Defending Ms Harman: Not a woman's job
In 2003 Tony Blair launched the big conversation, a chance for the media (instead of those crusty old MPs) to represent the British people to the executive: Six years later, it has happened. Rather than scare us witless about an invisible invasion of eastern European immigrants or loudly moralising about the ‘death of the family’ (though, inevitably, there is still bits of both of these), Britain’s media class has been enraptured for the last week with the work and life of Harriet Harman MP. It’s been quite a conversation.
In the right corner we have the, almost entirely male, columnists who judge that Ms Harman is a man-hating, humourless extremist who has declared the feminist equivalent of martial law on the hard working men of Britain. These are the same men (and women) who write that every scientific leap-forward in IVF is a step further to the extinction of men: Are we so insecure as to think that, if they could, women would have a manless world in preference to our presently agreed co-existence?
On the other side we have Tanya Gould, Ruth Sunderland and many other women who impassionedly write verbal attacks against these ‘male commentators’. Understandably, they defend the work of an inspirational, and almost always ‘correct’, woman who has no female peers of equal power: She is only the second women to be put ‘in charge’ of a democratic Britain. Yet, I fear, these writers believe in a myth that legitimises their adversaries’ “voice of the average Briton” tone and only increases their blood pressure-effecting anger.
Here, by relying on an idea of President Nixon’s, I am going to gravely threaten my liberal status: There is, quite plainly, a ‘silent majority’ of men who are being ignored in this debate. In contrast to the mythical, gendered dichotomy of the media's dialogue, most men find the idea of unequal pay, victim-doubting rape laws and an unrepresentative legislature an uncomfortable historical truth that we are at pains to remove ourselves from. The fact that these archaic thoughts, deeds, prejudices are, in the 21st Century, still an absolute reality is nothing more than sick-makingly embarrassing.
As with Obama’s Reverend Wright, most people (female and male) hear the words of Harriet Harman with clear understanding- it often feels as if she is stating the obvious. The fact, then, that some commentators decide to call into question the very foundation of these truisms leaves all but the most understanding member of the ‘silent majority’ dumb struck. How can they not see that, to be born a woman in Britain is to start life’s race another 10 paces behind? Are they stupid or spiteful? Yes Rod Liddle, I’m talking to you.
Yet what doesn’t help is this approach that says that, as a woman is being hounded by the press, it should be a woman’s role to defend her. Of course, women have the absolute right to show these backward-looking dinosaurs the full extent of their wrath but the choice, again and again, of female journalists to write such counter-attacks is, I believe, to make the divide these women-hating commentators seek to create a reality.
I don’t doubt that there are few men loudly pushing themselves forward to speak up for Ms Harman: not because they disagree with her but because they see their opinion as of questionable relevance. Yet if we wish to move on from the ‘whether’ of women’s equality to the ‘how’ we must build a bigger consensus than is presently visible. Of course I am a feminist, and so are most men, so let’s unite and make this not a gendered issue but one of common sense: After all this is the living standard of half of humanity that we’re discussing.
