[MD] Lilith/Lila

[Horse]

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