Margaret Thatcher - Feminist Icon?

Skatergrrrl - isn't accusing Thatcher of having behaved exactly like a man pretty sexist?

Feminism is about all women's rights, not just one. So how can she be a feminist icon? I just don't believe she is worthy of that tag.

"Those kind of sentiments seem to be reserved for the empathetic left."

Cobblers. For example, Hang Nelson Mandela was a sentiment proudly espoused by many young Tories in the '80's. I'm pretty sure the right wing also have vile sentiments of their own.

And who says the left are empathetic and caring anyway? That's rot too.

Thatcher was not pro women. She was pro herself. I cannot see how as a feminist, one can applaud that when she did nothing for women really. She behaved as she had to behave to get to the top - like a man. Is that admirable? I guess in a way it is because she made it. But as a feminist? Nope.

As an interesting historical factoid, it was the Labour Party who turned Emmeline Pankhurst down because she was a woman. She ended up standing for Parliament as a Tory MP.

Personally I think we'd do well to question the near-automatic assumption of a link between feminism and left-wing views.

Totally agree manatee

You can be a feminist icon without being a feminist, it the fact you achieved extraordinary things as a woman (whether your opponents like it or not) not that you achieved extraordinary things for women.

And by the way, I think Gordon Brown did a lot to ruin the country and so do many but I have never seen an internet thread declaring that therefore he deserves to die submerged in his own urine etc, or that we should have a party when he dies. Those kind of sentiments seem to be reserved for the empathetic left.

On a related note, there's an interesting Grauniad article here about Tory feminists.

I think it's very interesting the way feminism has come to be associated so solidly with the Left. IMO the question of whether Thatcher has anything to offer as a feminist icon is to an extent about this really; maybe there's room for a debate here rather than just calling her a psychopath.

A hero not only for all women but feminists too. I am a capitalist feminist, free market libertarian. Thatcher did so much good. We were lucky to have her.

I agree with you manatee

"mean/evil/spiteful/a sociopath/not morally pure enough/whatever"

"whatever" is also "bankrolled by her husband" amongst others... what an accusation to throw at a woman that was making her carer in politics in the 50s, 60s and 70s!...
Incidentally Karl Marx was "bankrolled" by Friedrich Engels, does not make him any less a revolutionary socialist and, dare i say it, theorist of communism, whatever our views on the result of his work throughout the world in the XXc.

There's an odd overlap here between 'feminist' and 'whiter than white' IMO. As though you can only be admirable from a feminist perspective if you're morally unimpeachable. Is that really what we believe?

There's also a lot of slippage between 'Was Maggie a feminist?' and 'Was Maggie a feminist icon?'. Clearly she wasn't a feminist as such, indeed was pretty clear about not having much time for quotas and all that jazz; but thanks to Maggie, young women growing up since 1979 will have her as proof that it's not compulsory to be in possession of a penis in order to get the top job in this country.

To my mind, those of us who want girls to grow up with the belief that they can achieve great things could at least acknowledge that we owe her that much, whatever we may think of her policies. I think some of the carping on this thread, about how Maggie has nothing that can be admired from a feminist perspective, because she was mean/evil/spiteful/a sociopath/not morally pure enough/whatever, is really appalling.

Or is this just about the fact that it's not considered permissible to call oneself a feminist without also being a lefty?

No one has mentioned her disastrous effect on Ireland as well as Scotland....Mo Mowlem was such a different character. She was a feminist icon! and sooooo worthy!

My apologies for de-railing thread too, but sports no, of course I don't think Galtieri would have stopped if we'd said 'please don't', but I do think they would have maybe listened if Thatcher had got Reagan to plough in. Lots of pressure could have been exerted by the US, but they stayed neutral throughout. She could have at least tried is all I'm trying to say.

I like your logic on my logic (fun this!), but you can't seriously compare Germany invading whole nations with the Argentinians trying to take back small islands which lots would argue they had a claim to. Yes it was an incitement to war, but invasion doesn't necessarily mean war. Depends very much on the circumstances.

Irony is that yes Galtieri invaded to boost his popularity, but Thatcher did the same - took her from trailing in the polls to winning the next election by a landslide. No comfort to those who died on either side.

These days it's hard to believe the Young Conservatives used to sing 'Hang Nelson Mandela' at Tory Party Conferences for a laugh.

Sorry Smee X posted. No I don't think it could have been solve diplomatically. Galtieri was bent on taking over the Falklands.

Anyway gotta go as I said....

Smee - Ah, but invasion is a precipitant of War, but if Thatcher hadn't sent the troops there would have been no war iyswim, so actually in a way she did start it.

That is the most tortuous logic I have ever heard. Under that logic Germany didn't start any wars because it only invaded half of Europe and it was half of Europe resisting that started wars.

Invaders start wars. No invasion = no war.

So you really think that if we had said to Galtieri we will oppose you if you take action he would have said "oh, OK then, I was only kidding"? And you really think it could have been solved diplomatically without selling out the islanders?

If you look at the history of Argentina and the fact that General Galtieri needed a big national event to boost his unpopular regime, the last thing he would have done would be to back down if Britain had said "we will oppose you". He could not have afforded to lose face.

Anyway, gotta go and apologies for derailing thread....

Put it another way Sports, if instead of sending in the task force, she'd used diplomatic channels to pressurise Galtieri to withdraw or negotiate, there might have been no war; merely a diplomatic wrangle which led to the Argentinians withdrawing. Potentially with no bullet fired and 900 people still alive. Now okay who knows if it would have worked or not, but she could have tried a bit harder or even at all. So yes she did cause a war - she took an inciting incident and turned it into conflict. The validity of rights/ wrongs depends on your pov. Personally I don't think a few small islands were worth 900 lives though.

Feminist Icon? Definitely not! Unlike most real women she was intractable and had no negotiation skills. Much as I would like to see Meryl Streep's wonderful acting, the idea of having to watch Margaret Thatcher's life re-enacted would make my stomach churn. Manufacturing destroyed, Anglo Irish relations destroyed. Greed encouraged, walking over people to get what you want was her style. Yet, she cried at the end of her "reign". I still remember a protester trying to make a statement and she said with great disdain "well, you can't blame him, it is always better where the conservatives are!" That was the big turn off for me. I would like to hear why people think she was an icon?

You don't "cause" a war by withdrawing a naval support vessel from regular patrolling duty (which was what actually happened) however ill-advised it might have been.

The defending British garrison, which was still in the Falklands after Argentina invaded was easily overcome by Argentina's 5,000 troops.

Just disliking Thatcher does not justify accusing her of "causing" a war. She has sins enough to accuse her of accurately without resorting to distorting facts to demonise her even more.

Thatcher is definitely not a feminist!

She got to - and wielded - power by behaving exactly like a man (and displayed the worst attributes traditionally associated with men such as ruthlessness, stifling emotion, showing no signs of weakness).

When in power her policies did nothing to help women - particularly poor and vulnerable women.

I would love to see a female PM ruling the country while displaying the best attributes traditionally associated with women, ie leading in a collaborative way, following an ethic of care, valuing the repetitive and lowly paid jobs most often undertaken by women (caring for the elderly, cleaning hospitals, teaching assistant).

Ah, but invasion is a precipitant of War, but if Thatcher hadn't sent the troops there would have been no war iyswim, so actually in a way she did start it.

Interesting all of this, but it's little know that there were repeated warnings before invasion that Galtieri was plotting to try and take the Islands back. All of which we ignored. That's a failure in itself, but it also allowed the Argentinians to think we wouldn't oppose them if they invaded, so they did. After they landed, there was no real diplomatic effort to resolve the crisis. Thatcher quickly decided we alone could solve it by force. She was right of course, but over 900 people lost their lives.

Yeah, but she took the decision to withdraw (or cut, can't remember which) the British garrison to save money, despite being warned the Argentinian dictator would take that as nod that it was OK for his country to occupy the Falklands. Then, having caused the war, she had the cheek to pose as a victorious leader, fighting to defend British interests!

Purely on a point of accuracy. Thatcher did not start the war.

"The Falklands War began on Friday 2 April 1982, when Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands and South Georgia." Source: Wikipedia (or any other historical site).

Think you're right, Creighton as it definitely undermined themilitary regime and they went back to a democratically elected government not long after, but let's face it that wasn't why Thatcher started the war..!

(sorry for typos)

I think being feminist is not necessarily about becoming a strong leader- i don't think of Elizabeth I as a feminist particularly. For me it's fundamentally about the attitudes to women- why women workers are paid less than men for similar work, for instance; or why women who have children are marginalised in the workplace, either directly which is becoming more rare) or indirectly- becasue for instance they work part time or flexibly. women constitute an army of unpaid workers, they are more likely to volunteer, far more likely to be the domestic lynchpins in any household, they do more of the childcare- yet all these are trivialised and undervalued because they are not the concerns of men. Being a strong war leader is not the point- it's not about 'being as good as men' (ha!) it's about the everyday expereinces of women having equal importance as those of men.
Helen Suzman, South African MP and campaigner against apartheid, when a fellow (male) MP told her that he admired her because 'she had the mind of a man': "i had to laugh; his was not a mind i admired."

no, i agree that the lack of the Falklands did not stop human rights abuses, but it seems that the war did help to bring down the regime whereas letting Argentina keep the islands would have bolstered the regime allowing its violence and arrogance to grow.