Is Harriet Harman the enemy of feminism?

Harriet Harman has had a distinguished career as one of this country’s most outspoken female MPs. She is well known across the land for her vigorous campaigns against the sex industry, for which she has my wholehearted support, and her open endorsement of positive discrimination in the workplace, for which she does not. Now she is calling on Angela Merkel and Hilary Clinton to join her in an international coalition to enable women to take a leading role in rebuilding the economy after the recession and “bring about change“. However, the Minister for women and equality, with all the Orwellian overtones her departmental title brings with it (think Animal Farm’s “some are more equal than others“), is in grave danger of undermining feminism in this country through her approach to women’s issues.

First things first; where do I, a man, get off lecturing Harriet Harman, one of this country’s most prominent female public figures, on women’s issues? To start with because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, cousins and friends, not to mention a girlfriend to whom I am very much devoted. Women’s issues are their issues which means I care a great deal about them too. Also, many issues singled out as being specific to women such as abortion, childcare, divorce and domestic violence actually affect men as well and as a result they have just as much right to be included in public discussions on such matters. Most importantly though, to determine an individual’s qualifications to talk about any given issue, or in Harman’s case to hold any given office, on the basis of their sex alone fundamentally misses the point.

For as long as feminism as an ideology and a movement has existed, its leading mantra (as like any belief there are of course many different strands) has always been that discrimination is not ok and that women will only be equal to men in both the private and public spheres of life when an individual’s sex becomes irrelvant to determining their place in society. Yet Harriet Harman’s position seems to be that discrimination is ok just as long as you’re discriminating against the right people i.e. men. The Equality Bill she introduced into Parliament this year says as much, formally legalising positive discrimination by granting employers “greater freedom to ‘fast-track’ or select recruits from under-represented groups, as long as they are equally suitable”. How the government would enforce this is beyond me, especially when an applicant’s sex suddenly becomes a legal criterion of their suitability for a role.

Discrimination is an ugly practice no matter who the offender is. Nobody benefits from it. Furthermore, it reinforces the stigma that women are the weaker sex who need protection and should be treated differently and as a result undermines the credibility of those who do feel themselves to be genuine victims of prejudice. Just ask Jordan Wimmer, a marketing executive who is suing her former employer, millionaire financier Mark Lowe, for sexual discrimination. She alleges that her ex boss placed her under impossible strain at work with his crude humour and objectification of women, citing his invitation of a scantily clad Malaysian woman, whom she described as an escort girl, to a formal business meeting. We cannot presume to know anything close to the full story, but consider Ms Wimmer’s claim that she was hired because of Lowe’s infatuation with girls who looked like Charlie’s Angels, suggesting she has no problem with sexual discrimination if it can land her a £577,000 a year job, and that said Malaysian woman turned out to be a qualified banker, and her case swiftly begins to evaporate.

Alternatively, consider the case of Conservative PPC for South West Norfolk, Elizabeth Truss. One of leader David Cameron’s preferred candidates, or ‘A-list’ member, Truss was targeted by members of the Conservative old guard railing against Cameron’s support for all women lists for selecting candidates in the run up to the next general election after she was exposed for having an affair with a Tory MP five years ago. In what can only be described as a shameless act of prejudice, party members lined up to call for her head saying they would not have supported her initial candidacy if they had known about her illict affair. To Cameron’s credit he has supported her through this turbulent time, but how many people will believe that his support stems from his faith in her ability to serve as an MP as opposed to her sex?

Women in this country and round the world still have many hurdles to overcome from patronising press coverage to an indefensible pay gap. However, as I no doubt expect the ever sensible German chancellor will inform the self-aggrandising UK minister for women and equality, the very fact that they hold such positions of power, voted in by men and women alike to resolve the issues that affect us all from unemployment to international terrorism, is a testament to the success of the sexual revolution. They don’t need to now huddle in a room plotting the overthrow of ‘man’-kind: they need to get on with their jobs and show their electorates that they made the right decision.