Hi Khoo Khoo Hock Aun wrote: > Hi Horse > > The distinction I am trying to establish was: in your opinion was it a > disaster because it was Margaret Thatcher who happened to be Prime Minister > - or was it because it was a woman ?
I think a bit of both. Don't get me wrong here though, I would have no problem with another woman becoming Prime Minister as long as she was elected for worthwhile/feminine values and not merely because she was a novelty. Which is why Thatcher was elected. I think a stereotype was elected with people thinking they would get someone with feminine traits. Big mistake. And this is the problem I referred to with the US. Thatcher was more masculine than the prospective males and felt she needed to prove that was the case. Instead of being better than a man she was more masculine than a man! > > I am sure as the world gets more and more used to women leaders, whether she > is a good leader or not depends more on her individual traits and faults > rather than her gender. This rationality even extends to Muslim dominated > countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh given the subjugated status of women > generally in those societies. Hopefully we won't see the same problems as those the UK experienced. But I suspect that, at least at first, this will be the case where many elected women compete with men for the masculine role. I hope not. > > Of course in Hillary's case it is the tantalising prospect of a > co-presidency with her husband Bill as Adviser-in-Chief, the way I dont > think Dennis would have ever played. > Merits of her candidacy aside, there are still admirers of Margaret Thatcher > over on this side of the divide for pulling the British nation up by the > socks from the excesses of union power and socialist tendencies. She may > have gone too far though as do eventually all leaders who stay too long. I think that the perception of excessive union power and socialist tendencies were pretty much a myth at the time and more so now when the term socialism has become a dirty word. The balance of power needed to be just that - balanced. Thatcher didn't give a damn about anyone but the rich. She was very tribal in her attitudes and outlook as well. A telling statement from her: "There is no society there are only people" and the only people she cared about were the rich and powerful. > > But Qualitatively, the UK is better now than if she had not been around ? Not really - unless it's considered that everything of Quality is merely a profit centre. This is how the UK now seems to work - education, health etc. etc. > > For that point I must say the role of Queen Elizabeth 2 as undisputed > monarch of most of the Anglo Saxon world has been absolutely positive for > the last half century. Not much of a monarchist really but I think QE2 has more femininity in her little finger than Thatcher possessed in her entire mind and body. Shame about the family though! Horse Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
