Why don't women back each other, why do they seem to sometimes deliberately sabotage or go against their own gender?

We both have strong opinions. The only difference between us is that more people agree with you and you think that somehow makes your views more valid. 

The strength of individuals is irrelevant. We are talking about the societal effects of social structure. The fact that some strong women and some weak men exist is irrelevant. 

I never said women wanted "he-men". That's not what an alpha male is. An alpha male is whatever succeeds in that environment. 

I never said  married women shouldn't work. Just being a housewife these days in not a fair division of labour because modern technology has made it too easy.

I know stereotypes have exceptions. I know some women are strong and some men are weak. It's just irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Civilizations rise and fall based on the general trends.

I'm a libertarian. I believe people have a right to do whatever they want so long as they don't hurt others. Though to be sustainable a society must encourage and promote the behavior society needs.

My views are a lot more common than you think. I'm outspoken here because this is an anonymous forum. If we worked in the same office you would have no idea. I'd probably be sacked if I displayed my politically incorrect views openly. When people make Trump jokes in the office, I smile with everyone else while privately grieving the decline of our civilization.

Indeed I don't spell like a Brit. Sherlock Holmes would be proud, but there's is a reason for it. I spent many years in the far East teaching English. American spelling was the required standard. All my "coworkers" (or should I say "colleagues") were American and I got pretty Americanized. I got back home with an American accent. I lost the accent quickly and but I'm still a bit international in my vocabulary and spelling. Old habits die hard.

I swear to God I'm English and live in Bournemouth. I've been back home 9 years. I'm not a typical Brit. Though as you are so fond of pointing out, all stereotypes have exceptions. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 6, 2017 2:02 AM MDT

'The only difference between us is that more people agree with you and you think that somehow makes your views more valid.' well it that ain't assumption I don't know what is... However, that's the point, and always has been... my opinions usually take facts and science along with latest research and studies in order to back them.. so in other words, my thinking is not inflexible, as one could perhaps be forgiven for believing yours is... 
You then go on to tell me that your opinions are more common than I think.. lol the words no, you know what, SHerlock :P  But as you tried to point out to me... that doesn't make those opinions correct now does it? Especially as those opinions are outdated and increasingly flying against science and scientific understanding.. 

Thank you for your response Karen.. yes, of course you are correct, that often it does depend on what's posted.. but I was thinking particularly of examples of where women's responses to women are way, way more hostile and bitter than those of men to women on the same post topic.. So I was wondering about the often noted fact that women do seem, for some reason to be more hostile towards other women, especially online..  I guess I find it odd.. I wouldn't stick up for someone just cos they are a woman, but neither would I go out of my way to be mean to them just cos they are a woman... And when it comes to women's issues - I guess I do have a lot of empathy for those of my own gender... I tend to be quite empathetic re all suffering but I guess I wonder why women are not more compassionate to other women

How do you know for sure the responses or the posts are even from women? They could not be what they say they are. 

Well that's a very good point Karen... I think on a personal level, if you know the people well you can evaluate their gender pretty well - men and women generally speaking write very differently... but this was not about me as such... but the phenomenon which is one that has been known about for some time... 
I think that we would have to assume, if we were being objective, that while there would possibly be the occasional male pretending to be a woman and vice versa... it's probably not going to happen in vast numbers...  and as I say generally speaking men seem, if anything more gentle in their responses to women than women are to women..

Agreed but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.. it was why do women sometimes seem to go out of their way NOT to stand up for women in women's issues.. not saying we should agree with each other just cos we are women.. that'd be like expecting men to agree with each other just cos they are men.. but you do find, or seem to.. that men tend to side with each other more than women do... 

They shouldn't and that isn't what I said.. but thank you for your response. It's very good of you to take the time 

You said, "...one would expect them to be allies...", so let me restate my question, why would women be expected to be allies?

The qualifier was *when* so in other words in situations when women would be expected to stick together, such as regarding issues regarding women, equal pay, child care facilities, women in top jobs, etc etc etc etc... and the point was there is a known, as in not my opinion for I am only reporting on and seeking to discuss a phenomenon whereby ... women can sometimes be seen to be actively ANTI women, purely because they are women.. so kind an inverse to siding with your own or agreeing with your own just for the sake of it.. they are seemingly anti their own kind for the sake of it... that's what the link described... a known phenomenon.. as someone who is studies people, their motives and motivations.. I find it a fascinating phenomenon.. Hope that clarifies and thank you for responding once again. This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 1, 2017 2:05 PM MDT

As you mentioned none of those things specifically in your post, how is one to know exactly what qualifications you attach to the word "when"?  And, again, why exactly would one expect it, regardless of the subject matter?   

Thank you for your continuing interest in my topic Bozette the info was very much implied... "seem to sometimes deliberately sabotage or go against their own gender?"  and, 'actively go against their own gender.. if a woman is online saying something, it will often be other women who are the harshest critics when one would expect them to be allies... ' the relevant words being, *deliberately sabbotage* and *actively* - the word *when* was, I accept a somewhat more subtle qualifier but referred to situations where it was implied women would generally be expected to be able to have sympathy for, or empathise with other women, aka women's issue...

The article, that the question was formulated on was also quite important as this outlined the phenomenon.. 

To clarify... just to reassure you.. I never said these were my opinions.. I didn't make them up... I am just interested in the reasons why what is known to happen happens.. 

So if these are not your opinions, who is it that "generally" expects/implies that women would feel sympathy/empathy for other women?  

I really do not see that disagreement on any subject can be equated to "deliberate sabotage" or "actively" going against other women because of their gender.

May i respectfully refer you back to the link in the original post? If one were to look it up it's a known phenomenon.. I happened to be discussing it with a fellow student on Thursday - so I guess it was on my mind and i figured I'd throw it out there for all to discuss and have input on. You have had quite a bit of input here and asked lots of questions.. which it great.  SO yea, I am an observer.. I observe, I study, I research, I collect opinions, thoughts and input which form a kind of mental data base.. I am a people watcher :) 
It's interesting and quite refreshing that you personally seem not to have observed the behaviour but as I say it's a known phenomenon :)

I read the linked article before my initial response.  Behavior being perceived as something does not make it a "known phenomenon", IMO.  Quite often it seems that the people doing such studies are simply trying to prove their preconceived assumptions, which is highly unscientific.  If I disagree with a woman, she may indeed perceive it as an "attack"...but that does not make it so. 

Ahh well perhaps my being of a psychologist and sexologist bent, and a people watcher to boot - perhaps I am more aware of it than others.. If you look it up it's widely known... I'd agree with you that one swallow does not a summer make but a thousand swallows doth make a summer :) 

It's never going to be about one woman disagreeing with another.. it's about numbers and it's about an observable phenomenon that can and is replicated.. that's what makes it more scientific... and when one researches and discusses these matters one has to be objective... Sometimes it can also be about the nature of the responses.. like it's been observed, and I think i mentioned it..that comparable to men replying to men, and disagreeing, one can often see women disagreeing with women in a much more vindictive and viscious way... Men, and this IS just my opinion as I haven't studied it - seem to respond to each other much more agreeably... and tend to be less vindictive toward each other.... This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 1, 2017 3:01 PM MDT

Something being "widely known" does not make it factual.  One occurance proves nothing, neither does a thousand necessarily prove anything.  Much like polling/surveying, the one formulating the protocol/questions and choosing the participants for a study or poll can easily predetermine the results they wish to achieve.  That is not to say that all do that, or even that many recognize their own bias playing into their preparations, but it often happens, despite claims of objectivity.  Hence the reason that different studies may come to different conclusions.  

LOL oh bless you I am so pleased and delighted at your interest in this subject.  Something widely known doesn't make it factual.. well no not per se but it does, definitely, logically make it more likely.. as i say this is a well known, observable and studied phenomenon.. we don't have to agree with it or even like it... it just is..  

I'd agree with you one occurrence doesn't prove anything.. I actually said that too.. so we agree on that..  a thousand doesn't per se mean anything but it does alert us to the possibility.. the world is made up of patterns.. people, behaviour, nature, clouds, and these are not something we have to disagree on or agree on.. they just are.. so there are patterns and if something keeps happening, and or the nature of the thing we are observing is compellingly all this way or that.. it'd be pretty dumb of us to dismiss it or even argue about it... 

The point about observable phenomenon is that you do have to prevent bias.. you have to be objective.. that's what makes it scientific.. you can't be emotional about it.. you have to go in with an open mind.. you cannot go in with a closed mind.. now not everyone can do that.. so bias exists.. and some studies are flawed.. but not all studies... and regardless it remains a very fun thing to study and think about. to investigate.. 

I see it more objectively perhaps.. I was aware of the phenomenon.. i have studied it a little.. I ask questions.. I gather that info... some here seem to need to believe i have an opinion either way... that kinda says more about them... I am more objective.. as I just see something and i listen to all sides and all parameters..  I don't decide something is or isn't a phenomenon.. in this case it's pretty much accepted that it happens.. it's been observed.. so it would be pretty head in sand of me to say it doesn't exist.. and since I don't much care about the outcome I am in the perfect position to learn more.. I've learned a fair bit from the discussion here.. Karen made some good points, you have. others have... it's all mind fodder :)  

There are some interesting theories and suggestions surrounding the phenomenon... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/juliette-frette/jealousy_b_1914374.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/working-btches/201308/why-are-some-women-nasty-other-women

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201309/women-who-hate-other-women-the-psychological-root-snarky

 I could include more.. but don't want to bore you :)  I am off to bed now as it's late here but thank you so much for engaging with me on this topic its been fun. 

Point being that while 1,000 occurrences of something indicates a pattern, that cannot necessarily be applied to the overall.  Lets say it wasn't a thousand, but thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even a million, that would indicate a very accepted pattern, wouldn't it?  Yet there are 3.5 billion+ females in the world...so it wouldn't, even then, mean anything except to those wishing to attach meaning to it.  Of course objectivity is the ideal...I simply disbelieve it is the norm in psychological studies, and I don't mean that most are intentionally biased, but that they are biased nonetheless.  

Sleep well.

Scientists base knowledge on investigation... and most often on observation.. its how it works...if we see stars up in the sky we don't go around saying that they dont exist or we cant prove them... Fact is that this is a known phenomenon.. if you haven't seen it, which I assume must be the case here then that's great.. but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. Psychological and social science works similarly to normal science.. we see something we investigate it.. we maybe start with a hypothesis.. and we investigate.. looking specifically to understand.. this is the same as science.. human behaviour tends to fall into patterns.. we dont have to like that.. but it just is...  As I say all science is the same.. you perhaps feel that as it's a social science it's different? less objective.. again we cannot assume that.. we would be guilty of making assumptions without evidence :P   I think the prob is that your feeling is that somehow because we aren't studying atoms it's less objective.. science isn't always objective either.. cite the brain imaging neuroscience tests on dead salmon.. the conclusion was that male brains work differently than female...but the science was flawed... All science is at risk of this.. in big pharma science there are monetary incentives and fame to be had... people take short cuts..  in a way there's less money to be made in social sciences :P  So arguably they have less incentive to lack objectivity.. the point about studies is they have to be replicable just as with science... however you are entitlled to your opinion and this I think you are saying you don't believe there is a phenomenon where women feel competitive and less supportive to women - that's fair enough.. I am happy you haven't experienced that and I assume you don't feel less supportive towards other women just because they are women... and to be honest thats a good thing :)

Psychological science is actually far less scientific than other branches.  How do disorders get added/removed from the DSM?  Essentially, by a vote.  And many of those involved in the process have direct financial relationships with big pharma.  Psychiatry and psychology are driven, in large part, by social, political, legal, and financial agendas, rather than purely scientific and objective.  It is big business.  A single mental patient will often receive a different diagnosis from each mental health professional they see, proving the subjective nature of the science.  While the idea that something was considered a mental illness for a time and then is removed, while other behaviors formerly not classified as a disorder now are just proves its arbitrary nature.  

Please do not make assumptions about my thoughts or experiences regarding your "widely known phenomenon", of which I neither expressed an opinion, nor related my experience or lack of experience with.  I asked, and then restated, a simple question, for which I have yet to receive an answer...why should/would women be expected to be allies based upon their gender?   

Obviously this is not something we are likely to agree upon.  Have a nice night, Day.