When the list of the Most Powerful Woman in The World was released last week, there were a couple of Things That Made Me Go Hmmmmm. The first is that Westpac CEO Gail Kelly (#8) is more powerful than Beyonce (#9). And also? Well, I love it when I have a thought and before I get around to writing a post, a writer I admire emails me to say “you know what?” and has that same thought and wants to write about it for Mamamia. Only in a more articulate way than me. So it was on Friday when News Ltd columnist Sarrah Le Marquand and I shared a moment about Michelle Obama.
Who we both think is fab. HOWEVER.
Sarrah writes….
By Sarrah Le Marquand
“Would you call Tim Mathieson the most powerful man in Australia? Probably not. And if you did, there would be a queue of male politicians, CEOs and media moguls lining up to disagree. Not to mention the captain of the Australian cricket team. And maybe Hugh Jackman.For while being romantically involved with Julia Gillard might grant him residence in The Lodge, and free entry to a string of state dinners, Mathieson is not perceived as powerful just because he happens to be the Prime Minister’s other half.
But that might be because he doesn’t look as good in a sleeveless dress as Michelle Obama, who has just been declared the most powerful woman in the world. That’s right, not just America – according to Forbes magazine she is the most influential and successful woman on the entire planet.
.
Now I have nothing against Mrs Obama. A fiercely intelligent Harvard-educated lawyer, she has handled the transition to the White House with poise and is clearly a devoted mother to her two daughters.But the most powerful woman in the world? Shouldn’t you have to, um, actually do stuff to earn that title?
Topping best dressed lists, being admired for toned biceps and having great taste in husbands isn’t nearly enough.
In taking out Forbes’ top honours, she was ranked above the likes of Kraft Foods chief executive Irene Rosenfeld, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and our own Gail Kelly, head of Westpac.
And what about the woman-who-might-have-been-president, Hillary Clinton? Despite being given the not insignificant challenge of brokering peace in the Middle East as US Secretary of State, she only managed to come in fifth.
If anyone knows a thing or two about being First Lady, it’s Clinton, who redefined the role like never before. Not content with smiley serenely by her husband’s side or emulating Jacqueline Kennedy-esque fashion status, she took an active approach to shaping public policy.
Yet once Bill’s tenure as president had expired she set about pursuing political office of her own. Because for all the privileges being First Lady had afforded her, she knew it was essentially a decorative position. That while there was a time being married to a leader was the closest to a political career that a woman could aspire, she wanted the job for herself.
Power: Gaga, Oprah, Hilary, Michelle, Gail
Whatever power and influence Michelle Obama currently wields, she owes it all to her husband. They might see their marriage as a partnership, but only one of them is Commander in Chief. And it’s not her.
Hopefully next year Forbes will restrict its most powerful title to women forging their own way in competitive fields such as business and politics. Women who happen to be married to the most powerful men in the world belong on a different list entirely.
So, do you think it’s right to be deemed ‘powerful’ because of who you’re married to rather than your own job?
#1. Michelle Obama, First Lady
You can follow Sarah’s blog on The Daily Telegraph here
So what do you think? Does Michelle Obama deserve the title? Who do you think is the most powerful woman in the world?
Comments
52 Comments so far
Whatever power and influence Michelle Obama currently wields, she owes it all to her husband. They might see their marriage as a partnership, but only one of them is Commander in Chief. And it’s not her
I don’t agree with that at all. She’s a lawyer, a mother and seems a good natured person. They say the mother is the glue that holds the family together. It’s gotta be pretty tough glue to hold together a family that is constantly in the public eye.
loading...
Either way, I’d rather be on the list for my own independent achievements and not those linked to my husband. And so would he.
loading...
I’m with you, Sophie. How insulting that Forbes list is. What century is this again?!
loading...
why Gail kelly?
because she was smart enough to con the population of australia into paying exorbitant bank fees?
power because if she says it goes up, it goes up.
power because she is expected to receive a $6mil bonus this year?
what a joke.
powerful? not sure. rich? excessively so
loading...
I think forbes is getting confused with people who are powerful and people who are influential. Their list is certainly diverse however it lacks accuracy.
Michelle Obama: love her – but why? She makes a great first lady and is no doubt intelligent and well grounded. However, does she really weld power? If she wanted to change a national policy could she (by herself)?
Oprah Winfrey: both power and influence in my opinion. Her billion dollar empire is evidence enough of that, as is her talk-show where thousands of women come on air every day and state that she inspired them to do this and this and this…etc. Money doesn’t necessarily equate to power however, it is the means to great achievements i.e. landmarks, schools etc.
loading...
What’s the difference between power and influence?
i can’t help but think that power and influence are kind of self-perpetuating
loading...
Forgive my brevity, I must get some sleep however I wanted to make a couple of points:
- power does not necessarily equate with either popularity or visibility.
- don’t underestimate the power of pillow talk.
- Michelle Obama has power on many levels, her choice of charities, her choice of clothing (amongst other products), her parenting decisions, pillow talk. (I’m sure there are more if I think about it).
loading...
I think we have to realise that being the partner of the President of the United States is a totally different deal to being the partner of any other world leader. The First Lady has her own staff and has a huge influence in the US and around the world. Maybe that’s been forgotten somewhat given Laura Bush was perhaps the least public and active First Lady in recent history. Also Michelle did have a great amount of influence on Barack winning the election. Like it or not, the partner of the nominee’s does factor into how/whether people vote.
Personally I’d much rather have Michelle Obama as number 1 than Oprah. The amount of absolute rubbish that woman has given air time to over the years only makes me happy to see she’s losing a little of her influence!
loading...
I think Michelle Obama is powerful from an influential point of view but is yet to earn her stripes in the real sense. I would have thought both Hillary Clinton and Oprah would be ahead of her. As for Lady Gaga making the list?? Scary scary thought. To think that she has the power to influence people around the planet scares me – her powerful message is that behaving like a freak will get you lots of attention and therefore earn you success. What a shame she can’t use her talent (which she apparently has) to achieve this. Then I’d feel a lot more comfortable with her being considered ‘powerful’.
loading...
Um OPRAH???? What happened? Where is she?
I think that men of a certain status definitely elevate their partners to a mutual status of respect… but not power.
loading...
I think “Obama-mania” has yet to wear off. First Barrack gets the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of months into his presidency (without doing all that much), then Michelle is named most powerful woman. I don’t personally think either of these accolades are a true judgement of the Obamas and I think it’ll be interesting to see if the hype around them is still prevalent in a year or two. Sure, Michelle is influential, but I can’t see how she is more powerful than Oprah, who tells people to read blah or vote for blah and millions of people do it, or Merkel, who is in charge of one of the largest countries in Europe.
loading...
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but if you want to talk about women in power then maybe more of a mention should go to India’s president- a woman who presides over a nation of about 1.3 BILLION people.
And I am sorry, but there is something deeply off about appointing Michelle Obama number 1. She is sharp and savvy and shrewd and I am a fan of hers. But number 1? Really? There seems to be a tacit message that in order to be the most powerful woman in the world all you need to do is win the affections of an even more powerful man and then whisper things in his ears at night- manipulate him- use your womanly wiles. This is insulting to both Michelle AND her husband.
loading...
It’s a list, with a bias towards US citizens it seems like
loading...
It’s what she does with the title that makes her powerful not the title itself.
Michelle Obama has to my knowledge two main issues she works on. Military families and childhood obesity. Along with other protocol and foreign trips.
People may not agree with it but any title that comes with “of the United States of America” comes with power.
loading...
Power is something that is given.
Leave aside the context of where people might “give” it to a dictator in order to avoid being imprisoned/tortured/killed, and concentrate on power that free individuals whose basic needs are satisfied (ie food, shelter, clothing, education etc) and who have money that they can spend as they choose. The people whom I imagine Forbes had in mind when they declare a list of Powerful People.
It is these people – you, me, other Australians, Americans, citizens of other parts of the world, who decide who is powerful by how we spend our money, including what newspapers/magazines we buy, and TV and radio we watch/listen and whom we talk about, whether at home or in online forums. (Not sure that we have discussed here at Mamamia “Kraft Foods chief executive Irene Rosenfeld, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and our own Gail Kelly, head of Westpac.”) We have certainly talked about Michele Obama.
We tend to give power to people we admire, and while we all admire different things, with women, there is often an appreciation for all-roundedness. ie managing career, having a happy home life, proactivity towards the less fortunate, raising kids well, living a healthy and active lifestyle, great sense of style – lots of things for which Ms Obama ticks the boxes (or is perceived to). As so few people (not just women) do.
I think Forbes have got it right – we have given the power to this remarkable lady.
loading...
I don’t think this list was made to make a PC point. It was made to tell us about someone’s opinion of who they think are powerful women. “Power” comes in all sorts of ways, I don’t think it’s fair to say this should only be a list of women who’ve done it a certain way.
Remember when feminism was supposed to be about choice? And that there was no wrong choice, we could all follow our path in life, whether it be a childless/husbandless CEO of a major corporation or a SAHM and wife, or some shade of grey in between. There isn’t supposed to be a wrong and a right way to do it, and that includes getting power.
I think Michelle Obama has just as much right to be there as Gail Kelly and Beyonce. I’ve heard Barack himself say he would never have been able to achieve what he has without her, and he credits her and says his success is just as much hers. I’ve also heard people say that sometimes first ladies can be more influential advisors than many of the “official” advisors around the President.
So let’s praise all women and what they do in life, and not just the ones who do it the way we want them to.
loading...
I really don’t think that’s right to say that she is powerful only because of who she is married to….. that is NOT why she’s on the list….
Sometimes it is the “woman behind the man” that makes him so good at what he’s doing….and, shoot me for being “old-fashioned” but that’s gotta be worth something doesn’t it?!
Ok – should she be #1….not so sure……
loading...
But Phoodie what I want to know is when are we going to have a few “men behind the women”? Until we do, suggesting that wielding power through a husband is the most effective way of having influence is a pretty sad situation. But according to some of the comments here, it would seem the double standard is still alive and well
loading...
That’s a good point re: men behind the women! and a clever way of looking at it!
I am EXTREMELY inarticulate at the moment, so excuse my poor wording…. I guess what I’m trying to say (and maybe not totally relevant to this post?!) is that sometimes when a womans “job” ie what she does day in and day out is simply to raise 2 great daughters and support her husband, then that should also be rewarded and should count for something…..so many sacrifices are made by women who do this and sometimes they are ‘frowned upon’ or told that ‘that should achieve something in their own right/name etc’ – instead of stopping and thinking for a second, “maybe being the pillar of strength and support for my family IS what makes me happy and IS what I want to do and I should bloody well be congratulated for it!”
As I said, possibly not relevant so much to this argument….but this post just got me thinking…..
And I ADORE Michelle – separate point! – so maybe that’s why I started rambling on in the first place!
loading...
Right or not, fashionable or not, just because she’s powerful by being the wife of the most powerful man in the world, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have power.
Ummm.. She has a job. She even has an office (The Office of the First Lady of the United States), with a chief of staff, budget and can hire as many staff as she likes and can get instant access to spread any message she chooses. This office is part of the executive branch of the US government. When the President is unavailable, she represents him at state functions! She’s recognisable world-wide. Her words have instant gravity and power.
A clothes horse trophy wife she is not. And no offence to Tim, but she’s not a hairdresser either.
loading...
From a feminist perspective it is very dubious to be ranked based on your marital choice.
But you have to admit, she has the ear of the most powerful man in the world – she obviously wields a huge amount herself.
I would have thought though that those women who actually run countries in their own right might have ranked higher.
loading...
Surely it depends on the definition of “powerful”.
If a woman speaks, is she listened to and respected, or ignored? This is irrelevent of whatever achievements the woman has accumulated.
loading...
I definitely would have thought that Anna Wintour would have rated higher than #56? Surely, we all know the power that she yields – worldwide! (Hello, the Devil Wears Prada?!) Ms Wintour has a far wider reach than Michelle Obama (who I think is fabulous too, but ‘most powerful’? I think not.)
I would have thought Oprah would take out the number one spot. But in who’s opinion are we really taking? A few editor’s from Forbes Magazine? Since when are they the Kings of ‘who know everything’??
loading...
I don’t recall Mrs Bush (can’t even remember her first name – Barbara? Nancy? Laura?) ever being referred to as ‘powerful’. The only quote I ever recall from her was from a speech she made in which she referred to watching Desperate Housewives and that she was the original desperate housewife.
Surely if Michelle Obama was considered powerful for no other reason than because of who she is married to, every U.S. First Lady would have occupied the Most Powerful Woman first place since this list began (assuming this is not the first) – or at least regularly be referred to as ‘powerful’.
I suspect Michelle Obama’s position on this list reflects her ability to garner media attention and her potential influence.
loading...
There was a Barbara (George Snr) and a Laura (W).
Nancy belonged to Reagan.
loading...
Thanks! Obviously the first names of US First Ladies has sunk into my consciousness more than I realised, it just didn’t stick with which President they were married to!
loading...
Exactly. Where were the other first ladies listed in Forbes list? I doubt even in the top ten.
loading...
Excellent Comment!
loading...
I agree with Sarrah, women aren’t ‘powerful’ because they marry powerful men but because they enact change and show leadership. Many women may look up to Michelle Obama but the question is, why? Is it because of the things she’s done that make her ‘powerful’?
What does it mean to be powerful anyway?
loading...
I think the yardstick for this kind of thing is the potential to influence. If Gail Kelly, Lady Gaga, Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama all held press conferences to call the world to action on say… donating money to to support a radical new sustainable energy project, who’d get the most media coverage?
Oprah would get a short mention in female-skewed magazines and blogs, Gaga would be ridiculed on gossip blogs, Gail Kelly would get a paragraph in The Australian, and Hilary Clinton would get a fair amount of coverage, but Michelle Obama would be plastered all over genuine and respected traditional and online news sources.
You might not like how you perceive Michelle Obama “got where she is”, but it’s an indisputable fact—she has an incredible amount of influence and power.
The point of the list isn’t to recognise achievement by women, or to validate anyone as more or less worthy than anyone else. There are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of women who are more deserving of a “Woman of the Year” style award, but that’s not at all what Forbes were doing with the list.
loading...
Haha, I wish I’d read your comment before I posted mine.
I agree 100%
loading...
But isn’t the whole point that her “influence and power” have only come about because she is first lady, whereas the other women on the list she beat are heads of state and business leaders in their own right?
In fact I think her winning a “Woman of the Year” style award would make a lot more sense than taking out this particular title. Factors like her popularity and fashion sense would legitimately come into play then.
But calling her powerful because she sometimes talks up policies her husband came up with is a different kettle of fish altogether. I think Forbes have insulted truly powerful women the world over with this nonsense.
loading...
That’s not the point at all!
The list has nothing to do with achievement or hard work. it is about influence, and influence only. That’s the only power Forbes is talking about. I think Mia, Sarrah and a few other commenters make a compelling argument, but they’re arguing a moot point.
If she’d been named Time’s Person of the Year, or Forbes had lauded her as the most successful woman of 2010, I’d agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment here, but that simply isn’t the case. She’s influential.
Your suggestion that she’d be worthy of a “Woman of the Year” award because of her “popularity and fashion sense” is awful. It’s not 1975, and outside the pages of New Idea, they’re not the values we measure women—or anyone—by.
loading...
I wish you were right, Byron, but I fear you are not. I thought it was 2010 too until I saw the Forbes list. The fact a woman can be declared the world’s most powerful through sole virtue of her husband’s job suggests it is indeed still 1975 in the eyes of many
loading...
You clearly didn’t read the list. Michelle Obama is an incredibly accomplished and successful person in her own right.
That aside, whether you like it or not, her status (or situation, if you prefer) endows her with power and influence by default. That she uses it to effect positive change is a good thing, and painting her the way you do is again, kind of awful.
Are you proposing Forbes ignore her existence because she didn’t become the First Lady based on her merits and/or an application process?
loading...
It’s a bit funny how you try yet again to paint my perception of Michelle Obama as “awful”, when it would seem that you are clearly the one with old-fashioned and patronising views of women.
As a few other commenters have pointed out, the confines of her role as first lady means she doesn’t actually wield any power of her own. She can’t enact policy or lobby for change or do anything that falls outside the parameters of her husband or his agenda.
You might that think getting things by “default” (to use your words) is good enough for women in the 21st century, but I do not. And I’m very relieved that neither does Mia, Sarah, and some of the other people on this thread. But I guess that just makes us “awful”, doesn’t it?
loading...
Sally, I don’t have old-fashioned or patronising views of women, and nothing I’ve written indicates that. I’m not the one who claimed her “popularity and fashion sense” would make her a good candidate for some kind of recognition.
The First Lady of the United States is a political office of its own. She DOES have the power to lobby, and she has a staff to help her do so. She’s a powerful voice for change, and you should probably read up on the role, scope and functions of the office of the First Lady.
Your problem has nothing to do with the intended spirit of the Forbes list, which was the point I originally made. The list is not a pat on the back for high-achieving women. It has nothing to do with equality or furthering the cause of women, and everything to do with actual tangible power, however it may be bestowed.
I am bewildered by your inability to grasp the purpose and intention of the list.
loading...
I totally agree. In addition, while Barack was elected, everyone knows the American political system is almost 100% about image and perception, and I believe Michelle Obama played a huge role in her husband’s election. As a family they presented an image that was incredibly appealing to the American public, she worked hard to get her husband elected, and she works hard as first lady. People should give her the credit she deserves there. And as for influence – nobody is going to say no to her.
loading...
(NB: I had to reply up here as the reply link isn’t working on your last comment)
Look obviously we’re never going to agree. This will be my last response to you but as a parting gift dare I suggest you take some of your own kind advice and do some reading of your own? I recommend you start with the following:
1/ The original Forbes list and accompanying article so you can see the language they used and maybe begin to comprehend why some people are justifiably offended by it.
2/ A little background reading of your own as to the role of the US first lady. Much as you like to insist otherwise, the most basic of research will confirm it is indeed a ribbon-cutting position with no scope for real independence or policy development. To do that a person (man or woman) needs to run for elected office on their own.
Anyway, perhaps we can resume this debate once Michelle Obama runs for a seat in the senate one day or starts her own company. And when that happens I will be the first to applaud Forbes for celebrating her for having a powerful role that actually matches her capability.
loading...
Michelle’s power is “covert”. The other women in the Top 10 have what you’d call power in their own right.
loading...
I guess it depends on what the definition of “power” is. Is it the ability to influence other people? Is it business acumen?
Sure, Michelle Obama can not change US government policy herself. But if she encourages parents to read to their kids it’s going to have way more influence than all the school librarians in the entire world.
loading...
Oprah will always remain worlds most powerful woman in my eyes.
How else would I have ever known to buy a Neti Pot?
loading...
Oh my god yes! It’s been a lifesaver during allergy season.
loading...
What is a neti pot?
loading...
It looks like a little teapot. You fill it with water and pharmaceutical grade salt, and use it to flush out your nasal passage and sinuses.
loading...
ooohhhhhh is that what they are called. Thanks!
I saw someone use one of those one day with no clue exactly what it was for and it scarred me for life. Snot freaks me out.
They are supposed to work really well but.
loading...
god yes!
loading...
OMG thanks for the reminder – I’ve been meaning to buy one since I saw it on Oprah…any tips on where to buy, are they hard to come by?
loading...
I got mine on ebay for around $6. Absolute lifesaver! Helps so much with my allergies & Prince’s snoring (when I can get him to use it!) Wonderful!
Missing Oprah during the Comm games!
loading...
While I agree with the comment below that being First Lady can be a chance to be hugely influential (working alongside your president husband, and helping him get through the tough days), I simply think it’s too early for her to be on that list. She hasn’t had time to make a real difference: Lady Gaga had to spend years as Stefani Germanotta training at the Tisch School before she was able to create her incredibly powerful alter-ego, and even then, she had to spend a long time proving her political/activist voice was worth listening to.
I’d say give Mrs Obama another year or so, see what she’s done, and then decide where she should sit.
loading...
Whilst I agree with he sentiment I can however see the validity of the original position. As “powerful” basically means potent or able to influence wouldn’t you agree she fits the bill?
If all the women on the list wanted a meeting with a President or Prime Minister who do you think they would accommodate first?
If all of them wanted to speak before the UN?
Who sells more newspapers?
It certainly detracts from the successes of other powerful women who have not been elevated by the equally powerful role of their husband; but thats the way the cookie crumbles.
loading...
I imagine she is top of the list because she has a HUGE influence on the most powerful man in the world- Mr Obama. He has publicly recognised this fact a number of times.
The Obamas do see themselves as a team. She played a huge role in him being elected.
Saying the only reason she is considered so successful is because she is with him is a load of bull.
loading...