Promoting women such as Justine Greening in her cabinet does not excuse some of May's policiesWIKICOMMONS: DFID

In the weeks before this year's annual Labour Women's Conference, there were fears that it would be overshadowed by Jeremy Corbyn's inevitable second leadership victory. As it turns out, we didn't need to worry about a lack of media coverage.

Labour politicians including Harriet Harman, Kezia Dugdale and Angela Rayner have come under fire in the press and on social media for their supposedly "un-feminist" criticism of Theresa May's... well, feminism. Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson was quick to condemn their remarks, tweeting that "Labour thinks feminism is about telling folk which women (who've advanced women) are not *real* (sic) feminists. Proper purity of the tribe stuff."

The Spectator's Isabel Hardman was particularly brief and damning in her criticism of the conference's attitude to May; "Sorry, ladies, but feminism is even more important than partisanship. If you start claiming that only women who meet with your politics are real feminists, then you break into the People's Front of Judea when feminists haven't run out of problems to solve."

The trouble is, feminism can never be non-partisan. It cannot exist as a separate entity, somehow outside your individual political beliefs, preferred economic and social policies, or actions as a government minister.

Hardman and Davidson are right about one thing: the Labour Party does not own feminism. The trouble is, there are many feminisms, and no Labour politician has claimed exclusive ownership of any of them. They have simply criticised the shortcomings of May's personal interpretation of feminism.

You don't have to be a die-hard Labour apparatchik, or consider the phrase 'Tory feminist' oxymoronic, to recognise that even if May introduced some much needed reforms to address domestic violence as Home Secretary, these efforts were severely undermined by other policies pursued by the last Tory government.

Does May's feminism matter to victims of domestic violence affected by the bedroom tax? Do you think the fact she calls herself a feminist is a comfort to the women she told to "go home or face arrest"? If she promoted more female Tory MPs to cabinet positions than Margaret Thatcher did, does that wipe the slate clean on her failure to address the serious concerns of "state-sanctioned abuse of women" at Yarl's Wood?

Of course it doesn't. How could it? Yet, whenever the left are critical of our Prime Minister's feminist credentials, we are informed that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women". It's funny, because I'd hazard a guess that she isn't in great need of any help from me. Much like a lot of her 'feminist' policies, this adage only seems to apply when the woman in question looks an awful lot like Theresa May.

And that's really the crux of the issue. Can you genuinely call yourself a feminist if you're only interested in furthering the rights of certain, frequently already more advantaged women? In the sense that you have the freedom to do so, yes, you can – but ultimately, your feminism will be pretty meaningless.

This is where left-wing feminists are coming from when we criticise May. It isn't so-called "purity of the tribe stuff", it’s genuine opposition to her ideological positions. Just because she has chosen to label herself a feminist does not grant her a shield from this sort of criticism. If anything, it should mean that we hold her to a higher standard.

This is something that much of the mainstream press often overlooks in its coverage of feminism and public figures; it's regularly guilty of perpetuating the notion that feminism means never saying a bad word about another woman. This is a misrepresentation of what feminism actually involves. It should be critical of itself and of societal norms – and this criticism should extend to those who would call themselves feminists, to self-identifying women and non-binary people as well as men. Feminism is not a get out of jail free card for powerful women to use to avoid being held to account; yet too often, citing feminism is becoming a tool used for precisely this PR function.

What, then, about this idea that, because "feminists haven't run out of problems to solve", we should suspend critique of others who have identified themselves as feminists, until (presumably) a point when feminists have run out of problems to solve? Firstly, this is the argumentative equivalent of claiming we should sit patiently awaiting the inevitable dawn of fully automated luxury communism, rather than instigate and support political campaigns. Secondly, it assumes that all feminists agree about the nature of the problems that need solving, and on the methods by which this should be achieved. This is clearly not the case, even within the scope of Labour or the political left in general.

More important, though, positive change is achieved through challenging established power structures. If Labour feminists were to suspend criticism of May out of commitment to furthering their cause, they would be severely misguided, and remiss in their role as the Official Opposition. When the Prime Minister and her government claim to hold certain values, but pass legislation perceived as detrimental to these values, Labour should not stand idly by. If you would ask the party to do so on the grounds of feminism, it's worth questioning whom you think feminism is for in the first place.