Throw a brick at a Liberal Democrat MP and you have more chance of hitting a knight of the realm than a woman. Which, if nothing else, goes to show that all the arguments against all-women shortlists are bunk. Unfortunately, what it doesn’t show is that the Rennard scandal is something that could only have happened to the Liberal Democrats.

The Rennard crisis, yes, that could only have happened to the Liberals, whose members seem to both need a crash course in feminism and crisis communications, but the Rennard scandal? I would frankly astonished if there wasn’t a mini-Rennard in every single constituency Labour party in the country. I might comfort myself that there are probably two little Rennards in every Conservative association, but let’s be honest: the only difference between us and the Liberals is that we’d be making a better fist of it if any of our Rennards ended up on Channel 4 News.

That’s not a surprise: sexism has been part of society since we painted on caves; Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women is barely 220 years old. Feminism doesn’t have true believers, only a series of compromised double agents, but we all, whether we recognise it or not, believe in the patriarchy.

Left to our devices, in fact, we’re just as sexist as we ever were. We still flock to newspaper stories about celebrity indiscretion, we’re most of us addicted to the Mail Online – a website with the unofficial slogan of ‘Well, she’s no better than she ought to be’ – and most of our assumptions about what we should be are still just as patriarchal as they were in the 1950s. Parents ask Google if their sons are geniuses; the question they ask of their daughters is whether they’re beautiful. That’s why we’ve got all-women shortlists, it’s why we need quotas in our boardrooms and in our courts: because we are none of us feminists yet.

The trouble is, though, is that our movement is now suffering from the intellectual equivalent of the 33 per cent problem. The 33 per cent problem is what happens when the number of women in an organisation reaches a large enough chunk that people can start to believe that the battle is over; essentially, this is what happens when people say we don’t need all-women shortlists because Harriet Harman is deputy leader and the judiciary can sort itself out because of Constance Briscoe. The intellectual equivalent is when the word ‘sexist’ becomes a dirty word, so no one admits that they’re sexist, too.

So I’ll go first: I’m a sexist. My idea of leadership was, as a child, shaped largely by television: by characters like Optimus Prime (a man), Han Solo (a man), Batman (a man), and the president in Independence Day, who, spoiler alert, was also a bloke. That all but a handful of the dominant politicians of my lifetime were men was little help either, and all of that didn’t just fade into airy nothing the first time I picked up The Second Sex.

Misogyny is like oxygen: men and women of all parties and none can’t help but breathe it in. So laugh at the Liberal Democrats by all means. But remember that we still can’t – and won’t ever live to see a day when we can – be trusted to pick a good woman from a field of indifferent women, or even pick an indifferent women from a field of indifferent men. We might be better than Chris Rennard. But we’re still not very good.

———————————————————

Stephen Bush is a contributing editor to Progress, writes a weekly column for Progress, the Tuesday review, and tweets @stephenkb

———————————————————

Photo: mollybob