(en) Britain, GlasgowAnarchists.wordpress.com: A feminist guide to celebrating Thatcher?s demise by angry women of liverpool ? feminist group

I?ll start from the premise that anybody who?s got as far as reading this had no 
particular love for Margaret Thatcher. If this doesn?t apply to you, this article will not 
help. You?re on the wrong blog. Go away now. Bye bye. ---- Yesterday, today and probably 
for the next week or so, people are sharing the glad tidings around TwitFace in succinct 
missives ranging from jubilant celebration to wary reminders that this doesn?t change the 
way things are and we must keep up the fight against Thatcher?s legacy. There?s nothing 
wrong with either of these sentiments. While we must not forget that the wheels she put in 
motion are still driving the cogs that grind us into submission on a daily basis, we?re 
also entitled to blow off a little steam, and even to celebrate the presence of one less 
architect of our oppression wasting our oxygen with their vile presence on this planet.

However, unusually for a such a potent symbol of rampant destructive capital, and 
especially for one in a position to wield so much power against the working class, she was 
a woman. What does this mean for the conscientious Thatcher-basher? Let?s try out a few 
suppositions that are making their presence felt throughout that amorphous confusion of 
privilege, oppression, liberal denial, radical indignation and occasional hope that our 
newspapers refer to as ?The Left?.
Does it mean you can?t say anything these days cos feminists and political correctness has 
gone mad innit?
No.
Does it mean that we have to acknowledge her as a feminist icon because being in power was 
harder for women and she raised women?s political status and all that?
No. That is, it probably was harder for her than it would have been for a man, because 
patriarchy etc., but it?s not as if she was pursuing a feminist goal or fighting 
oppression. Her ambitions were quintessentially individualist. She wasn?t raising the 
status of women, in fact she used every feminine stereotype she could to promote herself 
while reinforcing working class women?s oppression. You don?t get to claim any feminist 
kudos for breaking glass ceilings when you rain down shattered glass on the women below in 
the process. Feminism (which Thatcher loathed) wasn?t, and isn?t, about getting to the top 
and playing with the big boys, it?s about bringing the big boys down, along with all the 
structures maintained by patriarchy and capitalism. Let?s get one thing entirely clear: 
Thatcher was no feminist, and she did shit all for women.
Does it mean that we can?t vilify her because we wouldn?t be vilifying a man in the same way?
No, we can definitely vilify her. But we should be careful about how we vilify her, 
because patriarchy does make it so much easier to vilify women as women, in ways that are 
harmful to all women rather than just the villains. That said, give her credit: she was 
vilified for far more than just her gender, and there are many very good reasons why 
Thatcher holds such a special place in the nation?s gallbladders. She was the one who 
turned on the tap for all the neoliberal free market shit we?ve been wading through for 
the past three decades. Why vilify her for being a woman when there?s her role in 
privatising services, destroying industries, breaking unions, starting wars, atomising 
communities and, lest we forget, stealing milk from babies.
It?s true that any other Prime Minister at that time would have done similar things, and 
that every one since has continued the job, and it?s also true that a man might have got 
away with much of it with less flack from the press. Doesn?t make Thatcher any less of a 
villain. If we want to be fair and break down the gendered vilification, let?s get ready 
to blow the roof off when Blair carks it.
Does it mean I can?t call Thatcher a bitch, cunt, hag, harridan, cow or cast aspersions on 
her sexual integrity or attractiveness?
I don?t know where you think I acquired magic powers from, but I can?t actually stop you 
from saying anything.
But would it be wrong for somebody who thinks of themselves as a feminist or feminist ally 
to use those words against Thatcher?
Look, I?m not about making naughty lists, here. Words and their meanings are fluid, and 
often context-dependent. But as a general rule, insults that are only used for women are 
misogynist, k? A good litmus test is to ask yourself if you?d ever find occasion to use 
the same insult on a man, without the insult centring on implying he?s like a woman. If 
you?re not sure, try it on Cameron and see how it fits. There are very few insults that 
aren?t suitable for him.
Also, be aware that people who hear you using those insults on Thatcher without first 
seeing you use them on Cameron will be perfectly justified in assuming misogyny, as that?s 
the usual meaning of those words. Don?t come back with ?But I used the same insult on 
Cameron, so it?s OK!? One cross-gender insult does not wash away centuries of misogynistic 
cultural baggage. Best response to being called out on this is to apologise and use a more 
gender-neutral insult (on Thatcher, not the person who called you out. Unless they were 
defending Thatcher).
Does that mean I just can?t insult women?
Not at all. What?s wrong with calling Thatcher a venomous, putrid crust of syphilitic 
smegma on the chode of the universe? Or if you don?t like the vulgarity, go for the 
surreal: Thatcher was a wax-encrusted elbow-joint of the highest order. Be creative. 
Please feel free to use the comments on this post to practice your non-gendered insults, 
provided you aim them only at Thatcher.
Where do you stand on singing ?Ding Dong the Witch is Dead??
Tough one. The history of witch persecution is fraught with the very foundations of modern 
capitalist and patriarchal oppression, as anybody who?s read Silvia Federici knows. But 
there are so few songs you can sing joyfully about the death of somebody thoroughly deserving.
You want a proper argument in defence? Give me a minute.
OK, got one. The cultural connotations of ?witch? in the modern day are so fragmented, 
having passed from fairy tale and myth through church/state persecution, a modern 
reinvention as ?Wicca?, developing into a full-fledged sub-culture with often positive 
portrayals in TV drama and children?s literature, it could be argued that the word ?witch? 
is now primarily a fairly neutral term for a female magic-user and serves only to denote 
the profession of the woman in question, not her moral status. After all, the song takes 
care to distinguish: ?Which old witch? The wicked witch,? suggesting that wickedness is by 
no means assumed by the term?s use. If Glinda, the good witch, can allow the munchkins 
their song of triumph over the ruby-slippered menace that has oppressed them for so long, 
who am I to begrudge it?