Is that why they hate her so much?

A woman of substance

“The feminists hate me, don’t they… and I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism – it is poison.”–Margaret Thatcher

Iron Lady knew right from wrong on the left

THE uncompromising Baroness Thatcher would find it amusing that even in death she presents a dilemma for those who disagree with her.

Meanwhile, a woman of no substance gets undeserved applause. Disgraceful.

“There will be no  ‘Asian Century’ under a government I lead”…

Unlike Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Thatcher had no need to enter any gender war – she was an outstanding individual who made no excuses and did not seek special status because of her sex.–

Vale Margaret Thatcher – a giant among leaders

Obama’s last insult: “I’m just like Maggie,  Michelle and I carry on her work”

Our Socialist in Chief should recall the “Iron Lady’s” words:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ― Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher

How the British press responded to Margaret Thatcher’s death this week Source:

 The Sunday Telegraph

If the Australian Labor Party’s affirmative action/”EMILY’s List” had been in place in Britain when Margaret Thatcher was making her rise, she never would have reached the top.

The late British prime minister’s life was the antithesis of the deadbeat philosophy behind such gender quotas, which reward mediocrity above worthiness.

A woman who favoured self-reliance over collectivism, individual effort over institutional preferment, integrity over compromise, a renegade, a non-conformist, would never have fitted into such an egregiously unjust system.

Quotas are designed to promote the worst sort of people. They benefit the spivs, the cheats, the slackers, the fakes and the incompetents. At heart they are just another socialist redistribution mechanism, and are as doomed to failure as all the others.

Quotas reward cheap Machiavellianism, a career spent greasing up to vested interests, engaging in office politics and intrigue, gaming psychometric tests and pandering to human resources departments, plotting coups, and forging alliances with like-minded con-artists. Such people are singularly unsuited to lead a nation or a business.

Thatcher would not have been chosen, nor been willing to be drafted under such a corrupt system.

Yet once an affirmative action arrangement is established, opportunities to flourish outside it are poisoned, because unfair preferment of women damages the credibility of all women, whether they buy into the system or not. Those capable of succeeding on merit are tainted with the suspicion that they could not have made it without special assistance.

“I would hate a person to ask me a question, are you a quota woman or are you a merit woman,” Thatcher said in 1993, three years after she left office. “I would like (the assessment of) whatever I did to be that I got there because I was the right person for the job, (that) it didn’t matter as a man or a woman. I had the right qualities for the job, the right beliefs, the right principles. I wasn’t a quota.”

Thatcher’s self belief was reinforced by the knowledge that, when she came to the prime ministership in 1979, she was owned by no special interest group. She was a creature of her middle-class, Methodist upbringing, with a scientist’s logical brain, faith in the free market and the virtues of thrift, hard work and self reliance.

She was utterly her own woman.

And she knew that bureaucratic processes such as quotas are only dreamed up by authoritarian leftists to advance their own ideology. Women are just the vehicle, and if it ever comes down to a contest between women and ideology, they always lose.

“Nowadays, socialism is more often dressed up as environmentalism, feminism or international concern for human rights,” Thatcher once said.

“All sound good in the abstract. But scratch the surface and you will as likely as not discover anti-capitalism, patronising and distorting quotas, and intrusions upon the sovereignty and democracy of nations.”

She could have been talking about Labor’s feminist network, EMILY’s List, co-founded by Julia Gillard and her mentor, the failed Victorian premier Joan Kirner, to promote “progressive” women in the party, and advance left-wing causes.

Emily is the unfortunate acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast that is, it makes dough rise.

To prosper as a woman in Labor you have to belong to EMILY’s List.

To belong to EMILY’s List, as at least 75 per cent of Labor women do, you must be a pro-abortion feminist supporting “equity” and “diversity”?

Its “40/40/20 Affirmative Action Rule”, enshrined in Labor policy, requires that a minimum of 40 per cent of women be preselected in winnable seats. EMILY’S List is bitterly resented by staunch Labor men, who daren’t criticise it out loud for fear of being branded misogynists.

Privately they describe it as a, “barnacle that has attached itself to the Labor Party, a parasite on the body politic (which) alienates voters, especially in marginal seats”.

They know it is the vehicle for a stealth takeover of their party by the Left, using gender as a weapon. Thus it renders Labor increasingly out of touch with the electorate.

As for benefiting women, EMILY’s List would actively exclude a star candidate such as Thatcher.

“The feminists hate me, don’t they,” she once asked The Spectator’s Paul Johnson.

“And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism – it is poison.”

Without EMILY’S List, Julia Gillard, who history will probably record as Labor’s worst prime minister, would never have made it to the top. It is the vehicle by which Gillard has realised her ambitions. Foiled by the party and twice unable to win preselection on her own merits, she and Kirner set about finding a way to subvert Labor processes.

Kirner was reportedly “incandescent with anger” after Gillard missed out on a winnable position on Labor’s Senate ticket in 1996, and decided to set up the affirmative action group. Gillard drafted the constitution.

Once she made it into parliament in 1998, EMILY’S List continued to do Gillard’s dirty work.

For instance, in 2004 leaked EMILY’s List polling found fault with then deputy Labor leader Jenny Macklin, claiming she was “failing to cut through”.

Surprise, surprise, it rated Gillard as parliament’s top performer. Soon enough, Gillard had Macklin’s job.

Even with a woman in The Lodge, EMILY’s List continues to up the ante. Having almost reached its goal of 40 per cent of women in the parliamentary Labor party, it is pushing for 50 per cent.

There have been attempts to reserve a portion of safe seats for women only.

And now Gillard is pushing the idea of artificial quotas in the wider community, to get more women onto corporate boards and into top roles in the public service. Treasury has complied, with a plan for women to fill 35 per cent of senior ranks by 2016.

One of the first feminist luminaries invited to Australia by EMILY’s List was Glenda Jackson, the actress-turned British Labor MP.

It was Jackson last week who led the criticism of Thatcher in the hours after her death. She couldn’t deny that Thatcher had shaped history more forcefully and effectively than almost any man. So she just denied Thatcher was a woman.

“The first prime minister of female gender, OK. But a woman? Not on my terms.”

With women such as Jackson and her EMILY’s List acolytes running the show, there will never be another Thatcher.

Which is probably the point.

One thought on “Is that why they hate her so much?”

Comments are closed.