100 Most Influential People

Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People edition arrived through my postbox recently and I was slightly surprised to see Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of the Warner Music Group, write some very astute words about Radiohead and their pioneering move to release In Rainbows for whatever price you like: "If any band could extend its creativity and spirit to redefine an entire industry, it would be Radiohead." Equally as surprising was Radiohead's categorisation under the 'Builders & Titans' section, as opposed to the preceding 'Artists & Entertainers' section; a peculiar gesture of good-will I suppose. However, what was most striking about Time's list was their ration of male to female influentials. I haven't counted the exact number, but I'd expect a 4:1 split in favour of the men. Obviously, measuring "influence" is entirely subjective, and their list is cast through a lengthy public vote, so, one would suspect their list reflects society rather than dictates society. Indeed, Time's list is global, and women are subject to suppression in many of the countries where these individuals originate from. And yet, there is a putrid stench of irony in the air when they cover those men campaigning for women's liberation but fail to include those most orchestrative in garnering a cultural movement. Where was the inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, or Benazhir Bhutto, or even J.K. Rowling? Much is made of those who are effected, but not those who affect. Here lies the ongoing flaw in Time's many lists. Only months ago did I comment on their judgement of 'Person of the Year' - Vladimir Putin, "Tsar of the New Russia". As we can see, winning one of these competitions is not necessarily something to be proud of, but surely women play a more prominent role in our global direction than what Time implies. In case you needed further proof, check this alternative cover to this weeks edition; if you squint your eyes, is that a woman or a man?