Do women have to like a women to support her?(94 Posts)
I worked on the film Restrepo - a documentary about soldiers in Afghanistan and I interviewed the amazing Tim Hetherington (RIP) (google A Modern Military Mother and Tim Hetherington if you want to see it.)
He said in his interview to me that the soldiers in the outpost hated each other but they would die for each other and that to him was was more than comradeship it was 'brotherhood'. The male brotherhood is a very loyal group and men protect each other and they protect their position.
I feel the sisterhood is divided and that women have to like someone to support them - actually male or female. Didn't Tony Blair do well in that first election back in the day - I am not sure if any of your remember the Cosmo - John Major and Tony Blair interview - pre-election? Do you think you could support a women if you didn't like her? Do you think that women could unite to have an equal share in the decision making in Govt? I am thinking 50:50 ratios between the numbers of male and female MPs?
I don't think you can really compare the feelings of brotherhood engendered by being in a life-or-death situation like that, with "sisterhood" in a completely different situation. Plenty of men feel no concept of brotherhood towards each other, and plenty of women do feel loyalty to each other.
And what do you mean by "support" - I support any woman's right to make choices for herself. But I won't sit there saying "That's great I'm with you 100%" if she is making a decision I disagree with. Likewise I support the idea of more women MPs, but that doesn't mean I would vote for a candidate who happened to be a woman over one whose policies I agreed with.
How would equal representation in parliament work? MPs have to be elected.
I'm not, I think it's anti-democratic and will turn even more people off politics.
Forcing people to vote for women isn't the way forward.
You wouldn't be forcing people to 'vote for women', you would be creating a greater choice. It might actually enthuse women to get out and vote if they felt their views were being represented better.
In answer to the original question: No, I dislike many women (and men, no discriminating here) but I would support them and their rights. Fighting or arguing with each other helps no-one.
Obviously, it's hard to write anything without making sweeping generalisations and as always there are exceptions to every situation.
But the male majority rule globally and women don't get to exercise their rights to power. The timings, the systems and the heirarchies are designed by men to suit men and therefore to instigate change on such a level to ensure that the balance of power is equalised potentially would be to compromise your opinions and agreement to bring more women into power. The system isn't evolved enough to bring more women into power based on merits alone but then woud women be willing to vote for a women just because she is female to ensure that more women were able to broker power.
I think a man (IMHO - sweeping generalisation) is more likely to vote for a man over a woman just because he is a man regardless of whether he agrees with his rationale or not.
Men stick together - they are pack animals. Women are divisive and are divided. I can think of many areas that divide us:
Stay at home mum v go to work mum
breastfeeding v bottlefeeding
natural birth v drugs birth
to have children v to not have children
mistress v wife
mother in law v daughter in law
Men's battles are more terrortorial
arsenal v spurs
red v blue
east v west
Imagine a world where every women made a pledge not have sex with a man if he was married or in a relationship.
I wish we could unite women - IMHO we need to do this first in order to instigate real change and shift the balance of power but I don't know how to do it.
No-one forces you to vote for anyone. If you think you can do a better job, stand for MP.
Having quotas would reflect poorly on all women candidates, and would make people less likely to vote for women, as the suspicion would always be that they were only there to fulfill the quota.
I'd be less likely to vote for a woman if there were quotas. If I vote for someone I want to know that they are there under their own merit.
I won't vote for candidates that are shuttled in from elsewhere, either. Only local people that understand the area.
Using the methods of merit - it will take decades to have a more equal system and LeninGrad and I will be doomed to be incarcerated and subjugated because women can work smart enough to instigate change so that we can deliver our lives in a more suitable, equal and empowering way.
women and men = salt and pepper
we have completely different wants and needs - our work life balance is being dictated by the processes of the male majority.
clunk that is me dragging my ball and chain around my office sighs
Leningrad - I'd be interested in what has been done in other places to increase women's participation in politics, though possibly on a separate thread? I have reservations about what is possible while still giving people a free choice about who to vote for, but I'm game to be educated!
In what way do women have completely different wants and needs? I don't feel like that at all.
From just the title, no.
I have an acquaintance who is having twins and already has a toddler.
I wouldn't say I particularly like her but I feel absolute empathy for her position and have offered whatever help I can give.
BonnieLassie - really? Do you have the same wants and needs as a man? Your plumbing is completely different? Your hormones are completely different? We are physically and genetically different. We menstruate.
But yes, sleep, food, water, shelter, etc...
Part of the problem is that the majority of men don't assume equal responsibility for their choices so women carry the burden of the male responsibility and then are expected to match them career for career as well.
VaginaPuddleduck - do you think that is an isolated incident? Or would you say this is how you operate all the time?
"Are the people in power now there on merit?"
Maybe not, but that isn't a reason to put even more people there wrongly.
Look at Harriet Harman. What does she have to do with Peckham? I think quotas would just to more women like this in parliament, which would be terrible for politics in general.
Get more women involved in politics at a local level and let them work their way up. Too many women will complain about things but ultimately want to rely on other people rather than doing it themselves.
"Part of the problem is that the majority of men don't assume equal responsibility for their choices so women carry the burden of the male responsibility "
What does this mean?
"BonnieLassie - really? Do you have the same wants and needs as a man? Your plumbing is completely different? Your hormones are completely different? We are physically and genetically different. We menstruate."
I don't see what any of that has to do with politicians.
I think it's possible to support a woman even if you don't personally like her, but I do believe it's equally important, if you don't support or like a particular woman, to not tear her down or undermine her in an un-feminist way.
There are male and female politicians that I don't support, but it's impossible to ignore that female politicians are treated differently.
Sarah Palin is an obvious example - I don't agree with her or support her, but don't like the sexism that was used to deride her.
BonnieLassie because those sorts of factors (hormones etc) will affect how you consider policy, for example health screening programmes, maternity rights, childcare, etc.
I used to be against quotas for women for exactly the same reasons you cited. Until I looked into it more. The current selection procedures give an unfair advantage to men. Quotas simply redress that imbalance.
Join the discussion
Please login first.