Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    A billion here, a billion there, it all adds up to some serious money.

    ...or perhaps some women are doing much better than some other women
    think they should be??

    Does anyone know if any of the women on the list in .0 are feminists?

    ...now you know who to write if you want a gift or grant for women's
    issues...

    .2 should'a said..
    
    Perhaps women aren't doing so bad after all.

    	> 22 Billionettes of approx 305 Billionares

    	Wow, 93% of the billionaires in the world are male.  This is
    	pretty disgusting (about as bad as finding out that 93% of the
    	people with top management jobs are male.)

    There used to be only a couple Suzanne, the numbers are growing. Does
    that wrinkle your underware?

    
    	I'm less disgusted at a mere 7% billionaire women than I am at
    	the idea of less than 1% - but it's only a matter of degree.
    
    	Geez - how can anyone look at those numbers and not see that
    	men still control an appallingly high percentage of the big
    	wealth in the world.
    
    	It may be getting a bit better, but it's still pretty sickening.
    

    
    I thought you invoked "the list".

    
    	Read 303.36 - this is a description of the true origins of
    	"The List."  Someone actually listed a bunch of women whom
    	the person accused of being prepared to ignore certain male
    	noters, so some of us volunteered to be on this person's
    	list (as a way of showing support for "the accused.")
    
    	"The List" topic was written as a reference to this.
    
    	When I told the male noter (whose list accused people, rather
    	than merely listed them) to put ME on the list, I wrote that
    	I did not intend to ignore anyone, but if he was going to
    	make accusations against those folk, I would be honored to be
    	included in their company.

    "billionettes" ?
    
    Did FORUNE MAGAZINE actually call them "billionettes"?
    
    little billions?
    
    some days I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I really don't
    see how there could _be_ such a thing as a little billion.
    
    girl billions?
    
    I didn't realise that a quantity could _have_ gender. And to think that
    billions apparently come in boy and girl varieties.
    
    My, my.
    
      Annie

    
    My question is, how many of these women were given the chance to EARN
    their money, and how many inherited it.
    
    Also, how many ACTUALLY have the power to spend this money, without
    anyone telling them what to do.
    
    I think it's exciting that women have money, but not unless they were
    given the opportunity (i.e. top-level executive jobs, etc.) to earn it
    like men, and can spend it without censure or reproach.
    
    -Jody
    

    .12  -- 'somedays I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer' this really
    hit my funny bone!!!! I like it!
    
    And I also agree, billionnettes? Sounds like something 'less-than' 
    billionaires. A way to minimize the importance and status of these 
    women, maybe?
    
    
    hannah
    

    
    Maybe billionettes is what you get when you have a case of Creamettes. 
    That way you can have a BIG pasta party.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: Jody-a-couple-back
    
         Yes, good point!  This may very well be an example of secondary
    success (versus the more typical male primary success.)
    
    Frederick
    

    Should billionette read billionairette or even billionairess ?
    
    Still a pointless term anyway.  You don't call a female doctor a
    doctorette or doctoress !
    
    
    Jerome.

    The Fortune article refers to them as billionaire women.
    
    It points out that all but two or three inherited their wealth. 
    Non-inheritors include Estee Lauder, who was the only name that stuck
    in my quick scan of the article.  (I want to go back and read it in
    more depth later.)
    
    Fortune is actually making a point of how few women are on the list of
    billionaires, and how minisculely few those who earned it themselves
    are.  I give them credit for highlighting it as an issue.  For many of
    the billionaires, men and women alike, the ability to decide how to
    spend the money is curtailed in various ways.  They also point out how
    few of the women are managing the trust funds that are the most liquid 
    basis of this wealth.
    
    Alison

	I wonder how many of the male Billionaires inherited their
	money... I suspect a rather large amount, as well.

	Food for thought:

	Mary's parents die, leaving her $2 Billion. Mary marries John.
	Does Fortune report Mary, John, or both as being Billionaires?

					Tom_K

    Looking over the list, most are heiresses.  Of the names I recognise,
    only Estee Lauder earned it.
    
    The question is, although the heiresses have use of the money, do they
    also control it?  And, can they also dispose of it -- that is, can they
    pass the principal along or do they only have use of the interest
    during their life, with possible entailments for their progeny.
    
    Money isn't really money if all you get to do is spend it.  The power
    of money is in determining where and how it goes and grows.

    re.19
    
    re.inherited wealth
    
    yes, a large contingent of men listed inherited their wealth as well. 
    however, inheritors represent a smaller percentage among men.
    
    re.Mary's fortune
    
    depends upon the how they settle this before their marriage. 
    also upon the terms of Mary's inheritance.
    also, say like in the case of the WalMart dynasty, the fortune could be
    reported as being held by the family.
    I suspect that Mary would be reported unless she signed it over.
    
      Annie
    
    

    The average age of the "billionettes" is mid-seventies, while the
    average age of the billionaire-dudes is considerably lower.
    
    
    

Mid-seventies? Too old for me! Damn!

Bruce

    Is this really an important topic? Is it important for women/(ok,
    ladies) to earn/own a lot of money/a billion dollars? If it is, then
    why? I don't understand it - it would not create success or fulfilment
    for me, except for the independance from my parents that it would
    create.
    
    Alice T.

    Anything folks kind of wish to talk about is important.
    For what my opinion on it is worth.
    
    Without, lighter stuff, =wn= could get to be a little morbid.
    
    We would only wind up interacting when the issues of rape,
    child abuse, spouse abuse, or the glass ceiling came up.
    Some of the joy of just communicating or relating facts
    could be dulled by the knowledge that it could only/mostly
    be the SAD stuff that folks would share.
    
    Cindi-
    P.S.- As a teen.  When I concentrated even more on the sadder or
    more serious things that occurred in life...my Mom said I was morbid.
    I had much more fun when I let up once in a while.
    JMO- Dirt

    Alice,
    I think the point Mr. Morgan is attempting to make is that women
    as a sex are sufficiently wealthy to buy into the power structure.
    I disagree.   
    
    What odds would you give on the billionettes (22 old women) taking
    on the billionaire-dudes (305 middle-aged men) and winning?  If you
    put your money on the billionettes, I have an investment plan I'd
    like to talk over with you.
    
    Sue

    How much money women have IS important, not just because it's nice to
    have but because it illustrates how many (few) women have the
    opportunities that allow us to achieve that type of success.
    
    The money itself and the influence it can wield are also important to 
    making political and social change.
    
    -Tracy
    

    As for Queen Elizabeth II, you must understand  that most of what 
    constitutes her "fortune" is not really hers.  Afterall, she can't
    put Buckingham Palace up for sale or place the crown jewels with
    Sotheby for auction.  I think that only her personal wealth should
    be considered, not what is in trust like the jewels, art, buildings,
    etc.
    
    Linda
     

    In my years of noting, I have seen some faulty logic, but this one tops
    it all!!  As if this had any remote relevance to your perceived problem
    of inquality.  Will none of the women reading this garbage speak up?
    
    Now if you want a real fact, how about the one that merchants have
    known for several decades, i.e., that something like 80% of all the
    disposable wealth in this country is in the hands of women.

    re .28 ..... if you knew anything about QEII....you would know that
    they are talking ONLY about her personal wealth.  The palaces, jewels,
    etc., are all state property, and not included.
    
    She has been the wealthiest woman in the world for many years.
    
    

    Reply to .13, Bobbitt,
    
    Many of them inhereted their money, so did most of the men.

    .29,
    
    "Now if you want a real fact, how about the one that merchants have
    known for several decades, i.e., that something like 80% of all the
    disposable wealth in this country is in the hands of women."
    
    Your "real fact" is a flat-out lie.  We've been fed lies like this
    for a long time.  Susan Brownmillar checked out the wealth distribution
    in this country.  Slightly less than half the *individually held*
    wealth in this country is in the hands of women.  A great deal of
    the wealth is in the hands of corporations and other non-individual
    entities -- which are controlled by <dramatic pause> men.
    
    For example, Massachusetts has several *billion* dollars kept in
    one investment or another.  Is it held by an individual?  No.  Who
    controls where this money is invested?  Joe Malone.
    
    						Ann B.

>    Now if you want a real fact, how about the one that merchants have
>    known for several decades, i.e., that something like 80% of all the
>    disposable wealth in this country is in the hands of women.

Meaningless statistic.

It's not wealth *per se* that equals power; rather, it's the *concentration*
of wealth that brings with it the ability to influence.

That 80% of the wealth is diffused among tens of millions of women.  Except
for a literal handful of exceptions, no ONE of those women controls enough
wealth to make any real difference in the country's political or economic
policy.  There are a helluva lot more men who have this "critical mass" of
wealth.

Furthermore, as with so many other facets of life, a woman in the same
position as a man has to work twice as hard and be twice as careful to
achieve the same result.  If Lee Iacocca or Ken Olsen or John Akers were
to suddenly become politically active, a lot of other powerful people 
would stand up and take notice.  If Estee Lauder were to do the same thing, 
people would laugh at the lil' lady trying to play ball with the big boys...

--jim

    Let's straighten out one more inaccuracy here....I don't know about
    Este, but Lizzie EARNED her billions through a lifetime of good
    business acumen and astute investments.  What do you think she's
    really doing when she visits the U.S.?  She's horse-trading, and is
    highly successful at it.                 

    
    .32
    
    please show us how you can know that evyl myn control corporate
    wealth, given that control of wealth follows from stock ownership
    which is essentially gender blind...

    Why, Mr. Holt, don't you know how to read a stock report?
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: .29
    
    >that something like 80% of all the disposable wealth in this country
    >is in the hands of women.
    
    What does that mean -- "in the hands of women"?  Does it mean that the
    women own the money, have their name actually attached to it?  Or does
    it mean that women have the primary influence over how 80% of dispoable
    wealth is disposed of?  Women shop on the behalf of men, which explains
    why women are the largest buyers of men's underwear.  Oooh, all this
    power is gonna go to my head....
    
    Re: .34
    
    >but Lizzie EARNED her billions through a lifetime of good business 
    >acumen and astute investments.
    
    And a monster big jump-start.  It's not like she started out with
    zilch, you know.                

    Actually Prince Phillip is responsible for a lot of the Queen's
    personal wealth.  She put him in charge of managing her properities
    and he increased the value.  (per documentary on the royal family)
    
    Linda