Time Magazine tells us everything is great for women

Hours ago, I posted about the pathetic stats for women in power positions.

I wrote about this because I received yet another comment on my blog about how females have achieved parity and males are the ones in trouble. The stats behind this argument is that girls are half or soon to be half of students in law, medical school, art school, engineering, business etc.

One more time: women’s education is not translating to equal pay and equal professional status.

OK, here’s the new Time Magazine cover:

So why is this cover claiming women are “The Richer Sex” coming out right when America seems to be finally catching on that women’s rights are under attack?


People will see this cover, without even reading the story, as I haven’t yet, and conclude everything is fabulous for women. It’s not. Stats at the top have not changed for women. People in power across the board– business, politics, media, doctors, law, art– are men.

The spin on this article is pretty brilliant. From the cover, you can tell it’s not going to be that “women are achieving so much, so fast that males are the ones who need support.” No, it’s going to be that “women are achieving so much so fast, getting so very rich, becoming richer than men, and that’s good for men!” That way, feminists are supposed to be grateful for Time’s piece and somehow not notice that a national news magazine’s cover is actually referring to women as the richer sex. WTF?

I will read this article and see why the cover reads: “Women are overtaking men as America’s breadwinners” because right now I say BULLSHIT! There you have it in writing.

I’ll report back.

18 thoughts on “Time Magazine tells us everything is great for women

  1. Hi Margot,

    Thought you might like this article from Jezebel on the Time article (which is essentially a promo for an upcoming book by Liza Mundy, who posits that women will be the future breadwinners in The Richer Sex). http://jezebel.com/5894800/in-the-future-women-will-rule-the-world-and-wont-feel-shitty-about-it?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

    The article also has a link at the bottom to an NPR article on the same topic. Seems to me that some of the conversation around this topic–which is often male- rather than female-driven–is about anxiety. I haven’t read any of the articles yet, but am curious as to Ms. Mundy’s take on things–I have often heard the stat quoted that there are more women than men in college classes these days, as if that automatically means women are taking over the world.


    • Hi Liz,

      I got the Jezebel link first! That’s what made me go to TIME. I hope Jezebel takes on this perspective, but interesting that the focus is male anxiety. I like that idea of the good effects of female leadership, but I don’t like the misleading Time cover. The positive effects of female leadership does not make it OK to act as if women are or are about to be “the richer sex.”


  2. I wonder if women could be opting out of such positions?

    If they are, even only by way of a statistical pattern, I’m sure you’d agree it would be unfair to gauge the progress of the movement according to saturation. No point waiting for 51 female senators if, by choice of the candidates who would be running for those positions, it’s never gonna happen.

    That’s a valid point, right?

      • I don’t know. I do know, in any given year, there are fewer women running for such positions…or I guess I’m assuming that, since I don’t perceive there to be any crushing disparity favoring the males in terms of who wins elections.

        I’m very sure that generally speaking, we males lack the power and the authority to keep ladies shut out. Nor would we want to, if we’re smart.

      • It’s fine. And I guess I need to explain what I mean better, I said he needs to stop assuming fairness because otherwise he’ll conclude a bunch of easy answers (women aren’t in those positions because they don’t want to/aren’t good enough), and they aren’t the right ones. Of course, maybe he just doesn’t care.

      • Aninha, I can see why Margot would think you’re talking to her about the world not being fair; her point is, there aren’t enough women in these positions (no fair no fair), and my point is, yes there’s some skew going on, maybe you need to go ask the women why they’re not running (ya want the problem fixed or don’t ya?).

        Now, I’m not on a first-name basis with Hillary Clinton or Dianne Feinstein or Olympia Snowe, nor do I know the women who chose not to run because they thought it to be unseemly…or something. Like I said, though, it’s a dubious proposition to infer some sinister cabal of men would be doing anything to keep women out…and if there is such a thing, its ranks are filled with some rather silly men. If there is any one creature in the whole equation who’s guaranteed not to be stigmatized, it’s the woman (or man, I suppose) who chooses not to run. It’s what Aristotle said: To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing. Evidently there is female dominance among those who find that appealing, because Margot’s right, the women are 51% to 53% of the population. I can’t provide any more clarification beyond this, you’ll have to ask them what’s up, why aren’t they participating.

        You’re wrong in thinking I don’t care. I’m in the tech field, and frankly, I’m a little tired of all the pressure that’s put on the organizations to staff up with more women more women more women — and the female peers are just not there. Note, I’m not saying they can’t do the job once they’re found. Numerically speaking, they’re not there.

        Now. You want to keep putting the pressure on management, and on males, and legitimize it with a casual “Oh well, no one said life is fair” then be my guest. But don’t be surprised when another forty years tick on by with no measurable change to the situation.

        • Hi Morgan,

          The reasons women are not achieving at the rate that they should be are complex and multifaceted. The ONE I focus on in this blog is how gendered media and toys mass marketed to kids is, and how this early sexist training affects everything from brain growth to parents expectations to kids imaginations. This sexism is insidious and perpetuated by parents, corporations, and peer pressure among kids.


    • You need to stop assuming the world’s fair… I know it’s not easy, we’d like to think we live in a meritocracy, we’d like to think that if we make the right choices, we’ll be rewarded accordingly, we’d like to think we have control, for us to think that, we must assume fairness, unfortunately, that’s just not reality.

    • I think you missed my point, which is completely okay, but there’s nothing I can reply to you, because what you answered to wasn’t what I was saying. The world has systematized prejudice, even if it doesn’t target you. Is it silly? Yes, it is very silly. Are the people who do it silly? Yes, they are very silly. So? Who told you silly people didn’t run things? Who said there aren’t sinister things going on with this world?

      Yes, the person who opts to not run is guaranteed not to be stigmatized, indeed women would have to start running… but are the ways in which women are stigmatized the same as men? Are the consequences the same?

      If you do care, specially about the bigger question of inequality and prejudice, I recommend reading “The second sex”, you can find it in pdf last I checked…

      “Now. You want to keep putting the pressure on management, and on males, and legitimize it with a casual “Oh well, no one said life is fair” then be my guest. But don’t be surprised when another forty years tick on by with no measurable change to the situation.”

      I don’t know where that came from. :p

Leave a Reply