On Thursday 18th October, Helen Charman wrote an article outlining her misgivings about the ‘aggressive language’ and ‘misandry’ which, in her view, is rife within the CUSU Women’s Campaign’s ‘Zine’, Gender Agenda. This, she writes, is ‘phenomenally unhelpful in terms of inspiring any actual change’. Us feminists – of which Charman is one – are allowed to be angry, but we must, above all, ‘be rational’.

Being both a feminist and a rational human being, it’s important that I carefully define the terms of my disagreement with Charman’s article. The first of these is ‘misogyny’, which Charman rightfully glosses as hatred or prejudice against women. The second is ‘patriarchy’, which she fails to mention entirely.
Patriarchy, as defined by the all-encompassing Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘the predominance of men in positions of power and influence in society, with cultural values and norms being seen as favouring men’. For example, ‘The society we currently live in is a patriarchy’. Or, ‘Gender Agenda needs to exist as a space for feminist thought and expression because we live in a patriarchal society’.

Patriarchal societies favour men. Their cultural values and norms favour men – that is to say, they are prejudiced against women. But wait, you may ask, doesn’t that mean that these ‘cultural norms’ are misogynistic? I’m glad we’re on the same page.

It seems that what is being proposed by Charman is a re-branding of feminism: a feminism which is accommodating, a feminism which puts notions of ‘gender’ aside, that doesn’t ever tell men what to do. To do so, she argues, would be ‘imposing behavioural and social limitations on others because of their gender’, and ‘isn’t that essentially what we’re fighting against in the first place’? I would respectfully suggest that it isn’t.

There are two reasons for this: (a) we live in a patriarchy and (b) because of this patriarchy, men are given the license to do several things which stand in direct opposition to the goals of feminism. For example, men are allowed to dominate discussions relating to topics in which their experiences are limited. They are allowed, for example, to explain to women whether their experiences of oppression are or are not ‘rational’ - because if women want men to get on board, we must, above all, ‘be rational’. I would suggest that these licenses qualify as a culturally-sanctioned misogyny.

When Charman refers to a Gender Agenda article which includes a ‘patronising list of commandments’, she seems to be referencing Faith Taylor’s response to the recent misogynistic abuse of the ‘Men’s Feminist Discussion Group’ on Facebook. I’m not sure which of the ‘commandments’ – ‘treat the women in your life with respect’? or ‘don’t talk over women’? – she feels are unwarranted, but perhaps she feels they patronise because they shouldn’t need to be stated. If so, she’s half right. They shouldn’t – but they do. We know that they do because many of those basic principles of respect were categorically not adhered to on the ‘Men’s Feminist Discussion Group’, forcing the moderator to disable the comment-making facility.

What needs to be acknowledged is that the privileging of one group always comes at the expense of the other. If one voice speaks louder and more often, another is invariably silenced. This is particularly horrifically the case in terms of survivors of sexual assault. When a woman is told she cannot speak with authority about her own experience, it becomes infinitely harder for her to find the courage it already takes to come forward and speak out. This is partly why I have to staunchly disagree with Charman’s statement that facts about rape are, in fact, ‘readily available’.

So, here’s the dilemma: do we accommodate those who silence others or do we listen to those who are systematically silenced? It’s an either/or scenario – and I think we have an obligation to do the latter. Feminism is not marginalised because of bad marketing: feminism is marginalised because women are marginalised and because it is entirely in the interests of a patriarchy to refigure a reasonable checking of male privilege as an attack on male ‘rights’.

Yes, being accommodating and palatable and PR-friendly is a great recruitment strategy: ideally, everyone would be a self-defined feminist. The problem is that feminism involves work, it involves completely re-conceptualising the patriarchal world we live in. It involves thinking twice before we bandy around ideas of ‘misandry’ when we really mean ‘attempts to limit misogyny’.

As a feminist, I don’t believe that compromising on this work is an option. As a feminist, I see this work as a vital part of our cause. As a feminist, I also think spaces which privilege women’s voices are necessary to counter the patriarchy; and as a feminist, I think Gender Agenda is doing a really great job.

Helen Charman's original article: http://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/4959 

Disagree with the article above? Continue the debate by sending propositions for responses to Aliya and Lewis at comment@varsity.co.uk, or by attending the Comment section meetings at 4pm on Mondays in the Senior Parlour at Caius.