On June 16th, The New York Times launched a new blog aimed at small business owners.
My initial reaction? Awesome! Hooray! About time! (Except that they totally stole our name… but who can blame them, really? It’s such a good one.)
But my positive first impression was immediately followed by frustration that their roster of writers (scroll down a screen’s worth or so to see the list in the right column) is exclusively male, and appears also (though this is impossible to ascertain on the basis of photos & names alone) to be entirely white.
What is up with that? I am so sick and tired of seeing this kind of total disregard for diversity. Come on, Times, baby — where’s the love? Let’s mix it up a little and see what happens. Women and “minorities” (we need a better word, but that’s the collective term that gets used in a lot of polling reports) constitute a growing percentage of business owners, and I want to see those perspectives better represented in the business press (and not just relegated to the occasional article on “mompreneurs” or work-life balance, thank you very much).
It appears some commenters have already left feedback to this effect. I wonder if they’ll be heard?
7 responses so far ↓
1 Angela // Jul 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Whole-heartedly agreed.
As for terminology, there’s also “historically underutilized” which pretty much tells the story, but is a mouthful. I loath “mompreneurs.” No one calls my husband a “dadpreneur.”
2 B // Jul 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Lauren — Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your book has been so helpful to me, as I’m in the beginning stages of writing my business plan. I’ve submitted a comment to the NYT, and I won’t become a reader until the diverse voices in business are represtented.
One thing that really gets my goat…women are actually the majority in the U.S., but we too often are an after-thought!
Thanks again for all you’re doing to help women succeed.
3 Lauren // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:28 am
Angela: “Historically underutilized” is intriguing — will ponder that some more. And yeah, I hear you on the sexist slant of “mompreneur”; I know lots of women who embrace it (I think in part because there’s a vibrant community of mothering entrepreneurs who share some significant common ground), but I feel like until “dadpreneur” joins the party, it will remain a marginalizing term.
B, thank you so much for your kind words! It’s so good to hear that our book has been helpful to you. :)
4 Becka // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:21 am
Amen to that. Does no one at least take a look around and think something (in 2009!!) is a little bit strange there? Or is it that they have just become so unbelievably cloistered that they really just are that out of touch or no longer care.
Also, there is a little award waiting for you two over at my blog!
5 Leah // Jul 26, 2009 at 1:56 pm
On the other hand, I was happy to see this story in the Globe and Mail which states there is evidence that women entrepreuneurs are twice as successful as men! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-women-are-the-reserve-army-of-labour/article1231055/
6 michelle goodman // Jul 27, 2009 at 4:32 pm
So glad you pointed this out. I had the same reaction when I discovered the NYT blog. WTF indeed!
7 ann f. // Sep 6, 2009 at 4:33 am
interesting, i had read jays columns but never noticed.…
i dont care for momprenueur…at all!!
and usually dont go for all women sites,especially the go girl kind that ignores most of the reality i face…
..glad to find this refreshing place…
Leave a Comment