Chapters (65)
- Cover
- Praise for the previous work of
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- 24 April 2018
- Part 1: Subject
- 15 June 1968
- 20 June 1968
- July 1968
- 2 February 2018
- Part 2: Light
- 20 November 1970
- 20 November 1970
- 21 November 1970
- November 1970
- 19 February 2018
- Part 3: Focus
- 15 April 1977
- 18 April 1977
- 15 May 1977
- July 1977
- 26 February 2018
- 8 March 2018
- 8 March 2018
- Part 4: Distance
- 15 May 1979
- 15 May 1979
- 16 May 1979
- June 1979
- 29 March 2018
- 29 March 2018
- 27 March 2018
- Part 5: Movement
- 18 October 1981
- 10 April 2018
- 18 October 1981
- 10 April 2018
- 18 October 1981
- 10 April 2018
- 18 October 1981
- 10 April 2018
- 10 April 2018
- 18 October 1981
- 10 April 2018
- October 1981
- Part 6: Exposure
- July 1984
- 5 September 1984
- 24 April 2018
- 25 April 2018
- Part 7: Developing
- 26 April 2018
- Vee, in the lost place, 1984
- 26 April 2018
- Epilogue
- 5 February 2019
- Author’s Note
- Acknowledgements
- Letter from Author
- Stephanie Butland’s Readers’ Club
- For your Reading Group
- For discussion
- Select bibliography
- About the author
- Also by Stephanie Butland
And not because I’m a witch, or have that ‘feminine intuition’ that is one of the many crocks of crap that is talked about women, who have been socialised to notice everything in order to be compliant and stay out of trouble.
I know what you’re thinking because you and I have been in touch for many years, now, and I know how your mind works.
You’re thinking: ‘A female prime minister! Finally, something that will please Leonie Barratt! She’s been nagging and moaning about equality of opportunity for all these years and now she’s got it. Even Leonie cannot argue with a female prime minister.’
Well, John, you’re wrong. You don’t know my mind as well as I know yours.
I’m not pleased.
Except in one respect. We do have a woman representing the country. That’s a good thing, even if it is way overdue.
But really, that’s all I can get excited about.
Let’s put aside the fact that this is worthy of comment – that ‘female PM’ is being trumpeted left, right and centre, because it’s an exception (a first in Europe, too), and that’s the opposite of how it should be. Prime Minister is a job in which what you’re keeping in your underwear is irrelevant.
Let’s ignore the symbolism and talk about the person.
We already know the cut of Mrs Thatcher’s jib. We know she is a Milk Snatcher. (Although I do wonder, if she was a man, whether she would have a more manly soubriquet. Plot Hatcher? Cash Catcher?) She talks about economics in the guise of a humble housewife. I’ve heard she flirts her way to getting what she wants. She can only be a female PM by making sure no one forgets she’s a woman. And that’s the opposite of equality.
I’m seeing magazine articles about her being a mother and ‘juggling’ career and family life. I’m seeing questions in interviews about the dynamics of her marriage. Did we have those articles about Ted Heath? Funnily enough, we didn’t. I’m going to stick my neck out and guess that, if the next PM is a man, he won’t be bothered by these questions, either.
So although a female prime minister may, at first sight, be a good thing, John, let’s not forget: while we spend time talking about what she wears, how she manages her family, and any other damn thing we did not discuss about Heath and don’t consider when it comes to Jimmy Carter, we do not have equality.
While a woman in power has to coerce, cajole and flirt behind the scenes to get her way, we do not have equality.
While women are expected to show their power by behaving like men in public, we do not have equality.