Priti Patel has admirable traits, but it’s not enough to be a woman in power to get my vote

The idea of celebrating high-powered women irrespective of their politics is absurd and the antithesis to thinking

Priti Patel has been heralded by some on social media as the poster girl for feminism (AFP/Getty)

The other day I received a text from an aunt with a photo of Priti Patel. The message was: “Indian. Female. Power. Worth celebrating.” Instead of feeling jubilant – I felt a little disconcerted. The text forced me to examine my feelings about women in power and whether it’s enough to be a powerful woman to get my vote.

It is a facile assumption that just because Patel, like me, is both Asian and female, that I should naturally champion her. And yet it’s something that is assumed by many. I have seen Facebook posts that say, “support Patel, she’s one of us.” And yet I have no affinity with the politics of Patel. I have a greater affinity with the white, male and much older than me, Bernie Sanders politics than Patel’s. To champion Patel simply because she’s Asian and female, would be puerile and is the antithesis to thinking, in my opinion.

It’s not enough to be a woman in power to get my vote, I want to know what you’re about. And Patel’s boorish ideas that lack empathy are not something that I would ever champion. I feel a total separation to what she represents.

In 2015, Madonna launched her album Rebel Heart. On Instagram, she posted pictures of famous people – admirable rebel hearts, the likes of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. And then Margaret Thatcher, with the quote: “If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” And knowing Madonna’s liberalism, if she actually knew Thatcher’s politics, she wouldn’t have her down as someone worthy of celebration.

So, at the time of putting Thatcher’s photo up, for Madonna, it was enough for Thatcher to be a strong woman in power to get her vote – regardless of her policies (Madonna ironically deleted the post after a backlash from fans). This idea of celebrating high-powered women irrespective of their politics is common – from my aunt to Madonna. And I find this absurd.

There is an argument to say that there are traits that are admirable in Thatcher and Patel, that both my aunt and Madonna were merely stating – a steely uncompromising manner. In a world where women compromise too much, I can see how this is applaudable. However, a trait is not necessarily a virtue on its own.

I, for example, admire freethinkers; people who think without restraint. I consider Nelson Mandela to be a freethinker and one can argue that Adolf Hitler, even with his abhorrent views, was an iconoclastic individual too. Both dared to envisage radically different societies. One is revered for his fight for justice – the other rightly condemned for his crimes against humanity. But they’re both freethinkers. So traits should be vehicles to actions worthy of praise – they are not necessarily good in themselves, rather they should be used to do good. It’s the difference between being a billionaire philanthropist and just being a billionaire. We admire one, not necessarily the other, and yet they share the same status of “billionaire”.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen posts on Facebook from acquaintances praising Patel – heralded as a poster girl for feminism. I, however, am happy not to be labelled a feminist if it means supporting women regardless of their politics. I cannot align myself with such simplicity. I believe in equality, but I cannot support a woman just because she’s a woman. Similarly, I do not find it acceptable to give a position of power to a man simply because he’s a man. They are both counterparts to the same problem.

French philosopher and existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, in his essay, Existentialism is a Humanism (1946), said man is “nothing else but the sum of his actions”. And if we believe such things, which I do, it is our deeds that are emblematic of who we are.