I'm a big fan of magazines. While I usually stick with fashion magazines, lately I've been reading some other more business oriented titles. This year, Anthony and I started our own company for our personal pursuits and I felt really lost throughout the process. So when I got the opportunity to redeem some points for magazine subscriptions, I decided to go with a few titles that would help me wrap my head around our business needs. I subscribed to Inc Magazine, Entrepreneur and Fast Company.
I've really enjoyed my subscription to Inc Magazine. I find their articles to be super informative and their interviews, like recent ones with execs from Tumblr and Kid Robot, to be truly inspiring. And, for what it's worth, I appreciate the attention to detail in the graphic layout of the pages themselves. I love that it's a happy marriage of helpful content and creative design. I also like that the magazine is not written for a particular gender. Women and men alike can pick it up and get something out of it. This is not to say that every magazine should do this, but it's nice that a magazine marketing towards small business owners does not discriminate.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Entrepreneur. Now, working in technology in various industries, I've realized it's a boy's club — not that that's entirely a bad thing! I've worked with some pretty talented men and learned a lot from them (most notably that the lack of women in their midst is mostly an oversight, not intentional). I also happen to like a lot of things men typically like more than most women (sports, fried foods, gadgets) so it doesn't really bother me to spend time in the company of dudes.
That said, there are definite differences between me and my male colleagues. For example, it is probably not socially acceptable for them to wear dresses, or bare their legs at all at work. Though, if I were to wear baggy jeans and oversized t-shirts as they do, I would probably have some difficulty being taken seriously (I don't say this to be contrary; I say this because it actually happened to me).
And this point precisely brings me back to Entrepreneur magazine. Their September issue, which just arrived in my mailbox today, included an article about over-dressing vs under-dressing; the cover simply reads "Exclusive. How to Dress: The Taxonomy of Casual." I was really excited to read that piece because I struggle with this point when dressing myself for work. I don't want to dress too formally (or too trendy, per the industry I'm currently in…) and risk ostracizing myself from my colleagues but I still want to dress in a way that will gain respect (the whole "dress for the job you want" thing).
I read the article and was really disappointed to see it was written for a target audience of 100% men. The graphic associated with the article showed ONLY cartoon-y male characters wearing different types of dress. The depiction of only men didn't stop me from reading the article though, as there as no indication that this article was merely discussing menswear. I think that's probably what surprised me the most; though the article in question was written by an editor at Esquire, it wasn't explicitly stated that this was a "man's guide" to dressing. They had just inferred that only men would be reading it.
This unfortunately begs the question: are women not considered entrepreneurial? I think we all know what the answer to that is and I'm sure it is backed up by data that suggests that most of their subscribers are men or that more men start companies or get VC funding. Despite the data, whatever it may be, why isolate your female readers? Would it have been that difficult to provide a more balanced piece? Considering they hit up Esquire to write about work appropriate clothes, how about consulting an editor of woman's magazine to briefly touch on women's wear? Surprisingly, it is not for lack of women on the cutting room floor; the editor in chief of the magazine is indeed a woman.
I brought this up to the network of women I know and many agreed with my sentiments. In fact, one commented that she has seen technology magazines in airports under the "Men's interests" section. Why is technology only a man's interest? While I acknowledge that there is a dearth of women in tech, that doesn't automatically exclude women from possibly being interested in such publications.
And this is the fundamental flaw – the imposition of gender roles that deny the existence of quite a few people. By writing that article for an audience of men, you are further impressing the position that entrepreneurs are exclusively men. A more balanced article, including women even in small part, would at least acknowledge that there are indeed female entrepreneurs (Yes, really. They exist! And highlighting only those who start cupcakes businesses is not at all representative of the majority of women who own businesses!).
Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these issues being that I'm both a woman and an underrepresented minority, but I'm willing to imagine that I'm not the only woman who picked up the magazine and was just plain bummed to see that she was excluded from participating in that feature.
I'm not a water snob but…
Sunday, July 17th, 2011I'm not a water snob. A water snob, in my book, is a person who is very particular to which brand of water their allegiances lie. A water snob may in fact not drink any water out of any tap, regardless of how much fluoride may be in said tap water. Water snobs also probably don't accidentally drink any water in the shower, ever.
Now again, I'm not a water snob. I drink tap water if need be, and like it. New York City's water is actually pretty decent, but I've been known to drink tap water in other countries (except for Mexico; I was very careful to be a water snob there due to overwhelming concerns about bacteria in their water supply). I'm generally not picky about Pellegrino or tap at restaurants. And yes, I'm that person who chews on ice chips, well aware that they probably didn't use the filtered water for those.
When it comes to buying bottled water, however, I've become aware that some of it is better than others. Now, I'll preface this by saying that I try to avoid purchasing bottled water. I think the excess plastic is terrible for the environment and the PUR filter on my tap at home does the job pretty well.
That said, sometimes you need to buy bottled water. Normally, I stick with Poland Spring; usually, that's the only thing that's sold by the street vendors or underground subway vendors in New York City. Though apparently (shockingly!) it isn't available on the west coast, at all. I'm going to pretend (and who knows, maybe I'm right?) that its limited availability on the west coast is due to the company wishing to keep a small carbon footprint.
Then, there's the stuff bottled by big business — Dasani (bottled by Coca Cola), Nestle Pure Life, Smart Water. These are all okay. They aren't terrible, and will do okay in a pinch (like, for example, when you need more water than what can fit in your re-usable bottle). I have to say that Pure Life is pretty much like Poland Spring, but with a blue label; tastes fine, though, with the Nestle name, you would have expected it to have a chocolate flavor to it (not that we should aspire to have chocolate-tasting-water, gross!). Or maybe that's just me. I think about Nestle Toll House and Nestle Crunch when I think of their brand.
Finally, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I'll start with the good and the bad: Fiji water. Fiji water comes in wonderful looking containers (more square than cylindrical) with beautiful flowers on the label. You imagine a lush island with the most amazing water you've ever tasted. What you don't imagine are military juntas selling off the region's most precious resource to us abroad while their own people have no access to it. Not a pretty picture. Great water, but it makes my heart hurt. I really don't want to be stressed when purchasing a bottle of water.
And lastly, there's the ugly — Evian. It's "naive" spelled backwards, which should be evidence alone that there's something not quite right about this water. I can't put my finger on it, but one thing is true, this water tastes like someone sucked the life out of it. I recently bought two large bottles because they were on sale; clearly, there was a very good reason for this.
So, in short, I think I'll just stick to re-filling my Camelbak BPF-free water bottle with what comes out of the tap and, unless I'm on the west coast, buying good old reliable Poland Spring water bottles as needed.
(Oh, and don't get me started on Propel and Vitamin Water – which is more sugar than water – and all the other "flavored" varieties. That's a blog post for another day.)
Tags: commentary, food, opinion, taste, water, water snob
Posted in personal | No Comments »