Do women have to like a women to support her?

[Amodmillymum]

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?

The list of things you gave that 'divide' women (breast vs bottle etc) - they don't really, though. Amongst my friends I count women who've done a whole variety of things with their births, breasts and relationships, their jobs. I can argue the toss on here but mainly it's reacting to reactionaries. In RL those aren't divisive issues unless you have people who evangelise at you, which is just boring.

In reply to your title, I do feel I have to like/respect someone to support her. Otherwise I could have supported Margaret Thatcher for being a woman and that would have been impossible. On a personal level there is a mother here who needs help for various reasons and I find I cannot, as when I have, she has shown no gratitude or respect for me. I can see that some sort of sisterhood would make a difference to her but she is incapable of appreciating that herself.

One of my lifetime ambitions is to make childcare tax deductable - ok I might not be able to do this in the immediate future but isn't funny that we have a green party and independence party but nobody has thought to create a women's party and we represent 50% of the population or maybe more (I don't know the stats so I am just guess-timating.)

I would definitely be interested in a Women's party though if someone can get to starting it before I can. I have a bit on at the moment but acorns and oak trees and all that.

I dunno I don't think so.

I deeply dislike Clare Short. But I support her in what she says about Page 3.

I didn't like this woman years ago who was being bullied at work, but I supported her in her complaints ot her boss and whn she was upset because I thought what was happening to her was wrong and she needed support and it was irrelevant what I thought of her.

So I think you can support someone you don't like particularly.

Amodmillymum - The problem you'd have with a political party directly aimed at women is you'd alienated 50% of the population from the off - you'd never get enough support to get even one MP elected -
What you have to do is work with the 2 main parties we already have and take it from there. The Tories and Labour have a minister for women's issues.

carminagoesprimal - ha ha - what a negative response. Ok - let's not bother then because let's face it 50% of the population is not a number worth targeting.

Especially when neither the Tories or Labour don't represent anything I want to vote for. There is a political void.

Your response just makes me want to do it more now. To busy at the moment though unfortunately - have to pay the bills first!

I don't have to do anything - we can do what what we want. The question is has anyone even tried to set up a women's party?

As a case in point - Mumsnet is probably the most significant internet forum in the UK with the biggest user base and statistics. This is how powerful the female collective is - problem is we don't believe it and your response simply illustrates that sentiment. The Tory party chose to engage with Mumsnet directly to influence voter because they deemed it to be so significant.

Women want a voice - set up a women's party - simple. You have to believe to achieve and I believe in the power of women. I just wish more women believed in themselves too so that we could instigate some change.

if women ruled the world......

I do recall talking with a friend who had been to a meeting of an all-male group her partner was involved with. She came away saying "He clearly didn't like some of the other men, but they were all working together. I wonder if those personal issues would derail that group if it were women in it."

Could it be true that men have the instinct to cooperate to get something done regardless of personal feelings, whereas women base their commitment on how they feel about the others who are there? I've never managed to decide.

I'm just being realistic - the Green party and UKIP combined only have one MP in parliament - and those parties appeal to both men and women - if you have a party that is only representing 50% of the population - (and don't forget, a large percentage of the female electorate wouldn't necessarily vote for you ) - you'll really struggle to get much support.
What are your views on education? - the NHS? - law & order?
I'm not being negative at all ( sorry if I came across that way ) - I'm really interested in your thoughts actually -
What would your core policies be? - where do you feel Labour and the Conservatives let women down?

WRT divisions among women... I reckon that when the ugly combo of capitalism and patriarchy reared its head and monetary power and resources were concentrated in the hands of men, the only way for women to survive or have any status was to attach themselves to a man. Hence women were forced to compete with each other to attract a man.

Plus the media doesn't help with their judgmental crap which is often directed at women. IF I believed in conspiracy theories (which I don't, I hasten to add!!!....) I would say it was a case of "divide and conquer"!

I blame the witch hunts in the 1500s and patriarchial crusaders of Judaism, Islam and Christianity (Eve is blamed for our mortality for being persuaded to eat apple by talking serpent - she gets child birth men gets hard labour) which have demonised women as 'snakes with tits' - in more pagan times women and men were equal and women were revered as the givers of life and mother nature (very simplified).

But yes - women compete with each other and this divide us. If women united men would have less power. We empower men by carrying their responsibilities for them

Re: Manifesto

Obviously, I was just shooting from the hip and so I haven't given it too much consideration and also it wouldn't be about my needs but more about the needs of women.

1.) Tax deductable child care - this is my biggest aim because I think it is what prevents women going back to work and protecting themselves form poverty.

[A husband is not a pension]

NHS - I am passionate about the NHS and think it is our greatest gift

Education - I think is also incredibly important but would be inclined towards recognising the differences between girls and boys - because I think they are programmed differently. I would empower teachers to have candid - conversations with parents - through a 360 degree feedback system similar to an appraisal between parents and teacher - about child behaviour.

Welfare - I would be inclined less towards a cash system and more towards a 'food vouchers' 'clothing vouchers' 'heating vouchers' "free vegetables and potatoes'

I am afraid I would be less liberal on immigration as I feel we would benefit from tighter controls

Law & Order - I would give more power to the police but the emphasis would be on truth and justice and not prosecution. I would reform the law away from wigs and gowns - it is draconian. I would also ban being drunk in court. I think alcoholism is rife in both sides of the courts system and think that it should be mandatory that you are sober in court.

Just shooting from the hip.

Just thought of a crazy idea - get rid of the Mon - fri 9 -5 week and have a week where maybe women work 3.5 days and men work 3.5 days or just work 7 days a week 24 hours a day and extract your work commitments around this concept.

Have you ever thought of getting into politics?

The way forward is to work with what we've already got - get more women into the main parties and make changes from within.

yes - have thought about it. But don't have a party I could align myself too at the moment. Or the time or the resources but maybe one day when my kids are a bit older - they already have one absentee parent with a military father. Plus I hate living in London and even being in London for longer than necessary - it's stifling and claustrophobic - plus everywhere you look is temptation, materialism, shops, food, status, arrogance, cliques and people trying to be something fake. It's hot, smelly, polluted and dirty. I hate the way that London is seen as the barometer of everything - in the media especially - as if you don't live there you are incapable of making a rationale choice or you are 'uncool' or not worthy in some way. I don't have the right uniform for politics plus I am really flawed and have been very naughty in the past.

But I do think that in order to re-address the balance quickly you need to do something radical - ie start a Women's Party to drive the change and force the agenda and also that the existing system is designed by men to suit men. this pussy footing around trying to play by male rules is shit. Look at Thatcher - she was a man with a fanny. I want to re-write the rules and change the game.

Interesting a women's party may be swayed towards addressing female equality but fundamentally it would have to be able to govern holistically in the same way the patriarchial parties do now. I wouldn't rule out having male representatives in the women's party. It's not an exclusive coven - it would be a political party that would change the way we do business.

for example - we is profit maximisation a driving economic influence - sustainability could be achieved by breaking even.

Don't even get me started on council tax for refuse and landfill - when ultimately the manufacturers should be taxed for producing packaging - not the consumer - we do we have to foot the bill for packaging disposal. Consumer demand shouldn't always drive production. It is the role of Government to manage the best interests of society. Just like it is the parents role to manage the best interests of the child. If my son was in control of his own demands he would simply live on sweets - that is clearly not in his best interests.

I find your posts really interesting -

I agree with your last paragraph - ( I'm really into the political branch of philosophy but am moving more towards the ethics branch - particularly environmental ethics and human concern )

have to get some sleep now but hope to catch up with you again soon.

Some threads about "what women are like" make me get crawly-ants-under-the-skin squirmy, and this is one of them.

No, I don't have to like anyone, of any gender ability race age or sexual orientation, to support them. I only have to approve of what they're doing or be in a position to provide some help they require (depending on what you mean by support).

You can't draw generalities from examples constructed literally under fire. A threat to survival does separate the takers from the sharers, yes, but in every crisis you will find the overwhelming majority are sharers. This has nothing to do with gender.

I approve of enforced gender parity for political candidates. I would go further and say I want PR (mandatory proportional representation) altogether, demographically as well as geographically. I don't see such an impressive collection of talent at Westminster that it couldn't be matched by others, who aren't getting a decent shot at the target.

Women's Party wouldn't work because few contemporary women's issues are universal. You've got choice SAHMs, resentful SAHMs, both versions again in WAHMs and WOHMs, plenty of women who aren't an M at all, and so on. It were different when I were a lass, but those battles have been won for now.

It's interesting that the thread is titled - 'Do women have to like a women to support her?' and many responses are 'I have supported a women I don't like' or 'No, I don't have to like anyone, of any gender ability race age or sexual orientation, to support them.'

These are very individual responses where as the question is meant to be more holistic and generic. I have supported women I don't like but I don't think that is the norm - I think the majority of women have to like someone to support them.

I also think it is laughable that women apply the principles of meritocracy in an unequal society - therefore again women disadvantage the revolution or evolution by expecting the game to be played fairly. Men don't play fairly so in order to instigate change women have to play 'smart' - to work smarter not harder.

Plus garlicnutter you assume that the Women's Party would focus simply on women's issue - it wouldn't it would have to have a holistic manifesto that would create a viable governing party, plus I wouldn't rule out having men in it.

I think it would work the more I think about it - and it makes me laugh that you write 'It were different when I were a lass, but those battles have been won for now.' The battles have far from been won. It is this attitude that keep us ruled by men, incarcerated in marriage and domestic slaves. I am one of these women and I am educated, run my own business, etc and I fell into the wife trap before I even realised what I had done - I was barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen - no pension, no security unless I stay married.

It's good of you to write such a thoughtful reply to on bashed out at bedtime. Thanks!

I don't think anybody has to like a person in order to support them. I'm also pretty sure we (humans) find it easier to support people we do like. Taking Margaret Thatcher as an easy example, people of both sexes voted for her on policy. She was never a winner of hearts, but won the passionate loyalty of many minds.

I doubt that the issue is a genderised one. More, probably, a multilayered question, which involves human strengths and weaknesses, the influence of visual media, social structures within various cultures and groups within them, et al.

I maintain that troops under fire provide one example of human behaviour under fire, not a lesson for life in general. Were there no women in your army? Are they not 'brotherly' on the field?

I agree with what you said about meritocracy.

You'd have to tell me what you saw a Women's Party standing for before I could form a view.

The battles I fought were for legal reforms - equal opportunities and rights; toilets for women at the workplace; childcare provision; anti-discrimination laws; divorce reform; the criminalisation of domestic violence and marital rape ... etc. Those battles have been won for now.

The problems we now face are those of adoption, engagement, enactment, enforcement ... cultural issues, by and large. I fought for the tools, now we need to fight to use them. Please don't insult the wonderful people who struggled to get the tools (I'm not one of them; I helped.)

Amodmilly, I guess you have hit the nail on the head of why so many talented and politically motivated women don't go into politics: you don't have a huge sense of entitlement (you are worried about your past, ha ha, that hasn't stopped so many male politicians whose closets are practically bursting) and you are prioritising the well-being of your immediate family. It's such a shame women like you are so sensible.

@garlicnutter

You tell me - what does the manifesto look like that you would vote for - why don't you design it yourself - it's not for me to decree what the women's party manifesto should represent.

It's a long way still until the war is won. But first of all I would genuinely like to thank you for paving the way to push through to the next battle which ultimately leads to the next step and the next step towards true equally represented equality and women not just in power but actually in charge! I don't think that men should be in charge - they have fucked the world up quite frankly - it's our turn!!

FYI - I am not in the military I am married to the military but women are not allowed to fight on the frontline even today that is deemed man's work. Just like women are not allowed to join the Special Forces.

We are so glass half empty - it's interesting that everyone says 'no' and not even 'yes please' - I would love to have my interests genuinely represented and I would love for women to have the balance of power. There is not even an aspiration to be in control of our own lives - to make our own choices and build a world that we want to live in.

I studied The Cinderella Complex at school 20 years ago - and then stupidly got married!! Doh!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_complex

@hardgoing
I will go into politics eventually - the world can wait for my children to grow up.

My feeling is this that the majority of men see women as their servants - that men see wives as chattels and that once we have children we give ourselves up to readily to become servants of our children too. This is the cycle that we have to break or address in order to take charge and change the rules of engagement. We live under men's terms and not our terms.

Now hark I know that there are many individual cases where this is not the reality but in the world I inhabit when I look around this is to me what the MAJORITY looks like.

Yes, I suffered a pushme-pullyou dissonance throughout most of my 'career' life - pushing for autonomy in public life, but Cinders to the core in my emotions. Wish I'd spotted it sooner ... like 25 years sooner!!

Since I am a capitalist, I'd focus my political efforts on re-drawing the structures & precepts of business. Any such moves are seen as feminist now but, in fact, are in tune with the general impetus towards quality of life. It can be done; is being done, but you'd need quotas and legal requirements to make the real difference. Fat cats know which side their bread's buttered (and that someone else does the shopping & buttering.)

Since I believe we're currently living through the collapse of capitalism as we've known it since the Industrial Revolution, I think such things might really happen. Though I don't yet know what I think will happen next. Am looking forward to processing toxic materials for a Chinese manufacturer in my old age.

Amodmillymum: - women don't have to get married and have children ( ok - some religions pretty much demand it but that's a religious issue )
I could have done anything with my life - I had the same educational opportunities as men - I wanted to get married and have children, just like most women. I'm not a slave to anyone, I have a very equal life wrt most things, and that's the key - I don't think enough women feel too hard done by ( these days anyway ) to start a political party - if they did - someone would have done it already. Plenty of men feel trapped by family life too btw.

Men do rule the world, that's not going to change anytime soon - but religion also has a lot of power over how people live their lives - you'll never smash religion.

And your use of words such as 'war' and 'battle' wouldn't go down well in mainstream politics.

carmina - no one has to do anything whether they're male or female. Despite that, most people tend to behave in line with the cultural norms. That's why they're cultural norms. And as cultural norms vary depending on the culture they're in, it's clear that they are a very powerful influence on human behaviour.

Our culture has very strong messages about family and children. Despite the growth in single-person household and single parents they are still seen as 'different'. Our society is very much moulded around the man/woman/two children model as the building block. There is an assumption that a single person must be lonely and just looking for 'the one'. This is magnified if she is female. It doesn't matter how emancipated you are - it's hard to resist a lifetime of messages about this unless you've put an awful lot of thought into it. There are a lot of women putting up with absolutely miserable relationships simply because it never occurred to them that they didn't have to settle.

Likewise, having children is a biological urge. It's not a true lifestyle choice. Because of human diversity there will naturally be people who choose who not to have children but they are always going to be in the minority as the biological drive to reproduce is the driving force behind any species. It's not a fluke that more than 80% of people across the planet become parents even when contraception is freely available.

Feminism doesn't need to fight against what is natural human behaviour. The challenge lies in working out what is truly natural and what is simulating it through culture. Religion for example seems to be 'natural' in the sense that it is now widely believed in academic circles that the natural human state is to believe in something. However, the form that religion takes is man-made and if it is discriminatory it should be possible to challenge the discrimination without challenging the central tenet of faith - ordination of women for example.

I also think it's a mistake to think that just because there isn't widespread rebellion against something doesn't mean that people are happy with the status quo. For a start you have to recognise there is a problem, and many many women do not because our society sends out very strong messages that all is well and good and we should count ourselves lucky compared to women 100 years ago. (We should, too, but that doesn't mean there isn't an awful lot more to do).

' I would also ban being drunk in court. I think alcoholism is rife in both sides of the courts system and think that it should be mandatory that you are sober in court.'

Then how many judges would we have left?

Sunshineandbooks;

I agree with you on cultural and societal norms. I was brought up by a very cold, ( and often violent ) mother - my father, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. He was kind and caring and the one who read to me at night and spent time with me ( even though he worked 6 days a week )
If I had woken up one morning to find he'd divorced her, I'd have cried with happiness - Life would have been a lot happier with just my dad.
But that was never going to happen. A single father in the 70's was almost unheard of.

Great post at 09:13, sunshine.