I disagree. I think saying "many women" is a broad and reckless statement without much data to back it up. Furthermore, when you say that the maternal style is at odds with the "iron fist" style that implies equal but opposite force, rather than one style being supreme to another. AND, why is Margaret Thatcher the exception rather than the norm? Possibly because she has the privilege of being famous. How many women are out there just like her who are private citizens rather than public figures? The only reason people see her as an exception is because she doesn't fit the widely known stereotype.
I know that there are plenty of women out there who are not "maternal" and/or who are savvy enough to know the difference between personal issues and work ethic. This archaic perception that we have of women as being emotionally crippled harkens back to the Iron age (and is the whole reason behind the Women's Sufferage movement). If this notion isn't androcentric then I don't know what is. If you concede that this "crippling" is fact then you deny women of all the rights they have been so far afforded and contribute to the ignorant notion that women are too emotional to make ANY important decisions and/or to have any of the rights and privileges afforded to men.
"I'm subversive as hell!" ~Theodor Geisel
