Int’l Women’s Day: Thatcher the feminist
(This article is a guest post by Najlaa Zorgui, author of the Cape Romaine blog. Najlaa is 17 and studying A-level politics. Unlike the other authors we’ve selected to display today, Najlaa isn’t a die-hard socialist, but Paul thought it might be nice to showcase a talented writer, even from another perspective. Considering the recent furore about youth apathy, in this case I agree).
Margaret Thatcher: strategist, capitalist…feminist?
As the first female ever to have become the head of a modern European government, it seems fitting that on International Women’s Day, we should take the time to question whether or not she made good use of her time in power. She was never going to be just another prime minister, and even if she did make a U-turn or two during her 21 years in office (incidentally, the longest time in office of any 20th century British prime minister), she rarely shied away from the important issues of the economy and immigration, earning herself the nickname of the “Iron Lady”.
However, during that 21 years, she didn’t do all that much for women. Nor did she acknowledge that she was even partially indebted to the feminist movement for her success. Why do I then dare to put “Thatcher” and “Feminist” in the same sentence?
Well, for one thing, she was definitely a woman, and she made sure people knew, particularly early on in her political career. She shared her housewife-wisdoms with the nation, and even used a handbag. Given the timing of these displays of femininity, however, it’s certainly not improbable that these gestures were more geared towards helping her shrug off the “Iron Lady” image and adopt a more human-looking form.
However, to denounce her on those grounds would be plain wrong; every potential prime minister uses aspects of who they are to appeal to the electorate, and the ongoing personality war between Brown and Cameron proves how important simple countenance has become. By taking advantage of her womanhood and her motherhood, she implied that she would never renounce the privileges endowed to her by her sex – she never did – and considering her sheer intelligence, I believe that it could not have been anything but a conscious decision to suggest this.
Having said that, she was also a right-wing woman; this proved particularly disconcerting to the women’s liberation movement, since the right and the Conservatives were not traditionally the party known for their efforts toward female empowerment, particularly considering their stance on abortion at that time, and also their apathy towards single mothers, working women, and women in general.
The image she later conveyed, of an uncompromising believer of her own principles, was much more in line with her nickname, and certainly did not fit the caring empathetic feminine stereotype. To some, this combination of callous personality and harsh policy constituted a betrayal of her sex.
Again, this seems far more sexist; Thatcher broadened the image of women, going far beyond any stereotypes and destroying them in the process. No one can now, after Thatcher, suggest that women are inferior in any way. What her feminist and left-wing critics perhaps intentionally underplayed, was the fact that the Conservatives were in some sense actually far better for women.
If electing a female leader wasn’t enough, it was, after all, Thatcher who fought against the trade unions who were curbing the rights of part-time workers with the motive of winning jobs, traditionally considered as masculine, back from women after World War II, and who amended the Equal Pay Act during her era.
Perhaps Thatcher was not aware of the fact that she’d actually become more of a feminist than the liberationists she criticised. She was, principally, a supporter of neo-con capitalism, and if this turned out to be to the advantage of British women, then it was probably an unintended side-effect. But if she contributed toward anything, it was toward the normalisation of female success, something which could only have been achieved in the way she achieved it, and certainly not under the banner of feminism. By rejecting that movement, she stealthily turned something radical into something very reasonable.
Simply by being a female leader of the Conservative Party, she was living proof that women were equal to men, and as former Labour MP Oona King expressed, “it meant so much… when two women – she and the Queen – were running the country”. Critically, she understood that women’s interests were becoming increasingly masculine, moving from family orientated to career orientated. In doing so, she reached out to the other feminists, the ones who weren’t into protests or bra-burning. Women wanted money and success; they could have the kids later.
If labelling Thatcher a feminist affiliates her with the women’s liberation movement, then it just can’t be done. And if it means that she even made an attempt to break down the legal barriers to gender equality, then again, it’s a real stretch. She did, however, change the cultural view of women, and in doing so, created a lot more opportunities for them. Gender equality is probably not something that can be achieved through legislative means alone, anyway, so I like to think of her as having done some part of the job. Just to clarify: this doesn’t mean I like her.
This is a charming read, and actually should be read in the same sitting as another entry by Najlaa here entitled ‘Have the core traditions of liberal, socialist and radical feminism been exhausted?’
Thatcher is and was a despicable and evil person who had intentions of ruining certain parts of Britian, and inhabitants of those parts of Britain, in order that she be seen as a great economic dictator like her pal Pincohet, for she hungered after empire status. It’s no secret that she felt she should have been prime minister during the days when the sun never set, so intended on an economic venture that would curb industrial society for post-industrial economic hegemony (ironically necessitating cheap foreign labour, at a time of the rivers of blood speech by Powell).
All aside, it was the championship of the women’s movement that made this possible. Thus, they are vindicated for their hard work. Feminists who deny Thatcher is part of the legacy move the goalposts, and forget that with women there is no single narrative. I hate Thatcher because of her politics, and because of her mode of class warfare, not because she is a woman, and not because I thought that she was operating under the sense that she was a patriarch (you hear chatter about Thatcher being masculine in her decision making by redundent feminists).
So unfortunately for those people for whom feminism is the start and end of their political identity, and wonder why they are not happy yet, is because feminism is a weak theory that has to supplemented with something else. I suggest it be socialism (despite the author’s reservations about this term), for when the equality of sexes emerge, you remember that a lot of what we thought was our plight against sexism, was actually displaced class antagonism.
Najlaa
An interesting viewpoint, and I commend your bravery for setting it out on a socialist website. I’m sure you won’t be suprised to hear that I profoundly disagree with just about everything, altough I do concur that a) she was a woman b) she was ‘not just another’ prime minister.
I won’t take your article line by line, as I’m sure there’ll be others along in the day/evening to examine other aspects of your contention that Thatcher, and Conservatism in general, has been good for women.
I’ll stick with your reference to Thatcher’s handbag as what you suggest was a way to diplay her femininity to facilitate the her ‘housewife-wisdom’ message, and thereby to make life better for women in some way.
In what way is a handbag-based display of housewife-based feminity supposed to be an advance for women in society?
Rather, I think it’s quite the reverse of that. The carrying of the handbag was in fact a visual statement of strong ‘family values’ element in the discursive articulation of Thatcherism, cleverly combined with the neoliberal economics aspect of the overall ideology (also reflected, I would argue, in the use of the handbag as symbol of ‘prudent womanly housekeeping’ where you only spend what you’ve got and there is no time for Keynesian notions of macro-economic management).
For more Thatcher handbag-related commentary, see ‘Thatcher’s handbag, the discursive articulation of financial commmon sense, and the meta-alienation of the masses’ at http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=371.
The only reason Thatcher had a politcal career at all was because she married a millionaire that facilitated it; no Denis, no political career. Very feminist.
And she always made his breakfast in the morning.
This somewhat reminds me of when Oxford University was approached by Thatcher’s supporters and it was suggested to them that they should honour the first woman with an Oxford degree to become Prime Minister.
they replied that they already had done … to Indira Ghandi.