Joshua Denanie

The right to criticise Feminism. “There is no learning without feedback.” When I first heard this, it was not a political lesson, but one from my Sports Science teacher, who was trying to teach me as a 16-year-old point guard, to improve my free-throw.   And she was right. Be it the ball ricocheting off the rim, missing entirely, or the laughter of your friends; you simply cannot learn, or improve, without feedback. It's true for basketball, and the same is true in politics. Of course in politics we know this, we have ‘an opposition’, who (are supposed to) hold our Government to account; but more broadly, science, which is the world’s leading seeker of truth, is based on this principle too. 'The Scientific Method' is the engine of enlightenment, behind all scientific endeavour, and has brought us the very progress that allows me to type, think, and say these things right now. Science flips the burden of proof onto its head. It does not advance by attempting to protect itself from being falsified; instead, science progresses by rigorously and dispassionately trying to falsify itself via the peer review process. The fruits of such relentless, decades long, scientific pressure-testing, are all around us; right under our nose, quietly showing the way for what “progress” really is. It’s a shame to see so many well-meaning attempts to extend this method of scrutiny to feminism (who ironically are the harbingers of “accountability”), so often thrown back as ‘anti-feminism’, and therefore bigoted. This is inherently anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anything but non-partisan. Of course, I don’t agree with this knee jerk reaction, that seems to think feminism is beyond scrutiny. For being held accountable for your ideas and actions, is something even the greatest scientists embraced as part of academic and political reality, and life as an adult. No. To me there is nothing inherently bigoted about criticising feminism. In fact, to do so is to see women as true equals, as autonomous adults; and anything less than this, is the real misogyny lurking in the conversation. To call out powerful feminist politicians like Harriet Harman, who advocated that, “fathers are not necessary to harmonious family life”... Or Dr Mary Koss who considers it “inappropriate” to consider men as victims of ‘rape’ when perpetrated by a woman... Or Spain's Minister of Equality Ana Redondo, who believes it’s unconstitutional, morally, and ethically wrong, for abused men to self organise, and seek help... Or the Million Women March, who invited Donna Hylton, an accomplice in the abduction, torture, rape and brutal murder of a gay man in New York, to speak at the largest feminist event in history... Should not automatically be waved away as “anti-feminist” bigotry at all, for it is the opposite. These problematic actions, words, and beliefs, often underpinned and emboldened by feminist theory, and uttered by some of the world’s most powerful feminist voices, are not only deserving of scrutiny, but necessitate scrutiny, for the sake of all people, including women themselves. To consider all scrutiny of feminism to be harmful, misogynistic and bigoted; is an unhelpful, myopic generalisation, that slows feminism from advancing. It drags feminism out of politics, and away from the bright lights of science, into a murky realm of cult-like religious dogma, entrenched views, moral panic, and conspiracy. Furthermore, such an environment, sanitised of scrutiny, shines new light on why so many “feminist issues” such as VAWG, have not seen the improvements we had hoped for. Of course, it must be said that there are a significant number of “anti-feminists” making lazy attempts at this, or ones entirely motivated by misogyny, and such people need to be held accountable too. But again, our broad brush strokes make it no easier for us to delineate who these people are, and to have unified discussion to rebuke them. So I argue that “anti-feminism” is an unhelpful term, that quashes useful scrutiny, infantilises women, and slows feminism’s own progress. What do you think?