The Misogyny Myth
And why it does strong women no favours...
This week’s events surrounding Peter Murrell’s guilty plea, and the inevitable fallout from it, have given me cause for concern. Not about the criminal case itself. That process has now run its course.
My concern is about something else: the growing tendency to frame legitimate scrutiny of female public figures as Misogyny.
Our current party leader and First Minister is a man, I am also a man. I have been publicly critical of both John, as well as policies and strategies pursued under his leadership. I have done so in the articles linked below on the subjects of;
Commonwealth games;
Independence Strategy;
I’ve done so in speeches from conference floors, directly in his presence and in front of large audiences.
Despite that, we continue to serve within governing body of the same party. Though we aren’t “besties” he definitely knows me and we are perfectly capable of disagreeing, getting along and working together toward a common goal.
I have met Nicola Sturgeon far less often. On the occasions I did, she was unfailingly pleasant. More importantly, I believe Scotland was fortunate to have her ready to step in as First Minister following Alex Salmond’s resignation.
I would argue that she was at her political peak during the Covid pandemic. No leader anywhere emerged from that period unscathed, but it was clear that she took her responsibilities seriously (certainly more seriously than Boris Johnson) and was totally laser focused on guiding Scotland through an unprecedented crisis.
I was rarely critical of Nicola Sturgeon while she was in office.
I have been more critical since her departure, particularly in relation to some of the decisions and narratives that have emerged afterwards. There’s a link below to a critical twitter thread and screenshots.
Twitter Thread ref Memoirs and GRR.
In other words, I am something of an equal-opportunities critic.
If I think a political figure deserves praise, I will give it.
If I think they deserve criticism, I will give that too.
That brings me neatly to a recent column in the National by Kelly Given.
I admire Kelly’s loyalty to Nicola Sturgeon, and I agree with much of what she wrote regarding the damage done to the SNP and the hurt felt by ordinary members who gave their time, money and effort to the party only to see that trust betrayed.
As one of those members myself, I share that anger.
Where I part company with Kelly is when she refers to “crimes for which there is no evidence she committed.”
That is not quite accurate.
Nicola Sturgeon was investigated by Police Scotland and a file was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
That does not make her guilty of anything.
Nor does it mean she should have been prosecuted.
But it DOES mean there WAS evidence to assess.
Police do not submit “files” to prosecutors where there is no evidence whatsoever. The purpose of the Crown is then to determine whether the available evidence meets the threshold for prosecution, whether a prosecution is in the public interest and whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
The Crown DECIDED not to prosecute, that decision should be respected.
But that is not the same thing as saying there was never anything to investigate.
Kelly rightly invokes the principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty. I agree with her completely. The difficulty is that these principles must apply consistently, and for Kelly that raises an uncomfortable question.
Where was that same emphasis on restraint and due process in the case of Alex Salmond?
He too was investigated.
Evidence was gathered.
A prosecution was brought.
He faced a criminal trial.
He was acquitted on all charges except one not-proven verdict.
In legal terms, he left court without a conviction.
Both received due process, both were cleared. Yet many of the people now urging caution and restraint around Nicola Sturgeon were quite willing to publicly condemn Alex Salmond despite the outcome.
Kelly herself referred to him as “Seedy Salmond”…
…amplified criticism of him online…
…described him as a “giant, walking, talking, bruised ego…
Of course She didn’t always feel this way about ‘Eck…
Of course Kelly is perfectly entitled to hold those views, and equally entitled to change her mind about Alex. What troubles me is not the criticism itself, It is the apparent inconsistency.
Due process matters or it does not.
Acquittals should be respected or they should not.
People are entitled to the presumption of innocence or they are not.
Those principles cannot be applied selectively according to personal loyalties.
Nor can they depend upon whether the politician in question is currently popular within our own faction of the movement.
This is where the accusation of misogyny enters the story. There is no doubt that misogyny exists. It remains a serious problem in politics and public life.
For the record I hate Misogyny, as the father of a teenage daughter, I want her to grow up in a society where women are treated fairly, respected and judged on equal terms.
That is also precisely why I dislike seeing accusations of misogyny deployed so carelessly as this.
Not every criticism of a female public figure is misogyny.
Not every demand for answers is misogyny.
Not every question about a female public figure’s conduct is misogyny.
Sometimes criticism IS motivated by sexism, sometimes it IS motivated by politics, but sometimes it IS motivated by genuine public interest.
The challenge is distinguishing between them honestly.
Nicola Sturgeon led Scotland for almost a decade. She was married to the chief executive of the country’s largest political party. That chief executive has now admitted criminal wrongdoing involving party funds, questions are inevitable.
People will wonder
what she knew?
what she didn’t know?
why certain decisions were taken?
Those questions are not automatically illegitimate, nor are they automatically misogynistic.
Nicola Sturgeon says she was not complicit in any wrongdoing. That is entirely reasonable. But it is also entirely reasonable for party members, former members, donors to seek answers about a scandal that has damaged both the SNP and the wider independence movement.
The public interest is obvious, and Journalists will do what they always do. What concerns me is the emerging suggestion that continued scrutiny should itself be regarded as Misogyny because the person involved is a woman, that should concern us all.
For five years Nicola has had the shield of “live legal proceedings” that shield will soon fall. Her allies are desperately scrambling to erect a new shield, and Misogyny is ALL they have left.
That does not advance equality. If anything, it risks undermining it, Equality means equal treatment, rights, responsibilities and scrutiny. This principle shouldn’t depend on gender, faction or personal loyalty. Because if accusations of misogyny are deployed EVERY time a prominent woman faces criticism, scrutiny or difficult questions, then the term loses its power.
And in that world, when GENUINE misogyny does occur, it will then become harder to identify and to challenge it.
I do wish Nicola well, I hope she finds peace and happiness.
But I ask those perpetrating this line in her defence, is throwing ALL women under the bus, a price worth paying to just protect Nicola?
I don’t think it is.
David Birkett.