World View: Feminism is a tricky issue for me. It conjures up uncomfortable images of Germaine Greer-like loonies banging on about clitoral emancipation and other yawningly outdated feminist discussions, writes Karen Coleman
I never considered myself a feminist. This is partly because its definition never satisfied as it shifted from generation to generation. Partly too because my father believed women were just as equal as men and so, I never inherited an inferiority complex that cried out for salvation. I grew up believing I was as good as any man and that inequality of the sexes was an issue for others, not for me.
I have also arguably enjoyed male company more than female, not least because in my profession, women have been much more likely to stab me in the back than men. So the sisterhood was never my cup of tea.
That all changed when I went to the Balkans in 1995 and spent the following three years reporting on the conduct and aftermath of war in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Kosovo. I learnt that war and female emancipation are intrinsically linked. I saw too many mothers, daughters and sisters shuffle through the ashes of their former lives blown apart by twisted leaders like Slobodan Milosevic.
As the architect of Yugoslavia's collapse, the former Serbian president wrecked his country and battered his people. War, when run like that, rarely liberates either sex. And too often women are the ones left to pick up the pieces.
So this week's announcement that the US National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is considered the most powerful woman in the world worried me.
Rice was declared the world's most powerful woman, out of a list of 100, by the US business magazine Forbes. By awarding Condi top prize, Forbes reinforces masculine concepts of power. In its blurb about Rice it proudly praises her "silver-tongued diplomacy and steely nerve". What it fails to highlight is her complicity in the conduct of a war increasingly tainted by faulty intelligence, dubious intentions, misconduct and mismanagement.
Condi Rice sits in an administration that this week has been lambasted over events at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. Rice's colleague, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, oversees a system rocked by the mocking taunts of American soldiers like Lyndie England pictured dragging an Iraqi inmate on a dog-leash.
Now I'm not saying Condi knew about this or indeed that she sanctioned it, but she is on the hawkish side of an administration where few doves fly within. And those that do, like Colin Powell, seem to glide in gilded cages.
This in no way condones the barbarity of Saddam's regime and his oppression of both men and women. Everyone is better off without him. But what price has been paid in the process?
Rice's elevation to number one superwoman raises questions. Is she the kind of person women should emulate? Does Rice really symbolise female emancipation? Will women ever be considered truly powerful unless their hands are on the triggers and their high heels clicking in unison with the guys shouting the orders to fire? It is ironic that the person who came last in the Forbes list is the Nobel Laureate Jody Williams, the founding co-ordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
And guess who Forbes declared the most powerful woman in Britain? Yep, Cherie Blair. It's not that Cherie isn't a formidable queen's counsel. By all accounts she is. But that's not how she got to be Britain's top chick. Forbes admits Cherie is best known as the wife of Tony Blair and it refers to her behind the scenes assistance in helping him "weather the storms" over Britain's alliance with the US in Iraq.
Cherie certainly deserves praise for maintaining a highly pressurised job, raising a family and enduring gruelling public scrutiny. But do those challenges justify her position as Britain's top lady, placing her nine places ahead of Margaret Thatcher and 10 above the queen?
If Cherie Blair is Britain's most powerful woman, then the UK is a pitiable reflection of women's real power in the world.
I am no pacifist by the way. Far from it. I believed military action in the former Yugoslavia was justified. The only force Milosevic respected was gunfire. Nor am I anti-American. I believe dogged American determination in resolving the Kosovo conflict in 1999 prevented thousands of ethnic Albanians from further slaughter. But when it comes to the war on Iraq its justification is extremely dodgy. The fact that Forbes elevates to top positions, two women so associated with the leaders that led that war, is a disservice to women.
Oprah Winfrey, for example, only ranked 62nd. Surely her role in improving American literacy rates through her popular book club means she deserves a higher place? And what about Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling? She only comes in at number 85 despite her influence in enticing children around the globe to read more.
As for Irish women, the news is bad. Ireland only features once in the Forbes top 100 superwomen list with President Mary McAleese ranking 33rd.
Mary Robinson, though, is nowhere to be seen. No doubt her outspokenness on global injustice and human rights abuses, which irked the Americans at times, knocked her off the privileged lists.
One illuminating aspect of the Forbes list is the number of women from the east who feature in it. China's vice premier Wu Yi ranks second. And many other women in powerful ruling positions in countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Bangladesh take high positions.
I will leave you with this final but depressing thought. Laura Bush ranks fourth in the world of powerful women, according to Forbes. She even managed to beat Hillary Clinton. Evidently Bush's gaga-like adulation of her husband, which makes her look like one of the Stepford wives on treble doses of Prozac, appeals.
If she is an example of what the world has to offer in terms of powerful women, sisters, we are in a lot of trouble.
Karen Coleman is the foreign editor of Newstalk 106 and presenter of the station's the Wide Angle on Saturday and Sunday mornings.