Margaret Thatcher- Legacy for Women in Business?

C.K Dexter Haven

With the passing of Margaret Thatcher today, wondering what TLL thinks of her contribution to women in business.

My personal view is that she acted as a catalyst for change in terms of how women are perceived in a business context- but it wasn't perfect at the start for the following reasons:

1. Media depiction: Anyone who watched Spitting Image will know that she was depicted as being more "male" than the men in her cabinet- probably not entirely inaccurate considering her cabinet at the time but the downside was-

2. The "Power Dresser BITCH" - AKA Alexis Carrington- a character from an American 80s soap (Dynasty) who's manner was, very forthright and "strong" but lacking any type of "human", no less feminine emotion.

As I worked in business in the late 80s, I know that "some" women in management roles did take on these media influenced type behaviours and personally I don't think it worked very well in terms of recommended styles of management as we know it today.

However, for many women, the rule book hadn't been written yet for senior management roles for women, so there is a case for trial/error at that time, especially with a lack of women in business In High Profile Positions.

I placed that last comment in bold, because of course, women have been running businesses for millennia, but "corporate life" as we know it today, was very short on women in business in the 1980s.

Contrary to her Spitting Image depiction, Margaret Thatcher prided herself on her feminine appearance (outfits/dresses, lipstick, handbag).

Thinking back, I remember a lot of women not necessarily favouring her politically, but as a woman in business, they did express admiration for her.

pwurple

Yeah, I've been mixed on Thatcher.

Awful stances on northern ireland, argentina...could go on and on. But fair fecks to her becoming the first female prime minister in europe. That was some serious boys club to face down in the UK. Impressed with that alone.

Legs.Eleven

In my experience, anytime someone wants to give an example of how bad women are in positions of power, they use her as an example. Herself and Angela Merkel so no, I believe she's done **** all for the legacy of women in business and there hasn't been a British PM since and with the rep she left behind, I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Dolbert

Personally, I think she was an evil old bat, and even possibly a sociopath, but that's probably neither here nor there.

For a woman who rose up through the ranks to become an unlikely PM, she didn't seem to have much time for other women at all, not once appointing or promoting a woman while in office.

Here are her thoughts on Feminism (and it's far from the worst thing she has said):

The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.

Da Shins Kelly

I'm not a big fan. Her attitude towards the situation in Northern Ireland was pretty contemptible to be honest. As far as being a female leader, she had to pretty much act like a man to get into that position and like someone said, didn't really seem to have all that much time for other women in politics, so no, I don't really see her as particularly inspiring.

Rosy Posy

I think that in some ways she succeeded in spite of her femininity. It was like she wanted to prove that she wasn't soft and womanly so she was hard on the poor and the weak. She squandered money and lives on the ridiculous war in the Falklands while cutting benefits and services. I'm not even going to start on Northern Ireland. And she gave fuel to the backlash- 'well that's what happens when you put a woman in power'.

I would like to see a role model of women in power that shows that rather than denying their feminine qualities that they can use them as an asset to give a more balanced approach. Its not like the androcentric business model that we have at the moment is doing us any favours.

As an aside, did anyone see the film with Meryl Streep, Iron Lady? I thought that it was terrible the way that they showed her in the context of her relationship with and reliance on her husband. I could see what they were doing, trying to show her human side by portraying her as a frail old woman who was having trouble letting go of her life partner, but it felt inauthentic to her character.

SarahBeep!

When you compare her to someone like Mary Robinson there really is no.comparison.is there??
She was a vindictive and angry woman who I thought made certain decisions just so she could be seen as tough enough to compete 'with the lads.'

seenitall

When you are first at something within a traditional social structure, you don't have the same amount of leeway to express yourself and your personality the way you would if you were just another cog in the same old wheel (but even on that, it's not like any power structure has much time for individuality in general). You have to conform, big time. You have to play the game the way the boys play it. Let's not forget that public office is about showmanship and seeking approval more percentage of the time than it is about actually getting things done.

Also, I can't even begin to imagine the amount of siht that woman must have eaten in order to get on the ladder - and that's what I admire about her. We are talking about the deeply socially conservative and harsh middle of the last century.

Talking about her never appointing another woman anywhere; well, even if she was the worst misogynist that ever lived, that sheer tenacity and drive she had, paved the way in some form or other for other ambitious women.

She wasn't soft, wasn't feminine, wasn't sympathetic, wasn't likeable, wasn't liked. But if she had been all those things, she would have never been a British PM, because she was a woman. Due in part to her legacy, when eventually another woman takes the same position, she will be able to be all those things freely (at least that's the hope, keeping in mind the backlash that Hillary Clinton got when running for candidacy, for tearing up a bit...).

Our society (as that of UK and USA) is still deeply embued with the 'androcentric model', from business to politics to religion to almost anywhere you care to look.

seenitall

SarahBeep! wrote: »

When you compare her to someone like Mary Robinson there really is no.comparison.is there?

Yup, no comparison at all. One was a figurehead looking nice and decorative, the other got to, er, get a few things done.

Morag

Mary Robinson is a humanitarian, human rights activist/lawyer and feminist.
I'd sooner have her as a role model for my daughter then Magret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.

seenitall

Morag wrote: »

Mary Robinson is a humanitarian, human rights activist/lawyer and feminist.
I'd sooner have her as a role model for my daughter then Magret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.

Whatever floats your boat. I was replying to the previous poster keeping in mind the OP and the thread title. MT certainly beats MR on the 'business' achievement front.

meeeeh

I don't see the need to compare the two and you can't compare them because their roles were completely different. Margaret Thatcher was deemed good enough for top executive position. Very few women in Europe got there and none in Ireland. It's hell of an achievement in a very male environment. She was a bitch though.

Da Shins Kelly

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't see the need to compare the two and you can't compare them because their roles were completely different. Margaret Thatcher was deemed good enough for top executive position. Very few women in Europe got there and none in Ireland. It's hell of an achievement in a very male environment. She was a bitch though.

She had to take a completely androgynous approach to get there though.

seenitall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She had to take a completely androgynous approach to get there though.

Which is an indictment of the times she lived in.

pwurple

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She had to take a completely androgynous approach to get there though.

I don't agree.

She didn't dress like a man. She wore makeup, did her hair, had a handbag etc. She certainly looked feminine enough to me.

She was a strong debater, and did not give an inch, but that isn't gender-specific is it?

How was she androgynous?


Also, thread title and premise is misleading. She wasn't a women in business for most of her life. She was a woman in Politics.

eviltwin

I have a lot of admiration for Mrs T. Can't say I agree with a lot of her policies but woman to woman I think she was pretty amazing to get where she did.

meeeeh

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She had to take a completely androgynous approach to get there though.

So what. I actually dislike the distinction between male and female style of work. For me it doesn't matter what kind of approach one takes as long as it works.

I don't like Thatcher and I don't like a lot of policies she implemented. But Britain she inherited was outdated crumbling place that could never compete with German industrial powerhouse. And I think a lot of criticism thrown at her was because she was a woman and it was a lot harsher than it should be. Being a pm is a lot harder than any ceremonial presidential position and there is a lot bigger chance whoever it is there won't be liked at the end of the therm. And a man or a woman in charge in Britain at that time probably wouldn't be popular.

seenitall

eviltwin wrote: »

I have a lot of admiration for Mrs T. Can't say I agree with a lot of her policies but woman to woman I think she was pretty amazing to get where she did.

I'd be the same. NI, Pinochet thing... ugh.

However, for the purposes of this thread, she was top dog. Full of admiration on that score, and RIP.

Da Shins Kelly

pwurple wrote: »

I don't agree.

She didn't dress like a man. She wore makeup, did her hair, had a handbag etc. She certainly looked feminine enough to me.

She was a strong debater, and did not give an inch, but that isn't gender-specific is it?

How was she androgynous?


Also, thread title and premise is misleading. She wasn't a women in business for most of her life. She was a woman in Politics.

It's not about her appearance, it's the approach. As far as I could see, she suppressed her feminine qualities in order to keep up with the men in British politics. This tough as nails, aggressor approach is quite clearly an attempt to go toe-to-toe with the men in politics, because taking a softer more balanced approach, if you're a woman, seems for some reason to be seen as weakness. Yes, maybe it is an indictment of the times she lived in, but I still don't see how it does anything for women. She hated feminists despite the fact that it was the women's movement that allowed her to even have any chance of getting into that position of power. And yes, I realized she was re-elected, but the fact that there are people literally in the streets celebrating her death is fairly indicative of the harshness of public opinion. I think it'll be a long time before we see another female PM, and I think it has in part got something to do with Thatcher. To be honest, if anything, I think she closed that door even further on women, rather than opening it.

Oh please, her being "hard" had nothing to do with a gender-related appearance of weakness, it was to do with 20 years of a softly-softly approach leading to Scargill and his ilk bringing the country to its knees on a whim, an IMF bailout, rampant inflation etc. There was no more room for anything but an adversarial PM at that time, if one had got in there'd be no jobs over there for our young people to be leaving for.

seenitall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To be honest, if anything, I think she closed that door even further on women, rather than opening it.

Yes, in the minds of those people who look at her unpopolar policies as a function of a woman having made them. Because naturally, all women everywhere are responsible for the decisions of a last century's British PM, just by virtue of being the same gender.

That kind of mentality needs to be fought with reason, not placated with consideration.

Da Shins Kelly

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, in the minds of those people who look at her unpopolar policies as a function of a woman having made them. Because naturally, all women everywhere are responsible for the decisions of a last century's British PM, just by virtue of being the same gender.

That kind of mentality needs to be fought with reason, not placated with consideration.

Of course, but the fact is, plenty of people do think like this. Women are still faced with the "if I don't succeed they won't say I don't have what it takes, they'll say women don't have what it takes" problem. We need women who are going to balance things out, not add fuel to the fire, which is what I think Thatcher ultimately has done. The question the OP is asking is about Thatcher's legacy, and what I am saying is that she's done pretty much nothing for women in politics, and if anything, has made the road to power for women even tougher.

meeeeh

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

... And yes, I realized she was re-elected, but the fact that there are people literally in the streets celebrating her death is fairly indicative of the harshness of public opinion. I think it'll be a long time before we see another female PM, and I think it has in part got something to do with Thatcher. To be honest, if anything, I think she closed that door even further on women, rather than opening it.

Using your logic in Ireland, we should have a host of strong female politicians after the last two presidents. The total at the moment is:

- Joan Bruton being shafted in labour by the good old boys and offered position in social affairs (because women are good with children and the needy). I'm surprised they didn't give her education.
- FG have an annoying junior minister that I'd rather not see on top of any party. Half of their women are preoccupied with public morals anyway.
- FF have no women in Dail and Mary Hanafin was very much ignored as a candidate for party president.
- And SF have Mary Lou. But they can't be taken overly seriously as a party so it doesn't matter anyway.
-the rest have about as much influence as the flower pots in Dail...

And yet there were two great female presidents.

pwurple

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's not about her appearance, it's the approach. As far as I could see, she suppressed her feminine qualities in order to keep up with the men in British politics. This tough as nails, aggressor approach is quite clearly an attempt to go toe-to-toe with the men in politics, because taking a softer more balanced approach, if you're a woman, seems for some reason to be seen as weakness. Yes, maybe it is an indictment of the times she lived in, but I still don't see how it does anything for women. She hated feminists despite the fact that it was the women's movement that allowed her to even have any chance of getting into that position of power. And yes, I realized she was re-elected, but the fact that there are people literally in the streets celebrating her death is fairly indicative of the harshness of public opinion. I think it'll be a long time before we see another female PM, and I think it has in part got something to do with Thatcher. To be honest, if anything, I think she closed that door even further on women, rather than opening it.

You're assuming that she had these soft qualities. Not all of us are soft. I don't think I am particularly soft, I tend to argue agressively, always have.

I'm not saying I'm Margaret Thatcher, but you're saying she was false in her agression and put it on somehow. I really think that is who she was. It's tough to fake it at the top.

seenitall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Of course, but the fact is, plenty of people do think like this. Women are still faced with the "if I don't succeed they won't say I don't have what it takes, they'll say women don't have what it takes" problem. We need women who are going to balance things out, not add fuel to the fire, which is what I think Thatcher ultimately has done. The question the OP is asking is about Thatcher's legacy, and what I am saying is that she's done pretty much nothing for women in politics, and if anything, has made the road to power for women even tougher.

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree. She set a precedent, so even on that score alone, she did a hell of a lot for future generations of women in politics. The precedent she set is far from a case of perfect leadership, or some shining beacon in the night. But it's there, history now tells us that the 20th century Britain had the first female Prime Minister. The same century (in the same country) that denied the women the right to vote until deep into its third decade. I think that is pretty fcuking incredible.

Deise Vu

Thatcher was dogmatic, inflexible, agressive, intransigent and determined. Fantastic characteristicss when dealing with the vested interests that populated the failed state that GB had become in the 70's.

Unfortunately most of those traits are generally appalling in a business leader. Thatcher's legacy to businesswomen unfortunately seems to be that a huge coterie of them think in the same 'Iron Lady' way. In an admittedly very unscientific poll of female friends of mine working in a financial services environment where there are a lot of females at managerial levels, to a woman, they all said they preferred to have male bosses because there was no talking to the female ones.

Whatever else she did, Maggie certainly killed the argument that more women in power would lead to a less aggressive, more caring society!

southsiderosie

I don't think you can necessarily compare women in business with women in politics. And it is very hard to compare women in business across different industries: cosmetics, investment banking, law, and dot-coms have very different cultures, and have had very different types of women in key leadership positions.

If anything, I think the position of women in politics is much more difficult than in business. To a certain extent, money talks and BS walks in the business world, so a proven record as a trial attorney, stockbroker, sales, or patents can allow for a degree of objective analysis of leadership and ability that is just not available to anyone in politics. Plus, women in positions of leadership in industry have to keep people in that industry happy; women in positions of political leadership have to keep a much broader swathe of people happy with their performance.

As for Margaret Thatcher, well, I think she is a prime counter-example to and for those who claim that female political leadership will somehow lead to a kinder, gentler world.

tsiehta

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

feminine qualities

Please expand on this.

dfx-

Deise Vu wrote: »

Thatcher was dogmatic, inflexible, agressive, intransigent and determined. Fantastic characteristicss when dealing with the vested interests that populated the failed state that GB had become in the 70's.

Unfortunately most of those traits are generally appalling in a business leader. Thatcher's legacy to businesswomen unfortunately seems to be that a huge coterie of them think in the same 'Iron Lady' way. In an admittedly very unscientific poll of female friends of mine working in a financial services environment where there are a lot of females at managerial levels, to a woman, they all said they preferred to have male bosses because there was no talking to the female ones.

Whatever else she did, Maggie certainly killed the argument that more women in power would lead to a less aggressive, more caring society!

This is what I would've thought. And ultimately she was kicked out of her job prematurely by an ambush of 'trusted colleagues' as she put it. All the while engendering deep hatred that lasts to this day and probably long after her death.

Not the best end plan of action if you transfer that to a business perspective.

LittleBook

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, in the minds of those people who look at her unpopolar policies as a function of a woman having made them. Because naturally, all women everywhere are responsible for the decisions of a last century's British PM, just by virtue of being the same gender.

That kind of mentality needs to be fought with reason, not placated with consideration.

Agreed. Margaret Thatcher was not a product of her gender but of her time, her upbringing, her education, etc. There's an article in the Guardian which outlines how Margaret Tatcher Was No Feminist and this quote I think sums it up well:

Women aren't always good for other women because the gender of a person matters a lot less than that person's actual beliefs.

This is so true. It's no surprise that Thatcher rose through the Conservative ranks rather than the Labour or Liberal ranks. She was not a feminist ... she was a middle-class, right-wing conservative.

In fact, the only way I could even consider Thatcher as a feminist is in that she defied gender stereotypes and the expectations of a female political leader.

meeeeh

LittleBook wrote: »

This is so true. It's no surprise that Thatcher rose through the Conservative ranks rather than the Labour or Liberal ranks. She was not a feminist ... she was a middle-class, right-wing conservative.

In fact, the only way I could even consider Thatcher as a feminist is in that she defied gender stereotypes and the expectations of a female political leader.

I hate that. You can't be feminist if you don't vote for labour. Yes the labour policies on women or other social issues are much closer to my beliefs but I mostly vote on the basis of economic policies and would never vote labour type party. Of course that means I can't be feminist. I don't give a damn what I am labeled as but I'd prefer if social movements wouldn't be hijacked by parties.

Legs.Eleven

A relevant article was published in The Guardian (where else!) today:

She was, of course, the first and so far only female British prime minister, Jon Snow reiterated on Monday night, insinuating that this achievement should in general be celebrated, never mind the specifics of her leadership.
"Yes and that was one of the many weird things about her," smirked Alexei Sayle. In the pantheon of this comedian's attacks on Thatcher, it was a retort that probably won't be treasured longer than the best lines from The Young Ones.
This was hardly the first or even the worst example of a dig at Thatcher tinged so needlessly with sexism. Of all the things to criticise Thatcher for, calling her out for being a woman seems like something of a wasted bullet. Yet despite the attempts of some columnists to claim otherwise, Thatcher can't really be seen as "a warrior in the sex war", let alone as "the ultimate women's libber". Far from "smashing the glass ceiling", she was the aberration, the one who got through and then pulled the ladder up right after her. On the same edition of Channel 4 News, Louise Mensch named only three successful female politicians as part of her defence of Thatcher – and only one of those was a Conservative.
In truth, Thatcher is one of the clearest examples of the fact that a successful woman doesn't always mean a step forward for women. In 11 years, Thatcher promoted only one woman to her cabinet, preferring instead to elevate men whom Spitting Image memorably and, in certain instances, accurately, described as "vegetables". You may not be a fan of Edwina Currie but, really, was she any worse than John Gummer? "You would see MPs who came into any politics after I had and who were no better than me being promoted over my head," said Currie this week. "She had been offered the chance to get on and effectively she then refused to offer it to other people."
As Matthew Parris evocatively put it in Monday's Times, "She rather liked men (preferring our company, perhaps, to that of women), [but] she thought us the weaker sex."
This attitude – that men are fun but dumb, women are smart but strident, a view of the sexes that seems to come straight out of a Judd Apatow film – led to various quotes of hers that some like to twist into proof that Thatcher was an unwitting feminist. These include, "We have to show them that we're better than they are", and "Women can get into corners that men can't reach!" But really, such statements were anything but, first because sweeping statements about genders are the opposite of gender equality and second because they revealed her real attitude towards women, which lay behind her notable lack of female-friendly policies, her utter lack of interest in childcare provision or positive action. (They also reveal how she loved to surround herself with yes men who were always men.) Rather, she was a classic example of a certain kind of conservative woman who believed that all women should pull themselves up just as she had done, conveniently overlooking that not all women are blessed with the privileges that had been available to her, such as a wealthy and supportive husband and domestic help. (Interestingly, Currie also recalled that when she approached Thatcher in 1988 to get approval for the world's first national breast-screening programme, she tried to appeal to the PM initially "as a woman" but that swiftly proved unsuccessful. So instead: "I put it to her that we would be saving money." That did the trick.)
Women aren't always good for other women because the gender of a person matters a lot less than that person's actual beliefs. I am reminded of this every time the debate comes up about whether more female bylines would reduce sexism in the media. Yet the Daily Mail has more female bylines than any other UK paper and is not exactly a totem of gender equality and female-friendliness.
Contrary to an increasingly common belief, "a woman who is successful" is not synonymous with "a feminist". On the day Thatcher died, the Daily Mail ran a piece claiming that Coco Chanel "was a feminist before the word existed". Leaving aside the detail that the word "feminist" came into existence in 1895, comfortably in Chanel's lifetime, the woman who valued femininity above all other qualities in a woman and was heavily involved with the Nazis, including a wartime relationship with German officer Hans Gunther von Dincklage, could not, in any circumstances, be described as a feminist.
And nor could Thatcher, much to her relief as she allegedly abhorred the word, as doubtless Chanel did, too. Both were successful women who could play the flirt card when it suited them, but ultimately had little interest in being kind to their own sex; Thatcher especially resented being defined by her gender. People should pay her the respect of doing the same after her death. She wasn't a feminist icon and she wasn't an icon for women. Any attempts at revisionism do no favours to her, women or feminism. To claim that any woman's success is a boon for feminism is like saying all publicity is good publicity. Seeing as women aren't a minor Brit-flick grateful for even a bad review, that truism doesn't quite hold true here. She was a prime minister who happened to be a woman. It's how she would have, if pressed, put it herself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-no-feminist

meeeeh

We'll it's good to know that one criteria for feminism is 'doesn't sleep with nazis'. Only non feminists do that.

Legs.Eleven

meeeeh wrote: »

We'll it's good to know that one criteria for feminism is 'doesn't sleep with nazis'. Only non feminists do that.

Is that the only thing you took from the article?

meeeeh

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Is that the only thing you took from the article?

es
No. And I haven't got a clue if Channel was feminist or not. I do dislike cherry picking of women that can be considered feminists. I find criteria who channel slept with ridiculous. Teacher and Chanel considered themselves equal to men. Some consider them to be 'men' just so they could be ignored as successful women. They might not represent women that are mostly preoccupied with provision of childcare or breast cancer but why should every woman be?

LittleBook

meeeeh wrote: »

I hate that. You can't be feminist if you don't vote for labour.

Says who?

meeeeh

LittleBook wrote: »

Says who?

Why then outline that she rose through ranks of conservative party and no labor or Libdem? I happen to agree that she was not feminist, I just find the arguments for it especially in that Guardian article ridiculous. I also disagree with the notion that she was bad for other women. But in general there seems to be consensus that to be feminist you have to believe in 'progressive' social or economical policies. I have no problem with social part, although some have very little to do with female question but as far as economic views are concerned, it doesn't really matter if someone is the tea party extremist or a die hard communist.

Thatcher success in getting on top and staying on top was remarkable. I personally think that she did some good things and screwed up a lot more. Would she do any better job if she would be a bit less of a woman eating bitch? No. Should she be preoccupied with childcare issues and similar just because she was a woman? No. She was a flawed politician because her policies were flawed and not because she was a woman who supposedly acted as a man.
/rant off

C.K Dexter Haven

Very surprised at the poll results so far.



Very few liked her Jaguar

C.K Dexter Haven

interestingly, Currie also recalled that when she approached Thatcher in 1988 to get approval for the world's first national breast-screening programme, she tried to appeal to the PM initially "as a woman" but that swiftly proved unsuccessful. So instead: "I put it to her that we would be saving money." That did the trick.)

The above certainly appears to lean toward a detached objective decision making process within her. But of course, all of these stories are just a collection anecdotes from people trying to illustrate a certain familiarity or association with Thatcher as opposed to a deep understanding of her.

I think she probably did have a very objective, detached view on the issues of the day and I think it was certainly more a personality trait than anything to do with her femininity or doing business in a "mans world".

She treated the members of her cabinet with distain at times but appeared genuinely "hurt" when she was ousted. Was that brought on by a great sense of betrayal, that ministers should "obey" their Prime Minister?
Who knows, but I think she relied too much on her positional power - she wasn't rounded enough as a leader or for someone in business.

She made the classic mistake of believing her title or position as Prime Minister was sufficient to gain the subservience she needed to hold on to this position.

A valuable lesson for all leaders, male or female.

LittleBook

meeeeh wrote: »

Why then outline that she rose through ranks of conservative party and no labor or Libdem?

Because I was re-inforcing the point of my entire post that "the gender of a person matters a lot less than that person's actual beliefs" and the notion of feminism playing a part in her rise to power or her political actions themselves is irrelevant.

eviltwin

Didn't realise calling yourself a feminist was a box ticking exercise. I thought the only criteria was wanting women to have equal rights, didn't think you had to lead by example.

Da Shins Kelly

seenitall wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree. She set a precedent, so even on that score alone, she did a hell of a lot for future generations of women in politics. The precedent she set is far from a case of perfect leadership, or some shining beacon in the night. But it's there, history now tells us that the 20th century Britain had the first female Prime Minister. The same century (in the same country) that denied the women the right to vote until deep into its third decade. I think that is pretty fcuking incredible.

Of course she'll always have the claim of being the first British PM, but I couldn't say I'd ever look at someone like Margaret Thatcher and say, 'Wow, she's so amazing, I want to be like that'. I don't expect to see another female PM for a long time, so in that sense, I don't think her legacy will be all that kind to other women in politics. She didn't even help other women politics herself when she was in power.

seenitall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Of course she'll always have the claim of being the first British PM, but I couldn't say I'd ever look at someone like Margaret Thatcher and say, 'Wow, she's so amazing, I want to be like that'. I don't expect to see another female PM for a long time, so in that sense, I don't think her legacy will be all that kind to other women in politics. She didn't even help other women politics herself when she was in power.

I don't necessarily expect to see another female PM for a long time to come either, however the more time passes, the more tenuous is the claim that it could be construed as MT's fault (I completely disagree with it anyway). I believe that can be put on entirely different reasons, which I touched on in my first post here.

The same way that I don't believe we will see a female taoiseach for a good while yet - and that's not on account of Margaret Thatcher, that's for sure.

Da Shins Kelly

seenitall wrote: »

I don't necessarily expect to see another female PM for a long time to come either, however the more time passes, the more tenuous is the claim that it could be construed as MT's fault (I completely disagree with it anyway). I believe that can be put on entirely different reasons, which I touched on in my first post here.

The same way that I don't believe we will see a female taoiseach for a good while yet - and that's not on account of Margaret Thatcher, that's for sure.

There won't be a female Taoiseach any time soon for different reasons that aren't relevant to Margaret Thatcher. Britain has already had a female PM in Thatcher, but instead of her opening the door further for women in politics, which is what one might expect would happen, I'm saying that she's probably closed it even more.
I'm not saying it's entirely Margaret Thatcher's fault, but I do think it is in part to do with her time in power. She has done nothing to make it more likely that women will do well in British politics. She did nothing for other women while in power and didn't exactly put forth a very positive image of women in power. To me, Margaret Thatcher is not a feminist icon, by any stretch of the imagination - she was selfish, inflexible and discriminatory. She honed the image of a career woman, while at the same time bashing the women's movement. She never once offered a hand to other women in politics, battered single mothers and working mothers, and seemingly had little time for other women in general. She only made an exception for herself. To me, she's simply an icon of this 'you get what you deserve' society. The OP's question is what is her legacy to other women, and I don't think there is one.

seenitall

I agree with a lot of what you say there, Da Shins Kelly, but to say she left NO legacy at all to women... is completely puzzling to me.

However, starting to suffer from Maggie Thatcher thread saturation here!

clairefontaine

A legacy from someone who said there was no such thing as society? She probably didn't believe there was such a thing as women either.

The woman was a sociopath.

I certainly hope this is not some kind of legacy, teaching women what they have to be to succeed in business and politics. Heartless monsters.

I'm sorry but no, if she is supposed to be some kind of role model, I firmly reject it.