There is another report out showing that in spite of various measures being taken boys still lag behind girls in terms of GCSE results. And of course the government is "deeply frustrated". What I want to know is why all these over-achieving girls are still on the receiving end of a massive pay gap and hold virtually none of the top jobs in this country (see dozens of other Cru-blog articles for details). When girls are behind boys in some measure the reaction is "Ah, exactly, that's why women should be barred from the top jobs, see?" in the reverse case scenario it's "We are failing our men and improvements must be made".
The truth is (if you ask me) that girls are better at following instructions and getting on with working hard on things even when those things are easy, boring and repetitive. And that is probably mainly a nurture thing - being told to sit still, be quiet, smile and not make a fuss. It could have some genetic basis too - women often have better endurance than men and men often have better burst strength than women - and that might apply to mental work too. School is boring. Parents don't teach kids stuff at home like they used to and schools and curriculum designers are so paranoid about getting (a) everything covered in case they've missed something and (b) the best results possible, so that schools who shop around for easy exams will choose them that school is not challenging for a majority of kids. Now there are two reactions to that - buckle down and get on with it, do the 47-page project on how-to-light-a-bunsen-burner (I genuinely was marked on this when I did GCSE combined sciences many years ago), or refuse, get bored, muck about, etc. And coursework is always about who did the most work rather than who got to the right answer quickest, which rewards those used to doing as they're told. I had a teacher at school who used to weigh coursework projects on a set of scales and predict the grades they would get - he was never wrong! That structure favours hard-working girls. It just does, and perhaps to some extent rightly so since in most workplaces those are the skills that are of greatest importance.
Girls should be commended on having done so well in GCSEs and having worked so hard. All children should be given the option if taking extension work. I'd like to see all educational areas offering ealry GCSEs in a small number of subjects for those who wish to take them - studying at a government-sponsored after-school or weekend club and then being allowed to sit out the corresponding lessons in school in the library or other quiet room.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Lifting the Veil
Seems like the last week or two I've been fielding questions on the whole to-wear-or-not-to-wear the veil question. I guess what with it being an issue of feminism and religion it definitely falls in my court so here goes:
The idea, touted by Jack Straw, Tony Blair et al that the veil is alienating for non-muslims totally misses the point. The veil is not worn to create a barrier or as a symbol to show a woman's religion. The veil is worn because Islam teaches women that their bodies should not be seen because they are a temptation to men. Now pause> rewind> play>. Men are tempted by their bodies and that's their fault and they should cover up so men won't feel bad. You know if men are tempted by the sight of me in hot pants that is THEIR problem and THEY need to deal with it. The whole idea that women should blame themselves for the effect they have on men is ridiculous and offensive. It comes under the heading of well-if-you-wear-mini-skirts-you-deserve-to-be-raped school of thought and we don't believe in that rubbish.
The veil is also not required by anything in the Quran, which simply says men and women should dress modestly and women should use a their scarf to cover their bosom (not their eyes!). The idea that the hair and even the face must be covered comes from Islamic leaders - male ones - who use it as a means to oppress women. There is no end to the things that veiled women cannot participate in fully - sports, physical work, dance, theatre, and of course now meetings with Jack Straw...
I don't think we should prohibit adult women from wearing the veil if they wish to. Remember these women have been taught that they are revealing sexual parts of their bodies if they take the veil off, that's like saying women should go to work topless, which they shouldn't unless they really need the money to put themselves through college... We should however look with pity on those women who do wear it and who often do so insisting it is their own choice. These are victims of extensive long-term cultural brain-washing and intimidation from their own families and communities. These women need more contact with the outside world, not less.
As if to prove my point for me there is a very revealing interview on the BBC with Aishah Azmi, the teaching assistant who lost her job as a result of her insistance on wearing a full face veil. During the interview she is asked whether or not she wore her veil when she was being interviewed for the job by a male member of staff. Her reply is - and this is amazing to me - "Do I have to answer all the questions?". Now I put it to you that this is NOT a woman who lives her life freely based on her own choices. This is a woman who has been pushed around, who is used to being told what to do.
This case also highlights the fact that expecting school girls to wear the veil is sick in the extreme. Firstly because it teaches them that their pre-pubescent bodies are somehow sexual and secondly because they're too young to have made up their minds yet whether or not they are religious. We should never refer to Muslim children, or Christian children. They are the children of Muslim or Christian parents. We wouldn't talk about a 6-year-old capitalist or an 8-year-old existentialist. Children should be allowed to make their own decision about religion when they are 16 or 18 or older if they choose based on fair teaching, dealing in facts. This is covered in length in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as recommended in just about every other post I write at the moment!
The idea, touted by Jack Straw, Tony Blair et al that the veil is alienating for non-muslims totally misses the point. The veil is not worn to create a barrier or as a symbol to show a woman's religion. The veil is worn because Islam teaches women that their bodies should not be seen because they are a temptation to men. Now pause> rewind> play>. Men are tempted by their bodies and that's their fault and they should cover up so men won't feel bad. You know if men are tempted by the sight of me in hot pants that is THEIR problem and THEY need to deal with it. The whole idea that women should blame themselves for the effect they have on men is ridiculous and offensive. It comes under the heading of well-if-you-wear-mini-skirts-you-deserve-to-be-raped school of thought and we don't believe in that rubbish.
The veil is also not required by anything in the Quran, which simply says men and women should dress modestly and women should use a their scarf to cover their bosom (not their eyes!). The idea that the hair and even the face must be covered comes from Islamic leaders - male ones - who use it as a means to oppress women. There is no end to the things that veiled women cannot participate in fully - sports, physical work, dance, theatre, and of course now meetings with Jack Straw...
I don't think we should prohibit adult women from wearing the veil if they wish to. Remember these women have been taught that they are revealing sexual parts of their bodies if they take the veil off, that's like saying women should go to work topless, which they shouldn't unless they really need the money to put themselves through college... We should however look with pity on those women who do wear it and who often do so insisting it is their own choice. These are victims of extensive long-term cultural brain-washing and intimidation from their own families and communities. These women need more contact with the outside world, not less.
As if to prove my point for me there is a very revealing interview on the BBC with Aishah Azmi, the teaching assistant who lost her job as a result of her insistance on wearing a full face veil. During the interview she is asked whether or not she wore her veil when she was being interviewed for the job by a male member of staff. Her reply is - and this is amazing to me - "Do I have to answer all the questions?". Now I put it to you that this is NOT a woman who lives her life freely based on her own choices. This is a woman who has been pushed around, who is used to being told what to do.
This case also highlights the fact that expecting school girls to wear the veil is sick in the extreme. Firstly because it teaches them that their pre-pubescent bodies are somehow sexual and secondly because they're too young to have made up their minds yet whether or not they are religious. We should never refer to Muslim children, or Christian children. They are the children of Muslim or Christian parents. We wouldn't talk about a 6-year-old capitalist or an 8-year-old existentialist. Children should be allowed to make their own decision about religion when they are 16 or 18 or older if they choose based on fair teaching, dealing in facts. This is covered in length in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as recommended in just about every other post I write at the moment!
Monday, October 16, 2006
Anyone spotted the hypocrisy?
Ruth Kelly, member of extreme secretive Catholic cult group Opus Dei, has been saying that "The battle against extremism in the UK should be fought by all communities - not just Muslims"!!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Creationist Ahoy!
A very interesting female (and indeed self-proclaimed feminist!) Muslim blogger, Zola Malay has been commenting on my post on richard Dawkins over the last few days. Something I've found very interesting since she's actually a creationist. And prepared to talk about her views - in my experience most creationists are shut off to discussion. Anyway so I thought some of you might like to read the latest from her and from me and join the discussion.
From Zola:
"Cruella my response to "who created god?" is fortunatley already given in Islamic texts.
According to the Quran, Allah tells us that He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and that nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us that He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. He calls Himself by a number of names and three of them are:
A) The First - (Al-Awal)
B) The Last - (Al Akhir)
C) The Eternal, who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all. (As-Samad)
He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way.("He" is used only out of respect and dignity - not for gender, Allah has no gender).
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?', i.e. God cannot be a creation if He himself is the creator?I will try and post more on this on a seperate piece on my own blog. "
Well fair enough, let me respond to that...
Starting, if I may, at the end with the notion that the creator cannot him/herself be created. That for me doesn't hold water. Only this afternoon I created a very nice tray of cinnamon shortbread. And by your reasoning I was created by Allah, which makes me both creator and created. And before you suggest that it was in fact Allah who created the cinnamon shortbread let me remind you that (a) I don't believe in Allah so it sems odd that he would help me out in the kitchen and (b) I've also created some very interesting variations on the bacon sandwich. I'm sure Allah wouldn't have wanted to help me with those. So if you believe I was created then a creator can be created. So for me the issue of who created Allah remains.
Evolution offers an explanation for how life on earth came to be. Your argument is that A created B and A "just does" exist. That's not an explanation, it's a refusal to address the issue. You might as well cut out the middle man and say life on earth "just does" exist.
Now secondly the proof you offer of your theory comes from a book. Surely if that's proof enough then I might say "Evolution is a fact because it says so on Cruella-blog". There are books about teenage wizards, talking rabbits, two-dimensional planets and inter-gallactic time-travel, it doesn't mean that such things exist.
And finally, strangely, the book you choose to accept as fact is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies not to mention things that are simply horrific. A pertinent example of a contradiction is in Quran 02: 256 "There is no Compulsion in religion. ", then in Quran 9: 29 "Fight those who do not profess the true faith". And for general horrificness Quran 4: 34 "As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them."
And now some more questions - open to anyone who wants to answer them:
1) What is your view on the dinosaurs? Did Allah bury stacks of giant reptile bones as a big trick to confuse scientists?
2) There are millions of people around the world who believe just as strongly as you do that the earth was created by a God other than Allah. How can they all be wrong and you right? Do you think you would believe in Allah if you had been raised by, say, Japanese Shinto-ist parents?
From Zola:
"Cruella my response to "who created god?" is fortunatley already given in Islamic texts.
According to the Quran, Allah tells us that He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and that nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us that He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. He calls Himself by a number of names and three of them are:
A) The First - (Al-Awal)
B) The Last - (Al Akhir)
C) The Eternal, who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all. (As-Samad)
He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way.("He" is used only out of respect and dignity - not for gender, Allah has no gender).
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?', i.e. God cannot be a creation if He himself is the creator?I will try and post more on this on a seperate piece on my own blog. "
Well fair enough, let me respond to that...
Starting, if I may, at the end with the notion that the creator cannot him/herself be created. That for me doesn't hold water. Only this afternoon I created a very nice tray of cinnamon shortbread. And by your reasoning I was created by Allah, which makes me both creator and created. And before you suggest that it was in fact Allah who created the cinnamon shortbread let me remind you that (a) I don't believe in Allah so it sems odd that he would help me out in the kitchen and (b) I've also created some very interesting variations on the bacon sandwich. I'm sure Allah wouldn't have wanted to help me with those. So if you believe I was created then a creator can be created. So for me the issue of who created Allah remains.
Evolution offers an explanation for how life on earth came to be. Your argument is that A created B and A "just does" exist. That's not an explanation, it's a refusal to address the issue. You might as well cut out the middle man and say life on earth "just does" exist.
Now secondly the proof you offer of your theory comes from a book. Surely if that's proof enough then I might say "Evolution is a fact because it says so on Cruella-blog". There are books about teenage wizards, talking rabbits, two-dimensional planets and inter-gallactic time-travel, it doesn't mean that such things exist.
And finally, strangely, the book you choose to accept as fact is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies not to mention things that are simply horrific. A pertinent example of a contradiction is in Quran 02: 256 "There is no Compulsion in religion. ", then in Quran 9: 29 "Fight those who do not profess the true faith". And for general horrificness Quran 4: 34 "As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them."
And now some more questions - open to anyone who wants to answer them:
1) What is your view on the dinosaurs? Did Allah bury stacks of giant reptile bones as a big trick to confuse scientists?
2) There are millions of people around the world who believe just as strongly as you do that the earth was created by a God other than Allah. How can they all be wrong and you right? Do you think you would believe in Allah if you had been raised by, say, Japanese Shinto-ist parents?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Two of my Favourite Subjects
Pharyngula has a great article on "Why religion is like pornography". I'm not sure which side comes out worst!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Going on the Game
This BBC article makes for disturbing reading. It's focus is on the plight of women who have been trafficked into the UK to work in the sex industry. And the situation is genuinely shocking whichever way you look at it.
The "incidental" information in the article is pretty shocking too: one in ten guys in the UK visits prostitutes. How does that affect the way they subsequently deal with and react to women in their workplaces and homes (the typical prostitute-visitor is married)? The report suggests that visiting prostitutes is increasingly becoming "normal" behaviour. "Divorce rates, sex tourism, stag weekends, lads' mags and the ubiquity of internet pornography have all been blamed." Of course any rational person will realise it's the guys who visit brothels who are to blame... Apparently there are even websites on which people can write reviews of prostitutes they have visited!
Now the point of the article is that there is a campaign underway to encourage guys who visit prostitutes to report to the police if they suspect that the women may have been trafficked. Hmmm. So what are the signs to look out for? "Not only is there likely to be some distress on the victim's part, but there are other clues - like being offered an Italian woman, but finding an Albanian who speaks no English. Other clues might be that the price quoted is lower than normal, or unprotected sex is offered". Right so we're asking guys who want to pay the minimum price to have unprotected sex with clearly distressed women who don't speak English? Are these guys really the best people to turn to for help? Shouldn't the police be identifying and searching brothels, putting these men into jail for rape (if she doesn't speak English I don't see how she can consent - and if she's clearly in distress I'd take that as a no) and getting the women into safe, secure homes where they can get medical treatment and counselling?
Worse still we're told that some of the punters are aware that women they're having sex with are illegally trafficked and working under duress and "Some enjoy the women's plight, police say". Police say? If the police hear of someone who enjoys having sex with a woman under duress then they should surely arrest them for rape immediately...? What planet are we on? And again I'm not sure I want to work and live around these people.
Finally the campaign betrays itself with a piece of classic misogyny: "Awareness campaigns have emphasised their status as unwilling participants and men have been reminded of how they would feel if it were happening to their own sister, girlfriend or daughter." Yes suddenly we're expected to believe bthat men will not want to rape women who might have an older male family member who might be upset. Don't rape her - she might belong to someone else... And it's not about how she might feel being raped up to 30 times a day, it's about how other men who know her might feel. Screw that. Women have rights, even women without older male family members or long-term partners. I don't have any problem perceiving male suffering as part of human suffering which affects me. I do have a problem understanding how this sort of project gets underway without someone noticing that's it's implicitly condoning the misogyny which is at the root of the problem itself.
The "incidental" information in the article is pretty shocking too: one in ten guys in the UK visits prostitutes. How does that affect the way they subsequently deal with and react to women in their workplaces and homes (the typical prostitute-visitor is married)? The report suggests that visiting prostitutes is increasingly becoming "normal" behaviour. "Divorce rates, sex tourism, stag weekends, lads' mags and the ubiquity of internet pornography have all been blamed." Of course any rational person will realise it's the guys who visit brothels who are to blame... Apparently there are even websites on which people can write reviews of prostitutes they have visited!
Now the point of the article is that there is a campaign underway to encourage guys who visit prostitutes to report to the police if they suspect that the women may have been trafficked. Hmmm. So what are the signs to look out for? "Not only is there likely to be some distress on the victim's part, but there are other clues - like being offered an Italian woman, but finding an Albanian who speaks no English. Other clues might be that the price quoted is lower than normal, or unprotected sex is offered". Right so we're asking guys who want to pay the minimum price to have unprotected sex with clearly distressed women who don't speak English? Are these guys really the best people to turn to for help? Shouldn't the police be identifying and searching brothels, putting these men into jail for rape (if she doesn't speak English I don't see how she can consent - and if she's clearly in distress I'd take that as a no) and getting the women into safe, secure homes where they can get medical treatment and counselling?
Worse still we're told that some of the punters are aware that women they're having sex with are illegally trafficked and working under duress and "Some enjoy the women's plight, police say". Police say? If the police hear of someone who enjoys having sex with a woman under duress then they should surely arrest them for rape immediately...? What planet are we on? And again I'm not sure I want to work and live around these people.
Finally the campaign betrays itself with a piece of classic misogyny: "Awareness campaigns have emphasised their status as unwilling participants and men have been reminded of how they would feel if it were happening to their own sister, girlfriend or daughter." Yes suddenly we're expected to believe bthat men will not want to rape women who might have an older male family member who might be upset. Don't rape her - she might belong to someone else... And it's not about how she might feel being raped up to 30 times a day, it's about how other men who know her might feel. Screw that. Women have rights, even women without older male family members or long-term partners. I don't have any problem perceiving male suffering as part of human suffering which affects me. I do have a problem understanding how this sort of project gets underway without someone noticing that's it's implicitly condoning the misogyny which is at the root of the problem itself.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Putting in the Hours
There's a report out today that more or less all the gains of the last few years in terms of women in top company boardrooms has been wiped out.
Now one thing about the Guardian report linked above really drives me mad: "some employers were improving attitudes to flexible working, they tended not to apply the same principles to very senior jobs."
What that's telling us is that the reason women aren't making it to the top of these professions is because they need to work flexible hours. Now firstly - not all women have major family commitments that prevent them working fuller hours. When I worked in the city I often worked 15 or even 18-hour days. Male colleagues doing half that were consistently promoted ahead of me. Women I worked with accepted that they would have to put in more hours than colleagues to try to overcome ingrained sexist corporate cultures.
Furthermore if it were true that women are held back by having to shoulder a greater percentage of the burden of family care than their partners then we would notice that the few women who made it to the top jobs were women without children. That's simply not true. Dame Marjorie Scardino, one of two remaining female FTSE 100 heads has three children, Dorothy Thompson, the other, has two, Linda Cook, the only other woman mentioned in the article for her role at Shell has three, Margaret Thatcher has two, Segolene Royal, now running for the French Presidency, has four and even Hilary Clinton, potential US presidential candidate, has one. The truth is girls that sacrificing your plans for a family to concentrate on your career is a waste of time. It's not the burden of raising children that will hold you back. It's workplace misogyny. Stacks of it. Across sectors, across industries and across nations. And we should stop pretending it isn't there. It is.
Now one thing about the Guardian report linked above really drives me mad: "some employers were improving attitudes to flexible working, they tended not to apply the same principles to very senior jobs."
What that's telling us is that the reason women aren't making it to the top of these professions is because they need to work flexible hours. Now firstly - not all women have major family commitments that prevent them working fuller hours. When I worked in the city I often worked 15 or even 18-hour days. Male colleagues doing half that were consistently promoted ahead of me. Women I worked with accepted that they would have to put in more hours than colleagues to try to overcome ingrained sexist corporate cultures.
Furthermore if it were true that women are held back by having to shoulder a greater percentage of the burden of family care than their partners then we would notice that the few women who made it to the top jobs were women without children. That's simply not true. Dame Marjorie Scardino, one of two remaining female FTSE 100 heads has three children, Dorothy Thompson, the other, has two, Linda Cook, the only other woman mentioned in the article for her role at Shell has three, Margaret Thatcher has two, Segolene Royal, now running for the French Presidency, has four and even Hilary Clinton, potential US presidential candidate, has one. The truth is girls that sacrificing your plans for a family to concentrate on your career is a waste of time. It's not the burden of raising children that will hold you back. It's workplace misogyny. Stacks of it. Across sectors, across industries and across nations. And we should stop pretending it isn't there. It is.
Reproduction
Very interesting - 61 people complained to the BBC after Jonathon Ross suggested council estate residents should be chemically restricted from having children. To me this brings up three issues:
1) No-one makes a fuss about the idea that there should be restrictions on who can adopt a child, and very stringent ones too. They check everything from your criminal record, to your income, your sexual orientation, marital status and even how clean your house is and stuff. If he had said people living on council estates shouldn't be allowed to adopt children I'm sure no complaints would have been raised. Now I think that volunteering to adopt a child in and of itself makes you a more suitable candidate to raise a child than being able to get a shag. I'm not opposed to running a check on people to see if they have obvious reasons for being unsuitable but I don't think nonsense like marital status and sexuality, for instance, should be taken into account. This would help reduce the number of children in the care system and make it possible to offer more foster care to parents who are struggling.
2) We're back to the "wrong kind of babies" argument. While (white) university educated women with good jobs and so on are consistently on the receiving end of criticism for not having enough babies, teenage mothers and anyone from a lower class (or minority ethnic*) background is moaned at for having too many babies. What we need is of course (a) a bit less racism and (b) an education and welfare system that allows children from under-privileged backgrounds to grow up into the "right kind of adults". And we have a long way to go on that right now.
3) 61 people is not an awful lot, but it got a news story onto the BBC website. As a group, the people who share my views on things like secularism and feminism reading this blog and and so on number quite a lot more than that. It's amazing how small a group is needed to agitate on an issue. We should use this as a means to get our voices heard.
1) No-one makes a fuss about the idea that there should be restrictions on who can adopt a child, and very stringent ones too. They check everything from your criminal record, to your income, your sexual orientation, marital status and even how clean your house is and stuff. If he had said people living on council estates shouldn't be allowed to adopt children I'm sure no complaints would have been raised. Now I think that volunteering to adopt a child in and of itself makes you a more suitable candidate to raise a child than being able to get a shag. I'm not opposed to running a check on people to see if they have obvious reasons for being unsuitable but I don't think nonsense like marital status and sexuality, for instance, should be taken into account. This would help reduce the number of children in the care system and make it possible to offer more foster care to parents who are struggling.
2) We're back to the "wrong kind of babies" argument. While (white) university educated women with good jobs and so on are consistently on the receiving end of criticism for not having enough babies, teenage mothers and anyone from a lower class (or minority ethnic*) background is moaned at for having too many babies. What we need is of course (a) a bit less racism and (b) an education and welfare system that allows children from under-privileged backgrounds to grow up into the "right kind of adults". And we have a long way to go on that right now.
3) 61 people is not an awful lot, but it got a news story onto the BBC website. As a group, the people who share my views on things like secularism and feminism reading this blog and and so on number quite a lot more than that. It's amazing how small a group is needed to agitate on an issue. We should use this as a means to get our voices heard.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Dawkinsian Feminism?
Currently top of Cru-blogs hot hunks list is still Richard Dawkins. I've just found this great article on embryonic stem cell research.
Of course these distributors of God's love to the world are not new to the idea of defending embryos however small, they've been doing it for years as part of their wildly successful ongoing campaign to make life as miserable as possible for women in general. Large parts of the US now hold essentially no abortion facilities and in many places it is close to impossible to obtain the morning after pill. In the UK we already have pharmacies refusing to dispense the pill and the MAP on the grounds that they prevent implantation of a fertilised egg rather than fertilisation.
What gets me is that you never see the "It's Against God's Will" placards turning up outside IVF centres. It's surely just as much against what God wanted to make babies when he had planned for you not to. But then women refused IVF might escape lives of domestic servitude and perhaps use the available time to assemble and protest the way the church has been treating them for the last 2000 years. And if medical intervention is against God's will then why have hospitals at all? Or even pharmacies? Surely God will not let you die unless it is his will for you to die. And why wear a watch? Surely God will not let you be late for brunch unless it is his will for you to be late. And why why do anything at all unless you really feel like it cos surely God will make you do what he wants if he wills it so...?
And here's another one. Since God didn't want us to have that extra-marital sex* anyway then how can he want you to keep the resulting sprog? Pretty mixed messages there. Also the demand for abortions might be a whole lot lower if women getting pregnant outside of wedlock weren't totally ostracised for being "loose women" by their church and local community in these areas.
* Widely preached in churches but the actual bible is very ambiguous on the subject. Not keen in the new testament and reference to adultery in the ten commandments but the rest of the old testament contains innumerable references to women working as hookers or concubines and no-one seemed to mind.
Of course these distributors of God's love to the world are not new to the idea of defending embryos however small, they've been doing it for years as part of their wildly successful ongoing campaign to make life as miserable as possible for women in general. Large parts of the US now hold essentially no abortion facilities and in many places it is close to impossible to obtain the morning after pill. In the UK we already have pharmacies refusing to dispense the pill and the MAP on the grounds that they prevent implantation of a fertilised egg rather than fertilisation.
What gets me is that you never see the "It's Against God's Will" placards turning up outside IVF centres. It's surely just as much against what God wanted to make babies when he had planned for you not to. But then women refused IVF might escape lives of domestic servitude and perhaps use the available time to assemble and protest the way the church has been treating them for the last 2000 years. And if medical intervention is against God's will then why have hospitals at all? Or even pharmacies? Surely God will not let you die unless it is his will for you to die. And why wear a watch? Surely God will not let you be late for brunch unless it is his will for you to be late. And why why do anything at all unless you really feel like it cos surely God will make you do what he wants if he wills it so...?
And here's another one. Since God didn't want us to have that extra-marital sex* anyway then how can he want you to keep the resulting sprog? Pretty mixed messages there. Also the demand for abortions might be a whole lot lower if women getting pregnant outside of wedlock weren't totally ostracised for being "loose women" by their church and local community in these areas.
* Widely preached in churches but the actual bible is very ambiguous on the subject. Not keen in the new testament and reference to adultery in the ten commandments but the rest of the old testament contains innumerable references to women working as hookers or concubines and no-one seemed to mind.
London Free Papers - As Rubbish As The Rest
Glad someone else noticed this. Personally I usually look up the latest news on the BBC on my 'phone on the way in. Eventually I was tempted however and picked up one of the freebees (actually I picked up about three - I had to to clear a seat so I could sit down on the bus). And the coverage they offer is RUBBISH, utter RUBBISH. Posh Spice, Jordan, Kate Moss, articles about "Why I like reading this free paper rather than the other one" and general piffle.
One of them today (the one without a website) had a front cover headline along the lines of "Modern Life Causes Breast Cancer". The point is sound of course: increases in obesity, drinking, poor diets, lack of exercise, etc have led to dramatic increases in breast cancer rates (women being bigger means there's more breast matter to be at risk for starters). However the article headline to me at least implies that the rise has been caused by women getting the vote, joining the workforce, etc and the article itself glosses over the factors above and focusses on the fact that we're all not having enough babies before we hit 30.
Now I don't know any specific numbers but here's a straightforward FACT that I am sure about - the risks of having a baby outweigh the risks of not having one. True all over the world ladies - if you want to live longer, don't have kids. Another thing that isn't mentioned is the amount of women having breast "enhancement" surgery, I can't help thinking intrusive surgery to insert a sack full of silicon that might burst at any moment int your breasts probably doesn't reduce your cancer risk...
...that sort of article really is what I call a waste of trees!
One of them today (the one without a website) had a front cover headline along the lines of "Modern Life Causes Breast Cancer". The point is sound of course: increases in obesity, drinking, poor diets, lack of exercise, etc have led to dramatic increases in breast cancer rates (women being bigger means there's more breast matter to be at risk for starters). However the article headline to me at least implies that the rise has been caused by women getting the vote, joining the workforce, etc and the article itself glosses over the factors above and focusses on the fact that we're all not having enough babies before we hit 30.
Now I don't know any specific numbers but here's a straightforward FACT that I am sure about - the risks of having a baby outweigh the risks of not having one. True all over the world ladies - if you want to live longer, don't have kids. Another thing that isn't mentioned is the amount of women having breast "enhancement" surgery, I can't help thinking intrusive surgery to insert a sack full of silicon that might burst at any moment int your breasts probably doesn't reduce your cancer risk...
...that sort of article really is what I call a waste of trees!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Heavenly reading matter
I'm now finally in possession of a copy of Richard Dawkins new book "The God Delusion", a fantastic read. He states in the introduction that he's hoping readers will by the end be ready to publically declare themselves atheists. Well I'm only on chapter two but count me in please! And if any religious people are reading this - consider this: I've read the bible, the whole thing, from cover to cover, and I'm still an atheist. So if you're so sure of your beliefs, why not read this book? What are you afraid of. Mail me and I'll lend you my copy.
And religious protectionism is still apparently on the rise. Berlin's Opera House is cancelling a show because it features the heads of two guys from the 1st and 7th centuries.
I can only respond to this by quoting Professor Dawkins himself talking about the Danish cartoon furore: "if you want to get excited about affronts to Muslims, read the Amnesty International reports on Syria and Saudi Arabia".
He might, if he'd noticed how quickly the US and UK forces were abandoning Afghanistan after they got their oil deal signed, have added Afghanistan or at least Taliban-ruled southern Afghanistan to that list. Suggesting that women have a right to an education, a job or to be treated better than a goat is a capital offence there these days.
And religious protectionism is still apparently on the rise. Berlin's Opera House is cancelling a show because it features the heads of two guys from the 1st and 7th centuries.
I can only respond to this by quoting Professor Dawkins himself talking about the Danish cartoon furore: "if you want to get excited about affronts to Muslims, read the Amnesty International reports on Syria and Saudi Arabia".
He might, if he'd noticed how quickly the US and UK forces were abandoning Afghanistan after they got their oil deal signed, have added Afghanistan or at least Taliban-ruled southern Afghanistan to that list. Suggesting that women have a right to an education, a job or to be treated better than a goat is a capital offence there these days.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Inspired!
Johann Hari's response, in the Independent, to the on-going pope vs. muslims debate is well worth a read.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
So was it worth the $2trillion?
Harking back to something I posted on a while ago now. It's always nice to know that your money's been well spent.
Why can't we have REAL NEWS?
There's been a lot on the news about the allegedy failings of the UK care system. This BBC article for example, which offers the shocking news that "Of the 6,000 who leave care each year, 4,500 will have no qualifications and a fifth will be homeless", and a number of other similarly shocking statistics.
Now I'm not saying the UK care system is good, nor indeed as good as it should be but there are a few things they haven't mentioned here:
1) At what age were these kids taken into care? After 15 years with bad parents and 6 months in a foster home, I think the blame for a child not achieving his or her potential might in some cases lie with the local authority for not spotting that the child needed to be taken into care soon enough.
2) Why were these children taken into care? Now I grew up in what can only be described as an abusive household. However I had very good results at school in tests, etc and I was never in trouble with the law (not least because I knew what would happen to me if I did). So no-one ever questioned whether I was in a suitable home, etc. The "triggers" they look for are things like poor school results and criminal activity. And then they're surprised that the kids they find have low academic resuts and high rates of criminal activity.
I'm all in favour of improving the system but doesn't seem that current criticism can be taken to mean very much given the lack of statistically useful data.
Now I'm not saying the UK care system is good, nor indeed as good as it should be but there are a few things they haven't mentioned here:
1) At what age were these kids taken into care? After 15 years with bad parents and 6 months in a foster home, I think the blame for a child not achieving his or her potential might in some cases lie with the local authority for not spotting that the child needed to be taken into care soon enough.
2) Why were these children taken into care? Now I grew up in what can only be described as an abusive household. However I had very good results at school in tests, etc and I was never in trouble with the law (not least because I knew what would happen to me if I did). So no-one ever questioned whether I was in a suitable home, etc. The "triggers" they look for are things like poor school results and criminal activity. And then they're surprised that the kids they find have low academic resuts and high rates of criminal activity.
I'm all in favour of improving the system but doesn't seem that current criticism can be taken to mean very much given the lack of statistically useful data.
Welsh Cru
Cru and Mr Cru had a lovely weekend away celebrating Bitter's birthday (of the gothic storytelling/comedy duo Bitter and Twisted) and taking the opportunity to visit the Centre for Alternative Technology, second time there for me but new on Mr Cru and Twisted and fascinating for us all. Recommend a trip if you are in the area any time. Last time I stayed at the eco-retreat tipis, though I can't find the proper website for that although it is available as a weekend through lots of the "experience"-selling websites like here.
And I'm back in Wales (sort-of) tomorrowas a guest of Nicola Haywood-Thomas on BBC Radio Wales. I'll be there sometime between 1.30pm and 2pm explaining why Britain being top of the European league-tables for plastic surgery is nothing to be proud of. Please listen in and if you like dial in and back me up too!
And I'm back in Wales (sort-of) tomorrowas a guest of Nicola Haywood-Thomas on BBC Radio Wales. I'll be there sometime between 1.30pm and 2pm explaining why Britain being top of the European league-tables for plastic surgery is nothing to be proud of. Please listen in and if you like dial in and back me up too!
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Brutal? Yes, Truth...
Tony Blair's latest speech to the TUC just had me foaming at the mouth with fury. Firstly there was the string of excuses for his attrocious policy-making:
1) "government is a hard, difficult business."
2) "for those of you who think that you'll ever get a government where everything is fine - that doesn't happen."
3) "the brutal truth about all politicians and all political leaders is that you have your difficult times and have your better times"
4) "the decisions you take are often very, very hard to take"
If the job's too hard for you Tony - give it to someone who can do it. Like me...
Secondly, there were some protestors there with banners saying "Troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq" and he told them (quoting from the radio here, it's not in the article, nor in the official scripts because it was a response to what was going on) "we have to protect democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq against the threats from the Taleban and Al Qaeda". Now I fully accept that the Taleban would like to run Afghanistan but if Al Qaeda are in Iraq, then thats our fault. Saddam Hussein while not at all a nice guy was definitely keeping Islamic fundamentalists out of his country. The struggles in Iraq right now are a mixture of trouble we stirred up and attempts to get us out.
What I see and hear when Tony Blair speaks is a the paranoia of someone who knows they've done a terrible terrible thing and is clutching at straws to try to cover their own back. I strongly doubt Gordon Brown is any better but he couldn't be any worse.
1) "government is a hard, difficult business."
2) "for those of you who think that you'll ever get a government where everything is fine - that doesn't happen."
3) "the brutal truth about all politicians and all political leaders is that you have your difficult times and have your better times"
4) "the decisions you take are often very, very hard to take"
If the job's too hard for you Tony - give it to someone who can do it. Like me...
Secondly, there were some protestors there with banners saying "Troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq" and he told them (quoting from the radio here, it's not in the article, nor in the official scripts because it was a response to what was going on) "we have to protect democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq against the threats from the Taleban and Al Qaeda". Now I fully accept that the Taleban would like to run Afghanistan but if Al Qaeda are in Iraq, then thats our fault. Saddam Hussein while not at all a nice guy was definitely keeping Islamic fundamentalists out of his country. The struggles in Iraq right now are a mixture of trouble we stirred up and attempts to get us out.
What I see and hear when Tony Blair speaks is a the paranoia of someone who knows they've done a terrible terrible thing and is clutching at straws to try to cover their own back. I strongly doubt Gordon Brown is any better but he couldn't be any worse.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Ever feel like you've been Cheated?
The Red Lion, Great Windmill Street, Soho is closing. Tonight. Forever. They're turning it into offices. Now I've been compering comedy in the upstairs room there for about three years on and off and there's been comedy in that room for more than five years. More importantly it's the room in which Karl Marx was commissioned to write and wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto. That's a pretty major occurrence in modern history. Without it things might have been very different indeed.
Now National Heritage-type issues are really not my bag. I'm all in favour of them but I just don't consider them "my" causes. I do womens issues and secularism (although Marx had some very interseting points to make on both). Still I am utterly furious that it's being closed down without so much as a wimper. I only found out myself a few days ago. I called English Heritage and they told me it's not grade 2 starred listed - only grade two, so it's nothing to do with them, I have to speak to Westminster Council. The latter hasn't answered it's phone or returned my call since. We're having one last comedy night there tonight. Aaron Barshack (the comedy terrorist guy) is coming along and has contact a few other people of the activist type to see if there is any interest in making a fuss.
Karl Marx is audibly turning in his grave.
Now National Heritage-type issues are really not my bag. I'm all in favour of them but I just don't consider them "my" causes. I do womens issues and secularism (although Marx had some very interseting points to make on both). Still I am utterly furious that it's being closed down without so much as a wimper. I only found out myself a few days ago. I called English Heritage and they told me it's not grade 2 starred listed - only grade two, so it's nothing to do with them, I have to speak to Westminster Council. The latter hasn't answered it's phone or returned my call since. We're having one last comedy night there tonight. Aaron Barshack (the comedy terrorist guy) is coming along and has contact a few other people of the activist type to see if there is any interest in making a fuss.
Karl Marx is audibly turning in his grave.
Back to Life
Apologies for the blog silence over the last couple of weeks. The success of the show led to me being invited to take part in a number of "showcase" shows in front of some very large audiences. My favourites were "Spank!" - a very noisy late night gig where I weirdly bumped in to an old friends who turns out to be the cousin of one of the other acts on the bill - and "Lunchbox Live" which at about 1pm seemed very early to be doing skits about orgasms and, well, those of you who've seen my set will know the rest...
Anyway so that's my excuse for not being on blog. When we got back we mostly just slept and vegged out. Doing a few shows though too.
I see while I was napping something truly unexpected has happened - the Guardian gender page has published a real feminist article. Actually one which ties in with some things I've been saying for a while.
Also "while I was out..." there's another new bill in parliament which sets out to ban viewing violent pornography (it is already illegal to produce or distribute it). Lots of people are moaning about the bill saying it's the producers of such vile things who should be prosecuted. Which in theory would completely solve the problem but in practice would have no effect at all. Why?
1) We live in a world full of economic unbalance. If the demand for something exists in the west, the supply for it will emerge in the third world.
2) It's already illegal to produce it and yet it still exists.
3) I don't want to work and interract with people who spend their evenings indoors with their high-speed internet access and a box of tissues watching women being violently raped and murdered.
Anyway so that's my excuse for not being on blog. When we got back we mostly just slept and vegged out. Doing a few shows though too.
I see while I was napping something truly unexpected has happened - the Guardian gender page has published a real feminist article. Actually one which ties in with some things I've been saying for a while.
Also "while I was out..." there's another new bill in parliament which sets out to ban viewing violent pornography (it is already illegal to produce or distribute it). Lots of people are moaning about the bill saying it's the producers of such vile things who should be prosecuted. Which in theory would completely solve the problem but in practice would have no effect at all. Why?
1) We live in a world full of economic unbalance. If the demand for something exists in the west, the supply for it will emerge in the third world.
2) It's already illegal to produce it and yet it still exists.
3) I don't want to work and interract with people who spend their evenings indoors with their high-speed internet access and a box of tissues watching women being violently raped and murdered.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Festival Update
All well here with the show and the festival. We had another lovely review on a website called The Groggy Squirrel. Please have a read. We sold out last night for the fourth time and the second night in a row.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Surely it's Obvious...
...that forcing kids into religious services is going to turn them in to atheists faster than GCSE science classes ever will! Statistically in the UK kids with two religious parents are 50% atheists, with one religious parent 75% atheists and two atheist parents very nearly 100% atheists. Rationalism will prevail and the religious nutters are helping us more than anybody else. Cheers guys...
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Catch me for Free Tomorrow
If you're up in Edinburgh come over to the meadows to the comedy tent where I shall be performing from 12.50pm for ten minutes and then compering from 2pm til 5pm. Thank goodness I have the night off afterwards!
Just a Reminder
Fertility treatment is not something to be undertaken lightly. With all the unwanted kids in the world it strikes me as very wrong that society encourages people to feel that they should risk their health and indeed their lives trying have kids which are genetically "their own".
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Poor Old Dears
The government appears to have noticed something that us feminists have been banging on about for years: that very few women retire on a full state pension, compared to men. Well the reason is simple - it's because women often suspend their careers to raise families and therefore wind up not having enough years of N.I. contributions to qualify for full pension. Now it's not so much of a problem when there's an additional widow's pension available and the divorce rate is low. However these days that's no longer the case. The government's response? Tell women to save more! Or in other words make it completely clear to all and sundry that the government does not value home-making and child-raising as real work. My advice to women worried about their futures? Don't have kids, don't waste time and energy caring for elderly and ill relatives and don't even think about voluntary work - that way lies poverty.
Hard work this comedy lark!
Well I've promised for the show to take up any adrenaline challenge presented to me and today I was tested thoroughly on my willingness to go through with it by Stuart Andrews who kindly (?) volunteered to teach me free-running. Yes, that's the jumping from building to building stuff. Fortunately he didn't make me jump from anything higher than about four foot up (that was scary enough though) but I did end up about 20 foot up at some points wondering if this was really a sensible place to be perched. As for the stuff he was showing me - amazing! Clinging to tiny little ledges and climbing stuff with no apparent foot or hand holds whatsoever. And he was jumping over 'phone boxes too! Photos promised to follow! My back is so sore now, and my arms, and legs, neck, stomach, phew!
Show tonight was good, lots of heckling, which I loved. Felt a bit regretful that I had to go back to material afterwards, I would rather have chatted all night really! Perhaps I should plan a chunk of it I can drop if I'm having too much fun with the hecklers...? If you fancy coming for a heckle yourself please do - click here for tickets!
Show tonight was good, lots of heckling, which I loved. Felt a bit regretful that I had to go back to material afterwards, I would rather have chatted all night really! Perhaps I should plan a chunk of it I can drop if I'm having too much fun with the hecklers...? If you fancy coming for a heckle yourself please do - click here for tickets!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Belated Cru-blog in the Guardian
Only just found this today - the Cru-blog made the guardian a few weeks back! Thing I wrote about homophobic lyrics. Cool!
Smoke Signals
We could see this going on from central Edinburgh yesterday. Actually Mr Cru was walking up Arthur's Seat at the time (sadly without his barbeque set).
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Another four-star review
Show opened last night, we were very nearly full, only a handful of empty seats. I was really happy with the show AND we had a reviewer in from National Student magazine who has already sent us her review. Four stars! And here's what they said:
ADRENALINE
Kate Smuthwaite
Charming, witty and with just a hint of a wicked glint in her eye, Kate Smuthwaite’s exuberant and affable personality is a little reminiscent of an excitable, slightly irresponsible head girl luring impressionable fourth formers into some illicit fun. You’d have to be made of granite not to warm to her as she relives first hand experiences of extreme activities undertaken in pursuit of an adrenaline rush, making bungee jumping and sky diving sound positively blasé. The characters she introduces are a little hit and miss and the show would benefit from better visual presentation, but for an evening of thrills and chuckles you’d do worse than seeing Ms Smurthwaite: she’s great company.
I was dead happy with that. Tickets, as usual, available here for the rest of the run.
ADRENALINE
Kate Smuthwaite
Charming, witty and with just a hint of a wicked glint in her eye, Kate Smuthwaite’s exuberant and affable personality is a little reminiscent of an excitable, slightly irresponsible head girl luring impressionable fourth formers into some illicit fun. You’d have to be made of granite not to warm to her as she relives first hand experiences of extreme activities undertaken in pursuit of an adrenaline rush, making bungee jumping and sky diving sound positively blasé. The characters she introduces are a little hit and miss and the show would benefit from better visual presentation, but for an evening of thrills and chuckles you’d do worse than seeing Ms Smurthwaite: she’s great company.
I was dead happy with that. Tickets, as usual, available here for the rest of the run.
Friday, August 04, 2006
First show tonight
This is me at the technical run-through. Those lights are going to really hurt my eyes once we get going. Really looking forward to tonight though. It's preview prices (a fiver or four for concessions) so please come iof you can. Tickets from here.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Nice article about me
There was a piece about publicity stunts on the Edinburgh Fringe website, featuring a piccie of me on the wing of a biplane and talking about the stuff I've been doing for my show.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Arrived in Ed
Got here yesterday and settled into the flat. Very amused to see four huge posters of me about fifty yards from the flat. This could go to my head. Am flat-sharing with Mr Cru as usual and the wildly talented Anna Black. She is a short film maker who has a lovely website www.annablack.com and is also blogging about her festival exeriences here.
Friday, July 28, 2006
More Edinburgh Plugging!
That's what the back of my Edinburgh flyers will look like. Cool huh? You can still book tickets by clicking on the website here.
Guess I Found My Brand!
Yes the soft drink for me is Coke Zero. I just adore their advertising campaign that compares their over-priced unhealthy fizz to something beyond our wildest dreams. Thats right folks, apparently Coke Zero is the soft drink equivalent of "a stag night without getting married".
Now since we all know stag nights are for guys (as opposed to hen nights for girls) we would seem to be working on the assumption that men don't want to get married. Well then don't. Save us all please! Statistics suggest women are much happier after a divorce than men so clearly marriage isn't doing very much for women.
Now since we all know stag nights are for guys (as opposed to hen nights for girls) we would seem to be working on the assumption that men don't want to get married. Well then don't. Save us all please! Statistics suggest women are much happier after a divorce than men so clearly marriage isn't doing very much for women.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Who says romance is dead?
Apparently not Joseph Dobbie as featured in today's Guardian and two thirds of e-mail inboxes around the world. He met a woman at a party and rather than just asking her out for a coffee he decided a firsst contact e-mail was a good point at which to mention that she made "time stand still" for him and that her smile was "the freshest of my special memories". The woman in question returned the favour by forwarding his e-mail to the four corners of the earth.
Well just for a change I was on BBC Leeds talking about it. It's kindof fun because it's all very Shakespearian the idea of someone under false presumptions declaring their undying love and then being made to look like an idiot. It's also a little odd though that someone should be so keen after a first meeting. Especially given he admits he was drunk at the time.
It's also funny how often the subject of "what women want" comes up. As if women are a totally homogenous group. If woman A wants flowers woman B must also want the same thing. And sometimes you even hear it about men too - that they all want the same thing - usually sex, big tits or a blow job, etc. This whole men-from-Mars, women-from-Venus thing is wildly unhealthy. As soon as we make assumptions about people based on gender (aside from "he's probably not pregnant") we're in deep water.
Well just for a change I was on BBC Leeds talking about it. It's kindof fun because it's all very Shakespearian the idea of someone under false presumptions declaring their undying love and then being made to look like an idiot. It's also a little odd though that someone should be so keen after a first meeting. Especially given he admits he was drunk at the time.
It's also funny how often the subject of "what women want" comes up. As if women are a totally homogenous group. If woman A wants flowers woman B must also want the same thing. And sometimes you even hear it about men too - that they all want the same thing - usually sex, big tits or a blow job, etc. This whole men-from-Mars, women-from-Venus thing is wildly unhealthy. As soon as we make assumptions about people based on gender (aside from "he's probably not pregnant") we're in deep water.
Friday, July 21, 2006
New blog
I have discovered a wonderful new blog by a young (so young she makes me feel old!) British feminist. It's called Diary of Barbie's Worst Enemy and you should go read it now! It rocks...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Wagging the dog?
Zoe Williams really goes to town in the Guardian on media coverage of the so-called WAGs - the world cup footballers wives and girlfriends. And now we're hearing about the G8 WAGs and the Ryder Cup WAGs (who even wear matching outfits like girl guides or drum majorettes) and really the biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that it pre-supposes all the participants in the "main" event will be heterosexual men (it also assumes they're monogamous and in relationships). Well thats not true and not helpful.
Throughout the world cup every match started with some gesture towards the "Lets Kick Racism out of Football" campaign and I think that's great and I hope it works. Next up lets have a campaign to kick sexism out of football. I'd like to see the following measures campaigned for:
1) Equal funding for boys and girls youth development.
2) If women's tournaments do not have equal prize money to mens, then women must be allowed to play in the mens game - globally.
3) Half of all referees and assistant referees to be women, also physios, first aider, commentators, photographers and reporters.
4) Women being encouraged to train for and apply for roles as coaches and managers.
5) Greater media coverage of the women's game.
6) Players who beat their partners or are convicted of sexual assault or rape to be permanently barred from the game (like George Best, Gazza, Lee Sharpe for instance)
7) Stadium bans for fans who shout/sing sexist chants.
Throughout the world cup every match started with some gesture towards the "Lets Kick Racism out of Football" campaign and I think that's great and I hope it works. Next up lets have a campaign to kick sexism out of football. I'd like to see the following measures campaigned for:
1) Equal funding for boys and girls youth development.
2) If women's tournaments do not have equal prize money to mens, then women must be allowed to play in the mens game - globally.
3) Half of all referees and assistant referees to be women, also physios, first aider, commentators, photographers and reporters.
4) Women being encouraged to train for and apply for roles as coaches and managers.
5) Greater media coverage of the women's game.
6) Players who beat their partners or are convicted of sexual assault or rape to be permanently barred from the game (like George Best, Gazza, Lee Sharpe for instance)
7) Stadium bans for fans who shout/sing sexist chants.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Religion and Feminism
Very interesting interview with Fadela Amara over on the Guardian website today. I've made the point before that religious freedom is all well and good but shouldn't be prioritised over human rights. She says "the first victims of fundamentalism are women. I don't care if it's Islamic fundamentalism or American evangelism. A fascist is a fascist". And she has a new book out.
This Made Me Go Ewwww!
I am not normally sqeamish about food - although I certainly don't go for McDonalds or other reconstituted corn starch-based fast food ick. I've eaten dog (in Vietnam), whale (in Japan - I know, i know but it had already been bought and paid for when I arrived so seemed like I might as well satify my curiosity), lamb's testicles (in a Lebanese restaurant in Oxford, I was convinced I was going to grow a beard afterwards!), etc. This guy has really made an effort though. There is a great article in New Scientist this week about the rise of noxious farming practices and how the political environment makes it increasingly difficult for us to get hold of quality food. Sadly only the first few paragraphs are on the free-to-view part of their website. Then you have to subscribe. It will have you racing for the grilled scorpions as fast as you like.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Just to Highlight
From a comment on an earlier post. Those interested in the anti-Lad Mag campaign and related issues, like strip clubs, lap dancing and the portrayal of woman in the media - Object are a fantastic organisation doing lots of good work to raise awareness. They have an online petition on the Lad Mags issue, please sign it link here.
Men rendered obsolete
Scientists can now make sperm without men. They've long been able to inject alternative DNA into existing sperm but this new step means that scientifically men are now obsolete. I wan on BBC Leeds yesterday talking about it with a real idiot.
I think it's a real shame that the fertility race seems to be speeding up more and more. There is no shortage of babies, there is however a shortage of good caring child-raisers. We need to celebrate those who dedicate time in their lives to raising children and encourage those who would like to do so to consider fostering and adoption as an option whether or not they have fertility problems. Any man who is only contributing sperm to the child-raising process is already obsolete, we just don't need any more of those.
That wasn't the way the on-air chat went however. What happened was some guy called Ian, qualifications unknown, started haraguing me on how feminism has "achieved nothing" and is just a load of boring old nonsense. Well I'm kinda glad to have the vote and the right to work in more or less any job I choose (obviously I don't have the physical strength to be a bishop... still) and I don't think it happened by accident.
I think it's a real shame that the fertility race seems to be speeding up more and more. There is no shortage of babies, there is however a shortage of good caring child-raisers. We need to celebrate those who dedicate time in their lives to raising children and encourage those who would like to do so to consider fostering and adoption as an option whether or not they have fertility problems. Any man who is only contributing sperm to the child-raising process is already obsolete, we just don't need any more of those.
That wasn't the way the on-air chat went however. What happened was some guy called Ian, qualifications unknown, started haraguing me on how feminism has "achieved nothing" and is just a load of boring old nonsense. Well I'm kinda glad to have the vote and the right to work in more or less any job I choose (obviously I don't have the physical strength to be a bishop... still) and I don't think it happened by accident.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Edinburgh tickets
I'm told these are selling well at the moment (hurray!) so if you want one, log on here and buy one (or two, three, four, etc...)!
The Voice of Public Opinion
Who knew it was THIS IDIOT?!! Yes it turns out that the Catholic Church in the form of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor thinks, yes thinks, no evidence, that public opinion has changed on the subject of abortion and that the public wants the time-limit reduced from 24 weeks...
Now, speaking as a member of the public ... speaking as a young woman in a relationship, rather than a celibate priest, and hence a member of the public much more affected by abortion law than Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor ... I should like to say:
a) I don't want the law changed. I didn't before and I still don't, my opinion is unchanged.
b) I don't want Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor considered a spokesperson for my opinion, not on any subject, ever.
Now, speaking as a member of the public ... speaking as a young woman in a relationship, rather than a celibate priest, and hence a member of the public much more affected by abortion law than Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor ... I should like to say:
a) I don't want the law changed. I didn't before and I still don't, my opinion is unchanged.
b) I don't want Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor considered a spokesperson for my opinion, not on any subject, ever.
The wrong KIND of babies!
Remember the problem of the declining population in Scotland. Those were the days eh? "Move to Scotland" they exhorted young people, especially university graduates. And they told the Scottish to be more friendly to in-comers. Now I notice there's a slightly different plan afoot. They're going to make drug and alcohol addicts promise not to have children. I guess the first plan worked too well. I guess they're trying to ease off on it now... Or is it? Maybe they want more babies in Scotland but only the RIGHT KIND of babies.
Here's a radical solution: how about offering support for kids throughout their childhood so that it's possible for the kids of drug and alcohol addicted parents to become university graduates?
Here's a radical solution: how about offering support for kids throughout their childhood so that it's possible for the kids of drug and alcohol addicted parents to become university graduates?
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Official Scale of Permissible Prejudice...
I think it's great that homophobic artists are being forced to cancel shows in the UK. Isn't it time though we did the same thing with artists who use misogynist lyrics, such as Eminem?
Here are some lyrics from "The Eminem Show", for which the noxious little misogynist won a Grammy:
"Now I don't wanna hit no women when this chick's got it coming
Someone better get this bitch before she gets kicked in the stomach
And she's pregnant, but she's egging me on, begging me to throw her
Off the steps on this porch, my only weapon is force"
For more information on the subject check out the Tolerance website.
Here are some lyrics from "The Eminem Show", for which the noxious little misogynist won a Grammy:
"Now I don't wanna hit no women when this chick's got it coming
Someone better get this bitch before she gets kicked in the stomach
And she's pregnant, but she's egging me on, begging me to throw her
Off the steps on this porch, my only weapon is force"
For more information on the subject check out the Tolerance website.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Lines now open...
Tickets for my four remaining shows at the Etcetera Theatre are still on sale, the shows are 6pm (finished by 7:15pm) on 7th, 8th, 22nd and 23rd July. The Etcetera is upstairs from the Oxford Arms on Camden High Street. Tickets are £7.50/£6 concs and you can book 'em on 020 7482 2857.
For those people coming up to Edinburgh (or already there) tickets for the festival are now on sale online. Click here to buy some! The first couple of days are "previews" so are cheaper and then the next couple we're offering 2-for-1 so cheaper if you have mates.
For those people coming up to Edinburgh (or already there) tickets for the festival are now on sale online. Click here to buy some! The first couple of days are "previews" so are cheaper and then the next couple we're offering 2-for-1 so cheaper if you have mates.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Want to help?
I had a brief e-mail conversation this week with Clare Curtis-Thomas (the MP who is pushing the anti-Lad Mags bill in parliament). She's very much in need of support and asks those who support her efforts to have Lad Mags (and the Daily Sport "newspaper") classified as pornography and moved to the top shelf to undertake the following:
If you wish to have this bill supported, please contact your local MP and ask for their help.
It may also be useful if you could write to Robert Walker, the CEO of WHSmith. His address is WH Smith PLC, 180 Wardour Street , London W1F 8FY Alternatively you can also write to Juliet Cavilla who deals with complaints – she is at W H Smith, Greenbridge Rd , Swindon , SN3 3LD
If you wish to have this bill supported, please contact your local MP and ask for their help.
It may also be useful if you could write to Robert Walker, the CEO of WHSmith. His address is WH Smith PLC, 180 Wardour Street , London W1F 8FY Alternatively you can also write to Juliet Cavilla who deals with complaints – she is at W H Smith, Greenbridge Rd , Swindon , SN3 3LD
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Me me me on the Bee Bee Cee...
Done a couple of things on the Lag Mags subject over the last couple of days. Firstly I was interviewed on BBC News24 on the subject. I don't think I can find the clip on the web but they put me up against a representative of newsagents who said that no newsagent would put them on a low shelf or sell them to under-18s.
Firstly, yes they would. We've all seen them lined up next to the Beano and Dandy. Secondly, if they already do this, changing the law will not affect them whatsoever so lets just pass the bill anyway. Too easy.
Then I've written a piece for the BBC website as part of a "New" Lads Mag. It's quite fun. I also wanted to write a spoof quiz too on the same theme but it was a bit too saucy for the BBC, which is fair enough... For those of you who'd like to see it though... here it is!!
Would a woman sleep with you … twice?
So you’ve finally managed to seduce the woman of your dreams. Great! Good for you! But is there really any hope she’ll be back for a second date? Test your re-shag-ability in our quick and easy test!
1. While out on your date together you run into her friend. What will she say about you while you’ve popped to the bathroom?
a) I didn’t know the zoo let you take your sponsored animal out for walks …
b) Not bad, has he got a rich brother?
c) I hate you. You get all the good men!
2. Massage is …
a) “Only five dollar to you, meester” from a lady boy in Bangkok.
b) Two minutes of muscle kneading on the physio table after the match.
c) Once I get her feet, she’s mine!
3. Your idea of foreplay is …
a) When you deliberately aim at someone in golf.
b) A few minutes of snogging while you take your clothes off.
c) When you keep teasing her until she tells you that if you don’t put that condom on right now, she is going to beat you to death with a wooden spoon.
4. To spice things up in the bedroom. Do you …
a) Beg her to take it “up the Khyber”.
b) Suggest downloading some internet porn.
c) Start by kissing her shoulders and gradually work your way south!
5. You could tell she was enjoying herself when …
a) She didn’t seem to flinch much.
b) She smiled politely and assured you it was “very nice”.
c) The neighbours came round to complain about the noise.
6. Did she have an orgasm?
a) Org-what?
b) She grunted a bit but it might have been asthma.
c) She lost her voice screaming “YES!! YES!! YES!! …”
7. When you were coming, you shouted …
a) Nothing in case it woke your parents.
b) “Who’s the king, baby, who’s the king?!”
c) Her name.
8. After sex did you …
a) Throw your clothes on and sprint for the door?
b) Fall asleep after the mandatory five minute cuddle?
c) Cuddle and pillow chat until you were ready for round two?
9. The next day did you …
a) Go to the pub to watch the footie, you didn’t stay over anyway?
b) Call her up to tell her it was great and schedule the next time?
c) Keep shagging and send out for Chinese?
10. When her friend rings up the next day to ask how it went, will she say …
a) I’d rather not talk about it.
b) Well, I got laid!
c) I’m sorry, I can’t, oh … talk right now …
Results
Mostly As – How on earth did you manage to seduce her the first time? We’re not sure how you did it but we’re pretty sure you won’t get away with it twice, unless she’s as drunk as she was the first time. It’s time for a serious re-think of your social skills.
Mostly Bs – Well, you’re pretty average. Unless she normally finds her dates from the cast of The Flintstones, she’s probably not impressed. She might give you a second shot, but only to see if she caught you on a bad day the first time. If you want a third date it’s time to up your game between the sheets!
Mostly Cs – Congratulations, you’re the master of the mattress mambo! She’ll be back, beating down the door and begging for more, but then you probably already know that. On the downside, if you break up with her, she may hide in your shed for a couple of years. You won’t care though, you’ll be out every night dating all her friends!
Firstly, yes they would. We've all seen them lined up next to the Beano and Dandy. Secondly, if they already do this, changing the law will not affect them whatsoever so lets just pass the bill anyway. Too easy.
Then I've written a piece for the BBC website as part of a "New" Lads Mag. It's quite fun. I also wanted to write a spoof quiz too on the same theme but it was a bit too saucy for the BBC, which is fair enough... For those of you who'd like to see it though... here it is!!
Would a woman sleep with you … twice?
So you’ve finally managed to seduce the woman of your dreams. Great! Good for you! But is there really any hope she’ll be back for a second date? Test your re-shag-ability in our quick and easy test!
1. While out on your date together you run into her friend. What will she say about you while you’ve popped to the bathroom?
a) I didn’t know the zoo let you take your sponsored animal out for walks …
b) Not bad, has he got a rich brother?
c) I hate you. You get all the good men!
2. Massage is …
a) “Only five dollar to you, meester” from a lady boy in Bangkok.
b) Two minutes of muscle kneading on the physio table after the match.
c) Once I get her feet, she’s mine!
3. Your idea of foreplay is …
a) When you deliberately aim at someone in golf.
b) A few minutes of snogging while you take your clothes off.
c) When you keep teasing her until she tells you that if you don’t put that condom on right now, she is going to beat you to death with a wooden spoon.
4. To spice things up in the bedroom. Do you …
a) Beg her to take it “up the Khyber”.
b) Suggest downloading some internet porn.
c) Start by kissing her shoulders and gradually work your way south!
5. You could tell she was enjoying herself when …
a) She didn’t seem to flinch much.
b) She smiled politely and assured you it was “very nice”.
c) The neighbours came round to complain about the noise.
6. Did she have an orgasm?
a) Org-what?
b) She grunted a bit but it might have been asthma.
c) She lost her voice screaming “YES!! YES!! YES!! …”
7. When you were coming, you shouted …
a) Nothing in case it woke your parents.
b) “Who’s the king, baby, who’s the king?!”
c) Her name.
8. After sex did you …
a) Throw your clothes on and sprint for the door?
b) Fall asleep after the mandatory five minute cuddle?
c) Cuddle and pillow chat until you were ready for round two?
9. The next day did you …
a) Go to the pub to watch the footie, you didn’t stay over anyway?
b) Call her up to tell her it was great and schedule the next time?
c) Keep shagging and send out for Chinese?
10. When her friend rings up the next day to ask how it went, will she say …
a) I’d rather not talk about it.
b) Well, I got laid!
c) I’m sorry, I can’t, oh … talk right now …
Results
Mostly As – How on earth did you manage to seduce her the first time? We’re not sure how you did it but we’re pretty sure you won’t get away with it twice, unless she’s as drunk as she was the first time. It’s time for a serious re-think of your social skills.
Mostly Bs – Well, you’re pretty average. Unless she normally finds her dates from the cast of The Flintstones, she’s probably not impressed. She might give you a second shot, but only to see if she caught you on a bad day the first time. If you want a third date it’s time to up your game between the sheets!
Mostly Cs – Congratulations, you’re the master of the mattress mambo! She’ll be back, beating down the door and begging for more, but then you probably already know that. On the downside, if you break up with her, she may hide in your shed for a couple of years. You won’t care though, you’ll be out every night dating all her friends!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Adrenaline, Etcetera
More Adrenaline coming up in London. I'm doing a series of "pre-dinner" shows 6pm (finished by 7:15pm) on 7th, 8th, 22nd and 23rd July. They're at the Etcetera Theatre, upstairs from the Oxford Arms on Camden High Street. Tickets are £7.50/£6 concs and you can book 'em on 020 7482 2857.Last couple have gone really well. You can see what people have written about me on the chortle website here (then click on my name).
Lad Mags again...
A Labour MP, Claire Curtis-Thomas, has put together a motion about Lads Mags, asking for a new body to be set up to ensure they are kept on the top shelves of newsagents. Of course it's only a 10-minute motion and these very rarely lead to any actual legislation. Still it at least draws attention to the situation.
The article on the BBC goes on to quote Piers Hernu who wrote for and edited vadious of these mags.
He says: "Parents and teachers are not up in arms about minors buying lads mags simply because they do not".
Yes they do. 25% of Lad Mags are sold to under 18s. I know parents who worry about their kids being exposed to them. And I know teachers who have had to ban children from bringing them in to school.
Then as usual he goes on to have a personal attack on the MP, calling her "embittered". She says "I'm not embittered. I'm a woman of 48 with three young children. I happen to think about their welfare first and I put the profits of... companies like yours second, and most of the people in this country share that sentiment."
The article on the BBC goes on to quote Piers Hernu who wrote for and edited vadious of these mags.
He says: "Parents and teachers are not up in arms about minors buying lads mags simply because they do not".
Yes they do. 25% of Lad Mags are sold to under 18s. I know parents who worry about their kids being exposed to them. And I know teachers who have had to ban children from bringing them in to school.
Then as usual he goes on to have a personal attack on the MP, calling her "embittered". She says "I'm not embittered. I'm a woman of 48 with three young children. I happen to think about their welfare first and I put the profits of... companies like yours second, and most of the people in this country share that sentiment."
Desperate Housewives
I was on BBC Radio Leeds yesterday discussing this article and the use of the term "housewife". My view is that as far as individuals are concerned whatever term they want to use is fine but the name for the job which these people do is "home maker". Keeping a gender-specific term can only serve to stigmatise those men who wish to do it. And the "housewife" term isn't just inappropriate for men who keep house but also for unmarried women. Given the diversifying range of people who do that set of jobs these days we'd need "housewife", "househusband", "houseuncle", "housegrandma", "housefriend", ... much better to use the term "home maker" as the default term.
Of course there was someone of the other line to accuse me of political correctness gone mad. I don't really know what that means. I think our use of language has a very powerful influence on our perceptions so if we can change our language to better describe what we mean then we should. Why not? The implication is that a new word or two is too much for these people's tiny minds. Which I suppose it might be.
Also there was someone on air with the "my wife likes to be called a housewife" line. Great but so what? One case hardly proves anything, in her case it may be the correct term, doesn't mean anyone who does a bit of ironing wants to hear it. Also kinda funny how the wife herself wasn't on air to express her views. Probably too busy darning his socks for him ...
Of course there was someone of the other line to accuse me of political correctness gone mad. I don't really know what that means. I think our use of language has a very powerful influence on our perceptions so if we can change our language to better describe what we mean then we should. Why not? The implication is that a new word or two is too much for these people's tiny minds. Which I suppose it might be.
Also there was someone on air with the "my wife likes to be called a housewife" line. Great but so what? One case hardly proves anything, in her case it may be the correct term, doesn't mean anyone who does a bit of ironing wants to hear it. Also kinda funny how the wife herself wasn't on air to express her views. Probably too busy darning his socks for him ...
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Tabloid Politics
Lord Falconer is out and about advocating the victims-have-a-say-in-sentencing thing again. It's wrong. Completely wrong. He wants families of murder victims to be allowed to speak in court before sentencing takes place. What is the point of this? Should a criminal receive a longer sentence if the person they murdered has a particularly emotionally appealing parent or partner? And should sentences be shorter for murdering people with no immediate family around them - orphans for example, the homeless, tourists over here on their own? Or do they imagine families will be honest about the balance of the situation and thus help judges out: "in fairness your honour, my mother, who was brutally murdered, she could be very irritating...".
Either the judge is going to re-calibrate sentences based on perceived suffering of families. [Cruella runs from axe-wielding maniac shouting "don't kill me, my sister's a great actress..."] OR sentencing will not be changed based on what the victims families have to say and in which case it's just a waste of tax-payers money paying for the justice system to sit around ignoring some people crying.
No amount of input into the court process is going to bring back a murdered loved one. The healing process is not something the courts are there to help with. Families should be offered support outside the court process, and judges allowed to get on with their jobs efficiently.
Either the judge is going to re-calibrate sentences based on perceived suffering of families. [Cruella runs from axe-wielding maniac shouting "don't kill me, my sister's a great actress..."] OR sentencing will not be changed based on what the victims families have to say and in which case it's just a waste of tax-payers money paying for the justice system to sit around ignoring some people crying.
No amount of input into the court process is going to bring back a murdered loved one. The healing process is not something the courts are there to help with. Families should be offered support outside the court process, and judges allowed to get on with their jobs efficiently.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Adrenaline in London
Had a fabulous time in New York. Thanks to everybody who came along. Especially Elayne who I know only from the blog-o-sphere and who made a four-hour round trip to come to the show and join me for curry afterwards.
For those in London, my formal preview run in London starts this Saturday at the Etcetera Theatre, upstairs at the Oxford Arms pub on Camden High Street.
Sat 24th june 9.30pm,
Sun 25th june 8.30pm,
Then 7th, 8th, 22nd, 23rd july 6pm.
All shows £7.50 (£6.00 concs),
Box Office: 020 7482 4857
Hope to see some of you there.
For those in London, my formal preview run in London starts this Saturday at the Etcetera Theatre, upstairs at the Oxford Arms pub on Camden High Street.
Sat 24th june 9.30pm,
Sun 25th june 8.30pm,
Then 7th, 8th, 22nd, 23rd july 6pm.
All shows £7.50 (£6.00 concs),
Box Office: 020 7482 4857
Hope to see some of you there.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Adrenaline in New York
OK got all the details now.
Adrenaline: Kate Smurthwaite
Sunday 18th June, doors 5:30pm, show 6pm, $5
RiFiFi
cinema classics
332 e 11th st
new york city
If you need directions click here. There are no advance bookings, but it seats 50 and I've never played the US before so I don't have any particular following. If you get there at 5:30 you should get a seat. The other advantage of the early show time is that we can all have a drink afterwards and a chat.
Please bring friends, tell people, etc. It's too late for me to engage in any real marketing so I'm really just relying on word of mouth. Dead excited about playing in New York though!
Adrenaline: Kate Smurthwaite
Sunday 18th June, doors 5:30pm, show 6pm, $5
RiFiFi
cinema classics
332 e 11th st
new york city
If you need directions click here. There are no advance bookings, but it seats 50 and I've never played the US before so I don't have any particular following. If you get there at 5:30 you should get a seat. The other advantage of the early show time is that we can all have a drink afterwards and a chat.
Please bring friends, tell people, etc. It's too late for me to engage in any real marketing so I'm really just relying on word of mouth. Dead excited about playing in New York though!
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Curious to know what other people think...
Had a great show tonight (Crack Comedy Club in Kingston with Dave Ward, Paul Kerensa and Tony Cowards) and was all full of good cheer on the way home when some bloke walks up to me in the street and without saying anything deliberately obstructs my way. He does this with his arms out so I can't walk round him, and starts chuckling at me: heh, heh, heh... then gesturing at my tits and chuckling some more. In proper middle-class fashion I slapped him round the face with a copy of the Observer and told him to "F*** Off, C***". Twenty yards later another guy deliberately blocks my path and says "Not so fast gorgeous where do you think you're going?" so I swore at him too. Further down the road a car pulls up to the side of the road, stops next to me, beeps the horn at me, winds the window down and a guy says "Want a lift darling?" while his three male friends laugh loudly and three cars further along another car beeps, opens the window and two guys shout "Oi slag, you want some?". And by then to be honest my good mood had given up the ghost and I was felt more like crying.
Now don't bother telling me that these guys just fancy me and want to let me know, or that they mean it as a compliment because they don't. If you think that's how compliments are paid then you shouldn't be reading this, it's past your bed-time, you also certainly shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Don't tell me they're just drunk, the first two might be, but the second two are legally in charge of a motor vehicle. Now I don't think it matters what I'm wearing, I think that sort of thing shouldn't happen, but for the record I'm in a high-necked dress AND a pair of jeans, so unless the sight of a pair of naked arms is too much for you, you really ought to be able to control yourself.
I just don't know any women who behave like this. And - surprise surprise - men don't act like this when I'm out with my boyfriend either. It's horrid, it's misogynist and it really proves that there are a lot of men out there who really hate women. It also makes me wonder if there are any decent online burqa stores?
What am I supposed to do when this stuff happens? Any suggestions?
Now don't bother telling me that these guys just fancy me and want to let me know, or that they mean it as a compliment because they don't. If you think that's how compliments are paid then you shouldn't be reading this, it's past your bed-time, you also certainly shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Don't tell me they're just drunk, the first two might be, but the second two are legally in charge of a motor vehicle. Now I don't think it matters what I'm wearing, I think that sort of thing shouldn't happen, but for the record I'm in a high-necked dress AND a pair of jeans, so unless the sight of a pair of naked arms is too much for you, you really ought to be able to control yourself.
I just don't know any women who behave like this. And - surprise surprise - men don't act like this when I'm out with my boyfriend either. It's horrid, it's misogynist and it really proves that there are a lot of men out there who really hate women. It also makes me wonder if there are any decent online burqa stores?
What am I supposed to do when this stuff happens? Any suggestions?
Stop Press, Cru-blog hits New York
I've been offered a space to do my one-woman show in New York next Sunday 18th June. 6pm. Save the date in your diaries! More details to follow! I wonder which airlines allow plastic crocodiles on board...?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Human Rights: Should Women Have Them Too?
The government has shelved plans to criminalise forced marriage. They claim that legislation might actually have made life more difficult for women in that situation who may have resisted reporting for fear of their parents being jailed. They also claim that existing legislation on kidnap should be sufficient to prosecute anyone they wish to.
Seems like we have lost our way a bit. If the existing legislation is strong enough, why are there so few prosecutions and still hundreds of (predominantly) women suffering in this way?
What is needed it seems to me is a decent-scale campaign to let women from "at risk" groups know that they have rights which we in this country consider sacred. They also need to know what to do if they feel they're becoming a victim, that support is available (and it needs to be available) and how to access it. Radical huh?
Seems like we have lost our way a bit. If the existing legislation is strong enough, why are there so few prosecutions and still hundreds of (predominantly) women suffering in this way?
What is needed it seems to me is a decent-scale campaign to let women from "at risk" groups know that they have rights which we in this country consider sacred. They also need to know what to do if they feel they're becoming a victim, that support is available (and it needs to be available) and how to access it. Radical huh?
The Trouble with Men and Victoria Derbyshire
I took part in a live debate last night called "The Trouble with Men". The panel was me and a load of men with bees in their bonnets about one thing or another. There were a few points I thought were interesting:
1) A lot of men were saying they wanted more advice about parenting. Seemed to me that there is loads of info out there for parents, but these men wanted information aimed specifically at MEN. They weren't happy to read info for parents in general because they thought that was "women's stuff". Well that's really the price you pay for being a misogynist: I don't have any problem reading car manuals or football magazines if there's info in there I want... Get over it lads.
2) "Political correctness has gone mad." Don't people get bored of saying this? Now I've heard just as many old wives tales about people who insist on calling Heather Mills-McCartney under-limbed or pedestrianly challenged, but I've never actually seen it happen. I'm not saying that the line of what is and isn't acceptable can't be drawn in the wrong place but I want to live in a world where I don't hear terms like "nigger", "bitch", "ho" and "faggot" used without so much as a blink in mainstream media. I don't think political correctness has "gone mad" when those terms are considered unacceptible. And importantly I also don't think that just because a woman uses the term "bitch" or a black person says "nigger", the terms are suddenly not offensive any more. It's about what most people think, not one or two.
I was also on the radio (BBC Five Live) yesterday morning on the Victoria Derbyshire show talking about an old favourite: porn. There wasn't much new ground broken, they had a woman on who runs a porn business and claims the girls are treated well, earn great money and enjoy their work. All of which may well be true for her case. The remaining 99.9% of the industry doesn't have such an accountable past!
1) A lot of men were saying they wanted more advice about parenting. Seemed to me that there is loads of info out there for parents, but these men wanted information aimed specifically at MEN. They weren't happy to read info for parents in general because they thought that was "women's stuff". Well that's really the price you pay for being a misogynist: I don't have any problem reading car manuals or football magazines if there's info in there I want... Get over it lads.
2) "Political correctness has gone mad." Don't people get bored of saying this? Now I've heard just as many old wives tales about people who insist on calling Heather Mills-McCartney under-limbed or pedestrianly challenged, but I've never actually seen it happen. I'm not saying that the line of what is and isn't acceptable can't be drawn in the wrong place but I want to live in a world where I don't hear terms like "nigger", "bitch", "ho" and "faggot" used without so much as a blink in mainstream media. I don't think political correctness has "gone mad" when those terms are considered unacceptible. And importantly I also don't think that just because a woman uses the term "bitch" or a black person says "nigger", the terms are suddenly not offensive any more. It's about what most people think, not one or two.
I was also on the radio (BBC Five Live) yesterday morning on the Victoria Derbyshire show talking about an old favourite: porn. There wasn't much new ground broken, they had a woman on who runs a porn business and claims the girls are treated well, earn great money and enjoy their work. All of which may well be true for her case. The remaining 99.9% of the industry doesn't have such an accountable past!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Terrible 'Orrible Murder
A german woman has been convicted of killing eight of her own newborn babies. Now I'm as horrified as the next person by repeated willful murder but in cases like this you really have to question what kind of environment these people exist in. In this case the defendant claims :"We already had three children, and my husband didn't want any more children, I always hoped my husband would notice the pregnancies of his own accord.". Now I may be wrong but that sounds very much to me like the voice of a woman in a deeply abusive relationship. So keen to please him she will kill her own children and he so self-obsessed he fails to notice eight times over that she's pregnant. Or he does notice but decides to ignore it. I'm not saying she should be let off the hook, although a secure mental home might be more appropriate than prison. What I'm saying is that the courts should look into her husband's behaviour and see if he needs convicting for anything... at very least failure to report crimes taking place right under his own nose.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Idiots, Idiots, Idiots
Yes half of Britons believe in the paranormal. Cru-blog begs to differ and blames Gillian Anderson for starting all this...
Fear of Censorship
There is a big stink being made by Amnesty International and to some extent the BBC at the moment about censorship on the internet. Now I'm a big fan of Amnesty and I'd probably become a member again if they stopped chugging on the streets of Soho (I think chugging - charity mugging - people with clipboards on the street asking people to sign up to direct debit contributions to good causes - should be banned but that's another story...).
And indeed in this case I agree with them again. Governments locking up dissident bloggers and banning the public from accessing the BBC website and so on goes down as wrong in my book.
What bothers me though is that again and again we have this idea bandied about that censorship is - 100% FACT - wrong. Well I think excesive censorship which limits peoples' access to information or political discussion is wrong. But I also think downloading child pornography, violent pornography, incitements to murder or violence or footage of apparent crimes recorded explicitly for the purpose of selling the footage (be it happy slapping or rape), is wrong and should be banned. All of which makes me ... wait for it ... PRO-censorship! I'm just anti-unhelpful censorship and pro-helpful censorship. All this absolutism "censorship is wrong" malarky really annoys me.
The internet is the fastest and most effective means of international communication there has ever been. Couple this with the fact that we live in a world of monstrous economic imbalance and there's a problem. It's not enough to ban the production of images we would all find abhorent in our own country, we have to ban the downloading of them too. Otherwise a few desperate people in the third world, able to earn many years salary from just a few such images, will inevitably ultimately be tempted to produce them.
In fact it's much worse than that... I don't have any great up to date data but back in 1999 it was estimated that there were 170,000 pornographic websites, increasing by 300 a day, bringing in around $700 million per year. And many governments have very little control over what is being downloaded and by whom. At least off-the-shelf pornography is policed for offensive images. Not so the internet: "click here to confirm you are over 18". Mmmm. Maybe a little bit more censorship is a good thing. And the news that Saudi Arabia is censoring websites which criticise gulf governments...? Of course they are, the same way they censor books which criticise their regime. Why would we expect them to make an exception for material published on the internet. I agree their approach is an infringement of human rights but it's not a change of policy for them. It strikes me as odd to imagine Amnesty and co. ever thought the internet would suddenly be treated differently to other published media...
And indeed in this case I agree with them again. Governments locking up dissident bloggers and banning the public from accessing the BBC website and so on goes down as wrong in my book.
What bothers me though is that again and again we have this idea bandied about that censorship is - 100% FACT - wrong. Well I think excesive censorship which limits peoples' access to information or political discussion is wrong. But I also think downloading child pornography, violent pornography, incitements to murder or violence or footage of apparent crimes recorded explicitly for the purpose of selling the footage (be it happy slapping or rape), is wrong and should be banned. All of which makes me ... wait for it ... PRO-censorship! I'm just anti-unhelpful censorship and pro-helpful censorship. All this absolutism "censorship is wrong" malarky really annoys me.
The internet is the fastest and most effective means of international communication there has ever been. Couple this with the fact that we live in a world of monstrous economic imbalance and there's a problem. It's not enough to ban the production of images we would all find abhorent in our own country, we have to ban the downloading of them too. Otherwise a few desperate people in the third world, able to earn many years salary from just a few such images, will inevitably ultimately be tempted to produce them.
In fact it's much worse than that... I don't have any great up to date data but back in 1999 it was estimated that there were 170,000 pornographic websites, increasing by 300 a day, bringing in around $700 million per year. And many governments have very little control over what is being downloaded and by whom. At least off-the-shelf pornography is policed for offensive images. Not so the internet: "click here to confirm you are over 18". Mmmm. Maybe a little bit more censorship is a good thing. And the news that Saudi Arabia is censoring websites which criticise gulf governments...? Of course they are, the same way they censor books which criticise their regime. Why would we expect them to make an exception for material published on the internet. I agree their approach is an infringement of human rights but it's not a change of policy for them. It strikes me as odd to imagine Amnesty and co. ever thought the internet would suddenly be treated differently to other published media...
Saturday, May 27, 2006
What Women Want
Well the "experts" have decided that "too many" women are having caesarean sections. And they're blaming it on - celebrities and medical officials, who apparently should be talking women out of it and into a more painful delivery method. Fair enough but WHY? I have this weird sneaking suspicion that the real experts are the women themselves who have probably spent most of the last nine month worrying about this. They need information about safety rates, interventions and options open to them. Not hounding into things they don't understand by doctors who "know best". Of course what no-one is mentioning out loud is that C-sections cost a lot of money compared to other types of births.
Of course women who want to have a natural home birth get, ooh lets see, no help at all from the NHS in a lot of cases. Something a lot of people are unhappy about.
So what do women want? Could it be the right to choose for themselves, as usual?
Of course women who want to have a natural home birth get, ooh lets see, no help at all from the NHS in a lot of cases. Something a lot of people are unhappy about.
So what do women want? Could it be the right to choose for themselves, as usual?
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The Horror!
A woman in Wales has been the target of local anger for sunbathing naked - in her own garden! Now this was making me laugh already but the story gets better. 55-year-old Miss Burgess was happily wandering about in her own garden dressed as nature intended when her 34-year old neighbour, Mr Morien Jones spotted her. His horrified reaction? Avert his eyes? Usher his children indoors? Ask her to cover up? No he says: "I went to get my video camera to record the incident".
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Compulsory Reading
In case anyone was in any doubt that womens rights were at the absolute bottom of the government's priority list... It would appear that victims of misogynist crime worldwide are treated with the with the same or even more disbelief and contempt than they are when the crimes take place in the UK.
Heavy Hands
How many police officers does it take to control three unarmed peace activists? About fifty apparently.
The excessive way in which the government continues to react to one man, Brian Haw, camping in parliament square with a few signs really smacks of paranoia. For anyone who missed the fun, they even tried to pass a whole legislative bill aimed solely at evicting him and then it still didn't work. Looks like they are really going to chuck him out soon. Brian meanwhile has started a hunger strike...
The excessive way in which the government continues to react to one man, Brian Haw, camping in parliament square with a few signs really smacks of paranoia. For anyone who missed the fun, they even tried to pass a whole legislative bill aimed solely at evicting him and then it still didn't work. Looks like they are really going to chuck him out soon. Brian meanwhile has started a hunger strike...
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Tabloid Policy-Making
I am nothing short of horrified by the latest suggestions from home secretary John Reid. He think victims of crime should be allowed to influence release schedules for imprisoned criminals...
Now let's have a little recap of what the justice system and prison service are supposed to do for us. Basically the way I see it locking bad people up serves four purposes:
1) Acts as a deterrent to the population at large.
2) Acts as a deterrent to criminals who might re-offend.
3) Keeps dangerous criminals out of public circulation while they continue to present a risk.
4) Provides an opportunity for rehabilitation and re-education of criminals to provide them with the opportunity to integrate into non-criminal life.
What is NOT on that list is "Makes people feel better about being a victim of crime". That's not there. What this effectively does is takes the system out of the hands of highly-trained judges and the jury of your peers that we're all so proud of as a means of treating everybody equally and puts it into the hands of whoever looks the most hurt.
If your son or daughter's been murdered then no amount of input into the justice system is going to help you deal with that. They could make you chief of police and you'd still be the parent of a murdered child.
And now we're headed for a situation where it'll be a definite no-no to murder someone who has a close-knit family with a reputation for stroppiness, but a homeless guy with nothing more than a social worker on his side probably won't get you more than a fortnight's community service. WRONG! The whole point of the justice system is, err, you're going to think this is radical but, err, JUSTICE!! Bingo! Clues in the name... And justice means that the punishment fits the crime, not that the punishment fits how emotionally engaging the victim or his/her parents can be in court.
The next time I'm being followed down a dark alleyway by a dangerous-looking stranger perhaps I'll stop and show him my Equity card: "Seriously mate, don't rape me, I trained at RADA!"
Now let's have a little recap of what the justice system and prison service are supposed to do for us. Basically the way I see it locking bad people up serves four purposes:
1) Acts as a deterrent to the population at large.
2) Acts as a deterrent to criminals who might re-offend.
3) Keeps dangerous criminals out of public circulation while they continue to present a risk.
4) Provides an opportunity for rehabilitation and re-education of criminals to provide them with the opportunity to integrate into non-criminal life.
What is NOT on that list is "Makes people feel better about being a victim of crime". That's not there. What this effectively does is takes the system out of the hands of highly-trained judges and the jury of your peers that we're all so proud of as a means of treating everybody equally and puts it into the hands of whoever looks the most hurt.
If your son or daughter's been murdered then no amount of input into the justice system is going to help you deal with that. They could make you chief of police and you'd still be the parent of a murdered child.
And now we're headed for a situation where it'll be a definite no-no to murder someone who has a close-knit family with a reputation for stroppiness, but a homeless guy with nothing more than a social worker on his side probably won't get you more than a fortnight's community service. WRONG! The whole point of the justice system is, err, you're going to think this is radical but, err, JUSTICE!! Bingo! Clues in the name... And justice means that the punishment fits the crime, not that the punishment fits how emotionally engaging the victim or his/her parents can be in court.
The next time I'm being followed down a dark alleyway by a dangerous-looking stranger perhaps I'll stop and show him my Equity card: "Seriously mate, don't rape me, I trained at RADA!"
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Adrenaline Rush!
If you're in London and you'd like to catch the Adrenaline show - I'm doing it tomorrow night (Thursday 18th) at Shortfuse - a comedy, poetry and spoken word night. There are two fabulous poets supporting me and giving the show a "first half": Baba Brinkman (a Canadian guy who will be performing extrcts from his version of the "Rap Canterbury Tales") and Paul Marshall and the excellent Nathan Penlington as host. It's 8:30pm upstairs at the Camden Head, Camden passage Islington. £5 to you...
Monday, May 15, 2006
Us Argumentative Feminists
The Guardian's ever more fluff-like "gender" section features an interview today with Melinda Gallagher and Emily Kramer, founders of Cake - a movement revolving around women's sexuality and advocating greater freedom of sexual expression for women. There are a few points about the article and what is said in the interview that I wanted to make:
I think in general they have a great point. We do still live in a society that considers women who show an appetite for sex somehow disgusting. That's not doing anybody any good.
They may have a very liberal attitude to sex but actually, though you'd have to read a long way through the article to find this out ... they dislike most pornography. Just like me and most feminists I know. Now you sure wouldn't find me showing up to their striptease-a-thon or lapdancing night but then that's because I think those means of sexual expression have unpleasant associations to degrading women as well as forced labour, human trafficking and coercion of young women into roles they may not be genuinely comfortable with and I would steer clear of getting involved with anything that appeared to legitimise that.
They insist women have a "right" to an orgasm from sexual activity. Which I sort of agree with and sort of don't. I think women have a right to decide for themselves what they want from sex and then demand it.
The trouble with this sort of "raunch feminism" to my mind isn't that their points are wrong, it's that really feminism has much bigger fish to fry than sex. Equal pay, maternity rights, exploitation, FGM, oppression of women in the third world, access to education. These are the REAL issues. While we're waiting for some coverage on them though, why not go check out Cake's website, it's quite cool.
I think in general they have a great point. We do still live in a society that considers women who show an appetite for sex somehow disgusting. That's not doing anybody any good.
They may have a very liberal attitude to sex but actually, though you'd have to read a long way through the article to find this out ... they dislike most pornography. Just like me and most feminists I know. Now you sure wouldn't find me showing up to their striptease-a-thon or lapdancing night but then that's because I think those means of sexual expression have unpleasant associations to degrading women as well as forced labour, human trafficking and coercion of young women into roles they may not be genuinely comfortable with and I would steer clear of getting involved with anything that appeared to legitimise that.
They insist women have a "right" to an orgasm from sexual activity. Which I sort of agree with and sort of don't. I think women have a right to decide for themselves what they want from sex and then demand it.
The trouble with this sort of "raunch feminism" to my mind isn't that their points are wrong, it's that really feminism has much bigger fish to fry than sex. Equal pay, maternity rights, exploitation, FGM, oppression of women in the third world, access to education. These are the REAL issues. While we're waiting for some coverage on them though, why not go check out Cake's website, it's quite cool.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Four Star Comedy in Brighton
Yes I'm back in Brighton tomorrow. That's the new flyer with the new quote from the new review and all them stars on. Yippee! Got lots of friends coming down to see it so I'm really looking forward to it. If you're in the area and want to come along book now because there are only a few tickets left!
Third Reich Revival
A Scottish MP (a Labour one for the record) has been out and about coming up with great ideas like adding oral contraceptives to methadone prescriptions so that recovering addicts (female ones that is, no mention of compulsory vasectomy for the men) can't have children. This apparently is in reaction to the death of a toddler who drank his parents methadone and died last year. So I suppose he's saying it would have been better for that child to have never existed in the first place. How about putting the stuff in child-proof bottles or, and this is super-radical, offering high quality support and help with childcare to people in that unfortunate situation.
We in the "civilised" world think it's wrong to control people's fertility by force but we do have in place the statutes to allow us to take into temporary or permanent care children whose home environment is unsuitable. Clearly this is such a case. But of course that costs money...
The tabloids meanwhile have been focussing on the 11-year-old girl who's announced she's pregnant. Tut tut tut. As usual it's round after round of finger-pointing. No-one seems to have noticed that kids have fathers and fathers have to have sex with mothers and having sex with 11-year-olds is a crime - statutory rape. Now in this case the father's only 15 himself so there's an issue of criminal responsibility but of course no-one is tut-tutting him (or his parents). The girl is a victim of a crime and deserves sympathy and support ... isn't that obvious?
We in the "civilised" world think it's wrong to control people's fertility by force but we do have in place the statutes to allow us to take into temporary or permanent care children whose home environment is unsuitable. Clearly this is such a case. But of course that costs money...
The tabloids meanwhile have been focussing on the 11-year-old girl who's announced she's pregnant. Tut tut tut. As usual it's round after round of finger-pointing. No-one seems to have noticed that kids have fathers and fathers have to have sex with mothers and having sex with 11-year-olds is a crime - statutory rape. Now in this case the father's only 15 himself so there's an issue of criminal responsibility but of course no-one is tut-tutting him (or his parents). The girl is a victim of a crime and deserves sympathy and support ... isn't that obvious?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Breakfast Blog
My good friend and fellow presenter at Radio Jackie - Neil Long has started his own blog. Neil does the breakfast show on Jackie which is a lot of fun. He used to be a comic about 5 years ago and we're all trying to talk him into getting onstage again. Meanwhile you can read his musings here and find them through my sidebar any time.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Brighton Rock!
Saturday's show went really well. We sold out, people were enthusiastic and liked it and I really enjoyed doing it too. Even better we had reviewers in from threeweeks.co.uk (one of the big Edinburgh and Brighton Festival reviewers) and they gave me 4 stars (out of five) and heaps of glowing praise!! It's online here, but you do have to register with them. To save you the effort here's what they say:
comedy review
Adrenaline – Kate Smurthwaite
Amused Moose Comedy
In this fast paced stand-up routine, Kate Smurthwaite instantly engages her audience with witty and satirical musings on adrenaline and its various forms. Delivered with natural enthusiasm, her funniest moments are when she plays herself as opposed to the charmingly familiar but unnecessary characters she introduces along the way. Her intelligent and usually self-deprecating reflections on her numerous forays into extreme sports are hilarious and instantly relatable while the audience, whose participation is greatly encouraged, is on her side almost as soon as she opens her mouth. All in all, this is high quality stand up not to be missed - the only downside being that, as with all good adrenaline rushes, at some point it will come to an end.
The Marlborough Theatre, 6 May, 13 May, 10:00pm , £7 (£5), fpp fringe pp 13
tw rating: 4/5
Yipee! Giving it another run through in the Red Lion in Soho tonight (9.45pm) then if HSBC ever unfreeze my credit cards I shall be buying a bottle of bubbly!
comedy review
Adrenaline – Kate Smurthwaite
Amused Moose Comedy
In this fast paced stand-up routine, Kate Smurthwaite instantly engages her audience with witty and satirical musings on adrenaline and its various forms. Delivered with natural enthusiasm, her funniest moments are when she plays herself as opposed to the charmingly familiar but unnecessary characters she introduces along the way. Her intelligent and usually self-deprecating reflections on her numerous forays into extreme sports are hilarious and instantly relatable while the audience, whose participation is greatly encouraged, is on her side almost as soon as she opens her mouth. All in all, this is high quality stand up not to be missed - the only downside being that, as with all good adrenaline rushes, at some point it will come to an end.
The Marlborough Theatre, 6 May, 13 May, 10:00pm , £7 (£5), fpp fringe pp 13
tw rating: 4/5
Yipee! Giving it another run through in the Red Lion in Soho tonight (9.45pm) then if HSBC ever unfreeze my credit cards I shall be buying a bottle of bubbly!
Thursday, May 04, 2006
In Brighton this weekend?
I hope so because legend has it that top stand-up comic Kate Smurthwaite is in town with her whirlwind one-woman wonder-show Adrenaline and I wouldn't want you, you personally that is, to miss it.
I'm at the Marlborough Theatre, Princes Street, 10pm this Saturday (6th May) and next (13th May). Tickets are £7, £5 concessions from 07782 278 521. I'm really happy with the show and really excited about performing in the Brighton Fringe Festival and in a proper theatre too. Please come along and tell your friends!
Monday, May 01, 2006
Is there an award?
...for describing the cause of the problem, then joining in?
Catherine Bennett, interviewing Shere Hite in this week's Guardian: "Now in her mid-60s, she remains extraordinary to look at; her celebrated pallor still set off with the springy golden ringlets that have, in the past, diverted so much attention from her findings on women's inner lives."
Funnier than that though is her opening line: "For almost any woman, you might think ... there must come a day when she wearies of discussing the clitoral orgasm". There must? Says who? Orgasms, orgasms, orgasms, yawn, yawn, yawn. Am I the only one who thinks Ms Bennett might be doing it wrong and could probably benefit from a quick browse through Ms Hite's book?
Also she seems to have missed something out in her interview... what is the book about? What is the point of interviewing an author and not mentioning the topic of their book? You might as well interview a chef and not ask about food, or a footballer and not mention sport. Total waste of space...
Catherine Bennett, interviewing Shere Hite in this week's Guardian: "Now in her mid-60s, she remains extraordinary to look at; her celebrated pallor still set off with the springy golden ringlets that have, in the past, diverted so much attention from her findings on women's inner lives."
Funnier than that though is her opening line: "For almost any woman, you might think ... there must come a day when she wearies of discussing the clitoral orgasm". There must? Says who? Orgasms, orgasms, orgasms, yawn, yawn, yawn. Am I the only one who thinks Ms Bennett might be doing it wrong and could probably benefit from a quick browse through Ms Hite's book?
Also she seems to have missed something out in her interview... what is the book about? What is the point of interviewing an author and not mentioning the topic of their book? You might as well interview a chef and not ask about food, or a footballer and not mention sport. Total waste of space...
Friday, April 28, 2006
Mixed messages
I've just been on BBC Leeds, talking about the shock-horror scandal of the teacher Kristina Howells (sorry no news link, it's in the paper edition of the Daily Mail but not online anywhere yet) who appeared topless - yes TOPLESS - in a magazine - and promptly - QUITE RIGHT TOO - got fired. Except that, hold on, she appeared topless in sleazy porn mag ... Cosmopolitan. Erm that can't be right can it? Well what actually happened was that she appeared in an article about real women's breasts and their health. So the 11 to 16 year-olds she's teaching are perfectly able to walk into their local supermarket and pick up (and buy) magazines like Nuts and Zoo, but they can't have a teacher who is prepared to discuss these things in a sensible way.
Essentially what's going on is the same-old same-old thing: Real women having real sex is considered disgusting, but air-brushed glamour models artificially posed with captions implying they were tricked into it ... well that's fine.
The thing that really bothers me today is a different story. Not much good news coverage of it but some info on theregister. Basically some guy has set up a website having convinced his girlfriend to bet him that if he gets 2million hits she'll have a threesome with him. All very well, of course it's a marketing trick, he's just getting paid by advertisers per hit, and stupid blokes around the country have been sniggering and eagerly forwarding it to each other. What bugs me though is this: if she made such a bet then clearly she doesn't actually want to have a threesome - otherwise she'd have suggested it without the stringent conditions. So why would he want to do something with her that she doesn't want to do? What possible pleasure could be garnered from tricking her into consenting to something she actually considers unpleasant and frightening? Unless of course the whole sordid exercise is more to do with power than sex and is just a reflection of the stench of misogyny that permeates our whole culture.
Essentially what's going on is the same-old same-old thing: Real women having real sex is considered disgusting, but air-brushed glamour models artificially posed with captions implying they were tricked into it ... well that's fine.
The thing that really bothers me today is a different story. Not much good news coverage of it but some info on theregister. Basically some guy has set up a website having convinced his girlfriend to bet him that if he gets 2million hits she'll have a threesome with him. All very well, of course it's a marketing trick, he's just getting paid by advertisers per hit, and stupid blokes around the country have been sniggering and eagerly forwarding it to each other. What bugs me though is this: if she made such a bet then clearly she doesn't actually want to have a threesome - otherwise she'd have suggested it without the stringent conditions. So why would he want to do something with her that she doesn't want to do? What possible pleasure could be garnered from tricking her into consenting to something she actually considers unpleasant and frightening? Unless of course the whole sordid exercise is more to do with power than sex and is just a reflection of the stench of misogyny that permeates our whole culture.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Who died and made him pope?
The pope has been putting the world to rights in his Easter speech. Who asked him? Personally I prefer my political advice from someone who:
(a) Doesn't espouse the idea of completely outlawing contraception - the only hope the planet has of not choking itself to death with environmental degradation in the next few generations.
(b) Doesn't believe a load of superstitious nonsense about the earth being created in six days, an afterlife with angels and/or demons and a "loving" god who detests homosexuals.
(c) Doesn't dress like he's on his way to a Dungeons and Dragons convention.
Rowan Williams has done much better and restricted his comments to the latest bandwagon-jumping Harry Potter copy-cat novel: The Da Vinci Code.
(a) Doesn't espouse the idea of completely outlawing contraception - the only hope the planet has of not choking itself to death with environmental degradation in the next few generations.
(b) Doesn't believe a load of superstitious nonsense about the earth being created in six days, an afterlife with angels and/or demons and a "loving" god who detests homosexuals.
(c) Doesn't dress like he's on his way to a Dungeons and Dragons convention.
Rowan Williams has done much better and restricted his comments to the latest bandwagon-jumping Harry Potter copy-cat novel: The Da Vinci Code.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Thanks for tuning in
My BBC One Breakfast TV appearance went very well. Thanks for everyone who called, mailed and texted to say they saw me. As I came out of the building the first person to get in touch was my Grandma who called up to tell me I looked "very attractive". Nice to see that she's fully understood the feminist message I was advocating!
Friday, April 14, 2006
Lad Mags Revisited
You may remember me from such thrilling stories as "Why I hate Lad Mags" and "What's Wrong With Lad Mags". Well the subject is all the rage again now thanks to Sainsbury's supermarket who have announced they're going to use "modesty covers" to prevent children and persons who might be offended from seeing the cover images on these magazines on their shelves. Not a bad move, although I can't say it strikes me as a complete solution to the cultural plague of demeaning depictions of women. Anyway since it's the hot topic again I was on BBC Radio Yorkshire yesterday, followed by BBC Radio Five Live (and you can listen again here - you need to fast forward - I am on about 1hr 20 minutes in). And tomorrow morning I'll be on Breakfast TV, on BBC1 at about a quarter to nine. Please take a look if you're up at that time.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
The Legend Lives On...
I'm talking about me of course! Many years ago I started a ladies football team in Toyko. It took a while to get off the ground but once it took off, aided by the arrival of the World Cup in 2002, it really flew. And it still flies as this interview with Helen Daly, the current captain and my good friend, on fitnessjp.com proves. I really miss the girls; running the team and socialising with them was my whole reason for living for a long long time. I've played for a bunch of teams since I got back here and I've even got a charity match coming up (details to follow) but nothing compares to Onnabelievable (no prizes for finding very old photos of me with my cutesie white-blond hair on the site!).
Sun, Sea, Elephants
...and thanks for all the e-mails. I had a brilliant holiday. Sri Lanka is gorgeous. Took elephant rides, went white-water rafting, saw temples and shrines and palaces and crocodiles and peacocks and monkeys, snorkelled, swam, lay on the beach, mountain-biked, mountain-climbed... Hopefully if I have some good photos I'll post them up on a page somewhere and put the link up here.
Feminism and Islam
There's a new book out by Phyllis Chesler called "The Death of Feminism", interview in the Guardian. It's not really about feminism being "dead", although good work Phyllis in giving it the kind of title that the media love and thus getting some well-deserved attention.
It's about the way that feminism has failed in the middle east. And I agree, it has. The government is busy making it illegal for me to complain about people's belief in whatever all-powerful, cloud-riding fairies they choose. Meanwhile major religions - notably Islam - are claiming religious justification for treating women like slaves across a whole slice of the world.
I don't blame feminists for the situation. Every feminist I know thinks oppression of women's rights is a travesty so the suggestion (the Guardian's, not Ms Chesler's) that the issue "has divided feminists" is just another media-friendly soundbite. Trouble is we have no support from government or other powers whatsoever. Trade agreements and diplomatic relations are routinely conducted as though women's rights were a non-issue.
Respect for diverse religions and cultures is a worthy thing. Unfortunately it's often incompatible with adherence to a basic code of human rights. We sometimes have to choose one or the other. The church in the UK has a similar problem on a smaller scale with it's repeated discrimination against women and homosexuals. To my mind it is obvious that the right of a human being to choose their own path in life is more important than the right of another human being to keep slaves because their "god" wants them to.
If the human race survives the next hundred years in any recognisable form our grandchildren will look back on the 21st century and ask with incredulity whether anyone could seriously have lived in such times and turned a blind eye to the situation, much as we now look back on slavery and consider the whole concept to be obviously repellent.
It's about the way that feminism has failed in the middle east. And I agree, it has. The government is busy making it illegal for me to complain about people's belief in whatever all-powerful, cloud-riding fairies they choose. Meanwhile major religions - notably Islam - are claiming religious justification for treating women like slaves across a whole slice of the world.
I don't blame feminists for the situation. Every feminist I know thinks oppression of women's rights is a travesty so the suggestion (the Guardian's, not Ms Chesler's) that the issue "has divided feminists" is just another media-friendly soundbite. Trouble is we have no support from government or other powers whatsoever. Trade agreements and diplomatic relations are routinely conducted as though women's rights were a non-issue.
Respect for diverse religions and cultures is a worthy thing. Unfortunately it's often incompatible with adherence to a basic code of human rights. We sometimes have to choose one or the other. The church in the UK has a similar problem on a smaller scale with it's repeated discrimination against women and homosexuals. To my mind it is obvious that the right of a human being to choose their own path in life is more important than the right of another human being to keep slaves because their "god" wants them to.
If the human race survives the next hundred years in any recognisable form our grandchildren will look back on the 21st century and ask with incredulity whether anyone could seriously have lived in such times and turned a blind eye to the situation, much as we now look back on slavery and consider the whole concept to be obviously repellent.
Friday, March 17, 2006
It's a tough life...
Just to let you all know I'm off on holiday to sunny Sri Lanka for the next two weeks. So no Cru-blog, no gigs and no chance of hearing me on Radio Jackie... When I get back the previews for my Brighton/Newbury/Edinburgh show - Adrenaline - will be starting. Have a nice couple of weeks.
Jealous? I'm going with Exodus, they do loads of cool trips all over the world, as do Explore Worldwide, with whom I went to Uganda last year and Vietnam before that!
Jealous? I'm going with Exodus, they do loads of cool trips all over the world, as do Explore Worldwide, with whom I went to Uganda last year and Vietnam before that!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Stealth politics
The legislative and regulatory reform bill probably isn't the sort of theing that has you rushing out to the newsagents demanding more copy. Ironically the Independent last week had an article on about page 47 about how the bill should be getting more front-page media attention! The Guaardian's take ont he situation is at least available on-line. There is also a decent explanation on The Times website.
Basically the new laws, which no-one is making a fuss about, not least because no-one has noticed it's happening, will make it possible for ministers to push new legislation through without parliament actually voting on it, just because they think they "need to". So for example Emperor Blair could decide that in the interests of, ooh, err, lets say "fighting terrorism", elections and voting are cancelled until further notice and everyone has to pay taxes to him personally.
But nice to know that the global balance is being maintained: Iraq is getting "democracy" it's not ready for and we're losing ours because we're all too half-asleep to even notice.
Basically the new laws, which no-one is making a fuss about, not least because no-one has noticed it's happening, will make it possible for ministers to push new legislation through without parliament actually voting on it, just because they think they "need to". So for example Emperor Blair could decide that in the interests of, ooh, err, lets say "fighting terrorism", elections and voting are cancelled until further notice and everyone has to pay taxes to him personally.
But nice to know that the global balance is being maintained: Iraq is getting "democracy" it's not ready for and we're losing ours because we're all too half-asleep to even notice.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Baby panic
There's been a lot of coverage of Natallie Evans' now all-but-over case over the use of frozen embryos for IVF. I suppose it would be rather predictable of me to say:
1) Adopt.
2) Even with permission the likelihood of the proceedure being successful is pretty low, less than 50% even with three cycles on women who haven't had treatment for cancer. And there are only six frozen embryos so more cycles wouldn't be possible.
3) Why on earth do they insist on freexing embryos - why not freeze eggs? I understand at the moment they're a little bit better at the former, but the latter is still possible.
4) Why do we have a law in this country which says that Ms Evans can't draw up a legal document absolving her ex-partner of responsibility for the child. Surely if everybody in the situation is in agreement about who is responsible for the potential child, it should be possible to legalise that.
But instead I'll say this... What a horrible man Howard Johnston is. I can honestly say from all my ex-boyfriends (hundreds of them...), even the ones who never returned my CDs or went out the next week and tried to chat my sister up, if they were in the reverse situation I would let them use the embryos and be glad to help them out. She's had life-threatening cancer which has left her infertile. Doesn't that provoke a little sympathy in the man?
1) Adopt.
2) Even with permission the likelihood of the proceedure being successful is pretty low, less than 50% even with three cycles on women who haven't had treatment for cancer. And there are only six frozen embryos so more cycles wouldn't be possible.
3) Why on earth do they insist on freexing embryos - why not freeze eggs? I understand at the moment they're a little bit better at the former, but the latter is still possible.
4) Why do we have a law in this country which says that Ms Evans can't draw up a legal document absolving her ex-partner of responsibility for the child. Surely if everybody in the situation is in agreement about who is responsible for the potential child, it should be possible to legalise that.
But instead I'll say this... What a horrible man Howard Johnston is. I can honestly say from all my ex-boyfriends (hundreds of them...), even the ones who never returned my CDs or went out the next week and tried to chat my sister up, if they were in the reverse situation I would let them use the embryos and be glad to help them out. She's had life-threatening cancer which has left her infertile. Doesn't that provoke a little sympathy in the man?
Friday, March 03, 2006
Local girls
An old friend of mine from when I lived in Bury St Edmunds has a band which - I'm ashamed to admit - I haven't gotten round to going to see yet (and I'm on holiday next time they're in London too). However The Guardian has picked up on them after they won the NME radar award for being the "next big thing". There's a big feature on them today with a very cool photo with my friend (also called Kate) looking fabulous (as she always does).
Thursday, March 02, 2006
School daze
Today's the day when kids all over the country find out which school they've gotten in to. My co-presenter Steve's daughter has gotten in to the school she wanted so he's over the moon. There's an article on the BBC about various parents and their experiences.
Thing is though, I thought the whole point of a nationalised education system was to make sure that all kids got a decent education, not just the ones whose parents were smart, well-connected and ambitious for their kids. What about the children in families who don't care for them or don't value education? Well of course they have the double curse of little or no home education and going to the worst possible school - since that's the one which will have places.
Strange that there is a huge fuss made about selection being on the basis of ability, despite the obvious advantages of streamed education*. Meanwhile selection based on parental interest is the norm.
*I was a bit horrified by the recent proposals to put kids younger and younger kids through academic tests. On the other hand I did spend at least 95% of my time at school either being taught stuff I already knew or being bullied for being a swot... I think you have to start streaming quite early based on small tests and tasks, but leave lots of space for kids to move up and down through streams as they get older.
Thing is though, I thought the whole point of a nationalised education system was to make sure that all kids got a decent education, not just the ones whose parents were smart, well-connected and ambitious for their kids. What about the children in families who don't care for them or don't value education? Well of course they have the double curse of little or no home education and going to the worst possible school - since that's the one which will have places.
Strange that there is a huge fuss made about selection being on the basis of ability, despite the obvious advantages of streamed education*. Meanwhile selection based on parental interest is the norm.
*I was a bit horrified by the recent proposals to put kids younger and younger kids through academic tests. On the other hand I did spend at least 95% of my time at school either being taught stuff I already knew or being bullied for being a swot... I think you have to start streaming quite early based on small tests and tasks, but leave lots of space for kids to move up and down through streams as they get older.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Women in Comedy
Firstly I was really saddened to hear that Linda Smith has died. She's was a great wit, really dry and clever. She famously said "I sympathise with people trying to find WMD. I'm like that with scissors - I put them down, then search all over the house and never find them"! There are never enough women in comedy, we can't really afford to lose one.
Speaking of which, secondly, I am all in favour of Charlotte Church being given her own show. However I was a little horrified at the quote attributed to Channel Four director Kevin Lygo: "How fantastic if we could create this show around a woman rather than a male comedian." How about creating a show around a female comedian? (Comedienne even!) Charlotte Church is very charming but she's not a comic. One of two things seems likely to happen... either she'll be thrown off after a fortnight for not being funny enough and then they'll decide women aren't suitable to host such shows or she'll be given half a dozen mostly male writers. I'm going to sulk about it til I get my own chat show...
If you'd like to see women (woman singular actually, I am the only one on the bill) in comedy in action I'm in Fleet tonight (not the Red Lion, Soho as previously advertised, got to take the money job) compering at Propaganda Music Canteen 317 Fleet Road. Show starts at 8:30pm.
Speaking of which, secondly, I am all in favour of Charlotte Church being given her own show. However I was a little horrified at the quote attributed to Channel Four director Kevin Lygo: "How fantastic if we could create this show around a woman rather than a male comedian." How about creating a show around a female comedian? (Comedienne even!) Charlotte Church is very charming but she's not a comic. One of two things seems likely to happen... either she'll be thrown off after a fortnight for not being funny enough and then they'll decide women aren't suitable to host such shows or she'll be given half a dozen mostly male writers. I'm going to sulk about it til I get my own chat show...
If you'd like to see women (woman singular actually, I am the only one on the bill) in comedy in action I'm in Fleet tonight (not the Red Lion, Soho as previously advertised, got to take the money job) compering at Propaganda Music Canteen 317 Fleet Road. Show starts at 8:30pm.
More on Jobs and Gender
Update from my last post on the subject: When women still aren't allowed to be bishops in the UK, why do we keep letting men into professions that involve poking around women's reproductive organs? Another one turns out to be doing a bad job of it. On the other hand personally I don't think IVF should be offered on the NHS at all. There are plenty of unwanted children in need of adoption or fostering out there. If you want to contribute to society by raising and caring for kids, there are plenty of ways of achieving that. Insisting that it must be in your own image, bearing your own DNA, etc, that just feels like vanity to me and has to be done at your own expense.
We like Arundhati Roy...
...this comment piece she's written in the Guardian about Bush's visit to India really made me laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
