http://www.forbes.com/2004/08/18/04powomland.html

comments

How did Laura Bush rank higher than Hillary Clinton?

A first lady ranking higher than a popular Senator.

g w does what laura says, that's why

I doubt it.

really

It's nice to see that an African American woman is ranked the most powerful woman in the world.

Condoleeza Rice in 2008!

really

my favourite is hillary

Black people will not give up the oppourtunity to vote for the first (known) Black President.

If they run Condi, it's all over but the crying.

Condi will win.

i think it's too early. condi is probably a forerunner. at least not from the REPS!"?

Yeah, they are only considering Condi because they know how deadly Bill Clinton Campaigning for Hilary will be.

So let us see, if we get Hilary, it will probably mean that they offer Condi.

hillary why don't you please step off? think of it: 1st black president. first woman president. first BLACK WOMAN prez.

I totally support Hilary Clinton until she is given the democratic nod, after that if they give it to Condi, we should support Condi.

i see. logical.

hmnn,
I don't know why Laura Bush is on that list.

First wives are powerful if they so choose to be.

However this time it is confusing to me also. I normally know exactly what the first lady supported during the pregnancy.

I do not know anything Laura Bush supports.

Nancy Reagen -- say no to drugs
Grandma Bush -- literacy
Hillary -- Health Care

What the heck does Laura Support?

I think what I find ridiculous is the indication that being married to a leader automatically makes you powerful which seems to be what her being on the list is suggesting.

Drusilla:

First wives are powerful if they so choose to be.

However this time it is confusing to me also. I normally know exactly what the first lady supported during the pregnancy.

I do not know anything Laura Bush supports.

Nancy Reagen -- say no to drugs
Grandma Bush -- literacy
Hillary -- Health Care

What the heck does Laura Support?

I'd say it's more commendable when you achieve something like that on your own, which many women already do (not through association with someone else or by being married to the man in power).  While all the women you listed should be commended for their hard work and dedication, I can not consider them powerful. Using your position for good is nice but it doesn't make you powerful, IMO.

Nia,

I don't think it works like that in America. In America it is all about connections. Mrs. Bush is powerful just for being first lady. The Rich and Powerful do not think that obtaining power is commendable only if you achieve it on your own. That's a middle class value. A Rich and Powerful value is: who you know, who your related to.

Do remember that dear old dad is the reason for every job President Bush ever had in his life, in and out of political office.

So it's a perfect marriage.

Is Nigeria ready for a female president? www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-13542.0.html

Drusilla:

Nia,

I don't think it works like that in America. In America it is all about connections. Mrs. Bush is powerful just for being first lady. The Rich and Powerful do not think that obtaining power is commendable only if you achieve it on your own. That's a middle class value. A Rich and Powerful value is: who you know, who your related to.

Do remember that dear old dad is the reason for every job President Bush ever had in his life, in and out of political office.

So it's a perfect marriage.

Actually, what I gave is my opinion of what determines a "powerful" person. I know that connection is important. This is the case in many places, not just in America. When I say being powerful on their own, I'm not referring to bush using his father's connections to get into position. Many times, we all have to munch off somebody if we want to get on in life.

Being married to the man in countrol does not make you powerful, not in the real sense. Becoming the president of a country makes you powerful. (i.e. Johnson Sirleaf). Why? What's the difference? One of them has the power to control and dictate the order of the day for the people they are leading. Their influence is heavily felt among the populace. That's what having power is about. The other, i.e. a first lady does not garner the same amount of countrol and she either tries to advice or support the real man in power (or something to that effect). So, no, I disagree. Being married to the one in power doesn't make you powerful.

Nia,

Drusilla:

Nia,

It's all good. It's just disturbing to think that some young gullible girls might see this list and look up to being married to someone powerful as a good example rather than being encouraged to work at putting themselves in direct power. (That is, if that's really what they want).

Nia,

I think it is okay, if little girls grow up dreaming about being First Lady. I do not think at all it is a shabby second best as your post would imply.

I find that being a good wife, a good mother is still respectable for a woman in my eyes.

I do not think we should constantly diminish what women do and place value on women only if they can imitate what men consider to be accomplishments.

Drusilla:

Nia,

I think it is okay, if little girls grow up dreaming about being First Lady. I do not think at all it is a shabby second best as your post would imply.

I find that being a good wife, a good mother is still respectable for a woman in my eyes.

I do not think we should constantly diminish what women do and place value on women only if they can imitate what men consider to be accomplishments.

I am not sure how you got that from my post. Even though I am not an ardent supporter of traditionalism I do not "diminsh" anyone's choice to live the life they see best. If a woman wants to be a good housewife, or a stay at home mother, good for her.  If a woman wants to take on leadership roles and garner the force to execute considerable influence among a certain group of people, (i.e. be in leadership), good for her. (although the first and second are not mutually exclusive), 

There's no written law that says setting your goal on leading a/your people is something "only a man sees as accomplishment". Leadership is universally acknowledged as a great accomplishment by both members of the sexes. (I specifically remember how being president of "so and so" club and vice president of this and that always bulks up your resume when applying for certain positions not to mention college and universities. So, i can't agree with you that leadership is something only men see as accomplishments. Again, many people like to be leaders, not followers, sex notwithstanding.

TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTION: I included in my post "THAT IS, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WANT", specifically to avoid the type of assertion you're making. No one is saying people should be forced to believe that they want to become a powerful leader because it is more commendable than being a homemaker or a first Lady. What I wrote is that those who DO want to be in leadership should not be encouraged to settle for second best.

THE ISSUE OF SECOND BEST:
I slightly touched on this earlier but I'll attempt to be clearer. If what you want is to lead a people and to have strong influential force among those people then clearly being a first lady is second best, in that context. You simply cannot have the same impact as having direct power (more or less). This is not saying that being a first lady is useless, Period. (Which seems to be what you're insinuating).  If that's your goal in life, then it CANNOT be second best FOR YOU.  But in the contexts of being an influential force and assuming that's what you want, it greatly pales in comparison to being directly in leadership/power.

I am not sure how you got that from my post. Even though I am not an ardent supporter of traditionalism I do not "diminsh" anyone's choice to live the life they see best. If a woman wants to be a good housewife, or a stay at home mother, good for her.  If a woman wants to take on leadership roles and garner the force to execute considerable influence among a certain group of people, (i.e. be in leadership), good for her. (although the first and second are not mutually exclusive),

Nia,

I think a family is a certain group of people and I think the wife and mother of each family has a considerable influence among them. 

There's no written law that says setting your goal on leading a/your people is something "only a man sees as accomplishment". Leadership is universally acknowledged as a great accomplishment by both members of the sexes. (I specifically remember how being president of "so and so" club and vice president of this and that always bulks up your resume when applying for certain positions not to mention college and universities. So, i can't agree with you that leadership is something only men see as accomplishments. Again, many people like to be leaders, not followers, sex notwithstanding.

And in the end, those pieces of paper and jobs and admiring employee's fade away and we cry over mama or our wife or our children more than any of them. Nobody ever dies thinking about a piece of paper or an old job. We all die wishing we would have taken more time to love and care for those we say we love.

TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTION: I included in my post "THAT IS, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WANT", specifically to avoid the type of assertion you're making. No one is saying people should be forced to believe that they want to become a powerful leader because it is more commendable than being a homemaker or a first Lady. What I wrote is that those who DO want to be in leadership should not be encouraged to settle for second best.

Being first lady is not second best. Second best is being the second lady or vice presidents wife.

THE ISSUE OF SECOND BEST:
I slightly touched on this earlier but I'll attempt to be clearer. If what you want is to lead a people and to have strong influential force among those people then clearly being a first lady is second best, in that context. You simply cannot have the same impact as having direct power (more or less). This is not saying that being a first lady is useless, Period. (Which seems to be what you're insinuating).  If that's your goal in life, then it CANNOT be second best FOR YOU.  But in the contexts of being an influential force and assuming that's what you want, it greatly pales in comparison to being directly in leadership/power.

I think the poll shows that people have correctly surmised that Mrs. Bush is powerful simply by having the ear of the most powerful person in the world.

We can't have it both ways. We can not say leadership outside the home is far greater than leadership in the home. Then wonder why people do not want to get married nor stay married. Why are families falling apart etc.

As it is now in America, 62 percent of marriages end in divorce and second marriages end in divorce more often and quicker.

We got to stop sending these scitzophrenic messages to women and men and family's.

Then sitting back crying about why they do not want to get married, stay at home and raise good children and be strong in their own position in this world.

Men of course read the message equally as clear. If outside the home matters more than in the home, they why not get a young trophy wife, the people outside the home will see the beauty in that more than your old tired wife.

Children grow up now and don't want to marry or have children even if they do get married well into their 40's and the parents if they become a problem are shipped immeadiately away to the nursing home.

They have heard the message as well, that it is all about them and what they want in this life, that is the only way to be valued.

I know this is the message that is fed to people in the west. So now the west sits around wringing it's hands that family's are fading, marriage is fading, children are fading.

Back in the 1960's people used to wring their hands about Black people's outrageous baby out of wedlock numbers. It was 25 percent.

Now white people's baby out of wedlocks numbers are 25 percent.

We need to think about the scitzophrenic messages we are sending people. It's a society killer to not value what women do in the capacity that most of them consider pretty important.

Drusilla:

Nia,

I think a family is a certain group of people and I think the wife and mother of each family has a considerable influence among them. 

I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote. Naturally, a parent would have influence in their family.

Drusilla:

And in the end, those pieces of paper and jobs and admiring employee's fade away and we cry over mama or our wife or our children more than any of them. Nobody ever dies thinking about a piece of paper or an old job. We all die wishing we would have taken more time to love and care for those we say we love.

hmnn, now, we're shifting the goal post. This reads like your personal sentiments, but I must disagree. Not everybody see things this way. Part of what makes the world go round and what allows civilization to continue to improve, the reason why each younger generation have the opportunity to be smarter than the previous ones, one of the reasons we have advanced the way we have as a people is what you're calling pieces of paper or an old job. Society MUST push people to be successful and to value leadership. We all benefit from it when we have many competent people competing for leadership. So, being the CEO of some company or loading your resume with highly respectable positions is not worthless. It puts you in competition with the best people. When we have many people with good leadership skills in our society, society benefits from it. So, no, it's not just worthless pieces of paper or an old job. It's part of life. Good leaders change people's lives and usually prove to be positive forces in the society. Being a good leader is about caring about those you're leading and looking out for their wellbeing.

Moreover, it is harder to maintain a family when you don't have a job with a steady income and if the job you need requires you to be a leader or to have strong leadership skills (and most top paying jobs DO look for these), it would prove difficult to attain such a job.

Drusilla:

Being first lady is not second best. Second best is being the second lady or vice presidents wife.

This is what I wrote.

Nia:


THE ISSUE OF SECOND BEST:
I slightly touched on this earlier but I'll attempt to be clearer. If what you want is to lead a people and to have strong influential force among those people then clearly being a first lady is second best, in that context. You simply cannot have the same impact as having direct power (more or less). This is not saying that being a first lady is useless, Period. (Which seems to be what you're insinuating).  If that's your goal in life, then it CANNOT be second best FOR YOU.  But in the contexts of being an influential force and assuming that's what you want, it greatly pales in comparison to being directly in leadership/power.

I think the poll shows that people have correctly surmised that Mrs. Bush is powerful simply by having the ear of the most powerful person in the world.

I didn't dispute what the poll said. I said I disagreed with it and I explained why. Bush is powerful and if he decides that tonight he must listen to my conversation with my boyfriend in order to further protect Americans from terrorism, I can't stop him. If Laura tries to do this, she won't get away with it.   

Drusilla:

We can't have it both ways. We can not say leadership outside the home is far greater than leadership in the home. Then wonder why people do not want to get married nor stay married. Why are families falling apart etc.

You seem to be forcing some view on me, a view that I never championed. And I'm starting to think you didn't read my replies at all.  Again, this is what I wrote:

Nia:

TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTION: I included in my post "THAT IS, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WANT", specifically to avoid the type of assertion you're making. No one is saying people should be forced to believe that they want to become a powerful leader because it is more commendable than being a homemaker or a first Lady. What I wrote is that those who DO want to be in leadership should not be encouraged to settle for second best.

Drusilla:
As it is now in America, 62 percent of marriages end in divorce and second marriages end in divorce more often and quicker.

We got to stop sending these scitzophrenic messages to women and men and family's.

Then sitting back crying about why they do not want to get married, stay at home and raise good children and be strong in their own position in this world.

Unless you can prove that having the desire to be a leader outside the home directly affects all these, I'm not sure I see your point here. 
You cannot force people to adopt a way of life that you think is right for them. Ultimately, people have to make decisions for themselves because they're the ones that must live their lives.
If a man or women decides never to get married, WHY IS THIS A CRIME? What if like Mother theresa, they decide to travel to developing countries instead and dedicate their time? What if they want to run for a local government in their country and direct their energy at helping people in their town instead of getting married (although I have stated earlier that the two are not mutually exclusive)? Who are we to tell them that that's not the way to live?
There will always be people who believe that having a family is the ultimate prize and that is a choice everyone must respect. But why should we force this choice on all?

Drusilla:

Men of course read the message equally as clear. If outside the home matters more than in the home, they why not get a young trophy wife, the people outside the home will see the beauty in that more than your old tired wife.

LOL, well this is news to me but I don't get the correlation. There are many men out there who have nice homemaking wives and still run after young things in skirt. Kennedy and Clinton comes to mind, just to name a few.

Drusilla:


Children grow up now and don't want   to marry or have children even if they do get married well into their 40's and the parents if they become a problem are shipped immeadiately away to the nursing home.

They have heard the message as well, that it is all about them and what they want in this life, that is the only way to be valued.

I know this is the message that is fed to people in the west. So now the west sits around wringing it's hands that family's are fading, marriage is fading, children are fading.

Back in the 1960's people used to wring their hands about Black people's outrageous baby out of wedlock numbers. It was 25 percent.

Now white people's baby out of wedlocks numbers are 25 percent.

We need to think about the scitzophrenic messages we are sending people. It's a society killer to not value what women do in the capacity that most of them consider pretty important.

Again, unless you can provide concrete research to prove all of these, I can't agree with them.

Yes, the family dynamics have changed over the course of the years, but there are several factors that have affected the changes.

This reads like your personal sentiments, but I must disagree. Not everybody see things this way. Part of what makes the world go round and what allows civilization to continue to improve, the reason why each younger generation have the opportunity to be smarter than the previous ones, one of the reasons we have advanced the way we have as a people is what you're calling pieces of paper or an old job. Society MUST push people to be successful and to value leadership. We all benefit from it when we have many competent people competing for leadership. So, being the CEO of some company or loading your resume with highly respectable positions is not worthless. It puts you in competition with the best people. When we have many people with good leadership skills in our society, society benefits from it. So, no, it's not just worthless pieces of paper or an old job. It's part of life. Good leaders change people's lives and usually prove to be positive forces in the society. Being a good leader is about caring about those you're leading and looking out for their wellbeing.

Moreover, it is harder to maintain a family when you don't have a job with a steady income and if the job you need requires you to be a leader or to have strong leadership skills (and most top paying jobs DO look for these), it would prove difficult to attain such a job.

I watched a french documentary. The guy asked a very serious question that living in the richest country in the world, I have to ask myself.

If 80 percent of the people do not experience life like me, am I really experiencing the world as the majority of humanity does?

I'm not sure that advocating the policy's that benefit the top 20 percent of the world, is all I want to do with my life.

Maybe I am doing the limousine liberal thing. I'll have to think about that one.

You seem to be forcing some view on me, a view that I never championed. And I'm starting to think you didn't read my replies at all.

I read them. I apologize. Bad habit.

You cannot force people to adopt a way of life that you think is right for them. Ultimately, people have to make decisions for themselves because they're the ones that must live their lives.

Actually you can force them directly and indirectly to adopt any lifestyle you want them to adopt, if your powerful enough. Exhibit A: Africa under Colonialization/Neo-Colonialisation.

And even if you are not that powerful, you can spend years teaching them differently and suddenly, you have people with lots of girls who want to do things that no girl desired before the current education began.

If a man or women decides never to get married, WHY IS THIS A CRIME?

It's not a crime but it does have the effect of killing society as more and more don't feel the pressure to provide the children for the society's future.

Again, unless you can provide concrete research to prove all of these, I can't agree with them.

Yes, the family dynamics have changed over the course of the years, but there are several factors that have affected the changes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm
http://news.spirithit.com/index/society/more/japans_population_crisis_from_baby_shortage

Drusilla:

I watched a french documentary. The guy asked a very serious question that living in the richest country in the world, I have to ask myself.

If 80 percent of the people do not experience life like me, am I really experiencing the world as the majority of humanity does?

I'm not sure that advocating the policy's that benefit the top 20 percent of the world, is all I want to do with my life.

Maybe I am doing the limousine liberal thing. I'll have to think about that one.

Drusilla, the key word is here is CHOICE. You can live however you want. If you want to live like the top 20 percent of society, you can do that. If you prefer to live like the 80 percent, that is YOUR choice. And it is one you should make based on what makes you comfortable. That is the beauty of living in a free society. No where did I say people should be forced. Again, I specifically stated in my earlier post,  "That is, assuming that's what they want." 

Drusilla:


Actually you can force them directly and indirectly to adopt any lifestyle you want them to adopt, if your powerful enough. Exhibit A: Africa under Colonialization/Neo-Colonialisation.

unless you're saying Colonialism was a good thing, I'm confused why you would use this analogy. Oppressing a people and dominating them, and consequentially reducing their rights as human beings is not something a civilized society should emulate.

Drusilla:

And even if you are not that powerful, you can spend years teaching them differently and suddenly, you have people with lots of girls who want to do things that no girl desired before the current education began.

Like I said earlier, there will always be people who support the traditional family. And they deserve to be respected for their choices. But this same respect must be extended to those who choose alternative lifestyles. However people choose to live their lives it does not make them less human or their life less important that we should not respect them until they are forced to conform to certain dogmas. 

Drusilla:

It's not a crime but it does have the effect of killing society as more and more don't feel the pressure to provide the children for the society's future.

Yes, we are a society, but first we are individuals. Individuals who must live a life we feel is best for us. If that means not having children, then that's it. If people don't want to have children, why should they be forced? Some people might think very deeply about their lives and conclude that they lack the ability to properly take care of another human being. Why should we be forcing people who don't want children to have them? Are we to assume that they will suddenely love having children after they give birth to them? Is that not irresponsible and likely to do more damage to society if these people turn out to be terrible parents and raise children that are not adequately cared for? maybe (mentally or physically abused?, et cetera, ) 

Drusilla:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm
http://news.spirithit.com/index/society/more/japans_population_crisis_from_baby_shortage

I have read the links you provided. Nothing in the articles claim that women looking to leadership outside of the home is the cause for the problems you listed.

Rather, it supported the point I made earlier that there are many factors that contribute to changes in the family dynamics including (but not limited to) people becoming better educated, technology in birth control, absence of the social stigmas that accompanied out-of-wedlock births and the issues of marriage. But nowhere did it attribute women looking to leadership outside of the home as cause for these changes.

Drusilla, the key word is here is CHOICE. You can live however you want. If you want to live like the top 20 percent of society, you can do that. If you prefer to live like the 80 percent, that is YOUR choice. And it is one you should make based on what makes you comfortable. That is the beauty of living in a free society. No where did I say people should be forced. Again, I specifically stated in my earlier post, "That is, assuming that's what they want."

Do what feels good to you. Gotcha.

unless you're saying Colonialism was a good thing, I'm confused why you would use this analogy. Oppressing a people and dominating them, and consequentially reducing their rights as human beings is not something a civilized society should emulate.

Could you name for me, some of the civilized society's and then name for me the society's that did colonize, oppress and dominate and reduce rights?

Like I said earlier, there will always be people who support the traditional family. And they deserve to be respected for their choices. But this same respect must be extended to those who choose alternative lifestyles. However people choose to live their lives it does not make them less human or their life less important that we should not respect them until they are forced to conform to certain dogmas.

Respect the rights of all. Gotcha.

Yes, we are a society, but first we are individuals. Individuals who must live a life we feel is best for us. If that means not having children, then that's it. If people don't want to have children, why should they be forced? Some people might think very deeply about their lives and conclude that they lack the ability to properly take care of another human being. Why should we be forcing people who don't want children to have them? Are we to assume that they will suddenely love having children after they give birth to them? Is that not irresponsible and likely to do more damage to society if these people turn out to be terrible parents and raise children that are not adequately cared for? maybe (mentally or physically abused?, et cetera, )

We should allow society to committ suicide, as we do the individual. Gotcha.

Drusilla:


Could you name for me, some of the civilized society's and then name for me the society's that did colonize, oppress and dominate and reduce rights?

hmnn,
Drusilla, although I think the onus is on you to provide what you think we should emulate about colonialism, since you provided the analogy, I will go ahead and answer your request.  Regarding my response: as society improves, the aim is to move towards civility/better respect for human beings' individual choices and rights, including allowing individual nations the right to sovereignty not use force to press a view on them, like you wrote in your post. Carving up continents, invading them, using up their resources et cetera, in disguise of "helping those African savages" as was done in the past in Africa is not akin to civility or respect for human beings. In fact, it's one of the many examples of why no one should be dictating for others what is supposedly good for them without regard to personal preference/individuality, like you stated in your post.
I'm referring to those who played a hand in Africa's PAST colonialism, since that was the geographic region you mentioned in your post when you wrote: 

Drusilla:

Actually you can force them directly and indirectly to adopt any lifestyle you want them to adopt, if your powerful enough. Exhibit A: Africa under Colonialization/Neo-Colonialisation.

Drusilla:

We should allow society to committ suicide, as we do the individual. Gotcha.

LOL,
I admire your unselfish outlook on life. And since many people are too selfish to put society before their personal needs, I think it's only proper that you have 12 children, maybe even 15 to make up for those who are choosing to have none. This will definitely go many ways to help society.

Nia,

Alright, let's keep this simple.

You said:

Society MUST push people to be successful and to value leadership. We all benefit from it when we have many competent people competing for leadership.

I am saying:

Society MUST push people to be successful mothers and wives and to value a mother/wifes life. We all benefit from it when we have many ---- people to even lead.

Can we agree that mothers & housewives, people whom bring us children are just as valuable to a society as leaders of the same society?

Good. Now that we are done with that.

The list says: Powerful women.

You want it to say: Powerful women outside of the home, who have their own achievements.

Even though everybody else seems to agree that Mrs. Bush is powerful and deserves to be on the list -- even though her power is in the home.

The list and people recognized women in their respective fields (wives & mothers) and (politics, etc) as being powerful.

You have it in mind that the women listed in the wives & mothers category were not really as worthy of being on the list, as the other women.

Something seems wrong with that idea, even as you claim to think to each their own and do what they want.

I guess one of those things we want is to appreciate women's power in their wives & mothers category and the other category as well.

Both benefit society.