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.

Just because I'm disagreeing with you and have a different perspective to you doesn't mean I've left my critical faculties at the door, thanks all the same.

And Kavanaugh came across to me as an entitled, arrogant arse. Who got away with it, as Trump regularly does. And that's not a political statement it's one about power relations.

And I'm certainly not saying I believe all women no questions asked, so don't put words in people's mouths. But when the prosecution rate for rape is 1.9% then we should be more exercised about that than crying for Boris Johnson, who has not even denied the incident took place, just that he 'can't remember'.

But I'm sure you'll carry on with your defence of these men and your patronising put downs of anyone who has a different viewpoint while claiming feminist credentials. And I'm not even a militant feminist by any stretch of the imagination. Just one that believes that women should not default to attacking or disbelieving each other, as I see on a daily basis and have experienced myself in a similar fashion to this journalist by other people like you. They said to my face that it wasn't credible and he was such a nice man and it hadn't happened to them; so of course it couldn't be true .

so the scenario is:

Manly lunch in manly envioronment, man has so called "totty" either side, man feels very chuffed with manly atmosphere and "totty" either side who seem happy to be there enjoying a party, manly man takes a moment to simultaneously slide right and left hands up legs as far as he can and do a double squeeze as close to the top he can...

Everything I know about manly men makes this sound absoloutely plausible, I would not dream of beleiving there are not men that do this, in fact it sounds like it would be a fabulous treat in his mind...

It's a thing.

if we're talking about being credulous, I think your stance makes you look a little that way if I'm honest itwaseverthus

i've got a lovely bridge i'd like to sell you.....

The thing is, no one can police what people think, even if they'd love to. Which is essentially what the op's post is about. She's asking why women don't believe other women. There is little nuance there but I get the meaning. She is essentially saying we ought to leave doubt out of it, if a woman is saying something, we as her sisters ought to support her and be allies. That's great, and most of the time comes naturally to most of us. But there will always be times when facts, or absence of facts/evidence, cause us to pause and doubt. And that's healthy and normal. What's so difficult to understand about that? I just don't get it. Women are complex and flawed humans, some lie for their own ends.

And I am exercised about the low rape conviction rate. I do think it's shockingly low and I loathe the not proven verdict we can return here in Scotland, loathe it. I am also keenly aware however that a woman lied about rape at the hands of my friend's son.

I wasn't there 19 years ago at this dinner with Edwardes and Johnson, none of us were. I don't find it credible. I am allowed to, it's my brain, my intellect, my judgement. Does not make me less of a feminist. Just as you are allowed to believe her 100%, no ifs, no buts.

Blasey Ford's 'testimony' was entirely politically motivated.

Of course it was political. He was nominated to the effing SCOTUS. He was not vetted and the hearing was a horror show. He now sits on the court and she is in hiding.
He is going to hear an abortion case in a few weeks.

I'm sure her crowd funded $647000 will keep her warm while she thinks up another wheeze to keep Roe v Wade safe. Her lawyers admitted that was partly her motivation. Which is similarly what many of us see in Edwardes motivation. We just don't buy into the crap. I'd have a tonne more respect for someone who fought cleanly. Wonder why they don't?

there will always be times when facts, or absence of facts/evidence, cause us to pause and doubt

We can look at what we know. Johnson has a history of this kind of behaviour as backed up by his friends. He has a history of lying, as backed up by countless proven incidents. The woman involved has not. Yet you automatically jump to the defence of the man involved even though the balance of probabilities based on evidence points to her being truthful. That's not being even-handed and neutral - quite the opposite. It's pandering to men no matter what. What it does cast doubt on is your judgement of the woman from years ago that you called a liar.

I must say, some of the attempts to impersonate a feminist here aren't very convincing.

I neither believe nor disbelieve Charlotte Edwards in this case. She is unable to prove it happened, just as Boris Johnson is unable to prove it did not happen.
Of course it is politically motivated. She is the girl friend of Robert Peston, and timed her revelation to cause as much damage as possible. However, that does not mean it did not happen.
Just as Margaret Becket said that the accusations against the speaker, John Bercow, of bullying towards female staff were irrelevant compared to JBs usefulness as a pro remain speaker

Women, be clear here. You must not ever use your experiences politically. This would mean you had power in a situation and some of the 'feminists' posting FWR atm don't think women should have power based on their mistreatment. Women, know your place is such a classic feminist slogan.

I'd have a tonne more respect for someone who fought cleanly

you don't think making others aware that a person who is about to have a great deal of power doesn't care about women's boundaries, feels entitled to grope when he feels like it (in Johnson's case), or is in their experience a rapist (in the case of Kavanaugh) is 'clean'?

If a man in a position of power is a rapist I'd like to know, wouldn't you?

I still don't understand why women talking about the things men do to them is worse than the things men do to them

and what the actual fuck does this mean?

Of course it is politically motivated. She is the girl friend of Robert Peston

are we back to Bob's amazing mind bending todger?

If people would just admit that their anger at this woman is about Brexit it would make the conversation a lot less like wading through treacle.

(Treacle that thinks women are lying witches.)

Nothing to do with Brexit . I'm a Remainer. I don't think she is a "lying witch" either.

I believe it happened but when it happened she was clearly happy to go along with how things were at the Spectator so I can't work up a head of outraged steam over it.

Why is Robert Peston remotely relevant in this matter?

she was clearly happy to go along with how things were at the Spectator

how do you know? is it possible that she was outraged at being groped but knew it would destroy her career if she made a fuss at the time

Why is Robert Peston remotely relevant in this matter?

your guess is as good as mine Grimbles. I think he's controlling Edwardes actions with his amazing brexit todger of doom, but it's just a guess

If he finds this thread he'll be smugging it up for months.

I must say, some of the attempts to impersonate a feminist here aren't very convincing.

I can't think what you mean.

Why is Robert Peston remotely relevant in this matter?

Because, apparently, his Hypnotic Remainer Trousersnake is at the root of a late disclosure by Edwardes. Because, clearly, she's a woman with no agency at all.

Now picturing this bloke's todger weaving like a cobra while someone plays a flute in the background.

Because they're not actually feminists, would be my guess. You either put women first or you don't

Total crap. Being a feminist does not mean you put women first in every situation. It also doesn't mean you believe every woman every time. Life is far more nuanced than that.

Why bring it up 20 years later in a politically charged atmosphere

They said the same of Christine Blasey Ford. She was accused of lying and only looking to damage Kavanaugh's career. I don't understand why people find the concept so hard to grasp.

I was assaulted after a party when I was in my mid 20s. I never reported it, what would be the point 20 years ago? I'd be even less likely to speak out about the various hands on thigh moments.

If I found out the guy was about to or had become prime minister, I'd speak out about it. People deserve to know the character of those running their country.

I actually don't think it is a question of do you believe her or believe him. It is possible it is true. It isn't something that seems wildly out of character for him and therefore people have to decide if they think he is fit to lead or not.

Now picturing this bloke's todger weaving like a cobra while someone plays a flute in the background.

Trussssssst in me, jussssst in me.

If I found out the guy was about to or had become prime minister, I'd speak out about it. People deserve to know the character of those running their country.

Exactly! It's not rocket science, is it?!

I don't think she was writing about touching as sexual assault/harassment primarily, more as an indication of Johnson's character and judgment.

I don't think she was claiming to be traumatised, more saying that he did this plus touching up another woman at the same event - demonstrates lack of respect for female professionals, unhealthy appetite for risk and problem with sexual boundaries.

Didn't Toby Young (who worked at spectator with Johnson at the time) come out as say people were disappointed if BJ didn't come on to them? That's tantamount to admitting it.

I think the question isn't whether this specific incident happened, it's whether this sleazy behaviour is acceptable in powerful figures any more. Women have always kept shtum about it, now they're speaking up. In the case of Trump, depressingly the electorate didn't care. We'll see what the electorate makes of Johnson.

He has a history of lying, as backed up by countless proven incidents. The woman involved has not. Yet you automatically jump to the defence of the man involved Eh, no, no I didn't. It doesn't have to follow at all that this is a defense of him, it's in isolation that I don't believe a twenty year old party leg feel timed at a crucial point in politics. She could have been talking about Mother Theresa or Pol Pot. I just don't believe her. It's about her allegation, not the other person.

"and what the actual fuck does this mean?

Of course it is politically motivated. She is the girl friend of Robert Peston" If that was to me @BernardBlacksWineIceLolly I haven't a fucking clue as I didn't write it.