70 Most Powerful American Women + we should probably include these really high-profile ladies from other countries, dudes

I just saw Forbes' new "World's 100 Most Powerful Women" list. Feministe remarks approvingly that the top ten "includes four women of color and at least one lesbian." Fair enough, this is a good thing.

However, I'm a little bit concerned about Forbes' metrics for rating the power held by these women (on a world-wide scale). I've been trying to find their criteria on the website but no luck yet.

What concerns me is out of these 100 supposedly most powerful women in the world, 70 are from the US. Of the top 25, only three are not American. Of the top 50, that number is 10. And this is why I'm so confused/concerned about the metrics…

For example, while it's great that Beyonce has such a high ranking on the list (#9), is she really that much more influential on a world-wide scale than the Queen (#41)? And I find it hard to believe that Stephenie Meyer (#49) has more power globally than the Prime Minister of Australia (#58), the President of Finland (#62), the President of Ireland (#64), the President of Argentina (#68), the Queen of Jordan (#76), the President of Iceland (#80), the President of Costa Rica (#83), or the President of Liberia (#86). (I'm also concerned that Stephenie Meyer made it on the list and J.K. Rowling didn't, even though Rowling seems the more politically active of the two. Also her books are better.)

I feel like income must be a prime consideration, otherwise there would not be nearly so many people from the fashion industry (models as well as designers). In a lot of cases--and here I'm not only referring to the fashion industry, but also many of the media personalities on the list--these women have influence as tastemakers and opinion makers, and largely, I would argue, only in the US. Rachel Maddow, for example. Now that I know of her existence I watch segments of her show sometimes, and I find her clever and funny. But I hadn't heard of her until earlier this year, and I'm pretty sure her show doesn't even air in Canada (I've only ever seen it online). And what about Danica Patrick, the race car diver? Sure, she's breaking down barriers into an old boy's club and she's probably inspiring lots of little girls who are into racing, but I don't know if I would consider her powerful on a global scale. I've never even heard of most of the news anchors that appear on the list.

Big corporations and big governments objectively harness a lot of power, and the people who run them control that power. The list at least mentions most of the important female heads of state, ministers, and business executives, and although there is a definite bias towards the US there, that can be partially explained by the political power of the US. As for the others--the singers, the talk show hosts, the athletes, the models, the authors--they are legitimately powerful culturally… in the US. Some of them do have a more global reach, but seriously… who is Suze Orman? Who is this Rachel Ray person? Does it count if I only know about someone because she's Arnold Schwarzenager's wife? Does it count if I've read a couple articles from the Huffington Post? Why are there no media/culture/lifestyle personalities from other countries (except the First Lady of France)?

You know who I think is a powerful woman? Michaelle Jean, who until a few days ago was Governor General of Canada. She had the power to stop Parliament in its tracks (which she did, twice). She's shmoozed will all of the heads of state and ambassadors. She was a major force behind bringing aid to her birth land of Haiti. Once she almost caused trade disruptions between Canada and the European Union by eating a seal heart, thus showing her support for the traditional seal hunt practiced by the Inuit, and infuriating anti-seal hunt Europe. Before she was GG, Jean had a CBC show.

Why aren't there more women like her on the list?

So. You know how yesterday I was all like, "Busy busy busy, no time for posty!" Well, today has been a particularly heavy news day and so here I am doing a mini-post (aka a post which is not full of synthesis/critical analysis).

1. The First World War is... over...?
   So apparently today Germany paid the last installment of the reparation payments owed to Allied countries in accordance of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
   I am really confused by this and can't find nearly enough news sources actually reporting it. I thought that after the Second World War everyone agreed that Germany didn't have to pay anymore...?



2. Aaah! The atheists! They know our secrets!
   According to a new study, most Americans don't know much about world religions (or, often, their own religions). In fact, atheists and agnostics answered the most questions correctly, followed by Jews and Mormons.
   In fact, get this:

   For instance, only 55 per cent of U.S. Roman Catholics surveyed understand that Holy Communion is not meant to be symbolic but is instead believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
   
   Fewer than half of Americans surveyed knew the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and fewer than half of the Protestants surveyed knew that Martin Luther inspired the Protestant reformation.

   
   How is it that so many people don't know the main tenets of their own religion? Never mind others. This might explain how 20% of Americans manage to believe that Obama is Muslim even though he doesn't adhere to any of the tenets of Islam (set out here by John Green so much more eloquently than I could do myself):
   



3. Fox News and Fox News North
   Speaking of Obama... he said recently in an interview that Fox News is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of the United States, comparing Rupert Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst (that dude they based Citizen Kane on).
   
   Can you say awesome? I personally have little patience for sensationalized news (that's why I don't read the Globe and Mail regularly, it's bad for my blood pressure) but Fox is often intentionally inaccurate rather than just sensationalist.
   
   Which brings me to my next point. I have an email from Avaaz in my inbox telling me there's only three more days left in the CRTC's delay on the SunTV case. Will Harper try to push through the mandatory-carriage for Fox News North when the American president himself is speaking up about journalistic inaccuracy? (Probably.)
   
   I think Sun Media newspapers are the best argument against Sun TV, actually. The Ottawa Sun is one of those papers people only buy for the Sunshine Girls (like the Page Six girls). My current hate-on is for the Kingston Whig-Standard, which has been going off at the mouth lately about "OMGZ LOOK AT ALL OF THESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS PARTYING WHY ARE THEY DRINKING CAN'T THEY JUST GROW UP ALREADY THERE WILL BE MASSIVE DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IT'S GONNA BE NASTY LET'S BRING IN THE TORONTO RIOT POLICE OMGZ".
   
   (Side note: Every September in Kingston there is a massive street party loosely connected to Queen's Homecoming, although Queen's students are probably the minority of partiers and usually less than 30% of arrests... and there are lots of arrests, especially since they've started bringing in the Toronto Riot Police [last gig-G20 Protests!] and mounted officers from other parts of Ontario. Anyway, my point is: 2000 people partying in the street, 200 police officers [most of whom are either riot squad officers or on horses], 70 arrests, half of which are for "breach of the peace", some of which involved people being tackled by multiple officers, police horses going up on lawns to try to clear people off of them, at least one person getting kicked by a police horse... that sounds like some kind of human rights issue to me but all the Whig can say is "Look at all of these students drinking beer on their lawns! Why won't the students stop irresponsibly partying? Think of the private property! Oh and also someone's going to get hurt although they will probably deserve it!" That is why I am currently frustrated with Sun Media.)
   
   Bit off-topic. Sorry.
   



4. Sex workers=also human beings
   The Superior Court of Ontario has struck down several prostitution-related laws: communication for the purpose of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house, and living on the avails of prostitution. (You can tell these laws were all made by Sir John Thompson in the 1890s.) Since the actual exchange of money for sexual services is not illegal in Canada--just everything surrounding it--this technically means that prostitution in Ontario is less semi-criminal than before! (I think there are still a few other laws, like solicitation or something, that didn't make it into the case.) More importantly, as Valerie Scott stated,

   We don't have to worry about being raped and robbed and murdered. This decision means that sex workers can now pick up the phone, and call the police and report a bad client. This means that we no longer have to be afraid, that we can work with the appropriate authorities.

   The judge in charge conceded that this means that brothels might now technically be legal (and unlicensed) in Ontario, so she has suspended the effects of the law for 30 days while the case gets passed up to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court affirms Ontario's decision, then Parliament will have to deal with the fallout by creating new legislation--hopefully they will instate licensing for brothels, protections for the personal safety and working conditions of sex workers, etc., but with the Harpercons in power, I don't know if that's likely.



5. CONSTITUTION CRISIS OH GAWD MAKE IT STOP
   Just kidding. I love me a good constitutional crisis. Hopefully it's King-Byng all over again!

Well, that's it for today...

American Privilege, On and Off the Internet

I know, I know. What a ginormous topic to take on in my first ever post! I've been thinking about blogging for quite a few months now, and wondering what would make a good first post. But this particular issue has not only motivated me into action (through fury), but also nicely covers a lot of the topics I like to think, talk, and write about.

A couple days ago, s. e. smith, a guest blogger at Feministe, posted a wonderful piece on the topic of American exceptionalism in blogging. The gist of it is that American bloggers tend to assume that their readership is largely American also, and so they don't explain their references to American politics, legislation, obscure historical facts, etc. They will post videos from Hulu (as frustrated Rest of the World Internet Users know, an video hosting site only available in the US) and report on events in the Rest of the World only insofar as they might impact the US.

Now, Feministe is an American website. It has never pretended to be otherwise. It's got this nifty ".us" tag which I actually don't think I had ever seen before. Granted, no one actually SAYS anywhere that it's an American blog, and there are no American flags or pictures of Uncle Sam or anything like that on the home page (although I think the little girl with the gun may be a comment on the US?). But that nice little ".us" tag at least lets me know that the bloggers are going to be American feminists concerned primarily with American women's issues.

Not so Feministing. Feministing is, as far as I can tell, one of the most widely-known (and read) feminist blogs ever. It has a ".com" tag which often, but not exclusively, refers to American-based websites. Nowhere on the site's main page, iconography or "About" section is there any reference to Americans or the US. It took about two days after I started reading the blog to realize that, rather than the international blog I had originally thought it was, it's actually pretty US-centric. Like, really, really US-centric. Like arguably more US-centric than the "fyi we are Americans!" Feministe.

Anyway, the reason Feministing enters into this discussion is that today I found a post in Feministing Community by inallsincerity, a community member from Sweden. S/he makes the point that

Feministing is not in the U.S. It is on the internet. The internet is accessed and enjoyed by people living all over the world. Feministing.com has a global "fan base" if you will. It is an international community. 

I personally thought this was a very good point, and aimed more at commenters than the actual bloggers. More or less predictably, it sparked outrage in the comments. Rest of the World commenters generally agreed with inallsincerity that yes, Feministing and especially its commenters demonstrate a certain amount of American privilege.

The American commenters, however, immediately went on the defensive. There were a couple of different arguments:

1) Feministing is an American site for American feminists. Readers have to be prepared for American-only and US-centric content.

If this is true, then the fact that the US is never mentioned in Feministing's mission statements etc. is another example of American privilege, almost to the point of blindness. Since I don't think Feministing editors are that blind, I'm assuming they intended to reach a more or less international audience, even though they themselves seem to be all based in the US. American websites dedicated to American issues and intended for Americans should have to make that very openly clear. Feminist blogs and sites attached to other countries mention it in the site name or on the front page.

2) American privilege doesn't exist/is a fallacy/is a stereotype/is an unfair concept.

Okay... now why are Americans allowed to say that American privilege doesn't exist when men aren't allowed to say that male privilege doesn't exist and white people aren't allowed to say that white privilege doesn't exist?

OF COURSE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE EXISTS. This makes me so angry that I will go on about it at length later.

3) Yes, American privilege exists, but not here at Feministing. It just seems that way because of demographics. Most of our readers are American.

This may be true, I don't know. I don't know if Feministing keeps stats on that kind of thing. But that doesn't mean that American privilege doesn't exist. Maybe it was disgust/disinterest in a US-centric community that pushed the Rest of the World away.


So. I'm Canadian. As a Canadian, especially one who lives very close to the American border and works in the tourist industry, I confront American privilege just about every day. The very name "American" is an example of US privilege. As the Arrogant Worms sing in "I am Not American,"

How could two whole continents
Lose their name to one constituent?
Where were we when the US went
And took the word American away?

(fyi, the song is supposed to be funny, not serious. This is the same band whose song "Canada is Really Big" includes the line "It isn't what you do with it, it's the size that counts.")

As a student of Canadian history, I can tell you right now that Canadians have been aware of American privilege at least since that whole Manifest Destiny thing in the mid-nineteenth century, if not earlier. (The fact that they kept on saying it was their God-given right to own our land and add it to their Great Holy Awesome White Protestant American Empire might have been a tip-off.)

But American privilege isn't just confined to real life. It happens on the interwebs too, as the blog posts I mentioned earlier demonstrate. From spellcheckers that assume the "u" I wrote in "colour" was accidental, to websites like Hulu, the interwebs are not kind to English-speakers outside the US. Even take just web domains. ".gov" is the US government, as if there is no other government in the world. (The Canadian government's domain is ".gc.ca" for Government of Canada, Canada. The Canada is there TWICE.) ".edu" is an American educational institution. ".com" is usually an American business and ".org" an American organization. Elsewhere, all of these sites would have just the location code domain name (in Canada, ".ca").

Sometimes these things are just merely annoying, like not being able to watch a video accompanying a blog post because it's from Hulu, or having to Wikipedia Title IX, the Ninth Amendment, or "Roe v. Wade". At other times, it can be offensive. Recently, a Canadian feminist issue made it onto Jezebel. However, many of the commenters misunderstood the story (the issue was about providing access to family planning in third-world countries as part of the maternal health initiative, but the Jezebel article made it sound like the federal government was refusing to fund abortions for Canadian women). Half the comments were along the lines of "Hey guys, remember that song 'Blame Canada'?" or "Oh, Canadians." There was some definite condescension and patronizing going on, but I doubt the people who wrote those comments were aware that Canadians would read them (possibly they thought we're all anti-birth control right-wing nut bags? In case you were wondering, government-funded universal healthcare covers abortion in most, if not all, provinces).

The reason that the commenters said those things is that they were ignorant of the fact that Canadians would be reading their comments, and might be offended by them. They were also ignorant of the issue in general. Ignorance is the key theme here, and in the response to the Feministing Community post, if you couldn't tell by the way I keep italicizing it. Of course, most people are ignorant of their own privilege until it is pointed out to them--more than that, until they change their way of thinking.

What infuriated me most about that particular discussion was the fact that non-Americans were saying, "You are privileged and oppressing us," and Americans were saying, "We are not privileged and you are not oppressed for reasons X, Y, and Z." Considering that it is a feminist, anti-racist blog, I assume that all participants had at least some knowledge of how privilege and oppression work, and probably some experience of being privileged themselves. They must have had the experience of telling some Other that he was privileged, and heard his denial. How could they not realize that the same thing was happening there? The group that is accused of being privileged doesn't get to decide whether or not their actions are oppressing another group or groups. If they did, they would decide that they weren't, things were good, and we would be stuck with the status quo forever.

At the very least, this dialogue has now opened up, and I'm grateful to s.e. smith for the reasonable, well-thought out piece from an American perspective. Hopefully more people will start thinking and writing on the topic!



RUBBER DUCKIE TIME!!!

Here is a pirate duckie:



This pirate duckie is a member of Barrett's Privateers, cruising the seas for American gold and smashing American privilege! Yay Pirate Duckie! I hope you're the one who survives at the end!