A recent post about Obama being a role model for black people made me think about Lady Thatcher - the woman outside of her politics - seeking a path to power in context of Barack Obama and his journey to power.
Mary-Anne Stephenson of the Fawcett Society said of Thatcher: ``A lot of younger Labour women have said they were inspired to get into politics because of Margaret Thatcher - she made them think a woman could do it.'' Undoubtedly, Thatcher inspired women seeking a position of power in spheres other than politics. Nevertheless, as with all early role models, there were certain problems. At the time, the ?women in power' debate seemed to begin and end with Thatcher. She was a dominant role model at a time of few alternatives. Thatcher was likened to Boudicca due to the lack of modern equivalents of self-made female leaders on such a scale. Thatcher broke through the gender glass ceiling but after that women had to carve their own path without becoming or wanting to become another Thatcher. Therein lays a conundrum and perhaps suggests why the gender battle remains only partly won. The expectations faced by Thatcher to push a female agenda and the resulting criticism for having ?let down' women also led to another barrier. Even today, not all career women want to push a female agenda - some actively avoid it. In parallel, it is interesting to see the outcry when Obama is judged or expected to raise race related issues because of his ethnicity. Men have not experienced things to such an extent. They have always had more than one acceptable male role model. Obama's success was paved with previous black politicians and speakers such as Martin Luther King whose success as a public speaker was due to the prior existence of a black religious culture that was easily translated for civil rights oratory. In addition, since classical Greek/Roman times, politics and public speaking were exclusively male and the deep male voice became associated with being ‘statesmanlike‘. Public speaking (including speaking at meetings, presentations etc) means that some women have to overcome a physical problem. Women have a higher pitched voice. The pitch heightens with age, nerves and when speaking loudly. It is due to that pitch that an association is made of women being perceived as ?hectoring' 'shrill' or emotional. Thatcher is famous for having a voice coach to help soften her voice - it made her more ‘palatable’ as a speaker and avert such associations. Not all things are as easily resolved. Post Thatcher, more women are treading a wider range of identity paths and are more readily accepted for it. Yet women are still under-represented at Board level, in the Commons, in local government and patronised by the media.
Remember the reference to Blair's Babes'. Where are the references to the male cabinet being called Brown's Himbos. Ironically, Thatcher was elected because her party supporters assumed she would not dominate due to her gender. Her eschewing feminist causes and image as a ?traditional' woman also went in her favour. It was when her dominance became palpable that her party support started to wane. Where does this legacy leave us now? Do women, like Thatcher, still have to use their female 'weaknesses' as strengths, adjust any female aspects that are perceived as negative and mask so called 'male' traits to be a success? Or can women who overtly display stereotypical male traits make it to PM and other positions of power?
These are some of the questions that many women are asking. The fact that they are asking them means that the final frontier of gender identity (or gender equality?) has yet to be tackled. And what of Lady Thatcher? She is known just as much for her professional work (however much you may disagree with her policies) as for being the UK’s first female PM. Some might say that this is a true marker of success.
Remember the reference to Blair's Babes'. Where are the references to the male cabinet being called Brown's Himbos. Ironically, Thatcher was elected because her party supporters assumed she would not dominate due to her gender. Her eschewing feminist causes and image as a ?traditional' woman also went in her favour. It was when her dominance became palpable that her party support started to wane. Where does this legacy leave us now? Do women, like Thatcher, still have to use their female 'weaknesses' as strengths, adjust any female aspects that are perceived as negative and mask so called 'male' traits to be a success? Or can women who overtly display stereotypical male traits make it to PM and other positions of power?
These are some of the questions that many women are asking. The fact that they are asking them means that the final frontier of gender identity (or gender equality?) has yet to be tackled. And what of Lady Thatcher? She is known just as much for her professional work (however much you may disagree with her policies) as for being the UK’s first female PM. Some might say that this is a true marker of success.
Comments
Hide the following comment
Comments
05.02.2009 12:02
Would we say that she was a true marker of success for having been Prime Minister? Well, if you favour conservative political principles and have a strong distaste for the redistribution of wealth, then maybe. But I think it would be foolish to mark someone as a success - whatever their gender - simply because they reached high office. One could say the same of Bush or Clinton - that they were successes because they became American Presidents - and yet they both conducted murderous campaigns around the world purely for strategic or economic reasons and without significant regard for humanitarian consequences.
The above should tell you what I think of marking Thatcher as a success for having been a female Prime Minister. Was this a victory for female emancipation? The answer should be no: she was tolerated in a world dominated by aggressive male values (war, greed, money, power) because she herself embodied these values. One could go so far as to say that voting her in was a propaganda success for the system - the doctrine can continue to espouse harmful male values and discriminate against women in general, whilst apparently demonstrating that it is "not sexist".
To my mind, the election of Barack Obama in the States is a remarkable thing - especially given America's recent history of extraordinary racial disharmony. But to similarly conclude that America has entered into a new period of racial acceptance would at least be premature, if not naive. After Bush, neo-liberalism needs to reinvent itself and a black "progressive" candidate stands a reasonable chance of persuading people that there is nothing inherently wrong with it. This acts as a form of propaganda that may find some purchase with the sections of the black working class who have formed beliefs about the innate injustice of the system.
Incidentally, this forms a parallel with the belief amongst moderate progressives and black communities (mainly Democrats) that Obama will guide America domestically and internationally to a gentler and more co-operative political position. However this too may be in the best long-term interests of capitalism - it is better for the system to "have a makeover" and to win back people straying from the ideological fold, rather than have the people turn against it entirely.
Coming back to the author's central theme, my own view is that the demonstrative effect of women achieving coveted positions is only temporary, and may even be misleading. It isn't intended to smother inspiration with a wet blanket for me to point out that female success in highly competitive environments - as with Thatcher - sometimes comes at the cost of believing that the embodiment of male values is necessary to get there. This is not to say high-flying success for women is a bad thing (or that all male values are inherently harmful). But it is necessary to point out that some instances of female success are inherently sexist in themselves, since they carry on a male agenda whilst presenting a misleading equal-opportunities front.
The problem in developed capitalist society is whether women in general want emancipation in the same way as feminists rightly demanded in the sixties. One has to wonder, given the modern female demand for "lifestyle" and "reality" media that patronisingly depicts their own customers primarily as fashion consumers, perpetually addicted shoppers, and dedicated followers of meaningless celebrity trivia. Socialist Judith Orr has much to offer on this topic (see "Sexism and the System") and from a mental health perspective, psychologist Oliver James is an excellent read (see: "Affluenza" or "The Selfish Capitalist").
It is of course right to determine how the struggle for gender equality should proceed for the best - and I say that as a man despairing of where patriarchy has led us. But the focus on a few inspirational women at the top may not be helpful, since emancipation surely cannot be a spectator sport. Rather, the values of feminism must be driven from below and in creating a new feminist movement. In theory, this could drive a female rejection of media given to promoting the beauty ideal, which in itself would be a great start.
Jon