Why do women not believe other women (Boris Johnson story)

[Annasgirl]

I came on to see if there was a thread on this, and there is a similar thread on the topic but it is based on giving out about George Galloway (I'm not in the UK so no real opinion on him except that I don't like him).

However, watching the Channel 4 news last night I was amazed at the number of people (women) who asked why the journalist did not raise this allegation earlier and questioning her integrity.

Now, these kinds of comments square with my impression that the greatest achievement of the patriarchy was to get women to compete always and ever against other women for the crumbs from the man's table. So, women have never been each others allies in the way that men were (war etc) and they instead belittle and criticise the woman in these scenarios instead of the men (see also, the constant criticism of the other woman and never of the married man; the lack of belief of women in rape trials; the lack of belief of women in MeToo; the list of senior female actresses who still defend Weinstein, and Polanski; the madams who procure women for creepy men - and on and on ad infinitum.

Until women put other women first there really will be no better future for our daughters and I find this incredibly sad. I grew up in a matriarchy and I have always encouraged and supported other women and girls throughout my life - I am just always saddened that this is the exception rather than the rule.

Because they're not actually feminists, would be my guess. You either put women first or you don't - there is no "I put women first unless the man who's done something to them is useful to me, in which case under the bus that woman goes".

Or, there is, but it's bullshit and those people could do with being a bit more honest with themselves.

I know this sounds like a daft question, and I know it was in my first post, but how can you be a woman and not be a feminist?

I know this sounds like a daft question, and I know it was in my first post, but how can you be a woman and not be a feminist?

There are as many versions of feminism as there are women. At some basic level all women will share similar experiences, but at other levels, as individuals, in different cultures and societies, and with different characters we will understand and 'translate' situations differently.

Most of us have had our legs or bodies touched by men in unasked for ways, but bringing it up in such an obviously charged political situation, 20 years later, is a bit suspect as far as I'm concerned.

If people could drop the Brexit bollocks for long enough for OP to have her thread that would be lovely.

I am a feminist, and I do believe women who speak out.

Heavy, heavy dose of cynicism for women who ‘speak out’ to launch their new column in a weekend newspaper.

However, watching the Channel 4 news last night I was amazed at the number of people (women) who asked why the journalist did not raise this allegation earlier and questioning her integrity

I wouldn't question the veracity, myself, but would question why now, and was it really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. As women we've been brought up with this sort of shit as 'everyday air'. Personally, think the journalist in question is being used by the anti- Johnson campaign, and the fall-out of it for her is likely far more damaging than Boris Johnson squeezing her thigh 20 years ago ever was.

Because it's more complicated than that.
I think if you go around believing other women because they're women you are going to end up being wrong a lot of the time.
Especially when politics is involved, with all the lying, subterfuge and backstabbing involved.

If a man does not want to be accused of being a sex pest, or having women use that as ammunition at a time that suits her, then perhaps he should try not being a sex pest in the first place.

There's a shit load of victim blaming happening as usual. Men who are sexual predators are to blame, and men who are accepting of other men who are sexual predators are also to blame.

Ok I'm very involved in politics in my own country so I can acknowledge politics is sometimes involved. But there is more to it than that.

For instance, there was something about this on Gogglebox and again, the women on it, questioned the woman involved and not the man. And even though they thought he might have done it, they just wanted her to shut up.

I agree we cannot always believe the woman, but if you look at rape statistics, the false rape allegations are so minuscule and yet we are now conditioned to believe that most men (especially famous and successful ones) are more likely to be falsely accused than to rape - when as women we know that is false.

agree 100% @ratsnest and my question is why do other women not think like this?
Or why is it so unusual perhaps?

I think if you go around believing other women because they're women you are going to end up being wrong a lot of the time.

This exactly! As Margaret Atwood said:
"My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails."

(This is not a commentary on the case mentioned in the OP, as I have not looked into the details of it.)

bringing it up in such an obviously charged political situation, 20 years later, is a bit suspect as far as I'm concerned

Do you believe the woman or not?

That's all it is. Do you believe her or don't you?

Because if I'd been sexually harassed by a powerful man with the capacity to destroy my career, I might well keep it to myself for years. And, if the political situation ever gave me the opportunity to disclose and be believed, you bet your bottom dollar I'd speak up at that point and do maximum fucking damage.

Because pervy powerful men should receive maximum damage at the most opportune time for every pervy deed they've ever done to a woman.

So: do you believe her or not? It's the only thing that matters.

I think if you go around believing other women because they're women you are going to end up being wrong a lot of the time.

DO you really believe women lie more than men then? Because that is the logical conclusion of that sentence.

Sorry the first sentence in my last post was a quote - so it should have been in quotation marks.

I doubt she made it up. But I don't see the point of writing about it now, or what any of us are meant to do with the information now that we have it.

He's done much worse things in his personal and political life than touch someone's leg, why would any action happen now, and what would it look like?

Most of us have had our legs or bodies touched by men in unasked for ways, but bringing it up in such an obviously charged political situation, 20 years later, is a bit suspect as far as I'm concerned

This, like it or not it makes her less believable

I'm not sure I believe her. I won't believe her just because she's a woman. Women lie, a lot.
There is also the fact that it was 20 years ago and she is the girlfriend of Robert Preston. And is she going to the police or just talking to journalists?

DO you really believe women lie more than men then? Because that is the logical conclusion of that sentence.

No. I believe they lie at about the same frequency as men. Because they are people.

Women lie, a lot.

I'm just leaving this here for anyone who's tempted to go on a Brexit fueled save the Johnson because he's useful rant.

@Annasgirl because we are conditioned from a very young age that we need to avoid male abusers and perhaps a logical conclusion to that conditioning is that we have failed if we are abused. Victim-blaming becomes innate.

The narrative needs to be changed. We need to all be saying that abusers should not abuse but if you look at news articles & headlines the focus is on the abused person, the perpetrator of the abuse is barely mentioned. This short ted talk explains it very well

People discussing a situation on the news don't always reflect their automatic responses. They put forward a pov for the discussion. It's also a common technique to pose the negative questions so they can be rebutted in public. If 'people' are thinking 'why now?' Then I'd make that a point of discussion so they can be given an explanation of why now.
I believe the woman. I also think she timed her announcement for effect. I don't think that makes me a bad feminist. Why should she have made her announcement when it had less impact? She doesn't owe BJ anything.
BJ has a long reputation of treating women like objects he can use and throw away. I'm a bit that this is receiving almost as much coverage as when his gf called the police on him; or when he had an affair with the journalist at the Spectator; or when he gave his mistress access to trade meetings and grants; or when he denied his other DCs existed; etc, etc.
We all know who BJ is.The Tories who voted him in, don't care.

If women were treated as people and not women we would not need feminism.

If black people were treated like people and not black people there would be no racism.

"We are all just people" is nice to say but is not really true - look at murder stats and crime stats - do you really believe women are the same as men?

DO you really believe women lie more than men then? Because that is the logical conclusion of that sentence.

WTF?
How is that the logical conclusion of that sentence?
Nowhere did I say women lie more than men.

I think if you go around believing other women because they're women you are going to end up being wrong a lot of the time.

That's not what I asked.

I asked one question: do you believe this woman or don't you?

Simple yes or no will do.

That's not what I asked.

Er, you posted after me, so I obviously wasn't answering your question.

However, yes I do believe this woman.