Author: admin

The assignment involves answering the following question(2000 words) : 
Peter Morgan, creator of The Crown, described Margaret Thatcher as a ‘feminist heroine’. Does this statement stand up to scrutiny?  
note: i already have written the essay and according to several sources and people , it has a high grade,but not the highest grade yet, i want to achieve the highest grade. i need your help to achieve the highest grade and meet the following mark scheme:   1st(HIGHEST GRADE-70%) : Organisation & coherence of answer= Lucid and purposeful structure
☐
Grasp of relevant ideas/concepts Outstanding= in-depth knowledge of ideas/ concepts
☐
Breadth of relevant reading= Informed and critical engagement with scholarship
☐
Evidence of critical ability= Sophisticated and original critical judgement
Originality of analysis Thorough, insightful and well focused analysis
☐
Clarity, accuracy/fluency of written language= Fluently written work – if you achieve all of this , then the highest grade will be achived 
note: i have already used about 8 sources, including the Guardian,CNN,The Times etc, but you are welcome to add more, all the sentences with speech marks are references to sources. 
the essay i have written is the following: It has been debated and argued over the years whether Margaret Thatcher’s legacy truly qualifies as a feminist icon. She has been characterised as a “feminist heroine” by Peter Morgan, who is recognised for his internationally praised television series “The Crown.” In doing so, Morgan indicates Thatcher exhibited qualities that could have been regarded as feminist throughout her tenure as prime minister. A number of people have conveyed simultaneous recognition and cynicism regarding this portrayal, and this prompts the question: Can Peter Morgan’s portrayal of Margaret Thatcher as a feminist heroine hold up to critical scrutiny? Therefore, analysing Margaret Thatcher’s actions, policies, and rhetoric related to feminism—defined as “the belief in achieving complete social, economic, and political equality for women”—will delve into the multitude of complexities of her political legacy. For this reason, we are going to delve into the broader implications associated with assigning political individuals notorious labels.
To understand the complexities of Margaret Thatcher’s actions, it is vital to carefully examine her political leadership and its implications for society. Therefore, methods of analysis to determine political realities and critical concepts in political argumentation may be utilised to accomplish this. For this reason, a thorough and objective investigation will be utilised to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of Peter Morgan’s characterisation of Margaret Thatcher. In order to succeed in this,  reviewing countless trustworthy publications from different outlets will be essential, specifically for the purpose of providing an in-depth overview of the ongoing debate surrounding Thatcher’s feminist legacy. There are multiple strong reasons to support or reject Margaret Thatcher’s status as a feminist icon, and the question has been debated for a long time with valid arguments for and against this notion. 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”. Nevertheless,” how she overcame boys club patronising sort of contempt makes her a feminist heroine, I think”. Morgan acknowledges Thatcher’s actions in this article, which could be interpreted as feminist despite her lack of regard for women in a professional setting.
Thatcher’s acts and policies did not conform to feminist principles, so the statement “But of course, Thatcher was not a feminist” was made. Despite some claims that she could be viewed as a feminist icon for her approach to overcoming gender-based obstacles, particularly during her leadership, “she did not always advance feminist agendas”. On the other hand, she managed to successfully make waves for women to succeed and thrive in the business and financial sectors by introducing economic measures related to privatisation and entrepreneurship. nonetheless, “Less series airtime is dedicated to the fact that Thatcher was involved in  cutting public services, union-busting and extreme free-market and individualist ideology run completely counter to the basic principles of feminism.” Thatcher’s policies, such as financial cuts to public services, deregulation, and union-busting, have been eventually condemned for financially affecting women in the labour industry and thus exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, hence indicating that, despite some of her political approaches to overcoming gender-based challenges, Thatcher was not a feminist heroine. 
Thatcher “never appointed a woman to her cabinet,” according to the engaging  UnHerd news component, and in an episode of the television show “The Crown,” Thatcher tells the Queen that women are “too emotional” for the business of government in general. This quotation challenges the question as it explicitly highlights Thatcher’s rejection of feminist principles and her reluctance to support equal representation of women in her political choices. Consequently, it implies that the idea of Thatcher as a feminist heroine, as portrayed by Peter Morgan in “The Crown,” may even be at odds with her political acts and, therefore, contradict the current notion at hand. In addition, the independent article maintains 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 do not get the same look into the vast and varied ways she hurt millions across the country throughout her time in office.” This article claims that, whilst The Crown presents Thatcher’s difficulties in a world dominated by men, it falls short of adequately clarifying the detrimental impacts of her actions on millions of people, Therefore undermining her claim to be a feminist icon. 
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the news article “The Times” that “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.” This article from The Times casts doubt on Thatcher’s status as a feminist icon by implying that her attempts to sympathise with conservative women in the cause of feminism may neglect their responsibility for their acts and policies. According to the Times news item, Thatcher was renowned for her strong attitude on political matters, “But Thatcher proves a more difficult figure for the series to pin down”. The Times here highlights how hard it was for Peter Morgan to portray Thatcher’s genuine self in The Crown, suggesting that she had a complicated personality that was hard to pin down and was, therefore, a challenging character to describe.  Because of her complex personality, her portrayal as a feminist heroine may therefore hold true. The Times observes that Thatcher’s representation as a feminist icon is complex, saying, “But the show softens these moments by suggesting that Thatcher suffered at the hands of the patriarchy herself, even if she usually would not admit it.” Thatcher’s image is softened by Morgan in order to present her as a feminist heroine, yet this also serves to undermine the notion that she is a feminist heroine by showing her as a victim of patriarchy. 
Furthermore,  in the Independent News piece, Morgan is able to recognise Thatcher’s importance as a woman in politics, especially as the first female prime minister and for having broken a traditionally male-dominated area of politics. For instance, “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 enough meditation on the long-term implications of those individual victories.”  This remark questions the notion that Thatcher is a feminist role model because it argues that the praise accorded to her during her tenure for breaking the patriarchy oftentimes had the effect of ignoring the negative repercussions of her actions and the longer-term works she initiated. In addition, the Washington Post article also challenges the acts and leadership of Thatcher with regard to feminism. For example, the Washington Post declares, “In her 11-plus years as prime minister, Thatcher appointed just one female cabinet member,” which further challenges Thatcher regarding not doing much in facilitating and pushing forth feminist movements and pursuing their goals. In addition, the article  manages to reassure  Thatcher’s disapproval, specifically for being called a feminist: “Once Thatcher acquired power, she relished in wielding it over everyone and everything — men, women, all of British society.” This reinforces the statement because it explains that Thatcher’s political power refused to support moving women up the ranks to cabinet positions and other positions of power, which contradicts the fact that Thatcher was a favourite feminist icon.
On the other hand, the Washington Post article states that the fact that she was brought up restricts her from pursuing feminist movements. For instance, the article states, “Thatcher revered her father. She never spoke of her mother.” This thus implies that she was raised to respect her father and adore him, probably also distracting her from trying to uplift the feminist movements and the fight to advance feminist ideas. Nevertheless, even though she was raised with a problematic relationship with her mother, “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 confirms that despite being the first female prime minister, she would necessarily fail in her place to further the cause of women.
In the two accounts presented by the Guardian and CNN, it is agreed 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 share that Thatcher had a hostile approach toward the BBC, a leading institution in the British media, including several critics of her advocacy for change in the funding model, reflecting her actions on political and ideological objectives rather than feminist ideals, hence challenging the notion of her as a feminist heroine. Of course, it is further entrenched when “The cosy straitjacket of TV duopoly enjoyed by the BBC and ITV. was already cracking when Thatcher arrived at No. 10”, which suggests Thatcher’s effort in transforming the media landscape into something competitive and de-regulated by policies. These policies may have worked for the media industry. Even though media policy is highlighted in the scene, it still reflects that it does not directly coincide with feminist activism, which shows Thatcher’s disregarding behaviour that may tag her as undeserving of being called a feminist heroine.
Nevertheless, CNN, being one of the best institutions in American media, takes a clear view of the uproar around Peter Morgan’s television series “The Crown” when it concludes 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.” Such a quote reveals the controversial political and cultural trends in Britain captured by “The Crown” and thus critically analyses the series because the interpretations were often more aligned with ideological positions rather than focusing on the feminist critique of historical representation.
CNN also falsifies Thatcher in the crown via the tagline, “Even leftists should be angry at the old misogynist lies about women in politics at play here”. The quotation suggests that continued sexual beliefs and stereotypes are pushed forward regarding female politicians such as Thatcher in “The Crown”. The manner in which women figures such as Thatcher are presented may not represent the genuine nature of character and actions and instead rely on biased stereotypes; thus, the series, overall, does not support principles of feminism in how women in positions of power such as Margaret Thatcher are presented.
However, even while Thatcher seemingly distanced herself from feminist movements, her actions and policies yet had far-ranging and positive implications for women’s rights. For example, “Thatcher’s “attitudes to the welfare state were more complex, and a belief in individualism drove her reforms” indicates that she inspired countless women through her beliefs in individualism and self-reliance, whom she undoubtedly served as an example of how hard work can lead to success, regardless of gender. Some people might insist that  Thatcher’s emphasis on personal responsibility rather than collective action might fit better with liberal feminism, but others suggest that her much-harboured antagonism toward collective action does not automatically inherit any parts of feminist agendas, for the simple reason that they believe “collective action is” One way in which gender inequality is reduced”.
In fact, many of the economic policies Thatcher introduced, especially privatisation, were gender-neutral, thus opening up opportunities for women in business and entrepreneurship. This would go a long way in supporting the statement that her depiction in the crown would be held to scrutiny. However, what she does more often than not reflects scepticism towards gender roles, specifically traditional gender roles. It is, therefore, of great importance to separate the numerous limitations of taking a personal look at Thatcher’s views on feminism, mainly because most of her policies and actions ended up translating to something far more widespread than her personal views.
To conclude,  after a careful analysis, it becomes clear that Peter Morgan’s portrayal of Thatcher as a feminist heroine does not hold up to scrutiny. While we can concur that Thatcher’s leadership achieved a feat by breaking barriers for women, several of her actions indicated a lack of commitment to feminist goals, which points to her being not so committed to issues of women’s rights. Such unwillingness brings into question the validity of characterising her as a feminist heroine, indicating that Thatcher’s brand of feminism is a subject for debate. Based on this, future arguments will highly involve critically analysing political figures, such as challenging or critiquing the sphere of several different perspectives that agree in the wake of multiple historical contexts. Considering such,  we can best understand the complexities of feminism and political leadership.