So what does the case of Ruth Padel's resignation as Oxford's first female (why does it matter that she is a women) Professor of Poetry say about the whole issue of male equality and the metropolitan elite's demonisiation of men.
The issue arose last week where Ms Padel resigned because of her involvement in an 'alleged' smear campaign against a rival Derek Walcott. She passed on the 'concerns' of a student about an allegation (to which he was cleared) in 1982 at Harvard to two journalists. 100 Oxford academics had been sent an e-mail (not from Ms Padel) with details of the claim obviously in an attempt to derail his application. It worked as he withdrew.
Three issues, albeit interlinked, arise.
Firstly, what it proves is the power of false accusations made against men as a weapon to attack any man who has been accused, even if the allegation was unfounded. The allegation is 27 years old but still it was used as a weapon against Walcott.
Not knowing whether the law is the same in the USA as here (though it is likely), his name was in the public domain but the person making the accusation was not. If there was real equality in the law on this issue then both the defendant and plaintiff's identity should be kept secret and then this would not have arisen. As we have seen, aided by the power of the internet (only takes a Google search), once an allegation against a man has been made, the stigma can never be removed for the innocent.
Secondly, it shows that a minority of females are prepared to use it as an advantage and obviously the concerned student who asked Ms Padel to pass it on wanted to use the allegation to help Ms Padel. But also whilst Ms Padel said she was naive in passing on the claims to two journalists, what was her thought process for doing so. Why did she think it was relevant to the campaign. If she did not think it was relevant to the success of her campaign, why pass it on, why not tell the student to do it herself and that she would have nothing to do with it.
Thirdly, the excuses made by supporters of Ms Padel also do not understand (or care) about the gravity of the effect that false accusations have on men.
In The Guardian:-
Rose Tremain, rightly says: "It is a tragedy. But there is a moral question here – and I think it is unanswerable."
But why does Novelist Jeanette Winterson say "It's a pity she has been backed into a corner. What she has done is so much more trivial than her contribution to poetry. This feels malicious and nasty. We ought to be able to look beyond the woman to the poetry. This is a way of reducing women; it wouldn't have happened to a man. But then Oxford is a sexist little dump."
or as poet Jackie Kay said: "This was the first time that we had a woman as Oxford Poetry Professor – and she has had to resign over two emails. The old boys have closed in on her. It would not have happened to a man, and I am very sad."
The key lines are in Bold above. Firstly, it is certainly not to trivial to pass on false accusations and also it would have happened to a man if they passed on these smears. What it shows is that the mindset of those quoted is one where anything that adversely happens to a woman must be because of the fault of man or the male society etc.
This type of double think is seen as acceptable and shows clearly that we do not have an equal society where some people (members of metropolitan elite) truly believe that it is right to have different rules for men and women and those rules must be more favourable to women.
Media Coverage - Daily Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Times including the e-mail
Recent Comments