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.

Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

Phone-hacking review - July 2011

The phone-hacking scandal continues to keep us amused and entertained while most of us should have been doing something better with our time. Rather than cover the details, here is a slice which covers the most important developments. To put it another way, a bluffer's guide with a little detail included.

1. The scandal has actually been going on for years, but most of the British public - understandably - had a 'tough shit' attitude to it when it was celebrities and politicians having their voicemails hacked by investigative journalists working for newspapers. In other words, it was a scandal, but one only media-types cared about.

2. The 'smoking gun' which turned phone-hacking from a scandal to a storm nobody could put out was the news that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, while she was still missing. By nightfall my anger had turned to a feeling of non-surprise about the inevitability of it all. The silver lining in this awfully dark cloud is that Rupert Murdoch's empire and its power over the regulatory powers of British government would finally come under scrutiny.

3. The scandal led to typically British gallows humour. Yes, we realise Mystic Meg saw none of this coming, including the closure of the News of the World - so far the greatest day in British publishing history. Hopefully those talented and honest writers out of work will be promptly snapped up by other newspapers.

4. The death of the News of the World has already led to one frightening prospect. Rumours abound our friends at the Daily Mail plan to create a downmarket Sunday tabloid to fill the void created by the News of the World.

5. An early highlight of the scandal was Rupert Murdoch being chased by reporters. Welcome to the world of your papers' victims, Rupert.

6. Another highlight was the archive footage of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, embracing Rebekah Brooks. Meanwhile a randomer was flapping her arms around like a seal attempting to prevent any filming. The right-wing were all in this one together (read Blair's autobiography and judge for yourself how 'lefty' he was in government).

7. The usuals have been making interesting and valid observations. George Monbiot predicted something along the lines of when the dust settles, we would be just as disillusioned with the role of the Metropolitan Police in their failures regarding dealing with the phone-hacking.

8. The usuals have been embarrassing themselves too. Mel Phillips claimed on her Twitter the campaign against Murdoch was that of anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact I always assumed Murdoch's religion was the mighty Dollar. Let us not forget a dead girl's phone had been hacked. Let us consider that people were concerned about Murdoch's discourse-shaping powers, courtesy of his press and media holdings. Or let us not - it turns out we are just prejudiced and full of hate.

9. Those involved in the Times and ex-News of the World have been saying silly things throughout. David Wooding stated 'never has so many jobs been affected by so few'. Miners' strike, anyone?

10. But prize for grand idiocy goes to Roger Alton. As Executive Editor of The Times, he brought his newspaper into disrepute with his diatribe against the website Mumsnet, describing users of it as fair trade tea drinkers and organic shortbread eaters. As someone against the News of the World's actions myself, I can confirm I do not eat organic shortbread, nor am I female.

11. Many jobs have fallen as a result of the phone-hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword. High-ranking members of Plod have also accepted their P45s for employing ex-News of the World executives as press officers. Naturally, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, believes the idea of his resignation for the same offence is ridiculous.

12. Thankfully, after all the recent madness, the phone-hacking scandal has now calmed down, which means we will be hearing less of the excellent Tom Watson who has campaigned throughout this scandal. Except.......

13. Yesterday it emerged that Sara Payne, the mother of murdered Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked by News of the World. Considering the rag made the campaign for Sarah's Law the centre of their moral universe, it is fitting Tom Watson has described the possibility of Sara's phone being hacked as 'the ultimate betrayal'. We wont be hearing less of Tom after all.

14. So far then we have learned of the culture at the News of the World that was a disgrace. Those people the newspaper claimed to be friends of were betrayed by the rag they trusted. Every revelation that goes by must leave Rebekah Brooks feeling a little more sick; a little more disinclined to get out of bed in the morning.

This summary could not begin to collect up everything that has occurred during the phone-hacking scandal, least of all the interminable committees briefly made interesting by the actions of an attention-seeking idiot. However, there will be plenty more to come. No doubt there will be another update soon.

Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends

So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.

They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.

The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.

Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.

Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.

The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.

I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.

Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.

No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.

We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.

Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.

It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.

Murdoch to take full control of Sky - what next?

So Rupert Murdoch got his way and was able to win approval by the government for News Corporation to take full control of BSkyB.

It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.

I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.

Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.

There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.