As my daughters become increasingly independent my wish for them is that they would be able to participate in society on a level playing field, and to be taken seriously as people with valid contributions to make to their world. I would like that world to be a place where people who disagree with them would engage and debate the issues at stake maturely and sensibly rather than targeting their person, appearance or the gender.

I don’t think we have reached that place yet. The way men engage with women, particularly women who don’t meet their expectations of femininity and compliance, is still of concern. Many men still have the tendency to diminish and minimize female voices, and to ‘pull rank’ based on gender (or gender and age). I don’t expect that women should always be agreed with on the basis of being female, but they shouldn’t be disagreed with on that basis either. I would like my daughters, all of our daughters, to feel free and safe to voice their ideas and opinions, and have people engage in discussion without reverting to ridicule, condescension, or threats.

Biddulph had written an article talking about how he became a feminist. In it he claimed that feminism could be seen merely as “ranty blogs in the ghetto of the lifestyle pages” and went on to argue that the “real work” of women’s liberation happened elsewhere. Edwards took offence at some of his language, in particular the way he characterised women who, like her, wrote columns for the lifestyle pages as being ineffective, and wrote a response in The Canberra Times. In my opinion she had a right to be angry and to feel his language was insulting. While a “rant” might mean complaining or getting something off your chest, “ranty” is more suggestive of hysterical, the kind of language used to classify women as overly emotional and devalue their voices. Following his reference to “ranty blogs” by discussing “the real work” does imply that he believes female columnists are ineffective.

Her anger and opinion were dismissed by Biddulph who stated in his Facebook post that she misunderstood him. He reiterates his views and asserts his superiority by highlighting that he has been a feminist for a lot longer than she has and that he gets published by female editors. He reinforces his earlier language by referring to Edward’s article as a “ranty blog”. At no point in his post does he concede that Edward’s opinions may have merit, or acknowledge that his language could have been offensive.

Somewhat incongruously, he finishes his post by asserting that “we might differ on some of the details, but this is an alliance that has to hold together or we all lose”. (Here, again, the language drifts into paternalistic territory; I can’t help but think that rather than “hold together” this sounds more a demand that young women accept his wisdom and refrain from disagreeing or holding their own views). Yes, feminists need to work together and, as he states, there are different opinions so surely the logical outcome would have been to enter in to dialogue with Edwards. How is posting an attack on another feminist ‘holding together’?

And this is the crux of the situation, if he truly felt that Edward’s had misunderstood he could have seen it as an opportunity to engage in dialogue and build up understanding; to acknowledge her views and to think about how to express his in a clearer, less insensitive way. Instead, he managed to deflect the conversation away from the content of his and Edward’s articles into a battle between (mostly) women and an attack on feminism (or at least feminism not done his way) as people took to the comments section to defend him and criticise her.

 Furthermore, rather than encouraging the participation of women in the public arena, Biddulph’s indignant post serves to discredit and silence Edwards and serve as a warning to any other young feminist who might disagree with him. Sure our young women might have a lot to learn, but they also have a lot to teach us if we’d only engage with them and not embarrass them for participating in the conversation. In his original article, Biddulph asserts, among other things, that “Every girl child needs to be taught to be a feminist, lest she think her ills and fears are her’s alone. Anger and strength come from seeing yourself in a war alongside every other person who cares, against a world, corporation or just culture that patently does not”. I wonder how aligning his followers against a “girl child” who did grow up and learn to be a feminist serves that cause? How does it show her that she is aligned with others against that world that doesn’t care?

Biddulph wrote in his article that “the work [of feminism] goes on” because women are still victims of sexism, rape and incest. I would add that the work also needs to continue until men, even (or perhaps especially) the ones claiming to represent women, learn to listen and value a woman’s opinion, even when that opinion might be disagreeing with their own, without becoming defensive. Allowing and generating the space to hear views from those habitually silenced would be a significant contribution to creating a fair and equal society.