View attachment 1028
It doesn’t say in the article but I’d be surprised if many of the 56 are women. At a rough estimate that means one in eight of the 430 male MPs have a claim against them. Is that comparable with any other workplace? Is it because so many are living away from their families, or some other factor?
What’s going on here?
It rarely does 'say' explicitly that they're men though.
Does it?
Funny how, so often, that particular 'elephant' is coyly skirted around linguistically.
A bit of an intentional blind spot perhaps?
Whereas nearly all the
positive 'active' roles ..
Are default assumed to be men, exclude women unless a point is made....
You know firemen, doctors, scientists, archbishop's, farmers ( who must of course be in want of a wife) , sportsmen, businessmen etc etc.
They all trip off the tongue, and are 'owned' to the point that people get all cross and gammony if you suggest theres a need to change, to encourage equality.
Criminality however, in particular sex crimes, a role in which the male of the species has historically surpassed himself in pro-activity ??
Oh no that's
resolutely gender neutral..
Even if the gender of perpetrators is massively skewed, in one direction..
Powerful stuff, language , isn't it??
But what's going on here, in terms of MPs being unable to 'behave' - another sweet euphemism.
I think the idea of it being because they're away from home is a pretty lame one,..
Although. If that were the cause then we're back to (men) needing chaperones, and curfews.
Its probs just the same old, same old 'entitled' maledom.
Got a bit too big for their boots, egos inflated by being given 'power' and the they don't choose to exercise it honourably.
Think they're 'gods gift' and that their 'underlings' should in some way be flattered by this inappropriate attention ...
It's a common enough theme across many walks of life
#metoo barely scratched the surface, but it was a start, I s'pose .. .