In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

I’m Afraid of Americans

OK, I am an American. But when casting about for a suitable pop-song title for a post about Palin’s expressed desire to meet her “political heroine,” the Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, this one just struck me as genius.

For some reason, the mental picture I have of this meeting is a tiny, frail Thatcher being wheeled or led in to a room where an eager Palin sits, and Thatcher looking up at whomever her attendants are (come on, you know she has attendants, she’s Margaret Effing Thatcher) and says “HER?”

Sarah Palin is sort of my doom as a writer. I can’t stand the sound of her voice, but I keep pitching articles about her, writing commentaries and blog posts and returning to the subject again and again. She’s link bait, she refuses to go away, and on one hand I agree with the expressed desire of Katha Pollitt and about half the people I follow on Twitter that we should just stop giving her press. On the other hand, well, she’s Sarah Palin. She won’t go away whether we like her or not, right?

And after the recent primaries, we’ve seen a lot more conservative women coming to prominence, some of whom have political views at least as outlandish–and abhorrent–as Palin. So clearly ignoring them isn’t helping.

Margaret Thatcher was the archetype we had for a conservative woman in power–hell, for a woman in power, period, for a while. And while she stood for pretty much everything I loathe in politics, from union-busting to privatizing, even I have a grudging respect for the woman’s work ethic, intellect, and “iron” control.

But we’ve seen plenty of women leaders in the Thatcher mode now (Nancy Pelosi, for one, though she doesn’t play the self-made woman card like Thatcher did).

Sarah Palin is a different sort, and I maintain still that plenty of the criticism directed at her from the left and the right and even from feminists is sexist and deserved–often at the same time. Palin embodies so many of the cliches about women politicians: frivolous, trading on her looks, winking and smiling, using double entendres like “Drill, baby, drill,” trotting out her family as props, etc.

But I don’t want a world where all women have to emulate Margaret Thatcher to be “serious” either. I dress pretty ridiculously at times, and my sense of humor borders on horribly offensive. I have tattoos and wear red lipstick and generally don’t fit a lot of people’s idea of what a “serious” person looks like. Certainly Thatcher would probably be horrified by me as well, and not just my politics.

So Sarah Palin meeting Margaret Thatcher: probably not a passing of the torch, so to speak. Still, an interesting moment and photo op.

What do you think, Feministers? (And let’s keep it civil–I’ve joked many times that “Sarah Palin kills feminism” because arguments about her tend to get beyond heated.)


17 thoughts on I’m Afraid of Americans

  1. A meeting between Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher-of-10-or-15-years-ago would be fascinating – and I don’t think they’d get along very well, for exactly the reasons you say. Thatcher would probably hold Palin in utter contempt and not attempt to hide it.
    A meeting between Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher-as-she-is-now would be incredibly sad (and not funny). Thatcher is reportedly suffering from dementia. As much as I totally disagree with all Thatcher’s policies, I cannot find it within myself to mock someone with dementia.

  2. Apparently Thatcher’s dementia is now advanced to the point where she can’t remember that Denis is dead. 🙁

    But. I can’t forget this was a woman who said in the House of Commons as Prime Minister that something had to be done about these teachers who were telling children it was okay to be gay. (I had just left school myself at the time.) And because she was PM there were legislative consequences that lasted nearly 20 years and are still having knock-on effects in homophobia, discrimination, and bullying.

    But before she became demented: Margaret Thatcher would have been awesomely, old-school, polite to Sarah Palin. (John McCain she might have been rude to: she’d have recognized him as an equal power. But Sarah Palin? Not worth being rude to.)

  3. Maggie Thatcher was a classic ‘exceptional woman.’ She was in charge despite her gender, not because of it. She got there because of her willingness to fight, and because she displayed the characteristics and views admired by the patriarchal fascists in her party. She didn’t identify with women. She was one of the men. Any display of femininnyity would have seriously weakened her.

    We have made progress: women in politics don’t have to surrender their uteri and eye-liner anymore. But Palin is a poster-girl for the Republicans. Someone decided she’s a good look, and she has been promoted like a new brand of toothpaste. She’s not driving over anyone in her way as Maggie did: she’s a passenger in the political car. Maggie would talk to her if she was President, but she wouldn’t be giving her any tips. Maggie didn’t do that.

  4. Poor Margaret Thatcher. I didn’t know about the dementia.

    Eilish, I’m not sure I agree with you. “The eyes of Stalin and the voice of Marilyn Monroe.” No disrespect to Thatcher’s political skills, but I don’t think she refused to play the game. She just played it for a slightly different era, when a different kind of power/femininity combination was called for.

    All of the things you’re saying about Thatcher–the disinterest in helping women as a class, the disinterest in fostering other political women–are true of Palin. She’s just an exceptional woman for the next generation. And she most certainly does “display the characteristics and view admired by the patriarchal fascists in her party.” The patriarchal fascists have just decided that they want women constituents to surrender their votes and uteri.

    I don’t think Palin is a statesman in the grand tradition. I don’t think she’ll ever become one. I’m not sure that the Republican definition of presidential requires her to become one.

    But she is a politician, and she is piloting her own career, and she wants to be President. The contrast between her incurious, provincial outlook and Maggie’s has a lot more to do with political differences between the US and the UK than with Palin’s ambition or political-animal cunning.

  5. piny: the difference I perceive between the two is that Maggie Thatcher had to fight to front the Liberals, and she actively took out her opponents. She maintained her position mainly by inspiring fear. She was nobody’s protegee. She knocked out the driver and took control : or so the story went at the time.

    We had never heard of Palin before the Obama/McCain election. I’m sure she has fought to get where she is, but she’s in the front because Republicans are trying to buy women, and she’s been chosen to give the pitch. She’s been given permission to drive.

    In all other ways: different day, same shit.

  6. Sophie- in the rest of the world, Liberal means economically liberal like libertarian. I’m not sure that’s what eilish meant, it may have been a typo, but yeah.

  7. Haley K: I’m not sure I’d really describe Thatcherite Conservatism as economically liberal or libertarian, though. (Certainly in the UK “Liberal” does not generally mean “libertarian”)

  8. Sarah, I recommend you do some research on Julia Gillard, in terms of a powerful woman politician, who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and may well be PM one day.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard

    She’s copped any amount of sexist rubbish for being single, childless and having a broad, working-class accent. Her politics are leftish (probably very left in a USA context) and she’s incredibly smart, funny, tough and turns her male critics to mush by making fun of them. I also like the fact that her partner doesn’t have a high status job, but is a hairdresser and that they met on public transport on the way to work.

    Apparently, many men found Thatcher strangely attractive. Beats me.

  9. I just see Sara Palin as the beginning of the Hand Maids Tales incarnate. I can see here wearing those smocks and nodding and smiling accepting the will of male dominion.

  10. Haley K – I’m not sure what you mean by “the rest of the world”, but in Europe (including the UK) “liberal” is more often taken to mean “socially liberal”, i.e. something closer to the policies USians would identify with the Democrats rather than the Republicans and other libertarians.

  11. @Fuchsia and Haley K –

    Clear definitions from both, please? Liberal doesn’t mean libertarian everywhere else than the US, but it also doesn’t mean socially liberal in all of Europe – Britain, yeah, but Germany uses the libertarian meaning.

    Speaking of powerful female conservatives and Germany, toss Angela Merkel into the mix? Although she’s probably fed up with US politicians after Bush’s attempt at a back rub a while back…

  12. Whoops! Conservatives here are called Liberals. Our allegedly liberal party is called Labour. You can see why I fell into semantic error.

    DON”T look up Julia. She’s a traitor to the Labour movement, and has broken my heart.

  13. Eilish, in Australia it’s ‘Labor’, not “Labour’. Dunno why. don’t be too hard on Julia. She’s got to appeal to a really broad electorate, not just lefties like us, and she;s bound to disappoint at times. You should never give your heart to a politician.

  14. It came to my attention this year that the ALP call themselves “Labor” rather than “Labour”. Gave me quite a surprise. As I am practising for a curmudgeonly old age, I refuse to spell “Labour” without a ‘u’, and will get to work on my diatribe against young whippersnappers who want their grandmothers to start using American spelling.

    Disappoint isn’t the word. She and Kevin are continuing exactly where John Howard left off. I am over this business of “appealing to the broad electorate”. It means “lying about your platform in order to get into power”.

  15. Whoops! Conservatives here are called Liberals. Our allegedly liberal party is called Labour. You can see why I fell into semantic error.

    Well, to be super precise – we have the Liberal Party of Australia who are conservatives and have a habit of making sure that people know that they are big-L Liberals, definitely not any of those small-l liberals, who are wet and useless bleeding heart lefties to the core.

    It’s a historical thing. The Liberal Party in Australia was definitely using the term as it was popularly understood a century or more ago – they stood for the liberal values of the time. It’s only since the Reagan Revolution in the USA that “liberal” has become a cuss-word rather than something both sides claimed to be.

Comments are currently closed.