Margaret Thatcher - Feminist Icon?

[OnlyANinja]

The Guardian asks a number of influential women (apparently) but I'd rather ask MNers.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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....

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....

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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."

But this is where I would disagree. There were only men in top politics then, so did she behave "as a man" or did she behave "as a person to wants the top job"? She did break through into this layer as a "herself", but her action allowed other women to gain positions into the top politics, because the argument "she is the woman, so she is not able to perform in this role" is no longer relevant.

And what is all this about "ruthless" as a man's characteristic and "caring" as woman's? Gender stereotyping much?

"as a person WHO wants the top job"

But there have been female M.P.s for a long time. I don't think Thatcher has particularly facilitated any more women in politics, much less another female P.M.

Plus she was in a role where she could have tried to introduce more legislation to improve women's lot in the world of work etc. I'm not aware she did anything of the sort.

Whether men are ruthless and women are compassionate is irrelevant in terms of stereotyping. What matters is what qualities we value and if it took ruthlessness and coldness to reach the top, are those qualities admirable? I don't necessarily think they are, whether 'male' or 'female' qualities.

I believe feminism represents a third way. Not the same old ways, the old boys ways. And because of that and Thatcher's reinforcement of those old skool values, she is not a feminist icon.

And to suggest that the unions and the Labour Party have historically been feminist is tosh too.

So no one, male or female, who reached the top by being ruthless is an icon, winky? The problem, which Thatcher faced and other leaders face, is that unless you are ruthless you never get anything done. Every political decision is going to upset somebody.

"But there have been female M.P.s for a long time."

She was not concerned with "facilitating anybody as another PM", but she did make it easier for another woman nonetheless because it is no longer a shock if a woman becomes a head of the government.

Just as it is no longer a shock-horror that a black man can become the president of the USA and Obama's privileged background and his not-so-black skin (to quote some) is irrelevant... (I was actually hoping Hillary to take this top job as someone mentioned to me the girls with a name ending with "-y" are not "high achievers" bollocks...)

sorry, copied a wrong quote (damn keyboard)
"I don't think Thatcher has particularly facilitated any more women in politics, much less another female P.M. "