Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target= The server is probably not started. LISTSERV 16.0 - TSE Archives



Perhaps they were holding their noses as they voted,
given the alternatives.

Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
Camosun College
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Frances Rushworth [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Thatcher, feminism, etc.

So ordinary here is to be equated with majority.  Women, being able to
exercise their franchise, must bear equal responsibility for their elected
leaders.  As an ordinary middle class woman in London, it was not my
impression that Mrs Thatcher enjoyed general support.  But then, also being
one who swung from lampposts shouting 'Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out! Out!
Out!' in an enthusiastic, if fruitless attempt at protest, I clearly didn't
share the majority perspective.  Strange how difficult it was to find anyone
among my middle class contemporaries who admitted to voting for her.  The
secret shame of the ballot box?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Thatcher, feminism, etc.

> > Actually, I'm under the impression that much of middle class
> > womanhood in th UK was more than happy with her, esp. because
> > of how she kept the patriarchy in its place, and let ordinary
> > people get on with the business of the nation. The fact that
> > ordinary at that time didn't equate with left wing may be
> > puzzling to some outsiders from certain nations.
> Both 'middle-class' and 'ordinary' simplify British society
> at that time - or, for that matter, any kind of society.
> If I understand what you mean by 'ordinary', I'll add that
> for much of 20th century, the Tories managed to attract the
> votes of many 'ordinary' people. They seem to have lost that
> ability in 1997.
> =====================================================
> As I said, "I'm under the impression...". Thanks muchly for
> the clarifications. Inevitably one gets generalisations
> from the media that are quite inaccurate, but still
> remain pointers as to what's going on.
> Cheers,
> Peter