While today’s women whine on about how unfair the world is, way back in the early 70s a female politician came to power and by 1979 occupied arguably the second most powerful position in the world. Furthermore, she held that post for over 10 years, taking the country to war when necessary.
While Margaret Thatcher was a polarizing figure, she was a champion of the free marketplace. She confronted the unions who had a stranglehold over British industry. The UK of the 60s and 70s was not far from being a communist state, with endless “jobs for the boys” in every field, eventually reaching the point where every job needed five employees. The bus driver couldn’t collect tickets—there had to be a ticket collector. He couldn’t clean the bus—there had to be a cleaner. All these superfluous jobs came with the “need another cup of tea” attitude pre-installed.
Any time a corporation tried to take on the might of the unions, massive walkouts ensued. Those of you with a more liberal bias might get up in arms about workers’ rights, but understand that during the 1970s, the UK had more power cuts than a third world country because the workers walked out on strike. As a child, we’d have candles and torches on during many evenings.
The prosperity we enjoyed during the 1990s and 2000s was largely created by one woman and her efforts to encourage the world to modernize. Without incentive, there is no investment. Without investment, there is no progress. Without incentive and a drive for progress, workers just do the bare minimum and complain like high school girls every time they actually need to do a decent day’s work.
That internet connection you are using to read this article is thanks in part to Maggie for denationalizing the telephone companies, after which other nations followed her lead. Government-run institutions have no incentive to seek progress, as the Soviets found out, and without deregulation of the telephone industry we’d have been lucky to have enough extra lines to run fax machines. Thanks to Thatcher, Canary Wharf is now a thriving financial district where once it was one of the most deprived areas in Europe.
USSR-style communism was defeated largely by Reagan and Thatcher’s free-minded economic reforms, and whilst some of you might be learning Russian to chase hotties, without the roaring economy they engineered, we might well have all been learning it to survive the labor camps.
If there is so much prejudice against women, how was a woman, so many decades ago, able to rise up and become an elected politician, the leader of her party and then win several national elections, whilst taking on massive controversial challenges against embedded socialism?
“Ah…That’s different
BULLSHIT. The simple matter of the fact is that she cut it alongside men. She had a sharp mind and wasn’t afraid to use it. I actually met her once and there was no doubt about her qualities, not only as a head of state but as a human being.
Thatcher most certainly puts any whining feminist to shame, along with the likes of Hillary, Christine Lagarde, Sheryl Sandberg, and any of the other entitled harpies that feminists are so found of championing. Better still, she was not some sniveling lawyer, but a trained chemist with a degree from Oxford University she obtained on scholarship in 1947. Now please try and tell me about the patriarchy and male prejudice. The only glass ceiling women have been banging their heads on is the one they can’t navigate around because they have the intelligence of a common house fly.
This article is not a debate about whether Thatcher made mistakes as Prime Minister—of course she did. It’s not about whether her style of governance was perfect—of course it wasn’t. She was a politician, and they are all fucked to come degree. One could argue that real statesmen have not been seen in several decades, since most today are limp-wristed lawyers intent on ruling by decree and punishing when their almighty laws are broken. It’s no surprise to find countries run by lawyers are all piling into debt, since a legal mind is only used to working away on it’s long winded theories, with someone else to pay the bill. It takes a business mind to maintain fiscal discipline, and Thatcher had that.
There were and still are precious few women that can truly operate on a high intellectual level. We are not talking about learning from books or passing exams. That is only one test of a person’s abilities. Fluid, dynamic, analytical quick thinking is not high on the list of feminine traits, just as breastfeeding is not among the skills of your average male. It’s just a fact. Few breeds of dogs can catch mice, but they will guard your house. Ducks are not able to walk well on land, but boy do they fly and swim well.
The exceptional females of the world have on occasion proved themselves just as able as men, but this does not mean that every woman is automatically entitled to a scholarship at Oxford or a position as Prime Minister. Frankly, my experience suggests that most are better off barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen sink, or later in life, taking care of grandchildren or their aging husbands.
When the IRA blew up the hotel Thatcher was staying in, she was unharmed in part because she was still awake at 3am working on her speech. A lot of women cannot work those kinds of hours. She gave an interview at 4am announcing the party conference would continue, while persuading the local department store to open early, so her party members could replace their lost clothing. No hysteria necessary—it was only a small bomb.
Until there is more evidence of females on a large scale being able to operate non-emotionally, rationally, logistically and without claims of prejudice and discrimination, we cannot take any feminist claims seriously. It’s very interesting to see how women react when this topic comes up in conversation. From prominent female figures on television to girlfriends and their BFFs, all will parrot the same nonsense whilst becoming accusatory, refusing to engage in logical debate, while contradicting themselves. Beware of those who cry discrimination, most likely they are the prejudiced ones—we all know how bitchy and competitive woman can be.
The point of this article is to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that Thatcher “was different.” Why would women need feminism when a woman got a scholarship to Oxford in 1947, became leader of her party in 1975, and Prime Minister in 1979. It’s already been done. Marie Curie discovered radioactivity and won a Nobel prize for physics in 1903. Yes I am sure that her parents, teachers, peers and so forth all had a go at her and it was tough for her to make progress in her chosen field. Poor little thing… But she did it.
Most men run into this kind of obstacle as a matter of course. Famous racing driver Nikki Lauder was cut off by his wealthy father because he wanted to race cars professionally—hardly a non-lucrative career. You could argue that lack of paternal support was an element in his crash, trying to prove himself, “like an idiot.” This is one man out of millions who’ve had the same obstacles from fathers, brothers and other men in their lives. Men rise to adversarial attitudes, whereas most women need a more “supportive” atmosphere. Where it’s not supportive they simply resort to emoting, bitching and “that’s different.”
It’s exactly the adversarial climate that forges great men (and women, if they can handle it). It’s a proving ground, a crucible. If anything, Thatcher, like many women, got an easier ride than a man would have done, not just because of novelty factor, but because men will help a broad along. Someone that is exceptional is exceptional. The only thing that is different is the skill set of the average woman, not the false “discrimination” she faces in the modern world.
Read More: More Women Are Rejecting Feminism
