12 March 2012

Inc. Magazine


Last year, I went to the shop to get my car's wheels aligned; I also had my tires rotated, since it was time for that too.  While I was there, I read the then new issue of Inc. magazine.  Inc. is SUPPOSED to be about business, but it seemed to feature lots of feminist style, 'grrl power' cheerleading.  You can view the article, '30 Under 30', here for the online edition of what I read in print earlier this morning.

I have to wonder who did their math though, because there are 49 featured entrepreneurs in total-far greater than the number 30!  When I was in school, 49>30; as far as I know, it still is; 49 is certainly far past 30 on the number line.  Anyway, if you scroll through the pics of these business people, you'll note that 36 of the 49 are men, or approximately 73% of the total.  Even when the entrepreneur is a woman, you'll more often than not notice that a man is in the venture with her, e.g. the private jet concern; only a few of the business owners are women doing it alone.

While at the shop, I read the hard copy (i.e. print) edition of this article., which was about the most dynamic, young entrepreneurs in America today; it featured 30 of the most successful, under 30 entrepreneurs.  When you looked at all of them (including the sidebars on the article's pages), the majority of them were male; that is to say the most of the successful, young businessmen in America today are MALE.  That shouldn't surprise anyone, since we men are hard wired for competition, risk, and need of money to attract the best possible women, courtesy of female hypergamy.  The more successful you are, the higher quality woman you can get.  You think Donald Trump would have bagged Melania Knauss if he were an average guy?!  Come on!  Ergo, men are hard wired to go get the most bacon they can, so they can bring it home to the hottest chick they can find.

However, when you looked at the article layout; when you looked at who was most PROMINENTLY displayed, it was all women-all women!  If you didn't look at all the entrepreneurs along the pages' sidebars (and many readers won't; they'll just look at the photos and accompanying bios for the women), you'd have thought all the go-getters are women, and that the men of America are just a bunch of lazy slackers.  Here are beautiful, successful women just tearing it up, while men are a bunch of lazy bums. Is this a business magazine, or is it another, feminazi, male bashing propaganda rag?

It seems as if this feminist claptrap, agitprop, and propaganda is everywhere; there's no getting away from it.  Even in endeavors which have nothing to do with feminism, feminism and girl power is somehow made part of the mix.  For example, look at the aforementioned article, which has the women prominently displayed.  What purpose does that serve, other than to glorify women and bash men?  Does anyone care to tell me?  If I were reading Inc., it's because I have a business, and I want to know what I can do to make it more successful; I don't want or need to read a bunch of feminist cheer leading-sheesh!  That doesn't help me RUN my business any better!  And the old media (newspapers and magazines would be old media) wonder why they're HAEMORRHAGING a ton of red ink?!  Come on!  It's because they're trying to disguise propaganda as news and useful information, rather than just giving us what we purchased the magazine for in the first place-news and useful information.  If we can't get useful information from a magazine purporting to give us that, then we'll procure that information elsewhere-end of story.

I'm out of here.  In closing, this feminist clap trap, girl power BS is everywhere; there's no getting away from it.  Even if you follow guy sports like racing (and I do), this BS is some how worked into the equation.  If you read a business magazine, the articles are more about feminist, girl power cheer leading than they are about what they PURPORT to be-about business.  If I were to purchase a business magazine, it's because I want to learn about-gasp-business!  It's not to have more of this glorified, Hanna Rosin, 'end of men' crap shoved down my throat!  THAT is why I seldom buy magazines anymore.  Not only do I get feminist clap trap and agitprop shoved down my throat; I PAY good money to have it done!  Come to think of it, I'll just go online, or talk to a successful businessMAN myself if I need this sort of information in the future.  It'll be cheaper, not to mention more edifying and more useful.  Thank you, and good day...



Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Have you seen this yet? It's a little more pressing than a business magazine featuring women.



One of the Anon Females you hate

Anonymous said...

I hope not too far off topic. Some days ago, an official police report found Obama's birth certificate and selective service card are both forgeries. The main stream press has chosen to blacklist this news item.

The main Russian propaganda machine, Pravda, chastised the US press for this manipulation of the news. When your lying, cheating behavior disgusts Pravada, you are pretty bad off.

Anonymous age 69

bobn said...

That's becuase the female "readers" only look at the pics!

Anonymous said...

Marky, I always considered Inc. sort of crappy and I'm talking many years ago so I can imagine what it's like today.Forbes isn't the same either since Malcolm died.I'm not against females being successful but they are rarely successful in areas that advance anything and it's mostly just rehashing old things. A women near me, Martha Stewart, was very successful in turning her homemaking, decorating, gardering etc interest into a big business but it was really nothing new, just a different package.
If she was 30 years younger I might try to bag her :o) She wasn't bad looking when she was young.

Anonymous said...

Btw, Stewart isn't her real name.Her ancestry is Eastern Europe which might explain a lot.

David Collard said...

At least they listed mostly men. Some awards and articles make a point of adding extra women. I notice this with articles on young scientists. They usually attempt to artificially increased the number of females.

On the other hand, women are more interesting to look at, for both sexes. Which is why editors like to put pictures of pretty women in prominent places. Even men's magazines (gadgets, sport, and so on) have a cute girl on the cover. Photography mags (mostly read by men, I assume) usually have a pretty girl on the cover.

Also, a man succeeding in science or innovation is hardly new. A woman doing so is news. Some women get puffed to their ultimate detriment. NASA pushed the arsenic based life story hard, I suspect in part because the work was led by a photogenic young woman. But now she is famous for getting it badly wrong.

How many top chess players have you heard of? Not many, probably. But we have all heard of the Polgar sisters.

MarkyMark said...


My point was that the story was presented in such a way as to make it look like women were the go-getters, while men were the slackers. By prominently featuring the women, Inc. Magazine did this.


David Collard said...


I agree with your basic point. It is very irritating. I think Laurence Auster blogged about the case of a white man who had proved a difficult theorem in maths, and Newsweek or whoever illustrated the article with a stock picture of a black girl.

I try not to get irritated by this kind of thing. I console myself with reflecting on how bad feminists must feel about their sex having achieved so little intellectually.

Ping Jockey said...

I know how you feel, MarkyMark. It seems like so many of the formerly-great news magazines of the past -- Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, etc. -- became nothing more than leftist political rags pushing socialism, feminism, and pop culture pablum back in the 80's/90's. Greatly disappointing.
If you can, go to the library and see if they have any of the old pre-90's news magazines in their stacks (if they even have those anymore), and compare the subjects and quality of the writing then vis-a-vis now. Prepare to be astounded.

The crap that passes for 'journalism' now, was pretty much on the same level as 'yellow journalism' back then, usually fit only for the 'National Enquirer'.

Anonymous said...

It seems like so many of the formerly-great news magazines of the past -- Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, etc.

They were never great mags even in the past and today they are total crap.
It's just that in the past before the Net there wasn't much pop stuff to read.
In these mags heyday most people didn't have cable and regular broadcast TV went off the air at midnight when the national anthemn would be played.
There was no 24 hr "news" shows playing the same crap all day long. The News was read for like 15min at 11pm or 10 pm, later extended to 30min and then an after news show like Ted Koppel for 30 mins.
If you were awake at 2am all you had was the radio, a magazine or a book to read. Only in the bigger cities would there be a station that had a film or something late at night.
People have stopped subscribing to mags and even newspapers.

MarkyMark said...

Ping Jockey,

When I was a kid, we used to have a subscription to US News; it was a great magazine at one time. When the magazine changed, we no longer subscribed to it.