Last Thursday in London’s Evening Standard there was an opinion page about Margaret Thatcher entitled, ‘What Maggie Meant To Me’. As one might expect, feelings were mixed among the assembled panel of contemporaries and the prevailing sentiment, if there was one, was something like, “all this time later I hate her less.” If only we were all so adored in our twilight years.

Still, amidst this potpourri of conciliatory drivel, there was something that, to me, stood out:

“I was twelve years old when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister. Of course I knew from the off that we – I come from a radical left-wing family – hated everything she stood for. She was the cruel face against which we demonstrated and raged. But as I grew up, I was so struck by something that had almost passed me by at the time. The fact of her femaleness.” Natasha Walter, 45, Feminist

To fully engage with the varied levels and nuances contained within this small cluster of words is a tough task for a single sitting. This is a quote to be strained like a teabag against the side of the cup: for every revolting drop.

I mean, let’s assume (wrongly) that Thatcher was a force for good in British politics. That accepted, there could be no graver insult than to say, “but what impressed me most was her gender.” Even from an admiring party, it would be nothing short of slander to applaud, above all else, the simple coincidence of being born with a vagina; to bury every achievement, every victory under this overriding fact. It is as hollow an attempt at a compliment as can be conceived.

Yet this masquerading insult doesn’t come from someone who believes in Thatcherism. In fact, this mud has been flung from an opposing camp, the arch of its trajectory all the larger and the height from which it falls all the further. Despite actively disdaining Thatcher’s policies, Natasha Walter will forgive all simply because the opposition was female. She would cross the ideological divide and stand with an enemy for no greater reason than the common ground they share with approximately half the earth’s population. What a heinous desertion of one’s values.

Of course, there will be those amongst you just waiting to cry foul; eager to tell me it’s not only that she was a woman, it’s that everyone else in politics was male. Walter herself declares, “there she was, a woman in a man’s world: just by being there she showed girls that women could be leaders.”

For me however, a woman’s ability to lead is a fact that needs no assertion. In legislative terms, men and women are treated more or less the same, so why shouldn’t a woman lead? Nonetheless, some feminists will stand amazed as the non-existent divide is bridged; an act which can only serve to a reconstruct its old parameters.

This, I suppose is my main gripe with Walter’s statement – it preaches a gospel of opposition: it says to young women that everything they will claim in this life must be pried from the hands ‘of a man in a grey suit’. Yes, I’m sure many will claim that patriarchy isn’t a byword for men – that patriarchy afflicts women and men and that we really are on the same side, but the distinction is rarely bothered with. Walter doesn’t use the term patriarchy once where “male domination” will suffice. For her, Thatcher’s ascension to government isn’t a victory for all – a sign of an increasingly equal society – but a victory for women in spite of that supposedly male society. Therefore, even acknowledging her awful policies, Walter doesn’t dismiss Thatcher as an awful leader, but embraces her as a strong woman.

Allow me to say this unequivocally: a woman’s actions should not be ignored if when committed by a man, those actions would be unforgivable.

Regrettably though, this discriminating attitude is rife among feminists. All too often, the only time I’ll hear about how patriarchy blights men is after I’ve asked for the former to not be conflated with the latter. Even then, a vocal minority are dismissive of all male grievances, with some even claiming it is impossible for a woman to be sexist to a man.

Herein lies the problem, if feminism continually fails to differentiate men as a gender from patriarchy as an institution, how are we to teach the next generation that a person’s actions should be judged independently of their sex? I’d like it if we could grow up in a world where you’re a person first and a man or a woman second.