“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”
These words, spoken by Thatcher whilst she was in the top position in government pretty much summed up her thoughts on feminism. She essentially spat on the radical feminists that had put so much effort into changing things for women since the 60s, which she had every right to, as she could not see how they had helped her get to where she was.
I also feel that I owe nothing to the radical feminists of the 70s and 80s. All they served to do was make ‘feminism’ a dirty word and isolate ‘the cause’ from both men and women. The Woman’s Liberation Movement that was prominent from the 60s to the late 80s made huge legal changes to the UK in favour of gender equality, but that was where their influence ended. Women’s liberation had helped change laws that made it possible for Thatcher to rise up through her profession, but ultimately her intelligence and skill were the reason for her success.
Thatcher should be regarded as an inspiration to feminism as she is the perfect example of what women can achieve if they work hard enough. Feminism in Britain should no longer be about changing laws, but about changing the attitudes of women. The means for success are there, we just need to be more confident in believing that we can achieve it. Thatcher has already proved that it is possible we just need to follow her lead.
Many radical feminists say that she did nothing actively on behalf of women whilst in office: of course she didn’t. The point of equality is that it is equality for everybody, not a particular group and due to this she didn’t seek to change the system in favour of women, but to make the system equal.
She introduced the National Curriculum, which made sure that everyone was taught the same thing, regardless of gender or family income. This has made a bigger impact on female achievement than anything the feminist movement has done since first wave feminism.
In a way she was the worst thing that could have happened to radical feminism. There they were in the 80s, happily screaming away about inequality in the workplace, whilst Thatcher was leading the country, proving that women could make it to the top if they were capable enough.
Feminist poster girl Harriet Harman (who incidentally got into her job as Deputy Prime Minister as a result of positive discrimination, not merit) left Thatcher out of her paper on Women in Power, which was supposed to list the most significant political women since 1907. This kind of irrational behaviour is the reason why so many women have rejected the idea of feminism. You cannot airbrush the most significant woman in British politics out of history because she did not agree with you.
She was the head of the ‘male’ establishment that radical feminists were trying so hard to bring down. In their view she embraced ‘the enemy’; in my view she beat it at its own game.
Thatcher was an inspiration because she achieved so much despite of her gender. Women should be free to make their own choices about their life and beliefs, not be dictated to by a group of women who think that they know what is best for each and every one of us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you.... I think! I learnt today that it was the Thatcher government that created the CSA in order to force absent parents to pay for their children. Again, this wasn't specifically aimed at women, but helped them massively nonetheless!
DeleteEssay 'o' clock!
ReplyDeleteMy main issue with your views is summed up in the line "she is the perfect example of what women can achieve if they work hard enough". She is not the perfect example, she is the perfect exception. I agree she had to work incredibly hard to get where she did, in fact, far harder than a man in her position. Women, both now and then, face so many more obstacles than men if they wish to reach top positions, be it in government or in business. Yes, if they work hard enough, they can overcome them, but why should they have to?
I suspect you are well aware of this (although this does not come across in your post); how can you not when there is still the undeniable pay gap and, more noticeably, the lack of women at the very top of society? Where I think you and I most differ on this is your claim that that this problem can be solved simply by changing the attitudes of women.
Firstly, how do you intend to implement this plan? I agree, if women were more empowered and more confident we could make a great deal of progress but how do you change the outlook of such a large and diverse section of society? Women have been downtrodden for so long, such a fundamental change in attitudes is so unrealistic, I don’t see how it is an option we can even entertain.
What’s more, would a change in attitudes be enough? Yes, it would make a difference, but you cannot deny the fact that there is still sexism and discrimination in the work place. Probably one of the worst sectors, but one which I have personally come across, is that of the banking industry. It is still the case that clients are entertained in strip joints and women are seen as unable to cope with the immense pressure of the job (perhaps true but can men cope either?) I think of myself as a strong, driven woman but even I would think twice about choosing to work in such an environment. There should not be such an unnecessary hurdle which would, in reality seriously discourage the vast majority of women.
A more general case is that of maternity; it is commonplace and well documented for employers to discriminate against women of childbearing age, putting a huge part of the work force at an immediate and undeserved disadvantage. It is a position I of course sympathise with; an employers first priority will be with his (or her) company. However, both interests can be preserved and this is one area that has recently undergone massive improvement because of that dreaded word you (and much of the right) are so keen to leave behind: legislation.
It is not the ideal solution but in the world of business and in many other areas it is the only solution. One point which you raise is that of equality but it is important to note that equality is not the same as fairness. Equality sees everyone paying the same level of tax; fairness sees those that can afford to pay more do so. Equality sees no difference between men and women; fairness acknowledges that there is an imbalance and seeks to redress it. Equality seeks to change the mentality of women; fairness seeks to make such a change unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you seem to see a change in attitude and a change in legislation and mutually exclusive, but sure the latter would lead to the former? To force women into top jobs, for example tax incentives for companies with 50% female boards, make a quota of female cabinet posts, etc. would be the best way to change mentalities. It would show men and women alike a working model of equality at the highest level; it would break the cycle of male domination and inspire women to achieve.
In today's world where women are in general equally (if not better) educated than men and often have aspirations to match, we can no longer hide behind the myth that these positions are not filled by women because of a lack of able and willing female candidates. I agree that the solutions I am proposing would have problems in the short term but the long term benefits would far outweigh them.
A final point it that of feminists. The role of the radical feminist movement is debatable but there is a big difference between that and Women’s Lib in general. There was tremendous gender inequality when the feminist movement as we know it was first born, and what ‘the cause’, particularly the more extreme partitions, did so effectively was to bring that to public attention. Whilst men were on top they were never going to allow that to change without strong, high profile action to the contrary. And it worked. We are a much more equal society, our generation is much better off than any before. How could this possibly have been achieved if it weren’t for Women’s Lib?
I am incredibly grateful for all feminists who fought so that we could have the opportunities we have today. However, I do not include Thatcher in that group. She proved that to break into to a man’s world you had to behave like a man (even if she didn’t dress like one) and she proved that such a position was available to only a minority of women. Her personal achievement is undoubtedly admirable, but has no relevance to feminism.
Also, is the link between the title of your blog ("I like dinosaurs") and your thatcherite views deliberate?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, how dare you suggest my views as prehistoric! The name comes from an unfortunate word vomit incident that I have never been allowed to forget!
ReplyDeleteAnd now to address your ‘essay’:
1. You suggest that Thatcher is the ‘exception’ to the rule and so not an example. How so? Yes, she worked incredibly hard to get there, and I acknowledge that it is harder for women to succeed in many high earning, high profile jobs. However, there has been a steady increase in both educational attainment levels in women and numbers of women in the workplace. It is still not equal in terms of numbers, but the mechanisms for success are there for both genders, and Thatcher is a perfect example of someone who managed to use these to optimum advantage.
2. You question how we would implement a change in attitudes and confidence among women. Well how about consistently promoting examples of strong intelligent women? (like Thatcher or Christine Lagarde, who is the current President of the IMF)Changing attitudes takes a long time and cannot be forced, however there have slowly been developments towards less sexism in Britain over the last century. It would now be unthinkable to question a woman’s right to vote or get divorced, yet less than a century ago these were huge debates.
3. I’m not going to lie, I know little about the banking sector, however the increase in legislation aimed at improving equality rights is continuing to be improved, even by our current coalition government. Again, they call for equality, not differential treatment for women.
4. Maternity is an interesting case, however if I owned a small private business and a woman of childbearing age was presented as a potential employee I would think twice about employing her. If she then chose to take maternity leave it could seriously harm the business. That’s why, and I know this will be unpopular to some of you, I think that women who want to work in high powered jobs in the private sector should have to sign a contract that states that their employee should not have to provide maternity pay if they get pregnant within the first 5 years. That way, companies will be more likely to employ competent women, without the fear that they could have a child and seriously cost the company. This would hopefully raise the number of women within the private companies.
5. Our conception of equality is completely different. Your conception of fairness is actually inequality. I could go into your example of tax systems but I will stick to your main argument about women. You say that ‘Equality seeks to change the mentality of women; fairness seeks to make such a change unnecessary’. Surely changing the mentality of women is a positive step forward? You have acknowledged that there is an attitude among the majority of women that has been marked by a sexist society. Surely if women became more confident individuals, they would be more highly respected by their male colleagues and competitors? A change in female attitudes would start to change societal ones; if there were more strong female role models, then more girls would follow their lead.
ReplyDelete6. I also hate the paradoxical concept of ‘positive discrimination’. There is absolutely nothing positive about discrimination, even if you are doing it for the purpose of ‘fairness’. To be promoted to a job above someone who may well be more competent than you due to your gender is a massive inequality. It also separates the genders legally, which against the whole idea of trying to lower societal differences between gender.
7. The Women’s Liberation (Second wave feminism) is characterised by radical feminism. They are the stereotypical bra burners and man haters. The feminists I respect and follow are the ones from the First Wave like Mary Woolstone-craft and JS. Mill (Who was, God forbid, a man!), who were the original liberal feminists who campaigned, above all, for equality between the genders, and not special allowances for women. It was this movement that brought women the vote.
8. You made a point about not including Thatcher as a worthwhile feminist example because she ‘behaved like a man’ in order to break into a man’s world. Does that mean that strength, ruthlessness and courage are only male traits? Thatcher had leadership qualities and she was a woman. If her behaviour appeared manly then that is more down to preconceived ideas of the difference between male and female behaviour. Her personal achievement may not have relevance to radical feminism but it does to as a role model for women. And women were what the original feminist cause was centred around.