The successes of Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister who died last Monday, demonstrate that women’s achievements do not require extreme feminism.

Feminism has two definitions. One, “the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes” and two, “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests,” according to Merriam-Webster.

Adherents to definition No.1 of feminism rejects laws that apply differently to people based on gender and societal preferences against women. These feminists are against sexism.

On the other hand, definition No. 2 of feminism calls for a new sexism that favors women. Extreme feminists actively organize to benefit women by virtue of their gender.

Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman, who advocates — knowingly or not — for definition No. 2 of feminism, penned an April 9 piece critical of Thatcher, saying Thatcher got through the glass ceiling and “pulled the ladder up right after her.”

Freeman continued: “Thatcher is one of the clearest examples of the fact that a successful woman doesn’t always mean a step forward for women. In 11 years, Thatcher promoted only one woman to her cabinet, preferring instead to elevate men.”

Suppose Freeman went back in time and convinced Thatcher to “lower the ladder” and make half of her cabinet women. This is the opposite of women’s empowerment because it is an admission that women cannot attain something without preferential treatment.

Despite Freeman’s assertions, Thatcher’s success is a leap forward for women because it shows that women can be successful without anyone “lowering ladders” for them.

Further, Freeman is wrong to say Thatcher “pulled the ladder up right after her” because this implies that Thatcher needed a women’s ladder to reach success. To the contrary, Thatcher demonstrated that women can climb the same ladder to success that men climb, which is true equality.

Freeman argues that successful women like Thatcher are obligated help other women based on common gender. This obligation is arguably sexist because it encourages preferential treatment based on gender.

In other words, extreme feminists adopt the attitude they seek to eliminate among men.

Thatcher’s successes depended on feminism—not in the extreme sense but in the equality-of-the-sexes sense. Equality of the sexes is great because it makes the world more productive; no one’s ability is wasted; no woman is marginalized because of her gender.

Thatcher benefited from this attitude among her electors, the attitude that ability and character trump gender.

However, Thatcher did not require extreme feminism at all for success. Her Conservative Party electors voted for her because they thought she would do a good job as party leader, not because she was a woman.

The virtue test for extreme feminism is consistently applying it to both genders.

For sake of virtue-testing: If it is good for successful women to help other women reach success because women should help women, then it must also be good for successful men to help other men reach success because men should help men.

No reasonable person wants a society in which people believe in this. Men helping men because they are men was a problem. Extreme feminists want to create a similar problem in the name of destroying the first problem.

Because gender does not measure ability or character, no reasonable person wants women arbitrarily helping women or men arbitrarily helping men. Freeman and the extreme feminists would have had Thatcher be unreasonable.

Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major and MBA candidate in the Martin J. Whitman School of Management. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu

 

Published on April 15, 2013 at 1:45 am