Emily
MikeBy now, you’ve probably seen the new Forbes Magazine list of the 100 most powerful women. (Here is the full list.) I’m always interested in such lists, but am always intrigued by how they are chosen and ranked. Obviously, they cannot be accurate and there is a lot of bias.
Forbes says that “the list is based on factors such as economic impact, media reach and career accomplishments” and “in assembling the list, Forbes looked for women who run countries, big companies or influential nonprofits. Their rankings are a combination of two scores: visibility–by press mentions–and the size of the organization or country these women lead.”
With those criteria, it’s hard to understand, for instance, why women such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are ranked as they are, unless “press mentions” for Sotomayor is of upmost importance to Forbes). (I’m not saying that they are not among the 100 most powerful women in the world, only that it is hard to see why Forbes’ criteria includes them.)
Forbes’ bias comes into play when you see the number of corporate officials that are on the list. Although Angela Merkel is number one and the head of the U.S. FDIC (which is of course important to Forbes’ readers) is second, the rest of the top ten are CEO’s. And, if my math is correct, approximately 70 of the entire list of 100 are officers of large corporations (Chairman, President, CEO, CFO, etc.).
There will be many comments on the blogs about the rankings. But who is ranked where, who was omitted, who should not be listed, is really of no importance. The important thing is that the public gets to see that women are recognized as being powerful.
Filed under: Advertising, Feminism Tagged: | Forbes
