I am a male, and I have very much to thank my wife for reminding me of the fact that women need their own voices and to be taken seriously on their own terms. She also reminded me around this event that, indeed, men have a kind of āhome-field advantageā where there are actions which are considered to be normal and acceptable, which if women did them would not be considered acceptable, and vice-versa.
On that topic, I wonder ā what happened to the sexist boys club? Sultana has raised it, and I have little difficulty believing it exists, seeing as Sultana, who is a strongly principled woman, I am certain wouldnāt think lightly of launching a rival membership platform and potentially setting fire to the party on the basis of innuendo. It seems to me that this home-field advantage is in full effect with Corbynās squad, who have sailed through this period with not a single question is pointed to them asking them why she felt this way, and if they rebuke her allegations.
Sultana has shown tremendous character, in my opinion, to try and keep the party going. I donāt think her apologising was necessary, but I think she did it as a way of moving on. And to me having self-reflection shows the mark of a good person and someone who cares deeply about what they believe in. However, when everyone else was cheering, and posting their Facebook comments stating that it was about time she apologised, I couldnāt help but feel sad about this whole situation.
Sultana did this as a reflex against a political apparatus that she believed to be sexist and was excluding her. To me, an apology from her should also trigger an apology and an explanation for those who have been accused of being a sexist boys club, but that hasnāt happened. Corbyn posted a video message when the membership ālaunched officiallyā (again) - saying there were a few hiccups but didnāt mention anything about her claims, which to me seems to be glossing over the situation.
I can get from Sultanaās perspective, she wants to move on and focus on having a socialist party and get out of the frying pan. I appreciate that, and I support her on that, of course. But the central problem here is that, a woman is seen to have to apologise and the situation is considered āresolvedā, but the people who are having the finger pointed at them enjoy that home-field advantage where they are unassailable and donāt have to explain their actions because why would they?
Thereās an elephant in the room still, and Iām just asking the question ā is this going to be addressed, ever? Or will this become a victim of āprogressā?