In 1949 Simone de Beauvoir, in her feminist manifesto, The Second Sex, stated that ‘humanity is male, and man defines woman not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being […] He is the Subject; he is the Absolute. She is the Other.’ In 2020 it is troubling to see how little the position of women has truly changed, especially considering the shifting preoccupations of ‘feminism’ and those who claim to enact it. The gender injustices within society are upheld by those at the helm; current Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a well-documented problematic attitude towards women. As a Telegraph journalist, he reported on the 1996 Labour conference, writing a review of ‘the hot totty’ present. This objectification continued in 2005, where he campaigned to become Henley’s Conservative MP; his promise that ‘voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts’ not only ignores 50% of the electorate but grossly objectifies the female voter. And let us not even begin to discuss Donald Trump’s longstanding sexism. To put it simply, regardless of the Westernised framework of equality, there is a fundamental complacency with female progression, perpetuated by the very people who should be enacting change.

One such example is Jessica Butcher, one of the government’s newly appointed equality commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Butcher is a self-proclaimed ‘old-school feminist’ and yet paradoxically claims that the gender pay gap is a female choice, as well as criticising the #MeToo movement. The damaging nature of these views is compounded by the fact that it is a woman voicing them – no longer is the hegemonic patriarchal system being prescribed by men alone, but now by women too. Not all of Butcher’s views are as radical as the rest – I happen to agree with her that some strands of feminism have become counter-productive when they infringe on women’s right of choice. However, this is where our mutual understanding ends.

In 2018, Butcher claimed that ‘feminism, like other forms of identity politics, has become obsessed with female victimhood […] it disempowers, assumes that we’re weak and defenceless, like children.’ By rendering ‘feminism’ redundant in its entirety, Butcher propagates a climate of female silence, ignoring the fact that what she brands as ‘female victimhood’ is, in fact, a method of holding masculine abuse of power to account. It is frighteningly ironic that the purpose of the EHRC is to counter discrimination and promote equality, and yet Butcher believes that the most productive response to gender discrimination is to circumvent confrontation and simply continue with ‘resilience’. Butcher has also claimed that she ‘feel[s] that the narrative of discrimination and victimhood undermines both that confidence and that resilience and also the individual onus to take ownership of how you put yourself forward, and to mould yourself, change yourself to the circumstances as required.’ Thus, without denying gender discrimination exists, Butcher decrees its acceptability in the contemporary workplace. She further enforces the narrative that women should just adapt to the injustices around them – a damaging standpoint for anyone to take, let alone a representative of the EHRC. Whilst it is important for women to remain strong and confident in these situations, the change must come systemically, rather than individually.

The idea of systemic change targets not only female discrimination but the ubiquitous gender pay-gap. Despite many different statistics and interpretations of salaries, the fact remains that men get paid more than women. January 2020 exposed the extent of the pay-gap in the case of BBC journalist Samira Ahmed, who won an equal pay tribunal after she discovered her salary was a mere one-sixth of her male counterparts’ salary. In the same month, the Institute for Public Policy Research revealed that the gender pay-gap for GPs was 35%, with female GPs earning an average of £40,000 less each year. This extraordinary difference is, to me, preposterous. To Butcher, it is acceptable.

The pay gap problem is not going away, the COVID-19 pandemic has made it prominently visible. As the primary carer in the majority of households, women are expected to undertake an inequitable amount of unpaid work. In contrast to Butcher’s claims, for many women, this is a necessity, rather than a choice. As the pandemic hit, the closure of schools and nurseries impacted disproportionately on the female workforce. Mothers have been 47% more likely to lose their jobs during the pandemic than fathers, and yet Butcher continues to preach about ‘resilience’ from her ivory tower of consistent employment. 

Butcher has been utterly misplaced in her appointment to this role. Her views on feminism, female victimhood, and discrimination are counterproductive towards the fight for gender equality. She remains part of the community that de Beauvoir criticised in 1949, relegating women to a sub-section of humanity. Her intensely damaging rhetoric combined with her new position of authority halts the gender progress that is still so desperately needed. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Like this? See below for more from Comment:

How the Government Failed to Protect Sex Workers During the Pandemic

The Silver Lining of an Insulting Statue: Wollstonecraft’s Legacy Lives On

The Media and Kamala Harris: Vice President is More Than Just Looking the Part