Inspiring Women, Invisible Women

Only certain 'types' of women are allowed into the new canon

What do Margaret Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice have in common?

• Both are phenomenonally successful women: not only were they the first woman to hold the very senior positions they reached, once there they each chalked up an impressive string of achievements that rival any other holder of that post, male or female.

• Both are on the political right

• You’ll almost never¹ find either in one of those ‘Inspiring/Awesome/Amazing Women’ books.

But before we continue, an enormous welcome and thank you to the nearly 150 subscribers who’ve joined since last post. It’s fantastic to have you on board. Enjoy the new posts, dig into the archive, check out the Christmas Quizzes.

If you’re not sure where to start, the new ‘Top Posts’ page has a collection of my favourite and most read posts: read, enjoy and share. And if you have your own substack, please consider adding this as one of your recommendations.

Like any father of a young daughter, in recent years I’ve become very familiar with the books, posters, games and more of ‘Inspiring Women’, ‘Great Women who changed the World’ and so on that she gets given on regular occasions. Some are cringe-worthy, a few are are excellent and most are somewhere in between. The latest, a pair-matching game, is one of the better examples of the genre, and has the added virtue of being the first skill-based game she’s been able to beat me consistently at.

As one sees more of them, it’s clear that there’s a deliberate attempt to build a new canon. Some names appear in the vast majority of compilations: Ada Lovelace, Frida Kahlo, Rosa Parks; not to mention a few who were always famous: Jane Austen, Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale² . And every set has a few wildcards, too: L M Montgomerie³, Maria Montessori or (pleasingly) Queen Elizabeth II. But the more of them that one sees, the more one realises that some women are missing: any woman who achieved political prominence on the right.

Hang on a minute, I hear you say. Maybe they’re just avoiding political figures in favour of achievers from less controversial areas such as science or literature. Not so. I’ve see Ruth Bader Ginsberg, doyen of the progressive left⁴. Diane Abbott, first black woman elected to Parliament (and Shadow Home Secretary under the famously uncontroversial Jeremy Corbyn). Corazon Aquino, President of the Philippines. Now, as someone whose lived in the Philippines, I’m all in favour of greater global prominence for Cory Aquino: but let’s face it, she’s hardly as well-known as Thatcher.

Or maybe they’re avoiding those who are, in some way, ‘controversial’? Are they only chosing activists whose causes are now almost universally admired, such as Emmeline Pankhurst or Harriet Tubman? That would be an odd argument to make, given that Ginsberg, Abbott and co could only be considered ‘uncontroversial’ if one associates solely with people on the left. But let’s interrogate it for a moment. It simply doesn’t stack up.

On multiple occasions, I’ve seen Rosa Luxemburg, a literal communist. Or Olive Morris who, “joined the British Black Panthers, becoming a Marxist–Leninist communist.” Hardly uncontroversial. With all respect to Ms Morris who did, after all, campaign against genuine injustices, doesn’t one think that Condoleezza Rice - who from a childhood in segregated Alabama grew up to become Provost of Princeton, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State - is a somewhat better role model?

I have seen Nancy Astor, the first female Member of Parliament - though only once. One would have thought the first woman MP would be a shoo-in for these sort of collection, at least ones made in the UK; but of course, Lady Astor had the poor taste to be a member of the Conservative Party.

Neither Indira Gandhi nor Golda Meir were on the political right⁵, yet neither ever appear. Both were not only the first female leader of their countries (both of which are rather better known in the UK than the Philippines). Gandhi, I presume, is excluded due to the Emergency; Meir, of course, had the misfortune to lead a state that is one of the few entities in the world to excite greater loathing from progressive activists than Margaret Thatcher.

It’s interesting to see who else never makes the cut. I’ve never once seen Agatha Christie, despite her being the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies sold, outsold only by Shakespeare and the Bible⁶ - with her books still read and being made into popular films and TV programmes today. No-doubt detective fiction is considered far too low-brow for the middle-class compilers of these sets, who would prefer to honour Jane Austen and Mary Shelley.⁷ And of course, J. K. Rowling doesn’t stand a chance.

How much does this matter? On one level, perhaps not that much. As a staunch opponent of identity politics and other forms of ‘wokery’, I’m not the biggest fan of these things anyway: the modern progressive obsession with people’s immutable characteristics, such as sex and race, seems calculated to stoke division and polarisation rather than bringing society closer to together. If people with genuine achievements have been overlooked⁸, let’s make sure to include them in a general book of history, rather than segregating by race and sex. I wouldn’t actively seek out these sorts of books, though I also don’t have any problem with my kids reading them.

But to the extent that these things do matter - and some people think they matter a lot - then yes, this omision does matter.

Why do the creators of these compilations think that there’s nothing about Britain’s first female Prime Minister - the longest serving Prime Minister since the 19th century, not to mention a former industrial chemist - that might inspire the young girls who they’re ostensibly doing this for? Why do they put their own petty tribal politics above recognising some of the highest achieving women of the last 100 years? I’m no Labour supporter, but if I was compiling a collection of ‘Great People Who’ve Shaped Britain’ you can be damn sure I’d put Clement Attlee in it - and quite possibly Blair, too.

And why is it that - again, so far as these things actually have an impact - my daughter is being subliminally told that, as a woman, she will only be considered worthy of celebrating if she toes the line and holds the ‘correct’ opinions? Where, of course, ‘correct’ is defined by the progressive establishment⁹. Men aren’t held to this standard - indeed, the irony is that most of the ‘missing’ women I’ve written about WOULD be included in a history of the 20th century that was written disregarding sex. It's only when it comes to celebrating women, specifically, that they’re excluded.

It would be wrong to say that the progressives who put together these lists don’t care about celebrating women. They do. But it would be true that they clearly care more about whether a woman holds the ‘correct’ progressive views than they do about celebrating women. It doesn’t matter what a woman achieves - she can become Prime Minister, be the first woman of colour to be Secretary of State, or lead her country in war - if she dares to think for herself, to stray outside the bounds of political opinion that it’s acceptable for a ‘nice’ inspiring woman to say, then that’s it. Into the outer darkness for her.

Feminists like to say that their cause should go beyond political parties. That we should all want equality for women. And as far as that goes, that’s true: though in practice, many of the methods they often espouse - such as quotas or affirmative action - owe a lot more to the left than the right.

Because of this, many of us on the right will always be sceptical of identity politics, even if we acknowledge some specific issues as needing to be addressed. But if feminists genuinely want to get more of us on board with their cause - if they want us to see it as more than another wing of the organised left - they could start by acknowledging that a women doesn’t become unworthy of celebration just because she’s on the political right. By recognising outstanding achievement in women, regardless of their political views. And actually admitting the existence of some of the most successful, high-achieving and - yes - inspiring women of the 20th and 21st centuries.

1. I am sure if someone digs hard enough they can find an exception - hence ‘almost’ never.

2. The latter, sadly, appears much less often than she deserves, especially as she not only revolutionised nursing but popularised the pie chart.

3. Yay!

4. Not an elected figure, you say? Well, neither was Rice.

5. To put it mildly.

6. I assume also the Quran.

7. To be clear, Austen and Shelley absolutely deserve to be in any list of great and influential writers, male or female. But so does Christie.

8. And occasionally they have, though not nearly as often as some people think.

9. Do I think a five year old will pick up on this? Obviously not. But this continues right up into adulthood.