Good article.  If the word “mattered” was in the
headlines of the article I would have nominated
Mother Jones.  She was a real mother to coal miners
when they were fighting coal corporations.  My
father worked 40 years in the mines and many of his
benefits were correlated with the work of Mother
Jones.  We need a Mother Jones today in the coal
fields.

Come on people, Forbes is about celebrating all things rich and those who are. Their definition of power et al is through that “C19th, prism” .

In simple terms it’s the supermarket magazine of the above demographic! Even they have the odd worthwhile article but this list simply isn’t one.

I rankle at the notion that there can be objectively a top 100 powerful or influential people, male or female .
Show me a perfect person male or female ….one can’t! No one is objectively, inherently greater than anyone else. In reality it’s confluence of factors that spawn the great action(s). Ergo there are great action that should be admired.
e.g. Martin Luther King Jr said some great things even did some good ones but by his own standards was a deeply flawed individual. 
Would it have mattered if MLK had been a woman? Given that the person behind the slave railway was both a woman and….um…..black.

The whole notion that one can meaningfully categorise people in this way simply perpetuates the stereo typing (by playing to base prejudices and selfish interests)

All that is ‘different’ in the Forbes article is that they’re targeting (pandering to the egos of) another superficial demographic for profit.  Substituting another sub group ....and that improves the whole human race how?
In this context gender is irrelevant. What is relevant is that some people aren’t getting equality!(last time I looked women are people too), not to closely mind you.

The notion that in any society that all men have the same access, opportunities is preposterous. 
Fact….for every female who tries and is stopped by a glass ceiling there are 10 males who have hit the glass ceiling too. 
Gender discrimination isn’t the real issue in the western world it’s the plutocratic notions including religion, culture that is the issue .
Consider this , if the western world changed tomorrow and gender bias (?) disappeared would the human race be objectively better off? emphatically no! See the blue eyes V brown eyes experiment.

I would put it to you that the real issue isn’t gender per se but rather that we tend to identify with those who are nearest ourselves and ever smaller groups. While the sisterhood is inwardly focused on women’s rights over the starving (men & women) in say Bangladesh….
It is this ever inward focus that is the true blight of the human race.

Finally consider this wisdom.
Great minds discuss ideas, average mind discuss events and small minds discuss individuals.
Any guess where I see the Forbes article

A cynic’s definition of “power base points”

points based on power
base power, as opposed to honorable power
base power points in the wrong direction
points awarded for the baseness of one’s power

Any way you shake it, it still rattles.

I am, for the most part, in agreement with the spirit of this article, but the article by my appraisal is tinged with demagoguery and what I believe is counter productive radicalism.

Malalai Joya is far and away my favorite Afghan and I have referred to her several times in comments here at truthdig. Hilary Clinton is the quintessential liberal elitist, Geo-Political opportunist and Machiavellian American exceptionalist. Hilary is the personification of all that is perceived as evil regarding liberal elitists and is the legitimate object of scorn from both ends of the political spectrum, and Janet Napolitano is not far behind Hilary in those respects, but I have some objections to Ms. Redmond’s excoriation of Michelle Obama and the examples she used as a reason to also excoriate Kathleen Sibelius. Defending the affordable Health Care Bill is not a reason to be excoriated in my opinion. As I have attempted to point out many times the Affordable Health Care Bill is woefully inadequate but the best that could be passed into law under the current political realities of Republican/Tea Party/Corporate obstruction and Blue Dog treachery.

I would be the first to agree that Michelle Obama is pampered, spoiled, completely disconnected from the reality of ordinary Americans, and incredibly naïve, but I do not believe she is villainous. Not being privileged to the details of the ins and outs of “First Family” life, and Michelle Obama’s daily schedule I can only offer my impression that Michelle Obama is primarily a loyal wife and mother who supports her husband and who is engaged in advancing initiatives she deems to be worthwhile, however trivial those initiatives might appear to be.

Let’s not lose our perspective here. The greatest villains are those who ascribe to the political and economic perspectives of Forbes Magazine, and those who ascribe to Forbes Magazine’s constant criticisms of the governance of Obama and the Democrats. It is Forbes Magazine that seeks to glorify the corporate culture and supports Republican anti-tax, anti-government, Corporatism.

I suspect that Michelle Obama was only included on Forbes list because she is an occupant of the Whitehouse and because Forbes Magazine disingenuously wanted to discourage perceptions of corporate bias.

I feel confident that dogmatic counter productive radicals here will be incensed by my comments, and remain totally oblivious to the distinctions I’ve pointed out here. I can only reiterate my perception that Ms. Redmond’s article is an example of counter productive radical demagoguery in respect to Michelle Obama and to Kathleen Sibelius’ defense of the Affordable Health Care act. It never ceases to amaze me that some fail to see: the ideological harm Republicans and corporatists will do to our democracy and to the welfare of ordinary Americans, that the first order of business for right-wing ideologues is to remove Obama from office,  the second order of business for right-wing ideologues is to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, but those are merely the first orders of business; the right-wing ideological agenda is to destroy all aspects of the Social Safety Net, allow unfettered capitalism, pursue U.S. hegemony and Capitalist imperialism, institutionalize racism and xenophobia, and diminish any prospect for progress in favor of reactionary regress. Is such a contention exaggeration, I think not, and a fear that we will see this contention become a reality, and that this reality will be aided into existence by irrational, presently unachievable utopian dogma, and a political strategy that serves no purpose other than dividing cohesive opposition to the Right, thus leading to left-wing political impotence.

Good article.  I think the women’s movement was hijacked by corporate interests long ago.  Its important to hear about women actually doing important things to help humanity rather than simply accruing money and power for themselves.