Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi
I don't know much about Thatcher per se. I am curious as to why you see her as a poor leader and not a good person who was classist and homophobic.
Most politicians are classists - they are the only ones who can afford to run for office. And most people of her era were homophobic. I don't know much about her leadership except as I mentioned as to the economics of Friedman who advocated breaking unions, making people disappear, selling off the infrastructure which threw millions of people out of work all over the world etc.
I'm also wondering if we hold female politicians and leaders to a different standard than male politicians. Seriously, Churchill did some shitty stuff, Nixon did, Reagan did. I don't ever remember anyone saying anything like - "he was a father and a grandfather and I am sorry for their loss, I hope he was kind and loving to them."
|
I think this editorial in the Guardian is quite a good and fair summary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cher-editorial
Her Homophobia
I agree almost all politicians of her era were also homophobic, especially the gay ones. But Margaret Thatcher, as leader of her party and PM of the UK, instituted laws that made the LGBT community second class citizens, it enshrined that status in to law. Read up on Section 28 (also known as clause 28), it took 15 years to undo that piece of pernicious legislation, alone. I didn't live in the UK during her leadership, but I did work alongside my peers to undo Section 28.
Do I hold her to a higher standard because she's a woman - in regards to her homophobia? No. I hold Bill Clinton to the same high standard and I find him just as lacking. His decision to sign DOMA and DADT, nearly 10 years later, were equally damaging and we continue to try to undo that here.
Her Classism
snip/
"I don't know much about her leadership except as I mentioned as to the economics of Friedman who advocated breaking unions, making people disappear, selling off the infrastructure which threw millions of people out of work all over the world etc. "
She did all of that and then some, including supporting the Pinochet government who did a great job of making people disappear.
She did her very best to institute Friedman's economic philosophies/strategies, actually a much better than Ronald Reagan did.
She created the economic hole the UK is still digging out of.
She decimated the National Health Service, and all other socialized services. She created economic chasms between "classes"; chasms that were deeper than had existed before (and that's sayin' something). She divided and destroyed communities. She did irreparable damage to the most vulnerable sections of the population. People suffered and people died because of her policies: the elderly, the working poor, unionized workers, children...and that was just at home.
I'm going to quote Ken Loach (the film director) who summed up some of the "highlights" of Margaret Thatcher's career today:
"Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class. Her victories were aided by the politically corrupt leaders of the Labour Party and of many Trades Unions. It is because of policies begun by her that we are in this mess today. Other prime ministers have followed her path, notably Tony Blair. She was the organ grinder, he was the monkey. Remember she called Mandela a terrorist and took tea with the torturer and murderer Pinochet.
How should we honour her? Let’s privatise her funeral. Put it out to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It’s what she would have wanted."
Women in Politics
To the question of whether "we" hold female politicians to a higher standard, my answer is: maybe.
Maybe, I do.
I certainly hold members of this community (the B-F community, the Queer community) to a higher standard. I believe that you and I, and everyone here, should be "better": smarter, kinder, more compassionate; better educated, more self-aware, more philanthropic, more politically active.
I hold women (regardless of their profession) to the same set of elevated standards.
I believe that because we come from a place of oppression and silencing, because we must overcome the hurdles and challenges (both internal and external) that arise from being "less than", because we must work harder and longer to rise the ranks; because we must be louder and bolder to be heard; I believe we must be better listeners, better managers, better politicians - -- better human beings in whatever realm we live and work.
So yes, I do expect more, from myself and from all of you.
And yes, with that expectation comes disappointment, sometimes.
Regardless, my feelings about Margaret Thatcher have nothing to do with her gender.
In fact, to me, her gender is only notable because she was the first woman to rise to
that position of power in the UK. But her gender became secondary to her legacy. And her legacy is not one I am proud of.
And the people who are extolling their admiration for MargaretBloodyThatcher because she was a "strong woman" are driving me 'round the bend because they are correlating "strong woman" with "good leader". And the truth is she was not a good leader. Not by anyone's standards (except the most conservative).
Edited to add a link:
A piece entitled
"Not all socialists want to dance on Margaret Thatcher's grave" written last year, it reflects much of what I wish people knew and understood about her legacy.
And for the record, I don't want to dance on her grave either. I don't find joy in celebrating anyone's death. Not even Maggie Thatcher's. Or Bin Ladens. Or W.'s when it comes to that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...n-8143089.html