How Many Johns in the Senate?
TNR’s Grace Segers calculates, “When Fetterman takes office in January, 10% of all U.S. senators will be named John/Jon.” This, incidentally, does not count Jack Reed, whose given name is John, because he doesn’t go by that name.
For the uninitiated, this is an informal index of the male domination of various high-prestige occupations.
In the corridors of American power, it can be as easy to find a man named John as it is to find a woman.
Fewer Republican senators are women than men named John — despite the fact that Johns represent 3.3 percent of the male population, while women represent 50.8 percent of the total population. Fewer Democratic governors are women than men named John. And fewer women directed the top-grossing 100 films last year than men named Michael and James combined.
The last Congress had a record 27 percent women; it’s too soon to know whether it will be surpassed this cycle. That’s obviously roughly half the number of women in the overall population, while Johns are greatly over-represented.
I fail to see the problem.
Yeah, but you have no “h”in your name.
DC’s ladies (and men) of negotiable virtue are always pleased to welcome an additional John…
After paying Stormy $130,000, for what she called a lackluster dalliance, you could say the former guy was a John, too.
@daryl and his brother darryl: It is his middle name.
@daryl and his brother darryl: And Matt Gaetz. There are likely a lot of John’s in congress not named John. Especially on the GOP side.
“When Fetterman takes office in January, 10% of all U.S. senators will be named John/Jon”
But only one will look like the bouncer at a biker bar.
There are few places or situations a nonchalant John cannot make improve.
It’s a gift. 🙂
Of course we may occasionally mangle grammar while doing so.
The edit function, like the gods of Greece, frowns upon hubris.
This hasn’t been age-corrected for the average age of Senators (64.3) since the baby name John has been on the decline for quite some time, currently under 1%. Around 1950 it was ~4.5%. So “Johns” are still overrepresented but not as by great a factor (2, vice 3).
@Jon: @JohnSF: My brother John would agree with you.
@OzarkHillbilly: As would my brother John. And both of my uncle John’s. 😛
As I think it says in the Bible: “Better a thousand Johns than a single Tulsi.”
@Jax:..And both of my uncle John’s.
Do either one of them have a band?