Patriarchy have brainwashed us all for thousands of years that the feminine is ‘weak’. To the degree that now Women are rejecting the feminine and attempting to be masculine so they can be ‘strong’. This is very apparent with female politicians who do their best to be as ruthless and macho as men. A prime example of this is Margaret Thatcher, who was the British Prime Minister throughout the 1980s.
The Soviet Union at the time referred to her as the ‘Iron lady’ and she took this as a complement. She proved beyond any doubt that a Women leader can be as ruthless and tough as any man, but this didn’t help the Women’s cause in Britain. Since her own party turned against her and dumped her, the British people are not very interested in having another female Prime Minister. Simply because she came across as a very uncaring person. So the people couldn’t see any advantage in having a female leader if they were going to behave like a man.
Today we find that the people in both the UK and USA are completely disillusioned with politics. As one cynic remarked; “It doesn’t matter whom you vote for, you will still end up with a politician”. And I’m afraid Women politicians have been as successful in discrediting themselves as male politicians, because they act and behave like men. So what is the alternative? This has been clearly shown by Princess Diana.
When Princess Diana died, everyone was surprised at the overwhelming grief expressed by millions of people all over the world, at her funeral. So what was that about? Why were millions of people so affected by her death? The reason could be that she represented something the people deeply yearn for; compassionate leadership.
The genius of Princess Diana was that she was able to portray herself in the media as a genuine caring and loving person. Something any politician or spin doctor would give their right arm to have. Although she didn’t have any political power, in the way she was able to use and manipulate the media made her a very powerful person. Which she used to further her own agenda, to create a more caring and loving world, where possible.
From the very beginning when she became a royal she responded to people in a very caring way. Now this is not unusual with famous people in the media, but she put it across in a way that everyone accepted that it was genuine. To the degree, that not even her critics doubted this. So this made her from the start the most popular royal, and gave her world wide fame. Princess Diana began use her celebrity status to highlight causes she believed in. One of the most important acts she done was change people’s opinions on the Aids epidemic. When Aids first started to spread in the West, people greatly feared it and believed that they could catch this disease by touching people with this disease. Also, as it was mostly homosexual men who got Aids, this increased homophobia, and some extreme Christians were suggesting that Aids was God punishment for deviants like homosexuals. The media in Britain encouraged these stories and I can remember reading one scare story in the British newspaper, The Sun, suggesting that people could catch Aids from public toilet seats, if a homosexual man sat there previously.
At the height of the homophobia frenzy whipped up by the British press, Princess Diana fearlessly met this hysteria head on. She visited a hospital with Aids patients inside and talked to and shook hands with patients dying of Aids. Pictures of her doing his was in the newspapers and on the TV and in one stroke she had given homosexual men Royal approval, and destroyed the myth that you could catch Aids by touching someone with this disease.
She was later to do the same with leprosy as in many part of the world people still believe it is possible to catch leprosy but touching a leper. She again appeared on TV touching shaking the hand of a leper and helped overcome prejudice against lepers. Charitable organisations were finding that if Princess Diana publicly gave them support of them, she was able to generate large amounts of contributions for their cause. So they became very aware of her power to help the causes she believed in.
She also started to move into politics. In the 1980s in Britain there was high unemployment as well and an increasing number of homeless people living on the streets. The right-wing press in Britain was whipping up a hate campaign against unemployed people, claiming that they were scroungers and work-shy. Princess Diana showed the world clearly where her sympathies laid by again visiting and talking to homeless people. Though by this time the media was now wise to her tactics and wasn’t so keen on reporting her doing this. So she didn’t get the media coverage in this, that she normally expects. The British media also tried to start a hate campaign against Princess Diana, but the newspapers who attempted to attack her found that they were unable to dent her popularity with the common people.
She was to move more into politics towards the end of her life. Charitable organisations had for years campaigned again the production and use of land-mines, but had never got anywhere with this. In all conflicts all over the world countless land mines were buried indiscriminately, then after the war the land mines would be left in the ground with no one knowing were they were. So the civil population living in the area would continue to be killed and maimed by treading on these mines. Princess Diana then decided to get involved, and simply by visiting a area where land mines had been buried she focused the world’s media on this problem. She got governments all over the world to take notice.
She was warned by conservative politicians before she died not to get involved in politics. She claimed she was being political but in this she was wrong. All the public caring of the people, by her, was a indirect but powerful criticism of the patriarchal system.
The great emotional effect of her death on people was immense, which was to surprise everyone. The reason for this is I believe is that in a uncaring world, where selfish and corrupt industrial and political leaders are commonplace. Princess Diana was one of the few people in establishment who showed that she genuinely cared and loved people. So the very large numbers of people that mourned the death of Princess Diana, gave a clear message to the politicians that the people wanted to live in a more caring world. This was picked up by the British Prime Minster Tony Blair who stated that people loved Diana because she genuinely cared. But he didn’t learn from this himself and his actions have since shown he is a normal devious and uncaring politician.
Another women had the same effect before Princess Diana and this was Evita Peron. It would be easy to be cynical and say that she was only a the mistress and later wife of a South American dictator. But the emotion effect she was to have on Argentina, the country where she was the first lady, shows she was more than this.
Like Princess Diana the political influence she had was very limited. Yet unlike any other Argentina politicians, before or since, she was able to show to the people that she genuinely cared. The people respond greatly to her and although she was unable to do a lot for the people of Argentina, she came across and a person who really believed in what she said. With her early death, people of Argentina showed clearly how they felt about her at her funeral. (Which was very similar to the grief that was showed clearly by the British people at Princess Diana’s death.) Giving also the message to the politicians that people do want to live in a caring society. Something I’m afraid the Argentina politicians totally ignored.
The story of Evita Peron was given publicity by the stage musical Evita written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. The genius of this musical was it portrayed clearly the emotion effect Evita had on the people of Argentina. Unfortunately when it was also make into a film, the producers and directors had little understanding of what the story was about. They put a pop star in the title role who didn’t have either the singing voice or acting ability to do justice to the music and lyrics.
To a lesser degree the same thing happened with Mary Robertson the first female President of Southern Ireland. Although the Irish Presidency has little political power Mary Robertson was able to present herself as a caring person. She became so popular that when she retired, nearly all the candidates to replace her were women. After Mary Robertson’s performance few people were interested in voting for a tarnished male politician as Irish President.
A female politician to use genuine feminine power in recent years has been Mo Mowlam. When she became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in 1997 both the republicans and loyalists were on a cycle of tit for tat violence with no end in sight. When she was sacked from her job in 1999, the violence had come to an end and Northern Ireland was on the road to stable government.
When she later asked how she performed this miracle, she said she done it by being herself and following her instincts. In other words she didn’t try to be like a man and use masculine solutions. She behaved like no other Secretary of State in that she went out of her way to communicate with both sides of the conflict, even to the degree of going into the Maze prison and talking directly to the men of violence. Through this direct communication she managed to get a agreement from all the terrorists groups in Northern Ireland to stop the cycle of revenge attacks from both sides. And she was willing to take the extreme measure of releasing all the terrorists in the Maze prison.
Being able to do within a three years what no male Secretary of State has been able to do for the last 30 years, made her very popular with the British people, and this was her downfall. Opinion polls then where showing she was the most popular British politician. And at the Labour conference she got a far bigger reception from the delegates than the Prime Minister Tony Blair. The result of this was a newspaper campaign to discredit her, some even claiming that she was mad. (This is exactly what happened to Princess Diana when she was alive with British newspapers also making the same claim.)
Then she was removed from office by Tony Blair and replaced by one of this cronies, and was given only a very junior job in government which took her out of the cabinet. So seeing how things were, she went back to the back benches. Nearly the whole British media then turned against her and done their best to ignore or underplay her achievements. Probably because she showed more than any other female politician what can be achieved if they allow themselves to follow their feminine instincts and not try to be like men.
What this world urgently needs is for the whole planet to nurtured and cared for by women. But this can only be done if women rule the world. And we can see with the popularity of Eva Peron, Princess Diana, Mary Robertson and Mo Mowlam, the people do respond strongly to any Women in any position of power, who are willing to show the feminine and caring side of themselves.
If women politicians in democratic countries stop trying to act and behave like men and follow the lead of women like Mo Mowlam and Princess Diana. They would find the people responding to them and gain great popularity. And if enough of them do this and dominate governments, they then will be able to create caring and compassionate societies. With this example, no one in their right mind will want to vote for male politicians ever again. And in this way women can rule the world, because even in countries where we have dictatorships, the people will see the example of matriarchal governments and want the same. Making them restless, and bringing about revolutions that will sweep women into power.
This is the way women can rule the world, not by trying to be like men, but by using their feminine instincts of nurture and compassion, and nurture the whole world.