X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Features

Failure of the feminists

After 100 International Women’s Days, real achievement still trumps leftist ideology

12 March 2011

12:00 AM

12 March 2011

12:00 AM

After 100 International Women’s Days, real achievement still trumps leftist ideology

Nothing illustrates better the difference between political idealism and political realism than the campaign to advance women in power, now a century old. The idealists insist on universal principles, based on rights theory, which benefit all women equally. Realists grasp the point that gifted women, in actual office and able to exercise authority, do more to persuade the public of women’s fitness to rule than anything else.

Women’s rights campaigners, suffragettes and feminists have achieved astonishingly little. One reason is that most of them were also radically engaged in advancing left-wing causes across the board as well as the specific demands of women. When faced with the choice of which came first, the left or women, it was usually women who were pushed into second place. It is likely that some women would have got the vote in Britain well before the first world war if feminists had been prepared to accept age and property qualifications as opposed to giving the vote to all women over 21. Violet Bonham Carter, daughter of the Liberal prime minister at the time, explained to me that this was why she opposed the suffragettes: their limited aims would have swelled the Tory vote, on balance. Or so she and others believed.

In the event, votes for women over 30 was won easily, with no fuss at all, in 1918, for one simple reason. During the war millions of women had done men’s jobs, in industry, in public services like buses, even in France behind the lines, with energy and competence, even if need be with courage. Any doubt about their ability had been resolved by real women in actual experience. Theory had nothing to do with it. Equally in 1928, giving the vote to all women over 21 (the ‘Flapper vote’) was conceded virtually without opposition. Pragmatism beat idealism all along the line.

[Alt-Text]


It could be argued that pragmatism had a long history in England. Anglo-Saxon witenagemots included the abbesses of large convents, who had demonstrated their ability and judgment in running church estates. And women in Anglo-Saxon times who inherited property retained more power over it than at any time until the Married Women’s Property Act in 1882. It was the Normans, with their continental notions of men’s rights, and their absolute distinctions, their theoretical as opposed to practical approach, who made the rules and so held back women for the next millennium.

What has often struck me is that all the successful women I have known in politics have been anti-feminist, though some have not dared to say so publicly. Barbara Castle, though stalwart Labour all her long life, and fairly far to the left, too, used to say: ‘The feminists have done absolutely nothing for me. I have had to do it all myself.’ She thought feminism, with its insistence on ‘Chairs’, etc, was often counterproductive. So did Violet Bonham Carter, the best woman speaker I have ever heard. Indira Gandhi believed she owed everything to her family and nothing to the women’s movement. Other early examples of women prime ministers, such as Mrs Bandaranaike of Ceylon (as it then was) and Golda Meir of Israel, advanced themselves by brains, persistence, guts and, not least, luck.

Luck certainly played a part in Margaret Thatcher’s political career — she was a consistently lucky politician — but guts far more. Concentration on a few key beliefs, enormous willpower and, above all, courage, all hitherto regarded as masculine virtues, formed the combination which took her to the top, and kept her there. She said to me: ‘The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.’ The feminists opposed her because she disproved all their theory and adages. They never quote her as an example of women’s success in ruling and try to explain away all her triumphs. They hated her successful power-dressing, her extraordinary skill in keeping the hairdo impeccable during the longest and most stressful day (such a contrast to the pathetic Shirley Williams) and her ruthless use of female allure to get her ends. It would be difficult to think of any woman in the whole of history who so obstinately refused to fit into the feminist picture of the ideal woman in power, though Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great of Russia offer strong competition.

Across the Atlantic, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement provide a striking example of the way in which women advance in a modern media democracy despite, not because of, the women’s movement. The harshest, most strident and even vicious critics of Palin have been feminists. They regard her not just as a rival but as an enemy, and they long to see her public career crash down in irretrievable ruin. The Tea Party they regard with fear and loathing. It has brought to the fore an exceptionably large number of women, in all parts of the United States, and as candidates for all kinds of offices. Many are young, pretty and lively, and with a taste for jokes. Last November many got into office, probably the largest accretion of women to elective posts in American history. And all without a word of support from the feminists — indeed, to their manifest dismay. The alarm and questioning the Tea Party has caused in the women’s movement is not the least of its many attractions.

In Britain, the most significant aspect of feminism today is not so much what it does as what it shamelessly fails to do, and on one issue in particular: the subjection and exploitation of Muslim women. It is a taboo subject. Why should this be? Part of the explanation is fear. The suffragettes may have been wrong-headed in some ways. But courage in facing the mob — any mob — was not something they lacked. Modern feminists are craven in confronting Islamic mistreatment of women. An additional reason, however, is the old problem of fitting women into the world view of the left, in which Islamic Asia and Africa are seen as anti-West, and therefore ‘progressive’. The interests of ‘mere’ Muslim women have to be sacrificed to maintaining this illusion.

What history teaches is the importance of individual effort and personal character in improving the way we do things, and so advancing civilisation. This applies whatever section of humanity we are trying to enfranchise — members of the old working class in Britain, black people in America, women everywhere. What we want is first-class flesh-and-blood women, doing things, and doing them well. Not theoretical abstractions — ‘Chairs’.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close