Ever since arriving in Cambridge, I have been really pleased with the number of feminist and gender-related events: sometimes, I think that those who are disappointed by the lack of feminism in Cambridge need to take a quick look at the rest of the world and count their blessings. Despite this I have noticed recurrent criticisms of the Women’s Campaign. It is accused of being too obscure and too radical, the latter seen as a result of the former.

In response to this, let me first of all put the work of the Women’s Campaign into perspective. All student politics inevitably faces similar problems: resources are limited; continuity is virtually impossible; and its constituency is made up of students largely reluctant to engage in yet another extra-curricular activity on top of their hefty workload and early morning rowing. Creating a higher level of awareness is even more difficult in a collegiate university like Cambridge, where many activities are organised at college level and J/MCRs operate autonomously from CUSU.

I am not trying to make excuses – in fact, I actually think the Women’s Campaign is doing a pretty good job. First of all, I have found the Campaign incredibly supportive in the assistance it provides for the work of women’s officers and female welfare officers at college level. It provides training, much-needed resources, and a contagious enthusiasm to come up with creative ways of fulfilling these roles. I see it as no coincidence that more and more colleges are setting up feminist discussion groups – almost all of which, by the way, are open to men.

Furthermore, the Women’s Campaign has started a weekly “Feminist 101” coffee meet-up, a relaxed and completely non-judgemental space, specifically aimed at those new to feminism or, more particularly, to women who are interested in issues of gender equality but do not self-identify as feminist.

Relating to the notion that the Women’s Campaign is too radical, it seems fair to ask: why shouldn’t the Women’s Campaign be quite radical? Their raison d’etre is to challenge the current unsatisfactory status quo. What is radical is defined by what is mainstream, so I think it can rightly be said that “feminism is the radical notion that women are human”, given the state of our society. If the Women's Campaign was excessively concerned with trying to please everyone, I doubt it would be able to bring about any substantial change.

In its discussion platforms, the Women’s Campaign’s basic demand, whether distastefully capitalised or not, is to respect the opinions and experiences of women. Writing off this rule as being too radical or even being borderline misandrous is simply absurd; any women’s rights organisation that does not pose similar demands needs to seriously consider what it actually stands for.

I agree that some of the online discussions have been quite hostile, a seemingly unavoidable, unpleasant side effect of strangers interacting on the Internet. But I do not find this hostility representative of the Women’s Campaign at all. In fact, they are making genuine efforts to be inclusive, especially towards those groups – such as transgender people and women from ethnic minorities – who have historically been neglected by feminism.

Any representative body deserves scrutiny and constructive criticism, I agree. But the unpopularity of the Women’s Campaign seems to derive first and foremost from the result of a shocking level of misogyny still present in our student community. Olivia Bernhardt-Brogan is spot on when she points out that “a huge portion of the hate it receives is a reflection of the extent of sexism in society, or at least the extent of ignorance of feminism.”

When it comes to reaching out to the broader female community, it is necessary to constantly strike a balance between defending your core principles and accommodating different views. The best way to contribute to the debate is to get involved yourself, not to stand on the side-line and attack those who have taken on the job and are making the most of it.