The recent scrutiny of the Executive Office Committee has triggered a heated debate about misogyny, tone, and what democratic accountability is supposed to look like. Some male MLAs have been labelled misogynistic for how they engaged during Committee proceedings. I understand why this has landed so sharply. Women are living through a period where rights feel fragile, respect feels conditional, and the backlash is loud.
You don’t have to look far to see it. We’re watching political arguments that treat women’s autonomy, safety, and equality as optional extras. We’re seeing a steady mainstreaming of rhetoric that polices women’s choices, mocks women’s anger, and reframes equality as a threat. That wider climate is the water we’re all swimming in. It shapes how women interpret tone, interruption, patronising language, and “small” moments in public life.
I want to say this plainly: I’m in solidarity with women who feel exhausted and furious right now.
And still: we have to protect scrutiny.
What misogyny is — and what it isn’t
Misogyny has a specific meaning. It’s prejudice, hostility, or systematic devaluing of women because they are women. It shows up as silencing, intimidation, sexualised behaviour, threats, ridicule, and environments that make women feel unsafe or smaller in their authority. It’s not “a hard question.” It’s a pattern of gendered undermining.
Scrutiny, by contrast, is the act of testing claims, probing decisions, and holding power to account. The Committee for the Executive Office exists to do that work. And crucially, it sometimes scrutinises people who represent organisations outside the political system — civic bodies, advocates, campaigners, institutional leaders. When those voices enter a parliamentary committee space, they enter a space built for challenge. It’s democratic process.
The “breathe” moment
Tone matters. Language matters. During one exchange, an MLA told the Committee Chair to “breathe.” That phrase might look innocuous on paper, but many women will recognise the undertone: calm down, you’re getting emotional, you’re not fully in control here. It’s the kind of micro-patronising cue that attaches itself to women in authority far more readily than men. These moments land because they sit on top of a long history of women being framed as “too much” when they lead.
Political actors have to be careful with that. Not because women are delicate — because power is contextual, and words are never neutral in rooms shaped by hierarchy and history.
Apology matters — and so does how we respond
An apology was offered. That matters. Accepting an apology can matter too, when it’s genuine.
This is where my own practice comes in: calling in. Calling in is accountable, firm, and human. It’s naming impact without reaching immediately for public humiliation as the only tool. It’s saying: that landed badly; here’s why; don’t do it again; learn from it. Calling in is not soft. It’s strategic. It’s how culture changes without turning every misstep into a blood sport.
My own lens on this
I’m a feminist. I also grew up understanding that power is never abstract — it is felt, socially enforced, and often policed through tone and status. And I’m someone who experienced sexual harassment nearly two decades ago. The passage of time doesn’t delete it. It can still show up in the body, in the nervous system, in how you scan a room, in how quickly certain dynamics ring alarm bells.
Misogyny isn’t theoretical to me. I know it when it’s real, sustained, and damaging.
That’s exactly why I’m careful with the word. If we stretch “misogyny” to cover every uncomfortable exchange, we risk dulling our collective response to the women who are genuinely targeted, threatened, harassed, and harmed. Precision is part of solidarity.
The bigger political context: women can’t win
It’s impossible to separate this local debate from the wider politics that increasingly treats women as a problem to be managed.
Look at what’s playing out in Great Britain right now. Reform UK has been linked to proposals to restore the two-child benefit cap as part of a package associated with reducing beer duty — framed as knocking around 5p off a pint. That is an extraordinary political signal: putting “cheaper pints” in the same breath as a policy that campaigners argue pushes children into poverty.
Alongside that, a Reform by-election candidate has been widely reported for remarks around the “fertility” debate — including ideas about taxing people without children. Whatever way it’s dressed up, it carries a familiar message: women are criticised for not having children, criticised for having children, and then blamed for the social outcomes either way.
This is the atmosphere women are responding to. It is not just “feelings.” It is policy and power.
So what do we do with this Committee moment?
We can hold two truths at once:
- Women are right to be on edge in a world where rights are eroding and misogyny is normalised.
- Scrutiny must be defended, including when it’s uncomfortable and directed at people or organisations outside party politics.
We can also add a third truth: sometimes the language of misogyny can be used tactically — not always cynically, but effectively — to shift the frame from accountability to character assassination. When that happens, scrutiny gets chilled, and power gets safer.
If Northern Ireland wants a political culture that is robust and fair, then we need higher standards of respect and stronger habits of scrutiny. We need men in politics to understand how language lands — and we need a public conversation that doesn’t dilute misogyny into a catch-all for discomfort.
That’s how we protect women and democracy at the same time.
By: Lisa (Her Loyal Voice contributor)
References
Geraghty, L. (2026) Farage puts pints over poverty with plan to cut price of beer by reinstating two-child benefit limit, Big Issue, 3 February. Available at: https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/nigel-farage-beer-prices-two-child-benefit-limit/
The Guardian (2026) ‘Handmaid’s Tale future’: Reform’s Matt Goodwin sparks outcry with fertility comments, 13 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/13/reform-matt-goodwin-fertility-comments-outcry-handmaids-tale
LBC (2026) Farage distances himself from by-election candidate after calling for tax on childless couples, 17 February. Available at: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/farage-distances-by-election-candidate-child-free-tax-5HjdSSP_2/
The Independent (2026) Reform by-election candidate calls for women and young girls to be given “biological reality” check, 12 February. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-matt-goodwin-gorton-denton-children-women-b2918340.html
