Home

In recent years, the iconic prime minister  Margaret Thatcher has been the subject of much debate regarding her impacts on politics and her stance on feminism. Peter Morgan, known for his acclaimed television series “The Crown”, has characterised Thatcher as a “feminist heroine”, suggesting that during her leadership, she exemplified qualities that could be interpreted as feminist. This portrayal has successfully sparked admiration and scepticism among many commentators, raising the question: does Peter Morgan’s characterization of Margaret Thatcher as a feminist heroine withstand critical scrutiny? This question will delve into the countless complexities of Thatcher’s political legacy. Therefore, it will prompt an examination of Thatcher’s actions, policies and even rhetoric related to feminism(“the belief in full social, economic and political equality for women’) and the broader implications of labelling infamous political figures of such titles. 
Critically examining political figures and interrogating their labels requires delving into Thatcher’s historical context and the impact of her political actions; with this in mind, more profound insights into the complexities of Thatcher’s political leadership and her implications on society will be acquired. For this reason, an exploration of the validity of portraying Margaret Thatcher as a “feminist heroine” will be conducted by drawing on key concepts in political argumentation and analytical approaches to political phenomena. Through a balanced and in-depth analysis, I will evaluate the strengths and limitations of Peter Morgan’s portrayal. To achieve this, an engagement with many reputable articles from sources will be required to provide a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing debate surrounding  Thatcher’s feminist legacy. 
Peter Morgan confirmed a feminist undercurrent in the news article” Independent”, suggesting that “Thatcher is such an interesting case because she did things that made her a feminist icon… she had no time or regard for women in a professional way. Yet, how she overcame boys club patronizing sort of contempt… make her a feminist heroine, I think”.In this article, Morgan acknowledges Thatcher’s actions, which could be interpreted as feminist despite her lack of regard for women in a professional setting. “But of course, Thatcher was not a feminist”, stating that Thatcher’s actions and policies did not align with feminist principles. She did not necessarily advance feminist agendas, despite some arguments that she could be considered a feminist icon based on her approach to overcoming gender-based challenges, specifically during her leadership, where she introduced privatization and entrepreneurship measures and successfully provided pathways for women to thrive in the business and financial sectors. However,   “Less series airtime is dedicated to the fact that Thatcher’s cuts to public services, union-busting and extreme free-market and individualist ideology run completely counter to the basic principles of feminism.” This suggests that despite some of Thatcher’s political approaches to overcoming gender-based challenges, her policies, such as financial cuts to public services, deregulation and union-busting, have been condemned for financially affecting women in the labour industry and exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, which contradicts the notion of Thatcher being a feminist heroine. 
Additionally, the UnHerd news article states that” Thatcher never appointed a woman to her cabinet” and that in the  television series “The Crown”, during an episode, Thatcher  tells the  Queen that women are ‘too emotional’ in general for the business of government.” This quote underscores  Thatcher’s rejection of feminist ideals and her unwillingness to embrace gender equality in her political appointments. Therefore, it suggests that her political actions may even contradict the notion of her being a feminist heroine, as portrayed by Peter Morgan in “The Crown. Furthermore, the independent article continues to suggest that “Ultimately, there is an inherent problem with the intimate view we are given into Thatcher’s emotional world and her struggles in a sexist society – because we don’t get the same look into the vast and varied ways she hurt millions across the country throughout her time in office.” This article implies that despite The Crown portraying Thatcher’s obstacles in a male-dominated society, it fails to adequately describe the negative implications of her policies on millions of people,   challenging her label of being a feminist heroine. 
Furthermore, according to the news article “The Times”, it is stated that there  “Attempts to locate empathy in the name of feminism can overshadow the need for accountability when it comes to the real-world impact of these women’s beliefs and actions.” The Times here suggests that  Thatcher’s attempts to empathize with conservative women in the name of feminism can overlook the accountability for their policies and actions, which contradicts the idea of Thatcher being a feminist heroine. “But Thatcher proves a more difficult figure for the series to pin down”, which highlights the complex position Peter Morgan was in attempting to perfectly portray Thatcher in The Crown, hence suggesting that she is not an easily categorized character and, therefore, as a feminist heroine due to the many-sided nature of her character. The Times suggests Thatcher’s portrayal as a feminist heroine is complex, “But the show softens these moments by suggesting that Thatcher suffered at the hands of the patriarchy herself, even if she usually wouldn’t admit it.” For this reason, Morgan depicts her as a feminist heroine by softening  Thatcher’s image and by portraying her as a victim of patriarchy, it manages to complicate the notion of her being a feminist heroine. 
In addition, Morgan, in the independent news article,  acknowledges Thatcher’s significance as a woman, especially for becoming the first female prime minister and breaking through an orthodox male-dominated sphere of politics. For example, “Whether on TV shows or in the news, the credit Schlafly, Thatcher and Coney Barrett get for breaking into the boys’ club often comes without sufficient meditation on the long-term implications of those individual victories.” This quotation argues that the credit given to women like Thatcher during her leadership for breaking the patriarchy often ignores the negative implications of her policies and actions, hence undermining the label of Thatcher as a feminist heroine. Furthermore, the Washington Post article questions Thatcher’s actions and leadership style in the field of feminism. For example, the Washington Post states, “In her 11-plus years as prime minister, Thatcher appointed just one female cabinet member, ” highlighting Thatcher’s lack of effort in promoting feminist movements and advancing their agendas. Thatcher’s rejection of feminist labels is reinforced: “Once Thatcher acquired power, she relished in wielding it over everyone and everything — men, women, all of British society.” This statement is significant as it implies Thatcher’s political leadership refused to prioritize advancing women to positions of power, like her cabinet, undermining the notion of her as a feminist heroine. 
Lastly, the Washington Post article blames Thatcher’s upbringing for her disregard for advancing feminist movements. For example, it is described that “Thatcher revered her father… She never spoke of her mother…” suggesting that Thatcher’s childhood nurture and admiration for her father may have diverged her from promoting gender equality and distanced her from fighting for feminist ideals. However, despite her troubled maternal relationship, “There was no expectation… that she would use her power as the premier to advance the cause of women… She just never, ever does”, which emphasizes that despite her being the first female prime minister, she was still destined to fail in her position to promote women’s rights.
Both the Guardian and CNN agree that “Thatcher waged a ceaseless campaign against the BBC, over its coverage of politics generally and in particular the Falklands war, Northern Ireland, the reporting of the US bombing of Libya, alleged leftwing bias, and its entitlement to the licence fee.” Both news articles see eye to eye on the fact that Thatcher had a hostile approach towards the BBC, a significant institution in the British media, which included several critics of its advocacy for changing the funding model, reflecting her actions on political and ideological objectives rather than working or advocating for feminist causes, hence challenging the notion of her as a feminist heroine. Thatcher’s neglectness towards women’s causes is reinforced when “The comfy straitjacket of TV duopoly enjoyed by the BBC and ITV… was already crumbling when Thatcher arrived at No. 10”, suggesting  Thatcher’s efforts in reshaping the media landscape through policies such as market competition and deregulation. These policies may have provided benefits to the media industry. While it’s prominent in media policy, it still shows that it does directly align with feminist activism, hence illustrating Thatcher’s disregarding behaviour that may deem her unentitled to being labelled as a feminist heroine. 
Additionally, CNN, a prominent institution in American media, manages to contextualize the controversy surrounding Peter Morgan’s television series “The Crown” by stating that  “The fiercest fighting over “The Crown” in Britain is between political tribes selling two equally simplistic narratives. It is a battle between supporters of an old world – the heir to the throne, a Conservative government, a sexual double standard in which decent husbands can cheat and decent women cannot – and the supporters of a new world. ”  This quotation highlights the controversial political and cultural dynamics in Britain portrayed by “The Crown”, hence critiquing the series because the interpretations were often more aligned with ideological positions rather than focusing on the feminist critique of historical representation. In addition, CNN delves into the inaccurate depiction of Thatcher in the crown by suggesting that  ” Even leftists should be angry at the old misogynist lies about women in politics at play here”. The quotation is suggesting that there is an ongoing sexual. Beliefs and stereotypes in how female politicians like Thatcher are portrayed in “The Crown” imply that the portrayal of women figures like Thatcher may not accurately reflect the true nature of her character or actions and instead relies on biased stereotypes, hence suggesting that the series, in general, fails to align with principles of feminism in its depiction of women in positions of power, especially Margaret Thatcher. 
However, while Thatcher may have distanced herself from feminist movements, her actions and policies nevertheless had positive implications for women’s rights. For example, Thatcher’s “attitudes to the welfare state were more complex, and a belief in an individualism drove her reforms” implies that her beliefs in individualism and self-reliance resonated with countless women who were inspired by her and saw her as an example of how hard work could lead to success, regardless of the gender. Although some might argue that  Thatcher’s emphasis on personal responsibility over collective action might align with liberal feminism, others believe her strong opposition to collective action does not inheritably imply aspects of feminist agendas, as they believe collective action is” One way in which gender inequality is reduced”.  Furthermore, many of Thatcher’s economic policies, such as privatisation, were gender-neutral, creating opportunities for women to be involved in business and entrepreneurship. This supports the statement that her depiction in the crown may stand up to scrutiny. However, Thatcher’s actions often reflected scepticism towards a preference for traditional gender roles. Therefore, it is vital to recognize the overwhelming limitations of relying solely on Thatcher’s personal views to examine her stance on feminism, as many of her policies and actions ultimately had broader impacts beyond her individual beliefs. 
To conclude, after a thorough examination, it is evident that Peter Morgan’s depiction of Thatcher as a feminist heroine does not fully withstand scrutiny. While we can agree that Thatcher’s leadership successfully managed to break barriers for women, many of her actions showed a divergence from feminist objectives, which highlights her reluctance to prioritise women’s rights during her leadership. This reluctance raises questions about the validity of labelling her as a feminist heroine, suggesting that Thatcher’s feminist legacy remains contested. Moving forward, it is vital to critically analyse political figures, specifically by engaging with several distinct perspectives and historical contexts. With this in mind,  we can better understand the complexities of feminism and political leadership.