Please Leave Mrs. Thatcher Out of It : Gender: Why are women expected to defend all other women? No white male would ever feel so obliged.

It’s practically inevitable, when discussing the vision of more women and more female “energy” in government, that someone pipes up with, “Yeah, big difference Margaret Thatcher made in England!” (Elbow, elbow, wink, snort, chuckle.) Never mind that I’m not a British citizen and that I didn’t have a vote. That doesn’t matter. I’m a female who advocates gender balance.

They’re referring, of course, to Thatcher being indistinguishable from the regular white conservative hawk males that we’re accustomed to having as leaders. The comment is supposed to make the proponent of more women in power positions stop, think and realize, “Oh, yes, how foolish of me to want to have women represented equally in government. It wouldn’t change anything. I’ll stop now. Thank you for reminding me that Mrs. Thatcher is representative of all women.”

Bringing up Thatcher is a conversation stopper. It’s also probably thinly veiled hostility to change. Women of all colors and men of color are frequently called upon to answer for all people in whatever subset they are in. What a drag it must be to be an African-American and be expected to explain all other African-Americans. What a burden it is to cringe when another woman does something that’s embarrassing. I know that somehow she represents me simply by virtue of our shared biology.

But I don’t know a single white man who would even consider being accountable or answering for any other white man, just by virtue of his being pale, male and privileged.

I have had the experience of being the only woman in a job situation and knowing that all eyes are on me to see “How the woman is doing.” I have had the experience of all heads turning in my direction to get “the woman’s point of view.” I have seen all eyes on me when an off-color joke is told.

So I’m frequently put in the position of being expected to defend Thatcher. I didn’t like her, couldn’t defend her politics and resented being asked to just because she’s a woman. That didn’t mean I didn’t watch her and wish her well. I wanted her to open doors for other women.

Supposedly the perfect family has a mommy and a daddy. Why wouldn’t a perfect decision-making body on a national or global level be balanced as well? Most studies confirm that a healthy dual-parent family is beneficial for children. It’s only reasonable then that the family of human beings should have both men and women at the top. Goodness knows that most women and children aren’t doing very well in the world. So let’s get the “mommy” types in the halls where decisions are made.

Now that I have declared myself not obliged to answer for Mrs. Thatcher I will offer some defense. But only because I feel like it, not because I have to.

Has the world been prepared to have as heads of state women who aren’t more or less similar to the males on the scene? Haven’t citizens been afraid that women would be too emotional, too “soft” on war and criminals, too hormonal? (As if military might isn’t some kind of hormone run amok.)

It’s important to have compassion for women who have had to embody traditional male values in order to make way for the rest of us. It’s important to understand paradox when a social revolution is afoot. No, I don’t condone Margaret Thatcher and yes, I appreciate the knocks she’s taken and the room that I hope she’s made for women with values that aren’t men’s views dressed in pantyhose and pumps.