In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Forbes: 100 Most Powerful Women in the World

Trudi

Angela Merckel, the first female chancellor of Germany rates Number One for the second time.

Our ranking system starts with a list of women who have crossed certain thresholds. Most of them run companies, governments or nonprofits, or are very close to the top. A handful have established power bases in other ways (an entertainment entrepreneur, a judge and an author have been on the list). The power ranking score is based on a composite of visibility (measured by press citations) and economic impact.

The latter, in turn, reflects three things: résumé (career achievements and titles, so a prime minister counts as more powerful than a senator); the size of the economic sphere over which a leader holds sway; and a multiplier that aims to make different financial yardsticks comparable. For example, a chief executive is assigned the company’s sales in the economic impact calculation, while a foundation executive is assigned the foundation’s assets. The assets get a higher multiplier than sales.

The article and the list.

18 thoughts on Forbes: 100 Most Powerful Women in the World

  2. Jill,
    I understand the spirit in which you’re saying that, but I’ll say it anyway:

    Don’t. For one thing, the current German government is a disgrace and only noteworthy for trying to abolish civil liberties. For another, as a foreigner you’d get away with it, but in most circles if a German declared any such pride, the others would probably give them an alarmed OMG the nazis are returning look of disapproval. (Although I understand that particular rule has been relaxed some after the worldcup.)

  3. I second Azundris. Just have to add that many a feminist in Germany where like “Yeah, female chancellor, just not here.” They were angry that she never put much emphasis on her gender and didn’t particularly fight for women. Then that’s probably what got her elected. Difficult topic.

  5. It’s great to see this list, but I wonder how far down we’d have to go on the list of most powerful PEOPLE in the world to get to a woman. I don’t even know what such a list would look like (ugh.. it would probably start with Dubya). Is such a list even possible? I don’t think Forbes does one, and the fact that it would be so difficult to put one together — because there are so many powerful men to choose from — makes me feel a bit sad that it’s possible to make this list for women.

    Anyway, don’t get me wrong — I think it’s good to look at these lists and to be reminded about the powerful women that are out there. I just hope that someday we won’t need to.

  6. Thing is, why should I care about this list? So, there’s powerful women out there—so what? What are these women doing with their clout? Are they using their power and status to create more and better opportunities for Josefina Average? Or are they mainly interested in perpetuating the status quo?

    See, its not the presence or absence of women at the top that concerns me. Its the conditions of women at the bottom or the middle that I’m concerned with. If Ms. Big has the same disdain or ignorance of me that Mr. Big has, what difference should it make to me that “well, but hey—it’s Ms. Big this time, isn’t it exciting? Aren’t we getting somewhere?”

    ‘Cuz….who’s “we”?

  7. I like Alison’s comment of how to stack this list up against people. I mean, this line kinda creeps me out “while there have been plenty of hand-wringing studies arguing that the corporate glass ceiling for women has turned into concrete, we had no difficulty turning up 66 business executives worthy of inclusion on the list. The remaining 34 are mostly in government.” Ummm. . . 66 executives means there’s no glass ceiling? I’m not convinced. That said, I agree it’s good to at least see the list to argue against the whole “women don’t have the ability” crowd.

  8. This is a great list, nice to see such intelligent women in positions of power. I was just a little disappointed that there was no representation from Canada. I’d be really interested in learning about powerful female role models in my own country.

  9. If you think there is a fundamental conflict between the haves and the haves nots of the world, which I do at least, which side exactly do you think Forbes mag and Merkel line up? Does feminism have any class orientation?

    If feminism main task is fighting for integrating the German ruling class or Iran’s police/torture apparatus then I say forget feminism.

  11. Melinda Gates more powerful than Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi? That’s ridiculous. She made one move that separated her from any other Microsoft exec, and that particular move shouldn’t be celebrated as an example for how women move up in the world.

  12. La Lubu: ” If Ms. Big has the same disdain or ignorance of me that Mr. Big has, what difference should it make to me that ‘well, but hey—it’s Ms. Big this time, isn’t it exciting? Aren’t we getting somewhere?'”

    1) Women don’t yet have the kind of critical mass in the power centers for us to know whether Ms. Big has the same disdain. That’s a conclusion we aren’t yet able to jump to.

    2) Anecdotally, I think there are some examples out there that as an organization gets more diverse in terms of gender and race, its values tend to closer reflect the values of those communities. eg, the female and minority lawyers I’ve represented have been more likely to be involved in pro bono work in the areas of most need within their communities, such as domestic violence, poverty, legal aid to developing countries and urban areas.

    3) At the very least, a female/minority person in a position of power who does NOTHING ELSE but be female/minority serves as a motivator for employers to invest in women and make the organization more friendly to the concerns of women/minorities at all levels. I’ve spoken to both female and minority students (in various income brackets) who said that simply having people who look like them in an organization makes them feel more comfortable. That matters.

    4) Don’t expect miracles of women. Hanging the albatross of “you need to solve world poverty, or your accomplishments have no value” around the necks of powerful women is unfair, unless those women are actually (as some on the list are) in positions where they can effect this type of change.

    It’s interesting that when women achieve things, other women are won’t to say “why should we care?” When men achieve things, we learn about them in English Lit, Relativity, String Theory, History. We don’t ask why we should care, or why these guys aren’t all-powerful. Let’s extend the same respect to women, shall we?

  13. It’s not about how they achieved their power status but who weilds more power and influence. So Melinda Gates might very well have more power and influence than HRC. Doesn’t mean she is a celebrated example exactly (though I can see how it is perceived that way)

  14. “So Melinda Gates might very well have more power and influence than HRC.”

    I disagree. If Melinda and Bill divorced, she’d be a wealthy but otherwise unnotable person, likely doing philanthropy in her own right but with a different magnitude and with much less public notice.

    If Hilary and Bill divorced, she’d be running for president.

    If Nancy and her husband divorced, she’d be Speaker of the House.

    I don’t think marrying money conveys true power. There are plenty of examples of divorced women who can corroborate.

  15. Sunny – our local paper noted the abscence of Canadian women of power. Apparently right now, none of our women cut the mustard (sigh). Nationally, I can think of a few, but I can’t think of one on a global level.

    Octogalore – I agree that without Bill, Melinda may not have such power and influence, but I dont’ think Forbes takes that into consideration – they are only looking at the here and now.

  17. octogalore, I was speaking purely from a class perspective—if a woman in a powerful position cannot be differentiated from her (male) compadres in any way other than “she’s a she”, then that isn’t good enough for me. No cookie for her.

    I am well aware that women do not have a critical mass in power positions; I don’t see where that matters in evaluating whether or not Ms. Big is supportive of women or not. I don’t expect her to move the earth, sun and stars; I expect her to use her power, position, and voice to lift up other women. If she doesn’t, then I don’t see where I’m obligated to view her as being different from men in power.

    I’m just tired of seeing these damn lists, is all. I’m tired of the lionizing of wealth, and conflating that with power. See, the whole reason we see these lists, the whole reason there are women on these lists, isn’t because of the individual accomplishment of these women. It’s because of the voices, votes, organization and power of nameless, faceless masses of women who created the conditions that made it possible for any woman to make it on to these lists.

    I have a frustration with mainstream feminism’s insistence that these lists can be used as a gauge for how the rest of us are doing. Or that the presence of any given powerful woman is an indicator of brighter days ahead for women. Which women?

    I think there’s still a lot of tokenism. I see these lists as yet another form of tokenism. Critical mass isn’t going to come from the top down—it always comes from the bottom up. For me, feminism is not about how women can get a piece of the traditional pie. It’s a fundamental restructuring of how power is held—not just who holds it.

    I don’t expect miracles. I do expect courage. Why should I hold a woman who has umpteen-times the authority and privilege I have to a lesser standard than I hold myself?

  18. “I am well aware that women do not have a critical mass in power positions; I don’t see where that matters in evaluating whether or not Ms. Big is supportive of women or not.”

    It matters because unless you’re intimately aware of her role, opportunities to create change, and activities in furthering those opportunities, you really can’t accurately make that evaluation. With a critical mass, you’d have a better benchmark for judging change vis a vis where we are now or where we were ten years ago.

    “I expect her to use her power, position, and voice to lift up other women. If she doesn’t, then I don’t see where I’m obligated to view her as being different from men in power.”

    Again — the statistics themselves of women and minorities in various positions MATTER to women and minorities of varying income brackets looking at those careers. You cannot speak for them. And per my anecdotal experience, women and minorities do place greater weight, on average, than white men do on reaching out to their communities.

    “I have a frustration with mainstream feminism’s insistence that these lists can be used as a gauge for how the rest of us are doing.”

    I don’t read mainstream feminism as saying that how Hilary’s doing is a direct indication of how women all over are doing. Just that more women in power is better than fewer women in power.

    “Critical mass isn’t going to come from the top down—it always comes from the bottom up.”

    Disagree. It’s a combination. The grass-roots efforts of activists combined with clearthinking allies in powerful positions. The former won’t work without the latter, and vice versa.

    “For me, feminism is not about how women can get a piece of the traditional pie. It’s a fundamental restructuring of how power is held—not just who holds it.”

    Again, a misstatement. Feminism is NOT the restructuring, it’s the belief that there should be one. I too hope that this will happen; however, in the meantime, I’d rather play both sides of the equation instead of sitting out a few innings crossing our fingers as the power structures continue the white male status quo.

    “Why should I hold a woman who has umpteen-times the authority and privilege I have to a lesser standard than I hold myself?”

    Are you seriously claiming that you have, by your stated standard, “create[d] more and better opportunities for Josefina Average” than Nancy Pelosi? I can think of three female law firm partners who’ve made significant pro bono inroads in areas of domestic violence, school violence against women, and funding big sister programs benefiting inner city girls. If one of those women were on the list (and some are on other lists), would you know of these activities before launching the claim that your outreach efforts are more effective?

Comments are currently closed.