Margaret Thatcher was many things: a pioneer, a visionary, a trailblazer. But there is one thing she absolutely was not, and that is a feminist.
But that hasn't stopped many pundits from trying to paint her as exactly that. From the Washington Post's Alexandra Petri who called her a 'feminist triumph' to author Lionel Shriver who, in a piece as extraordinary for its misrepresentation of feminism as for its mis-remembrance of the former British PM, bestowed on Thatcher a sort of Greatest Feminist Who Ever Lived award even as she ridiculed the very existence of feminism itself.
I'm not going to dissect Thatcher's political legacy, I'll leave that to others more capable than me. What I am here to do is to strike down this belligerent notion — often put forward by conservative women who can't seem to understand that feminism is by its very nature a left-leaning ideology — that everything a woman does is 'feminist' simply by dint of the fact that it is a woman doing it.
This misguided notion — that every choice a woman makes is to be celebrated as a victory for feminism, because, well, hey, a woman made a choice — is diluting the meaning and effectiveness of feminism, enabling even women who are overtly hostile to feminism to claim the title of Champion of Women.
As feminist writer Clementine Ford put it, although 'choice and the ability to freely make it is central to feminist ideology ... it doesn't follow that all choices should be accepted as feminist acts and therefore given a free pass'.
Incredibly, Petri seems put out by the fact that Thatcher is not regarded as a feminist icon, even though Petri herself quotes Thatcher declaring, 'I hate feminism. It is poison.'
Shriver, meanwhile, simply states, 'if we had more feminists like Thatcher, we'd have vastly more women in Parliament and the US Senate'. Um, no, we most certainly would not. Throughout her three terms, Thatcher appointed only one other woman to her Cabinet. Compare that to our own Julia Gillard, who, in only her second term, made history by appointing six women to the outer ministry (that's 60 per cent), and three to the Cabinet.
Feminism is not, as Petri and Shriver appear to assert, about one woman breaking through the ranks and going where no woman has before. It is about acknowledging that women are still systematically marginalised, and actively working to end this discrimination. It is also about accepting that women are no less capable than men and deserve the same opportunities. In this regard, Thatcher did nothing to help pave the way for other women.
You can't be a feminist if you reap rewards for yourself but are content to allow the barriers barring other women to remain standing. Feminism is an ideology that fundamentally demands women be given the same rights, obligations and opportunities as men.
Thatcher was not a feminist. What she was, was An Exceptional Woman. The Exceptional Woman is one who is successful and brilliant, but nonetheless remains the only woman allowed to play in a male dominated game.
History, literature, and popular culture are littered with Exceptional Women. Star Wars' Princess Leia, Harry Potter's Hermione Granger and Tatum O'Neill in the baseball comedy, The Bad News Bears, 'the best player on the team but still the only female player on the team', all exemplify the Exceptional Woman.
Joan of Arc was an Exceptional Woman, as was Queen Hatshepsut, one of the most successful pharaohs and, according to Egyptologist James Henry Breasted, 'the first great woman in history of whom we are informed'.
But great women are not necessarily feminist women. And Exceptional Women are definitely not feminist women, because they operate on the assumption that they are, well, exceptional. Whereas feminism realises the inherent potential and worth in all women, Exceptional Women succeed because of their perceived likeness, not to other women, but to men. Consequently, they make things harder, not easier, for other women.
Thatcher is not alone. Exceptional Women politicians have existed in the modern era in the East, as well as the West — see Benazir Bhutto and Indira Ghandi.
These female politicians, even those who claimed to champion women, such as Bhutto, are the antithesis of feminism because, as the Pakistani feminist organisations who quickly grew disillusioned with Bhutto's failure to implement policies which improved the lives of women can attest, they do precious little to dismantle the social structure that oppresses women.
In today's age, they are happy to revel in feminism's benefits even as they give the movement nothing in return (think Sarah Palin).
Thatcher, exceptional as she was, was not a feminist. But don't take my word for it. Take it from the Iron Lady herself. 'I owe nothing to women's lib.' she proudly declared.
Ruby Hamad is a Sydney writer and associate editor of progressive feminist website The Scavenger. She blogs and tweets.