Why feminism must free itself from people like Louise Mensch

Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.

Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.

Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)

The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.

Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.

The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.

When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.

This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.

That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.

Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.

In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.

Can men write and engage with feminism?

I was intrigued by an interesting proposition the other day, a notion that men could be feminists. Is it possible? Can men champion the female cause? In theory, it is possible. For instance, racial oppression has been defeated in the past, with help from sympathetic white people who challenged the racist structures that allowed it to flourish. However, for reasons I will explain, I do not share the same optimism with gender relations.

Though men can take the position of gender theorists, it is far more difficult for them to be specifically feminists. To make it a little bit clearer, I am attempting to explain that men can research and write feminist scholarship, but they risk being seen as disingenuous (in particular, trying to court female interest), lacking in credibility, or participating in a movement that is none of their business. In other words, while it is technically possible for men to produce feminist research, they risk rejection.

I am going to use a simple example, perhaps a little too simple, but it is the most straightforward way of explanation. Take a look at the following picture. What do you see?

Source: The Sun (who else?!!)

Visually speaking, it is a photograph of Katie Price. The photo here shows in limited clothing, in front of an audience, positioned in a highly provocative pose. Two different feminists could have a two unique opinions of this image, depending on how liberal their feminist standpoint is.

The first feminist may see the picture as Price using her sexuality to promote her wealth and fortune, and enjoying the freedom of expression afforded to the modern woman. Another feminist may see the picture as Price bringing women's liberation into disrepute, playing up to male fantasies and causing women's rights campaigners - such as Emily Davison - to spin in their graves.

Herein lies the problem. The two feminist critics could engage in this debate, with the most likely outcome a stalemate and neither compromising towards the other's position. At least both leave with their credentials intact. Men engaging in such debate would not have that luxury.

A man could take either position in the debate, but they can easily be discredited by women who take the alternative view. By biological default, the man's strength of argument is weakened by the fact he is debating a feminist point when not female. If a man and a woman discuss women's politics from differing viewpoints, whose account appears to be most credible?

I enjoy reading about feminism. For the above reasons, I choose not to produce it or contribute to the literature. Maybe I feel it is not my place to, and it is a subject more appropriately and effectively tackled by women. Ultimately, men could create feminist scholarship, but with it comes a risk of it not being fully accepted as authentic.

Warsi right to call for race debate on abuse case

I have never agreed with the Tories' mouthpiece, Baroness Warsi, on anything, but they allow her to speak so often it had to happen eventually. Warsi has made a huge and admirable statement on the subject of how white girls are perceived by a small minority of Pakistani men. The comments come following the jailing of nine men for abusing young girls in Rochdale. As a daughter of Pakistani migrants herself, it is a bold declaration.

It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.

I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.

Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.

Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.

When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.

Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.

Women: "Slut Walks" or self-preservation?

Women should enjoy the freedom to wear whatever they want. It is what differentiates our culture from those where women are influenced to believe it in their interests to cover-up all their features, separating themselves from other people in society in the process.

Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.

As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.

Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.

What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.

The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.

If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.

If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.

And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.

A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-

The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.

As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.