? Of The Year  (Episode 77)

There are a litany of awards given annually to the best person in XXX field. Today on the podcast, Shaunna and Lisa talk about Time Magazine’s Women of the Year and how it has attempted to atone for decades of excluding women from its prestigious trophy. Sadly, there are still many awards entitled “Man of the Year.” These awards may sometimes award a woman but over the course of their histories have given awards to women shockingly infrequently. Sport is definitely one of the fields where “Man of the Year” still reigns. Shaunna and Lisa encourage listeners to review the histories of their local sporting awards, whether in their state or their local club to understand what histories of exclusion exist for them. It is crucial to review the how and why of recognition exclusion to redress the imbalance. Tip: nominating/awarding one woman in 2022 is not sufficient. 

TIME’s 2022 Women of the Year List

TIME's 2020 100 Women of the Year Project

Support the podcast and use our sponsor codes!

InsideTracker: 25% off at insidetracker.com/feisty 

Nuun Hydration: 30% off with code StayFeisty at nuunlife.com

[un]phased Episode 77

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

lisa, people, person, thinking, women, criteria, award, year, worse, hitler, absolutely, man, podcast, list, interesting, point, groups, wheelchair, individuals, folks

SPEAKERS

Dr. Shaunna Payne Gold, Dr. Lisa Ingarfield

So Lisa, this week, I was doing my usual wasting of time and wasting my life ever so often when I need a brain break, and I saw the beautiful and fast might I say, Allyson Felix, and it caught my eye because I'm always looking to see what's going on with her brand on her shoes and so forth. And it caught my eye was thinking, Oh, it's gonna be something about her shoe brand. And actually, she was one of the women selected as Woman of the Year by Time Magazine. And so that kind of got me into thinking, Okay, well, who else is on this list? And you know, us, we're going to deep dive into not only who's on the list, but who selects the list, right? And so it got me curious. And I found this whole article in girl, there is some teeth behind this whole selection situation. So I thought we should flesh this out and talk about it because it is not as straightforward as one would think.

Okay, good. Because I'm completely uneducated. I mean, I know that they have man or Person of the Year, and I just remember the 21 with Trump. That I have little knowledge, so I'm happy to be schooled.

Yeah, so let's dive in. I'm Dr. Shawna Payne gold, and I go by she her her pronouns.

And I'm Dr. Lisa englefield. And I go by she her hers.

Welcome to unfazed a podcast to disrupt your normal and challenge your brain to go the distance. So Lisa, let me say, I really did not start paying attention to the Time Person of the Year Woman of the Year, Man of the Year, any of it, I didn't really pay attention to it until I was in my doctoral program. And it was my first year in my program in 2006. And my classmates in my cohort showed up and they showed me this magazine, and it was like a mirror on the front of it. And my friend said, Hey, look who's Person of the Year. And it's you. I don't like we all talk about stop playing. Look, my brain does not have time to process what you just said, We're gonna doctor like, no, it's you, meaning you more broadly, you as in all of us have the outlet to communicate, whether it's by YouTube or by social media outlets, and so forth. And that was the 2006 Time Person of the Year, you while you? And so I was like, Dang, this is interesting. And so then I kind of dove in a little further to see how do they make these selections? Like, are they just randomly choosing a topic? are they choosing individual people, etc. Of course, I found that other people were selected, like, you know, many US presidents, Dr. Martin Luther King, even Adolf Hitler was chosen as one of the people of the year. And so of course, you know, I had questions. Yes, girl. Yes. I had questions. I'm like, How the hell do you choose Adolf Hitler as Person of the Year. And so that's how I remember even learning about what Time Person of the Year was, but it seems like there's a bit more to the selection process. And it's evolved. Over the years. I thought, yeah, let me bring this to lease I need somebody to help me dissect this process here.

Okay, so I'm gonna buy it because I feel like how on earth did hit like get to be Man of the Year? Because I think that that moniker or label is almost always assumed to be positive, right? Kind of background digging and realize, oh, perhaps it isn't. But I would say just kind of in like our common understanding of man or woman of the year Person of the Year, like, that's an award, and it's positive, right? So without, like, the average person is probably going to be looking at that thinking, What the heck,

oh, girl, and see this is where we have to work against our usual thought process and suspend our own judgment with this foolishness, because what's interesting is that when I looked into it, you know, I was even a little bit surprised that for example, Nixon was chosen twice. Nixon was a person of the year and then he was a person of the year along with someone else. And so, you know, TWICE, TWICE back to back back to back before his resignation. And so, when I looked at the criteria, so let me read it to you because this is interesting. And Lisa, you are the wordsmith. So if you would like to rewrite the criteria, and then we send one of our nice nasty emails to Time Magazine, I'm down for it. But this is what it says it says, Person of the Year, which was called Man of the Year or Women of the Year until 1999 is an annual issue that profiles a person, a group, an idea, or an object. that quote, for better, or for worse, has done the most to influence the events of the year. This election is made solely by the magazine's editors. Now, given where we are in the moment, and there is war going on between Russia and Ukraine, like we, we literally could see the president of Ukraine and Russia as a tag team Person of the Year for 2022. Based on what we're experiencing at the moment, based on these criteria, it is so for better or worse, I mean, really, for better or worse.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, I mean, I get it, like operating in a bubble, an individual who's had an influence, yeah, Hitler, Nixon, Putin, perhaps would be person, Man of the Year. But it's irresponsible, because I don't think the common understanding of Person of the Year, like I said before, is one that is negative, right? Like, because you could highlight Hitler, presumably, and identify all of the shit, right? And all of the nasty, nasty hatred that you saw on the front cover of your magazine, that people in the supermarket are just gonna like drive by and just see that he's, they're not gonna like, pick it up, pay for it, read it, right, understand the criteria. So then you have this magazine, and the editors who presumably or white men until recently, I would guess, are valorizing him, right? I mean,

and, okay, now, this is where this is where I'm going to kind of throw the fly in the ointment on things, right? Because part of me thinks exactly right on point, nobody's gonna go deeper and read the criteria, they're just going to look at the magazine cover because they are in the business of selling magazines. So they're just going to make a quick judgment based on the cover, buy it or not, and move on. Right, right. Now, the other part of my brain though, is like is this a cya moment? Lisa, meaning that is this a cover your ass moment. So if we choose Lisa anchor field as our Person of the Year in 2022, but then she makes a dumbass decision in 2032. And we wrote retroactively have to look back at our covers, we can still say that this person was influential, even though when we selected them, it was better now it's for worse. I feel like there's like a cya piece in that where you don't have to agree on whether it's better or worse, just know that it's an undeniable influence. Like, even right now, with this war that's currently going on. It's undeniable that Putin is influencing the world, for worse, in my opinion, but still influencing the world, right? And so part of me is like, what happens when your judgement of people changes, like, even with our reference to Nixon, for example, Nixon twice, and now people are like, well, it's a cya that they could say, Well, hey, we selected for better or for worse, it still applies no matter what happened to him. Right. I just think it's very interesting. The language and I don't know how I would rewrite it, but I think it is a it is a good insurance policy built in in case someone acts a fool later. I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I see that. But then I guess I would, I would also backtrack and say, Why do you need the insurance policy? I mean, Hitler's probably a bad example, because he was clearly an asshole from the get go, right? Like his politics. And his knowledge was known. It was a known entity. And it just got progressively worse, but for a while, and I would argue that with Putin as well, but there are probably some individuals who were not necessarily clearly assholes, right, until 10 years later, or something. So I suppose, right, in that sense, you know, like there is it is covering their ass in terms of the retrospective piece, but for some, I don't get like, Yeah, I think the risk is greater than the educational opportunity.

Hmm, yeah, that's true. And, you know, and I do agree with you, I just think that there's going to be folks that aren't, you're right, they aren't going to look deeper. And it also requires people to critically think like, it's, it's really hard for people to get past the name of Hitler or Putin or other names in order to look at because if you've even mildly studied Hitler's leadership skills, there are some things that you definitely can leave there. And there are other things that you're like, oh, that actually compares to some of the leadership scholarship because you're trying to get people to coalesce around us of single cause. There are some things there but you have to tread really lightly and that's not going to work unless you're really thinking deeply and frankly, When I'm at the grocery store picking out a magazine, I'm not thinking deeply, I'm thinking about, Oh, that's interesting. I might grab it or I might not. I'm not in scholar mode at that point. I don't think anybody else, frankly. And so yeah, I think you're right, they are taking a risk on who they choose. And it's also risky, because, you know, you can't control future behavior either. So, no,

yeah, I mean, I don't know. I mean, the lists are problematic, maybe just from the beginning anyway, because historically, they've only been lists of men of white men. Right? And then how do you create a criteria that is inclusive? So who's creating the criteria? Who's making the judgment? What what do we understand as a quote unquote, good contribution? Right? That then, right, why being recognized in some way, but right, um, I don't know. I just I feel like, yeah, I just, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth in terms of, you know, even though you've got this better or worse, yeah, sure. You're influential, but you're influential for the wrong reasons. And I don't think we should be contributing to that. And I wonder how that translates now, right. So part of this piece that you found was they were making up for lost time? Because there's been very few women, right?

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, they they're trying to make up for lost time. And, you know, again, it's trying, it reminds me of many different journalistic outlets that are trying to make correction from the past. Like, even recently, the Baltimore Sun mentioned this, and Baltimore is overwhelmingly black, the state of Maryland is overwhelmingly black, but they still, in print acknowledged how I don't think revisionist history is quite the right word, Lisa, but they are trying to create some equity based on historical inequities in the way things have been reported shared communication has influenced the city and the state of Maryland. And so I think some of that same spirit is going on here. So for example, even within the Women of the Year for this year, there's diversity among the women that they chose. So, you know, like I mentioned before, Allyson Felix was the first one that caught my eye, but she still had mckaela mckaela. J. Rodriguez, who is a trans woman that was the star of POWs, which was, you know, known very widely to represent the LGBT communities and ballroom culture and so forth, and underground culture of the LGBT movement. Amanda Gorman, who we know, was a national poet laureate, at the inauguration for President Biden, Amal Clooney, which has been a civil rights attorney and advocate, of course, Adina Friedman, who is the CEO of NASDAQ, Jenny Joseph, which this one kind of lands close to my heart, Jenny Joseph has been an advocate for black maternal mortality issues, because a lot of people don't want to remember that black women are still the highest percentage of women to lose their lives in childbirth. And so given that, thank goodness, I made it through to, but she's doing that work on the frontline. So I think that's really interesting that now that they seem to have turned somewhat of a corner. I'm very hopeful. I'm not saying it's a perfect list, but I'm very hopeful because they didn't, they could have chosen all white women thinking, Oh, we corrected it. Now. we've corrected for gender. Now we moved on, but now they have brought a broad swath of people in so you know, there's some history behind that. But I found that Lisa, so surprising that like 1999 is not that long ago, right?

No, it isn't. I mean, to wait until the to 99 to change your award label, or I guess it's not an award because they're saying it's not necessarily a positive thing. person versus man is quite shocking. But interestingly, I was looking at Sports Illustrated to shift this over to endurance sports, and they're, you know, there's, it's like the BBC in the UK has Sports Personality of the Year. And then here we have Sports Illustrated Athlete of the Year, I think. And no, it's not actually I misspeak, it's called sportsman of the year. But they to sports Woman of the Year if there's a woman right, so it's also gender exclusive, right? Because they're not even going a certain they're switching between men and women based on who it is that gets the award. And then that's been running since 1954. So a little less time than the time one. And but I did account on Wikipedia. Yes. I totally realized Wikipedia is not like necessarily the best source but that's where the that's where I found that list. Right there. So it's been running what 67 years, and I counted the women And there have been 13 Women in that timeframe. And in 2020, there were five people that want two women and three men. And then another two times, there were women that shared the award with a man. So they weren't on their own right. And then in that 13 Women who have been featured, there's only two women of color. So Naomi, Osaka and Sabrina, Serena Williams.

Oh, my Lord. So you mean to tell me in almost 70 years, there's only two, excuse me, 13 women total. And out of those two women of color total in almost 70.

That's what it looks like. And I didn't look at the racial identity of the men, but my, I would bet money, it's going to be predominantly white men.

And, and of course, as we can probably assume, a big whopping zero trans women in that list or non binary people. And yeah,

I mean, I am not super educated on everyone in the list. But yes, I Yeah. trans person, it would be probably in the last decade, and I recognize most of the names in the last decade and no,

oh my gosh, incredible. Incredible. So, Lisa, as we always think of things that we never have full time to do. I think you and I should come up with some criteria and create a different set of awards entirely, because this is like, a masterclass in what not to do from dry. Right. I mean, a serious masterclass and what not to do. And I think it

also demonstrates what it means to try and change direction later on, right. Like if you don't build a system, or a program or an award, inclusively from the get go, and then 10 years later, 30 years later, 70 years later, right? You you realize your errors, and then you try to redress that imbalance to do so I think, you know, certainly the 1930s, the 1950s are a different time. I mean, I get that. But that's not an excuse, necessarily. They're not think about inclusion. And I there's no excuse now in 2022, right? Like in your meeting new programming event, then you really need to be embedding the inclusiveness. And when you're thinking about those rules, or the criteria for membership, or whatever, right, you have to be thinking about, you know, who's the group that's creating the rules? And how are we embedding unintentionally or intentionally embedding bias into it? So you're right. Like, I think these are really great examples of what not to do. I mean, I would say don't have the, for better or worse. piece. That's the

first piece that Lisa is striking out with. Yeah, big red pin. No, it's got.

You know, the other thing that annoys me about the time staff is, I think when I was looking at it, they said that these women who are being featured in 2022 are all individuals who have worked to make the world better for women, or marginalized groups brought by interesting because I think when men win awards, it's usually for their broader contribute contribution to science or society or something, right. It's not gender or race specific, but when we award women or black person or an indigenous person, usually the the criteria ends up being the work that they have done for folks who shed and marginalized identity or identities, right. Feeling good. Like, like women and folks of color can't just create good for everyone,

right? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, absolutely.

I would want something around that too.

Well, you know what, and it's okay, so my brain just went in both directions on that, Lisa. So it based on what you're saying? It makes it seem as if women aren't equipped to do things for broader society. And it feels like it takes men off the hook for doing things specifically for equity, inclusion, diversity. Yep. And so why can't both groups do either or all? If that's what their specialty is? So yeah, yeah, absolutely. Because, you know, we know we've talked about it many times on this podcast, especially in relation to the workplace. We have documented scholarship to show the data around women and people of color being penalized for speaking up for these particular issues, or they wouldn't be penalized for speaking up for these issues. If everyone especially the people who have the most, the most privilege would speak for those issues, so that no one would be penalized or at least lesser to a lesser degree, hopefully so Yeah, I love that you're bringing up that point because it feels very much like that invisible labor that we talk about all the time where, you know, women and anyone who doesn't identify as a man has to do this not only what they do, but it's this extra set of what they do. So a woman can't just be a biologist. She has to be a biologist that cures cancer, specifically for black and brown people with brown eyes who have been disenfranchised for dieted Edyta. Like, why can she be a biologist if she wants to? And why can't the white boy curate for the black people in the brown people and indigenous people? Like, why can't we do both? And so you're right. i It's very rare that I see those awards given to people in quote, unquote, privileged identity groups that work for people outside of their identity groups. I don't see it very often.

But and if you do see it, isn't it usually couched in the Savior? Right? Like, what? You are doing things for people who have less than you?

Exactly, exactly. There you go. Well, Lisa, I'm I don't know if it's out there, maybe we can do a little more research around it. One other area that I think we should pay attention to, especially because we've talked about it on this podcast a little more when it came to Summer Olympic season, para Olympics, etc, is that I'm waiting to see the sports person of the year or someone else who has acknowledged as an athlete who is is differently abled disabled, or maybe a para Olympian or in another sport where there might be a restriction involved. And you know, it's easy to call out the LeBron James is in the Serena's and the Simone Biles not taking anything away from what they've done. But again, you know, going back to your point of how do we build it inclusively from the beginning, we already know that that's an identity that has been chronically excluded and not considered, you know, and so how do we build that in I was looking at something on LinkedIn, Lisa, where it showed a picture of a model that was she had on this bright red lipstick. This is why remember, bright red lipstick, she had short gray hair. And she was sitting in a wheelchair with her red bottom heels on, right. And she was a model for Fashion Week. And I was thinking to myself, I love it. Because that's an area where people have not considered a model who may be in a wheelchair, who they want to go, you know, walk down the catwalk, if you will. And so how do we build it in? And, Lisa, to your other point of how do we build inclusion in from the beginning, even for the best intention, folks? How do we continue to evolve, as we, as society get more language to describe certain things? Right. So like, you know, neurodiversity may not have been language that we had at a certain point in time. But now that we have it, and we're aware of it, we are considering it as our we'll have different identity groups, so as emergent groups, and even groups that have always been there. As we get more language to describe those groups, how do we continue to include them and evolve? Because I guarantee you 10 years from now, even if we had the best list, there's going to be a group that is recently gotten language to describe themselves that we'll need to add to our consideration. Right. So kind of leaving that door open is something else to think about?

Yeah, because the women in the time 2022 lists, at least from their photographs, do not appear to be physically disabled in any way or you know, abled, right. I mean, we don't know about other abilities and disabilities. So that's an area definitely, and then your fashion comments really interesting, and not anything to do with sport, but maybe, is, you know, fashion designers, presumably, are designing clothing for a particular type of person, right? I mean, put aside the fact that we could never afford any of their clothing. They're designed for a particular type of body, right? And that body is one that that is able to walk on their legs, right. So you're thinking, I'm thinking like, will we ever get to a place where in terms of that universal design concept, where we're not like we are just as a matter of default, designing clothing, sports clothing, for individuals of all abilities and identities, right? Just Yes. Naturally, like that may be pointed out to you. It doesn't need to be this one token person. That's right. On the back, it's like this is just natural, because I would imagine there might be different needs for someone sitting for a good part of their day versus someone who is not right. And then thinking about fitting and people's different body sizes and, you know, amputees and stuff like that like, rather than that being a special creation, or like, you know, this comes back to our conversation about the Olympics versus the Paralympics. And what does it do to Separate the Paralympics. Right in terms of, quote unquote special situation. Yeah. So, you know, I don't know, I wonder whether there are these Sports Personality lists that are for folks with disabilities, right, like it is couldn't possibly have an integrated list of people of all abilities? Absolutely.

Absolutely. That's such a good point. And I'm even thinking about, you know, I despise this when I was pregnant with both of my sons, where it was kind of, you know, this is the maternity section, and this is the regular section. And I'm thinking to myself, you know, first of all, I really want nice looking clothes, regardless of if I'm pregnant or not. And secondly, this is a category of, of disability, even if it's a short term disability based on what I can and cannot do, you know, those types of things. Even functional things. Lisa, I know, we've talked about this before around. Many of us love pockets, and how gendered pockets have been for so long, right? Well, you know, even even thinking about, you know, a person actually disabled or not, where, let's say, the small tweak in the pocket is that it has a zipper, because how many times have I had something in my pocket? I sat down and everything came out of my pockets, right? Well, for a person who's in a wheelchair, you know, having that very same pocket that's in the design, but just having a zipper on it. So it's more functional? You know, I would imagine that those are small tweaks that would be inclusive. So I know, we've gotten into, you know, fashion here, but again, you know, I think that's cool to have that in, in the design anyway, whether you're in a wheelchair or not. So I'm not a fashion designer. I'm not on Project Runway, but I just act like I am. You know, I think that could be part of the thought process. So I think, you know, we found an area where we can think more broadly, because y'all know, as listeners, we talk about universal design all the time. Yet again, here's another opportunity where university universal design could have been part of the process from day one when it came to Person of the Year persons of the year individual's of the year. All of that. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, there's some work to be done here. So thank you, Alison. Felix, for inspiring this entire podcast, because I never would have even stopped to look at the article unless I had seen her there. So yeah, I need to help them out.

We do. And I think if you know, we're, we're coming into the season, the endurance sports season, at least not the winter endurance sport, I suppose the spring and summer endurance sports season. So all your clubs and organizations, you know, potentially ordering kits are determining leaders, yes. are thinking about, you know, planning out the season, and maybe you have an award ceremony at the end. And sure you're not doing nominations yet. But maybe you're creating that criteria. Maybe you should have a look back at your history and see what's good, what or who you have awarded every year, right who the predominant people in your leadership's historically. So you can uncover that pattern, and then start to rectify it. Because I think sometimes we don't think about the pattern, the historical pattern, and then it's not enough to just know it once and then revert to, you know, the quote, unquote, status quo. Like that doesn't make the process or a situation inclusive, it has to be like a fundamentally permanent

shift. Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah. Mm hmm. Absolutely. So, you know, Lisa, I think that, given the list that we reviewed, and the little bit of research we did, I am sure that we have a built in hell nah, into this particular episode. Be ready for it?

Uh huh. Hell yeah.

Hell no. Absolutely. Adolf Hitler, as Man of the Year for 1938 is the most mind blowing thing I have ever seen. In the worst of ways. Yeah, I'm sure that I would imagine. I wish I could interview someone that was on that selection committee. folks that were on the selection committee for that year. What were y'all thinking? What were y'all thinking? I don't know what they were thinking, Lisa. But that one it? I can't even say that was a good person going bad. That was just bad from the beginning.

No, I know. It was known. It was known at that point. 1938 just before the war started, right. Yeah, you're right. It's like, I mean, I have stronger words. You know, like, if I could roll it in a time machine to that that editorial meeting and be like, what the f like night? Like the exactly, person who brought that up? You're fired? Like, no. Right? I mean, I don't just leave a warrant

discussion. Exactly. Exactly. So it's, yeah, that one is despicable. I don't know what y'all were thinking. I might give you all a pass on Nixon because they were Some things that weren't necessarily happening or revealed yet. And then he went bad. But Hitler was, yeah, we knew what was up right there. So that's what I'm throwing out as the easy hell nah, for this particular podcast, but I hear that there is a hell yeah, that is excellent that I think we need to highlight because I was so high when I saw this, Lisa. Yes, yes.

So Shawna discovered a post relating to a company called Flipkart that I was unaware of, but they have introduced period leave period leave policy, meaning that individuals who have periods are able to take time off paid time off for the pain and suffering.

Yes, yes.

That's what it feels like to me. And me, too, when you are experiencing your menstruation cycle, or I guess, the seven days period. So I thought that was pretty amazing. And where has that been? Oh, my life? You know, I certainly have taken sick time. Sometimes because I haven't been able to function. Absolutely. It's definitely not gotten better with age. So. Right, right. I don't know other firms that are doing this. I mean, it's very possible they are but they're not naming it as such. So I just love that they've named it, you know?

Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, the the fact that they brought this up, you know, they believe they use the language of being supportive and equitable, and creating this ecosystem where everyone can bring their best selves to work. And, Lisa, based on what you just said, and what I have been experiencing for years, since I was 16 years old, there is no way in hell that I'm bringing my best self to work on a couple of days of the month at least. So no, I am so pleased. ticular policy, I love the way that it's written. So you know, regardless of how you identify yourself, if you are a person who has a period, this policy applies to you. So I love that as well. Because the first my first thought when I kind of glanced at it really quickly was okay, now, thank you for this policy, but don't leave out our transgender folk here. And when I looked back, it was there. So it was like, yeah, it out the park with this one. So where was this policy? When I started working when I was 16 years old? Lisa? I don't know. But yeah, I love that policy. Oh,

I have horrible memories. I worked in retail when I was 1516. Standing on the floor, you know, reorganizing ugly clothing and trying to be polite to people with just absolutely excruciating. You know, and I really just want it to be like with a chocolate bar and I heat pad and Right,

right, right. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. It's like shut the whole world. And then what's so interesting about is that, you know, a couple of days later, you feel like, you know, you have all your superpowers back. So it's just the strangest feeling ever. But I'm grateful that they recognize the direct connection between health and wellness and work knowing that there are folks that have been suffering for years, either going to work or having to burn time that they didn't have or losing hours that they could not afford to lose because of something that occurs naturally in the body. So kudos,

kudos to you all. Unfazed, a podcast produced by feisty media and supported by the outspoken women in triathlon Summit,

edited and produced by the fabulous Lindsey Glassford.

Email us at info at unfazed podcast.com and find us on social at try to defy at Dr. Gold speaks or at outspoken women in try. I'm Lisa.

I'm Shauna thanks for listening. Stay unfazed, folks. See you next time.