Suzanne Moore says it how it is again.

What exactly has the late Baroness got to do with this topic? Just asking…

GOK!

Oh, for goodness sake! What is this, 'get at Nonu night'?

Is anyone actually going to contribute to the thread subject?

BTW I would just like to point out that Suzanne Moore writes for many publications, amongst which is....the Daily Mail!!

ANA ,

Shock, horror! Not the DM?

Getting sick of all this backbiting, this started off as a friendly site and now it's more like a minefield.

Perhaps people have stopped commenting on the OP and Suzanne Moore’s article because what is said there is not really controversial; there is a great deal of nasty laddishness about, which thinking people (i.e. the vast majority of Gransnetters, including the grandpas) can only deplore.

What is a pity is the descent into squabbling as a result of Pavlovian reactions to words such as “Maggie”. To say that she was “apparently” or “genetically” a woman, implying that in some strange way she was not one really, simply lowers the tone of the debate; if a poster means that Thatcher was not his or her sort of woman because she was not sufficiently feminist or did not share the same political views, why not say so without resorting to a spiteful denial of the sex of a dead person?

Well said!

It was I who first questioned Nonu's implication that Thatcher had been in some way helpful to women. I merely asked her if she knew how many women had been in her cabinet.

I would imagine that Margaret Thatcher would have had little time for positive discrimination and would have selected her Cabinet based on merit.

Oh, dear.......so there were no women of merit available? I am opposed to positive discrimination - I would certainly hate to be given any job other than on the grounds that I was the best candidate.

That's refreshing Greatnan - we agree

And me!!!!!!!!!

I'd HATE to be the 'token woman!'

Baroness Young was the only woman who made Thatcher's cabinet; I make no comment on her merit.

Linda Chalker was an effective minister for the whole of the Thatcher and Major years without making it to the cabinet (could Maggie have stomached a former head girl of Roedean in the cabinet?), and Virginia Bottomley progressed swiftly to junior minister level after winning a by-election in 1983, but had to wait for John Major to be PM before becoming a cabinet minister. There were other less prominent women who were junior ministers (e.g. Carol Mather, Baroness Trumpington).

Let's face it, the Conservative Party was dominated by males, and Thatcher had to make do with what was available.

At least this twitter scandal has laid to rest the idea that there is no longer a need for feminism.

Sad because obviously, judging by the insults, my message was too succinct to be understood. My comment about Thatcher was "Genetically" by which I meant that she was certainly female, but the subtext was that she did women's causes few favours. That was all.

I shall now retire for a while.

Insults? Where? I don't see any insults after your "genetically" remark, ariadne.

I've had similar thoughts myself about Thatcher, btw. She wasn't a 'typical' woman in many ways – witness her lack of interest in promoting increased fairness that women, in particular, would have benefited from. It isn't an insult to her to say this; just a (political) fact.

So, in short, I understood what you meant as, no doubt, did most others reading it

It was all my fault! I said 'apparently' in response to nonu saying each to HIS own then remarking about being PC and using 'their'!

But it was not me who implied Thatcher was a dog! or have i misunderstood that as well??

For some people she is a "holy cow" - not to be criticised. For others the very mention of her name is a red rag. Maybe the T word and the M word should be banned - or at any rate - eschewed by GN

Why should M & T be eschewed by G/N ??

Water under the bridge , nanaej .

I'd forgotten about Virginia Bottomley. What happened to her I wonder?

This morning's news that Mary Beard has had a bomb threat on Twitter highlights Suzanne's point. We do not know whether on line bullies are embittered lonely men who feel that strong women have ruined their life chances or bullying dominant men who do not want their privileged position in our society diminished in any way.

There are a number of articles by Claire Hardaker about trolls, here's one www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/internet-trolls-guide-to-different-flavours. I think she shows how very difficult this is to control.