender neutral crowd. Would it help men to see that it is men waging war and using terror and violence to abuse women, not some gender neutral institution like a state or movement or death cult. That it is a problem of MEN when women are systematically abused? Would it help to name it?

Thanks for linking the article about the passive voice melinda, very interesting.

Heart attack symptoms are indeed different in men and women. I work in healthcare, and it is only quite recently that this has been widely recognised. More should be done to draw attention to it, but they are starting to teach it to medical students, which is a good start.

And in answer to the main question of this thread, yes I agree that male sex should be highlighted as much as female in reporting, but it isn't. For example:
Male police officer
Male doctor
Male soldier
Male CEO
These sound strange, and yet we always hear about female doctors and female police officers. Why should male be the default?

Yy to all of above. Another example, a newspaper photo of a crowd of boys playing (or diving off rocks or whatever) in a developing country will invariably be captioned "Children . . ." which obscures the fact that girls are much more likely to be kept indoors or given chores.