I'm not sure why my words continue to be twisted or where the misunderstanding is.

Drusilla:

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.

Yes, because you wrote:

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.

My reply to this was that the waves of good leadership is felt among those that are being led and it is not just pieces of paper or an old job like you claimed. Also that good leadership is something that is valued by all, sex notwithstanding, not "just something that men see as accomplishments" like you claim.

Your reply in the above quote would be like me saying that believing that having a family is the ultimate prize and wasting all your energy on that goal will leave you with regret at the end of your days that you never directed your energy to fulfilling your goal of being an influential force among the populace. And I have yet to make such a claim. 

Nowhere have I claimed that one person's position is more important than the other. That is something you're reading into my reply and like I stated earlier, you cannot push a view I never championed on me. If I say that someone who wants to become an influential force and change a particluar populace should not settle for just marrying the real person in power, that's exactly what I mean. If you don't want this and what you want is to be a good wife, then understandably, trying to aim for direct power is not something you value and should not aim for. I have explained this several times and I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.   

Drusilla:


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.

Actually, what I read is "Forced, like Africa under colonialism". I have given my opinion on this and why I disagree.

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

I have not said otherwise. What I can't agree with is when one person try to force others to agree with what they see as appropriate. Nowhere have I said that those who don't become leaders outside of the home are detrimental to society and should be forced to do otherwise.
 
The thing is, there are many reasons for changes in the family dynamic. And a fair amount of them are good reasons. (i.e. people becoming better educated,  more awareness for people's individual rights, women having more rights etc, )  Yet you continue to paint a picture of bliss and happy harmony of the past because "we didn't have 50% divorce rates" or "children weren't being born out of wedlock" and so on and so forth. Children WERE being born out of wedlock. But the social stigma associated with it forced people to get married when this occurs. And single mothers would give up their children for adoption to avoid society's wrath. These days, single mothers are more likely to keep and take care of their children. Marriage problems were something you ignored and learned to live with whether or not you were unhappy. Even if you can endure being labeled a divorcee, there was the issue of financial comfort for women. Unless you came from a rich home, you couldn't make it on your own without your husband's financial help. Your husband running around or suddenely telling you he has another family outside was something you were expected to accept if you were a woman.
These same social stigmas also negatively affect society by using fear to force people conform to a particular way of life.  Hence, I'm reluctant to get on a boat that says the past was wonderful and dandy. No, it wasn't.  the past had its good and its bad. And similarly, today's family dynamics also have it's good and its bad. The wonderful thing about it is we can all choose the one that we see fit.

Drusilla:

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

I don't see this discussion having any progress if we're going to jump to unfounded allegations or put words in each other's mouth. Again this is your perception of what I've written, they're not mine.

Drusilla:

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.

hmnn, why does this sound like reaching? If you don't mind, please inform us who "everybody else" is. What amount of the population took part in this poll (if it was a poll), and please tell us the criterias that was used.
And I don't think "because everbody else agrees" is a reason for me to agree to anything. I am an individual and I am entitled to have a different opinion.

Drusilla:

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.

I didn't know you were a mind reader, LOL. But you don't need to be one to correctly understand my view. I have addressed them over and over again, and for some reason, they continued to be ignored for what you perceive my real view to be.

Drusilla:

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

Yes, there are many things wrong with the idea. One of them being that they are being misconstrued.

Drusilla:
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.

Like I said earlier, everyone's choice on how to live their lives should be respected.

Drusilla, Forbes is not championing your cause. You're the one concluding that forbes is "celebrating women's role in the house" because they put Laura Bush on that list.  That is NOT why Laura Bush is on that list. But because she is married to Bush, a powerful man. (And because of her push for more people being educated and fighting for better women's rights.)
These have nothing to do with being a housewife or a homemaker. Many women already do this. And many ordinary women are wonderful homemakers and if what you're claiming is true, they should ALL be on Forbes list. I stated earlier that she should be commended for using her position for good, but I disagree with her being labeled powerful simply by the act of being married to the powerful one. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Nia,

I am sorry. I apologize. You seem unaware that there is a raging argument in America between Feminists and Women.

I may be assuming that you are saying something else, when you seem to desire that Laura Bush's power be kept off the list of the powerful because you do not value her power as First Wife and Mother of America.

Drusilla:

Nia,

I am sorry. I apologize. You seem unaware that there is a raging argument in America between Feminists and Women.

I may be assuming that you are saying something else, when you seem to desire that Laura Bush's power be kept off the list of the powerful because you do not value her power as First Wife and Mother of America.

Drusilla, throughout this discussion, you have made assumptions and allegations, and jumped to conclusions. I have explained my view over and over again and you either choose to ignore them or choose to not understand so as to justify whatever it is you think I am trying to say. Even now, you assume you know more about Feminism, and America for that matter, more than I do. The attempt to patronize did not go unnoticed. And I will not compare notes on who is more informed about what.
I apologize if this comes across as harsh but I find it interesting how you're twisting and turning my words to justify your accusations. It does nothing for the discussion if everything I'm writing continues to be twisted and misunderstood.

I didn't start the discussion to attack people who choose to be homemakers or live their lives domestically. That's what you want me to do, and I have refused to go along with it.
Why? because it makes little sense. One reason being that Forbes didn't put Laura on that list because they admire her homemaking skills or to promote the traditional family. That's your interpretation and as long as you continue to sing the same song, I see no progress in this discussion.
I have respect for your views and for choosing to continue the discussion and as long as you have, but I find that your approach in projecting your view and to adequately handle something you disagree with leaves much to be desired.

Nia,

Your right. I butchered this whole debate. I wish now I had taken the time to learn about feminism. It's not my area.

I apologize again.

However------

You first said:

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.

You now say:

One reason being that Forbes didn't put Laura on that list because they admire her homemaking skills or to promote the traditional family.

I don't know. I get confused easily.

I guess I should just leave with my apology and accept that there is something I am missing.

Again sorry about that.

Drusilla:

Nia,

Your right. I butchered this whole debate. I wish now I had taken the time to learn about feminism. It's not my area.

I apologize again.

However------

You first said:

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.

You now say:

  One reason being that Forbes didn't put Laura on that list because they admire her homemaking skills or to promote the traditional family.

hmnn,
I think I see where the misunderstanding is, so I will try again to explain. Laura Bush is married to George Bush. I don't know for a fact whether or not she's a traditional wife or a good mother or a good homemaker. Nor do I care. Why? Because it is irrelevant to the issue. Like I said, that's not what her being on the list means. What I do know for a fact is that she holds the title of MRS. BUSH. She is legally married to Bush. And because she is OFFICIALLY MRS. BUSH, she is considered powerful. She can be a terrible home maker and a bad mother, maybe she smokes weed and shoot up etc, All that is irrelevant. But to be considered powerful because of her title is what I disagree with. Hope that's clearer.

What I do know for a fact is that she holds the title of MRS. BUSH. She is legally married to Bush. And because she is OFFICIALLY MRS. BUSH, she is considered powerful. She can be a terrible home maker and a bad mother, maybe she smokes weed and shoot up etc, All that is irrelevant. But to be considered powerful because of her title is what I disagree with. Hope that's clearer.

Nia,

Thank you. Let me try to stick as closely as to what you said.

Question:

Why do you disagree with Mrs. Bush being considered powerful because of her title?

For me, that's me, I think each and every person with even half a title around President Bush, has a certain amount of power.

Mrs. Bush of course shares in this power that surround her husband and what her life has been dedicated to for the last 30+ years, I'm sure, as a political wife.

She has been doing the same political show for 30+ years along with President Bush.

It's not like she had a singing career and Mr. Bush's dabbling in politics was not that important in her life.

One person did not make it to the whitehouse based on one persons career. This was a team project, politics demands it in America.

She deserves to be on the list and be considered powerful.

Drusilla:

Nia,

Thank you. Let me try to stick as closely as to what you said.

Question:

Why do you disagree with Mrs. Bush being considered powerful because of her title?

For me, that's me, I think each and every person with even half a title around President Bush, has a certain amount of power.

Mrs. Bush of course shares in this power that surround her husband and what her life has been dedicated to for the last 30+ years, I'm sure, as a political wife.

She has been doing the same political show for 30+ years along with President Bush.

It's not like she had a singing career and Mr. Bush's dabbling in politics was not that important in her life.

One person did not make it to the whitehouse based on one persons career. This was a team project, politics demands it in America.

She deserves to be on the list and be considered powerful.

I have already explained why I disagree. How does any of the things you listed give her any part of Bush's power/authority?

Nia,

Whatever the white house dog is named that this will become a popular name for dogs and maybe kids all over the country.

The name brands the president or the first lady use, are sometimes kept in secrecy or else it could make or break a company's product which they do not use.

That it is said that having a picture of you and the president it is worth 10 million dollars to your company.

How could it be said then that Mrs. Bush is not powerful?

There are designers right now, praying that Mrs. Bush please wear the dress or shoes that they gave her as a gift. They know what it could do for their product around the world.

Earlier you wrote:

Drusilla:

Nia,

Thank you. Let me try to stick as closely as to what you said.

Question:

Why do you disagree with Mrs. Bush being considered powerful because of her title?

For me, that's me, I think each and every person with even half a title around President Bush, has a certain amount of power.

And now you're saying:

Drusilla:

Nia,

Whatever the white house dog is named that this will become a popular name for dogs and maybe kids all over the country.

The name brands the president or the first lady use, are sometimes kept in secrecy or else it could make or break a company's product which they do not use.

That it is said that having a picture of you and the president it is worth 10 million dollars to your company.

How could it be said then that Mrs. Bush is not powerful?

There are designers right now, praying that Mrs. Bush please wear the dress or shoes that they gave her as a gift. They know what it could do for their product around the world.

replace the name Laura Bush with Gabrielle Union, Halle Berry,  Angelina Jolie, Denzel Washington, Brad pitt, input whatever celebrity's name you want. And you will still have the same scenario you described. Maybe they should put every celebrity on that list then if that's the definition for power.

If this is your idea of power, how does this fit into the idea that being tied to Bush makes you powerful and deserving to be on the list when other people already do these things without having any ties to Bush? Again, why don't they put all these celebrities on the list when they too can command those types of attention?
What you're describing is not power. At most, it's inspiration and infatuation. Inspiration you can choose to take or leave. Laura's fashion statements will have no effect on me whatsoever because I doubt we share the same taste in clothes. She likely inspires those within her age range. If laura wears prada, I don't have to wear it. If I choose not to wear prada, nothing is going to happen to me. So exactly, WHERE is this power?  But when Bush assigns an Alito to the Supreme Court, when he sends my friends to Iraq, when an increasing portion of my paycheck is spent on gas, cause the price is so high due to war in Iraq, I feel the gravity of Bush's power.
In any case, I think I've made my points clear enough.
Cheers.

replace the name Laura Bush with Gabrielle Union, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Denzel Washington, Brad pitt, input whatever celebrity's name you want. And you will still have the same scenario you described. Maybe they should put every celebrity on that list then if that's the definition for power.

Isn't that the reason Angelina Jolie IS doing it? Because she believes that celebrity's have power? A lot of them seeem to agree that they have power.

If this is your idea of power, how does this fit into the idea that being tied to Bush makes you powerful and deserving to be on the list when other people already do these things without having any ties to Bush? Again, why don't they put all these celebrities on the list when they too can command those types of attention?

The list was about the powerful, not the methods of how they obtained power.

What you're describing is not power. At most, it's inspiration and infatuation. Inspiration you can choose to take or leave. Laura's fashion statements will have no effect on me whatsoever because I doubt we share the same taste in clothes. She likely inspires those within her age range. If laura wears prada, I don't have to wear it. If I choose not to wear prada, nothing is going to happen to me. So exactly, WHERE is this power?

Do you expect the power to be in a gun, where Mrs. Bush can have you shot, if you do not wear prada?

I thought Dr. Kings power was in the form of inspiration?

But when Bush assigns an Alito to the Supreme Court, when he sends my friends to Iraq, when an increasing portion of my paycheck is spent on gas, cause the price is so high due to war in Iraq, I feel the gravity of Bush's power.
In any case, I think I've made my points clear enough.
Cheers.

Sure. But your in America. You'll live. Other people got real problems.

I think anypone who makes intp the top ten is dandy

Drusilla:

Isn't that the reason Angelina Jolie IS doing it? Because she believes that celebrity's have power? A lot of them seeem to agree that they have power.

The list was about the powerful, not the methods of how they obtained power.

Do you expect the power to be in a gun, where Mrs. Bush can have you shot, if you do not wear prada?

I thought Dr. Kings power was in the form of inspiration?

hmnn, why does this sound like clutching at straws. Like I said earlier, then they should ALL be on the list if this is Forbes definition. I have already addressed the problem of projecting your ideas on Forbes. You continue to make assumptions about what Forbes is thinking and doing and I can't go along with it. Cause it doesn't correlate. It is no secret that designers are always trying to get someone with any amount of popularity to wear their merchandises. If this is Forbes' Definition, I don't know why Gabrielle Union and everyone else is missing from the list. Your idea of power is not Forbes'.
First you claim that being tied to Bush gives you power and makes you deserving to be on the list and that justifies using the title as a marker of power. Then you list these supposed powers in the form of what other people already have, people who have no ties to Bush. These same powers that have effect only when individuals choose to allow them to have effect compared to the deterministic and the magnitude of the power of someone like Bsuh.  When I point out the flaw in that, you jump to the conclusion that that means having a gun at someone's neck is the only way to force or use power to project your view and decisions on others. Clearly, there's something wrong here.    
Unless you can come up with a concrete argument for using the Title to justify putting her on the list, everything else is mute.

Drusilla:

Sure. But your in America. You'll live. Other people got real problems.

LOL. Thanks for your sympathies, dear. But you've missed the point again, which certainly wasn't to garner sympathy or personal opinion.

Nia,

I went to forbes.

In the list of powerful women.

There is a wives category and that is the category Mrs. Bush is in.

Maybe I should have paid attention to this way earlier.

Drusilla:

Nia,

I went to forbes.

In the list of powerful women.

There is a wives category and that is the category Mrs. Bush is in.

Maybe I should have paid attention to this way earlier.

um, isn't this what we've been debating on? the issue of Title?

Nia,

What would you tell Forbes to convince them to get rid of the wives category of powerful women?

Drusilla:

Nia,

What would you tell Forbes to convince them to get rid of the wives category of powerful women?

LOL.
If they want, Forbes can come to nairaland, do a search and find this thread. Maybe they might even decide to advertise on the site. I'm sure Seun will like that. Otherwise, I doubt anyone's losing sleep over the issue.

Nia,

I'm still thinking about these facts:

Some women when the choice was available went home.

(CBS) "Why don't more women get to the top?"

That is the question posed on the cover of this weekend's New York Times magazine. The answer, according to many professional women turned moms, is: "They choose not to."

Lisa Belkin, the contributor who wrote "Abandoning The Climb And Heading Home," spent time investigating why women groomed for the boardroom are heading for the nursery instead.

Two such women are Sally Sears, a full-time mother with an Ivy League degree, and Liz Williams, also a full-time mother with MBA.

In "Abandoning the Climb and Heading Home," Belkin opens with the hopes and dreams of the 1970s feminist, who, in her words, "were supposed to achieve like men." She points out women are heavily represented in graduate programs and 16 percent of corporate officers and just eight Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs.

She tells The Early Show co-anchor Rene Syler, “What’s going on is it’s not working out the way we thought it would 34 years ago when the whole revolution began. The thought was, the reason women aren’t represented at the top is because they can’t get in at the bottom. And so if we open the Ivy League and if we open corporate training programs and if we open Harvard Business School, then they will go and achieve like men and what’s really interesting and what this whole article is about is that they don’t make the same choices as men. Women act differently than men. A simple statement, but it took a lot of people by surprise. And there are huge ramifications for the workplace."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/24/earlyshow/living/main579819.shtml

Women like being wives.

Mrs. Bush got power and got to be on that list, because of something she liked doing. Being Mr. Bush's wife.

Why does an achievement in the area which women like to achieve have to be put down and denigrated?

I still have not figured out why being a wife is supposed to be put down as an illegitimate way to power.

Seems like women and what they like is being player hated.

Women, everywhere are powerful. Whether in the corridors of power or not. Even as housewives, they still exert and exercise a significant dose of power. Now the question is how did they evolve to become so powerful? A little bit of research will reveal that the source of their power is what we Nigerians call "bottom", as in "bottom power". By just simply refusing to submit to our sexual overtures, they make us go mad as we start experiencing an ever rising blood pressure. A renowned Nigerian professor once remarked that an erect penis has no conscience. To which I added, incest aside. And that is very true. So it is either that there are some very powerful men who are f*cking these powerful women who really turn out to be so good in bed that being denied the opportunity will make the powerful men go mad, or the powerful women themselves, taking advantage of their relationships to powerful men have been making demands on the men that are geared to make them more powerful. We should now be able to see very clearly why coups are organized or plans for regime elongation are hatched.

Moukee,

Or in Mrs. Bush case, all she has to do is approach the front door of the whitehouse and scream, "he's in there getting drunk again!" to the press who stands by.

It would pretty much end Mr. Bush's career.

Yet in 30 years she has not done that.

Maybe that is why Mr. Bush always claims that Laura is the real power in the family.

I'm sure Mrs. Bush doesn't even remember what it feels like to not get what you want, exactly when you want it.

And she ain't got no bottom!

Laura Bush was picked I am sure because being a teacher and a librarian, she would give Mr. Bush the calm look of, I have matured from my crack sniffing, drunken days of New Orleans.

See I married a boring old teacher. I settled down.

Now Daddy can I have my presidency?

Drusilla:

Moukee,

Or in Mrs. Bush case, all she has to do is approach the front door of the whitehouse and scream, "he's in there getting drunk again!" to the press who stands by.

It would pretty much end Mr. Bush's career.

Yet in 30 years she has not done that.

Maybe that is why Mr. Bush always claims that Laura is the real power in the family.

I'm sure Mrs. Bush doesn't even remember what it feels like to not get what you want, exactly when you want it.

Dru, Bush can't be more right. The real power behind the throne occupied by male presidents, prime ministers and heads of states are the wives, girl friends and concubines of incumbents. According to Norah Vincent, a newspaper columnist who transformed her physical looks to a man's in order to have a first hand experience of machismo "every man's armor is borrowed and 10 sizes too big, and beneath it, he's naked and insecure and hoping you won't see". Contrary to the view held by most men that they are entitled to conquer as many women as possible because it is a man's world, Norah was surprised at how much sexual power women have over men, even when women may feel disempowered in other ways, and how icily they wield it. For me there are no other ways. Sexual power gives rise to other forms of power.







[quote][/quote]