The Economist has a tradition of doing things differently. The no-bylined stories, the boundary-pushing captions, the resistance to magazineyness. And a recent promotion, as highlighted by Good Magazine’s Amanda Hess: “Why should women read The Economist? They shouldn’t.. . . “Accomplished, influential people should read us. People like you.”

What’s up with that?

Hess answers:

With its latest advertising effort, the magazine has attempted to claim that masculine perspective as a human one. The difference is that women are now administered explicit invitations to the club, so long as they think like the “accomplished, influential” men who have produced and consumed this “universal” worldview since 1843.

I’m no woman, and I am not one of those “C-level” professionals who feasts on Economist fare. But I gotta think that a lot of accomplished women will respond simply to the “shouldn’t” part of this pitch and continue to steer clear of the Economist.