|
|
I'd never heard of her directly before but having now read the article she wrote linked above, I struggle to see how calling her a name is any worse than how she described people raising claims/concerns of inappropriate sexual behaviour at work. According to that article she appears to be blaming the victims and excusing those accused due to them being over 40 and socially awkward.
"Words like ‘handsy’ and ‘inappropriate’ seem to make up the bulk of the accusations — terms that can mean almost anything but, in reality, prove nothing.
If someone is upset and an MP puts a reassuring arm around her shoulder, is that inappropriate? If they make a clumsy joke, is that an ‘unwanted advance’? Knowing MPs as I do, many of them are so socially inept, they make asking for a cup of coffee sound deeply suspicious. But just because someone is a bit odd, does that make them a pervert? No.
Or perhaps that depends on your point of view. Because there is a strong cultural and generational element to this, too. Most of the accused are over 40; most of the accusers are in their 20s.
In other words, it’s the revenge of the millennials, many of whom will have had their senses of humour surgically removed at university. Theirs is a generation that seems permanently aggrieved, in a perpetual state of disgust at anyone over the age of 30.
They can’t take a joke, let alone dictation — so is it any wonder they can’t handle the pace at Westminster or the rough and tumble of parliamentary banter. "
Edit: The bulk of the article is focusing on the idea that women should be tougher and stand up for themselves at the time rather than raising issues afterwards. A valid idea in many ways and suggests that calling her a witch probably shouldn't be an issue for her as it's just a word. |
|
26-11-2019 01:23:36
Author