Odysseus
12-06-2010, 12:22 PM
TIME surveys the women who have most influenced our world
Full List Leading Ladies:
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
Corazon Aquino (1933-2009)
Rachel Carson (1907-1964)
Coco Chanel (1883-1971)
Julia Child (1912-2004)
Hillary Clinton (1947-Present)
Marie Curie (1867-1934)
Aretha Franklin (1942-Present)
Indira Gandhi (1917-1984)
Estée Lauder (1908-2004)
Madonna (1958-Present)
Margaret Mead (1901-1978)
Golda Meir (1898-1978)
Angela Merkel (1954-Present)
Sandra Day O'Connor (1930-Present)
Rosa Parks (1913-2005)
Jiang Qing (1914-1991)
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)
Gloria Steinem (1934-Present)
Martha Stewart (1941-Present)
Mother Teresa (1910-1997)
Margaret Thatcher (1925-Present)
Oprah Winfrey (1954-Present)
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941)
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2029774,00.html#ixzz17LrYcORf
==========================================
A few comments:
Time seems to have equated influence with power. Rosa Parks was certainly influential, but I wouldn't call her powerful. Eleanor Roosevelt's "power" was entirely derived from her husband's power, as was Jang Qing, who was purged the minute Mao died. Why not Woodrow Wilson's wife, who actually wielded power when he was felled by a stroke? Coco Chanel, Martha Stewart, Estee Lauder and Virginia Woolf may have had some influence in specific areas, but none of them could be listed as powerful women in the sense of who we think of as the most powerful men of the last century (FDR, Reagan, MAO, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Ghandi, etc.), and Mother Teresa's lack of power is what made her influence such a great example. And while I certainly like Aretha Franklin, was she more powerful than Lena Horne? For that matter, is Madonna more powerful than any other singer of her generation, or previous ones? If popularity is the driving force, why not Marilyn Monroe or Sarah Bernhardt? And Rachel Carson made the list, but for the wrong reason. Her lies about DDT resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the third world, putting her up there with the Marx in terms of having inspired mass death.
Then, there are the omissions. Clare Booth Luce, aside from having been a member of congress, a journalist and a serious woman of influence, was also the wife of the founder of Time, and a critical influence on the magazine for decades. How did they forget her (answer: She was an unabashed conservative)?
Queen Elizabeth II is one of the few remaining female monarchs in the world, and although she does not wield anywhere near the power of her predecessors, she is certainly as influential as Martha Stewart.
Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro, the first vice-presidential nominees of their respective parties, would have been more apropos than Madonna, especially since Palin continues to be a power broker in the GOP, having gotten a number of Tea Party candidates elected in the last election cycle.
For that matter, love or hate her (and I think we all know where I fall on this one), Nancy Pelosi, as the first female speaker of the House, was an immensely powerful woman for four long, painful years. Would putting her on the list have been like rubbing salt in a wound? Perhaps, but who would argue that Virginia Woolf had more power?
This is why Time is rapidly becoming irrelevent.
Full List Leading Ladies:
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
Corazon Aquino (1933-2009)
Rachel Carson (1907-1964)
Coco Chanel (1883-1971)
Julia Child (1912-2004)
Hillary Clinton (1947-Present)
Marie Curie (1867-1934)
Aretha Franklin (1942-Present)
Indira Gandhi (1917-1984)
Estée Lauder (1908-2004)
Madonna (1958-Present)
Margaret Mead (1901-1978)
Golda Meir (1898-1978)
Angela Merkel (1954-Present)
Sandra Day O'Connor (1930-Present)
Rosa Parks (1913-2005)
Jiang Qing (1914-1991)
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)
Gloria Steinem (1934-Present)
Martha Stewart (1941-Present)
Mother Teresa (1910-1997)
Margaret Thatcher (1925-Present)
Oprah Winfrey (1954-Present)
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941)
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2029774,00.html#ixzz17LrYcORf
==========================================
A few comments:
Time seems to have equated influence with power. Rosa Parks was certainly influential, but I wouldn't call her powerful. Eleanor Roosevelt's "power" was entirely derived from her husband's power, as was Jang Qing, who was purged the minute Mao died. Why not Woodrow Wilson's wife, who actually wielded power when he was felled by a stroke? Coco Chanel, Martha Stewart, Estee Lauder and Virginia Woolf may have had some influence in specific areas, but none of them could be listed as powerful women in the sense of who we think of as the most powerful men of the last century (FDR, Reagan, MAO, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Ghandi, etc.), and Mother Teresa's lack of power is what made her influence such a great example. And while I certainly like Aretha Franklin, was she more powerful than Lena Horne? For that matter, is Madonna more powerful than any other singer of her generation, or previous ones? If popularity is the driving force, why not Marilyn Monroe or Sarah Bernhardt? And Rachel Carson made the list, but for the wrong reason. Her lies about DDT resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the third world, putting her up there with the Marx in terms of having inspired mass death.
Then, there are the omissions. Clare Booth Luce, aside from having been a member of congress, a journalist and a serious woman of influence, was also the wife of the founder of Time, and a critical influence on the magazine for decades. How did they forget her (answer: She was an unabashed conservative)?
Queen Elizabeth II is one of the few remaining female monarchs in the world, and although she does not wield anywhere near the power of her predecessors, she is certainly as influential as Martha Stewart.
Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro, the first vice-presidential nominees of their respective parties, would have been more apropos than Madonna, especially since Palin continues to be a power broker in the GOP, having gotten a number of Tea Party candidates elected in the last election cycle.
For that matter, love or hate her (and I think we all know where I fall on this one), Nancy Pelosi, as the first female speaker of the House, was an immensely powerful woman for four long, painful years. Would putting her on the list have been like rubbing salt in a wound? Perhaps, but who would argue that Virginia Woolf had more power?
This is why Time is rapidly becoming irrelevent.