The ultimate gutsy woman in my books
What makes a “gutsy woman”? Is it enough to be a political trailblazer, Britain’s first female prime minister and the most successful UK politician of the last half century? How about destroying socialism for decades? Or rebooting the market economy, boosting home ownership to record levels, winning a war and helping to bring down the Iron Curtain?
Not according to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, who have omitted Margaret Thatcher from their new book, a compendium of “gutsy women” throughout history.
When challenged in a radio interview, the pair cited Thatcher’s “mixed record” in breaking down barriers for women.
The Clintons are certainly gutsy. It takes extraordinary brass neck for these scions of political royalty to dismiss the record of a towering self-made figure in British politics and, unlike some, a multiple election-winner.
With her combination of unshakable self-belief and Van Gogh’s ear for political reality, Hillary Clinton has much to teach about “leaning in”. She recently spoke of being under “enormous pressure” to mount a 2020 presidential run (from Republicans, one assumes).
True, feminism did not love Thatcher — and the feeling was mutual. “I hate feminism. It is poison,” she reportedly told one adviser, and she promoted few women to ministerial roles.
But her achievements continue to reverberate. Not only did she transform the ailing British economy, but a generation grew up believing it was perfectly normal for a woman to lead a great power. It wasn’t.
In denying her legacy, the Clintons betray a common left-wing tendency to conflate motive and action, to prefer intentions over outcomes.
Insisting that “opening doors for women” depends on explicitly feminist aims is a painfully limited world view. Did the fall of the Berlin Wall or the explosion of home ownership only help men?
Sadly, conservative and procapitalist women often find themselves excluded from feminist discussions, just as members of minority groups may be “cancelled” for voicing the “wrong” opinions (just ask Kanye West).
The Iron Lady aside, here’s my alternative collection of “gutsy women”.
First, Elizabeth I, whose instinctive conservatism helped chart a third way between two extreme religious factions, sparking a golden age of peace and prosperity.
Then the suffragettes Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst — both Conservatives, though few modern-day pundits seem aware of this: Emmeline even ran as a Tory MP during the 1920s.
Or the writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who should be a contemporary feminist icon, but in practice has been rejected by the liberal establishment for critiquing its silence on Islamic sexism.
How many know that the suffragist Millicent Fawcett was also a liberal in the truest sense, a great exponent of free trade and individualism? This Old Liberal would have loathed the grievance-mongering preached by the modern-day Lib Dems.
All told, Thatcher, who delighted in stirring intense reactions, would probably be glad not to feature in the Clintons’ condescending list.
But her omission only serves as a reminder of what we have lost.
While today’s feminist politicians loudly wear the mantle of “girly swots” and “bloody difficult women”, Thatcher led by example. Or, as the suffragettes would have it: “Deeds not words.”
A generation grew up believing it was perfectly normal for a woman to lead a great power. It wasn’t.