In a recent move to get more female subscribers, The Economist attempted a new ad campaign which targets women. However, instead of making an appeal to their femininity, they went for the ‘edgy’ route, by denying that their magazine needs to change its overtly masculine base and tone. Instead, the magazine insists that it is for influential and accomplished people, denying the need to acknowledge the gender of readers. For some perspective, 87% of its readers are men, and 77% of the staff is men. The presence of women is further hidden because authors are left anonymous. While The Economist argues that the content is more important than the author, this is to deny readers the ability to place the author in terms of how they see a situation. But I’ll leave it up to you all. Is The Economist on the right track or just further cementing sexism?
Why Women Should Read The Economist by Amanda Hess
ShoutOut! James Madison University 
Slightly off-topic… In this article and in several linked from it, I saw the word “women” used as an adjective. “Women readers,” “women politicians,” etc. I’m not sure why, but this bugs me. “Woman” is a name for me, for what I am, not just a modifier. I’ve more commonly seen “female” used as an adjective and while the grammar here bothers me less, I wonder whether this goes against accepted ideas of *gender* as opposed to *sex*. What do you think? Which is the better way to describe women?
LikeLike
Could you point me to where you saw woman being used as an adjective? I went through to look for what you’re talking about, and didn’t see it. As far as describing readers as women or female, I think it has a lot to do with wanting to be distinct that when I say female, I mean biologically a female, and not a woman (and the subjective baggage that comes with a claim about gender). I have to admit though, I’m not an expect on this discussion, and am sort of forming a rough sketch of what I understand the argument to be.
LikeLike