Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The True Colours of Lad Mags
If you think that Nuts, Zoo, FHM, Loaded, etc are just about harmless fun and great tits, read this post from CharlieGrrl. Made me so angry.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Anyone else see the holes in this?
Looking at the headline from the Guardian, you would be forgiven for thinking the government was actually addressing the woefully low conviction rate for rape. Actually the bill has been watered down ofer and over again. Here's what we're (possibly) getting:
1) Expert witnesses allowed to explain in general terms about rape victims and their common behaviour patterns.
2) An automatic right to use the alleged victim's videotaped interview with the police in place of her main evidence at the trial.
3) Allowing the jury to be told of any occasions when the woman confided in someone else about the rape .
Now (1) might do minimal good if the right well-trained experts are called as witnesses, in practice it'll probably just start up a market for phoney "expert" witnesses. What's the better the rape "experts" will be guys? (2) is presumably intended to deal with victims who later retract their accusations, a problem which would arise much less if victims were believed and given support. (3) Is actually not a law change, that already stands as of a ruling last year.
Maybe we shouldn't be ungrateful but it's way short of what is really needed to address the situation:
1) Specialist rape trauma centres in all decent-sized policce stations nationwide, staffed by women out of uniform who have had extensive training in dealing with that and equipped with medical equipment necessary for preparing physical evidence.
2) A major advertising campaign to let people know these centres have been set up.
3) Training in dealing with rape reports and sensitive referral where appropriate for all police.
4) Clarification of the existing law that says the defence need to prove consent and NOT vice versa. Judges who counsel otherwise should be thrown out.
5) Jurors should be screened and rejected if they believe that women can be responsible for their own rapes if they dress provocatively/flirt/engage in preliminary sexual behaviour/carry condoms/have a history of promiscuity/get drunk.
6) Jurors receive training explaining that none of those things affect whether or not a rape can have taken place. Judges who do not back up this message are thrown out.
7) A public information campaign that emphasises how rare false accusations of rape are, that reminds men that it is their responsibility to ensure they have consent and that a big new clampdown is underway.
Instead there is much moaning that there should be a level of intoxication beyond which it is assumed consent cannot be given. This might solve a few cases but for me it would be a weird rule to have and would probably lead to the "she wasn't drunk so i can't have raped her" defence proliferating.
What does anyone else think?
1) Expert witnesses allowed to explain in general terms about rape victims and their common behaviour patterns.
2) An automatic right to use the alleged victim's videotaped interview with the police in place of her main evidence at the trial.
3) Allowing the jury to be told of any occasions when the woman confided in someone else about the rape .
Now (1) might do minimal good if the right well-trained experts are called as witnesses, in practice it'll probably just start up a market for phoney "expert" witnesses. What's the better the rape "experts" will be guys? (2) is presumably intended to deal with victims who later retract their accusations, a problem which would arise much less if victims were believed and given support. (3) Is actually not a law change, that already stands as of a ruling last year.
Maybe we shouldn't be ungrateful but it's way short of what is really needed to address the situation:
1) Specialist rape trauma centres in all decent-sized policce stations nationwide, staffed by women out of uniform who have had extensive training in dealing with that and equipped with medical equipment necessary for preparing physical evidence.
2) A major advertising campaign to let people know these centres have been set up.
3) Training in dealing with rape reports and sensitive referral where appropriate for all police.
4) Clarification of the existing law that says the defence need to prove consent and NOT vice versa. Judges who counsel otherwise should be thrown out.
5) Jurors should be screened and rejected if they believe that women can be responsible for their own rapes if they dress provocatively/flirt/engage in preliminary sexual behaviour/carry condoms/have a history of promiscuity/get drunk.
6) Jurors receive training explaining that none of those things affect whether or not a rape can have taken place. Judges who do not back up this message are thrown out.
7) A public information campaign that emphasises how rare false accusations of rape are, that reminds men that it is their responsibility to ensure they have consent and that a big new clampdown is underway.
Instead there is much moaning that there should be a level of intoxication beyond which it is assumed consent cannot be given. This might solve a few cases but for me it would be a weird rule to have and would probably lead to the "she wasn't drunk so i can't have raped her" defence proliferating.
What does anyone else think?
(Not) Working for the Man
Being self-employed in the loosest possible sense - being paid to muck about in public and be silly - I never really miss the days when I worked for big companies. I miss some of the people I worked with, but then I see them, they exist outside the office (who knew?!). And I sure don't miss the feeling that I'm helping the wheels of giant business go round (which seriously over-estimates how much "help" I was to those companies, mostly I just played cricket round the desks with an old clip-board and a ball of rubber bands...).The UK recently passed up an opportunity to make some really strong corporate manslaughter laws, that would really have meant a tidal shift in the way companies looked at risk.
The situation is now totally out of hand, corporations can get away with anything. Kids drinking shandy on a street corner can expect an ASBO leading to probation, fines and even jail. Corporations can murder people with total impunity. If you don't believe me - read this. If you do - read it anyway; it's one of the most compelling things I've read in ages.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Why is the Cru-Blog advertising Boob Jobs?
Ok first of all go take a look at the advert by clicking here. You'll have to click the link and then click download to see the pdf of the advert (sorry about that, if anyone knows how I can make it easier, please let me know). Anyway give the advert a quick read, see if you can spot anything odd about it at all.
Then when you're done explain to me what this is supposed to be.
Then when you're done explain to me what this is supposed to be.
Sick as a Hellcat
There is a lot wrong with the NHS. Waiting list and drugs they won't approve because they cost "too much" and MRSA and a massive shortage of midwives and local hospitals being closed down, not to mention run-down buildings, disgusting food and unhelpful staff (not all of them I am sure but the last time I dropped by St Thomas's this was a big problem). There's always somebody worse off than yourself though. And it's America. Seems like Michael Moore's new film is long overdue.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Who's The Daddy?
The government is off on yet another morality crusade, this time they are annoucing that they are going to make registration of father's names on birth certificates compulsory. Now you would think that this move would be so that they can ensure that fathers are contributing financially to supporting their families, to reduce mother's dependence on benefits. Not a bad idea as such (although if you really cared about that sort of thing though you would be working on strengthening the powers of the CSA (Child Support Agency) to chase up money from absent fathers - currently only 15 percent of lone parents on Income Support receive any child support) but you have to think that women who say they don't know who the father of their child is must be saying that for one of two reasons:
1) There is some kind of problem. They were raped and don't want the rapist to have rights and access to the child. They were a victim of incest and don't want the child to have that on their permanent record. The father has threatened them with violence or abuse if they "grass him up". They fear that an ex-partner or members of the family may attack or even murder the father if he is named.
2) They genuinely don't know who the father is. They had a one night stand and didn't get in touch afterwards or left false contact details. Or they may have been having simultaneous relationships with several men and not know which caused the pregnancy.
In either case who are they going to prosecute under the new laws? A new mother, baby under one arm, sat there either terrified or just quite honestly unaware of who the father of her child is? That doesn't seem very resonable. And how can they prosecute the father? They don't know who he is!
The quotes from Kate Stanley at The Institute of Public Policy Research are frighteningly out of touch with the realities of the kind of people who might be affected by this legislation:
"Everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day." Presumably newsagents are going to start selling 'Happy Father's Day - thanks for nothing!' cards shortly?
"Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family." Does anyone really believe that writing the name of the man who abused and raped you on a birth certificate is going to result in that man coming round every other weekend to take your child out to the park and dressing up as santa on Christmas eve? And does anybody actually want their rapist round their house hanging out with their kids anyway?
1) There is some kind of problem. They were raped and don't want the rapist to have rights and access to the child. They were a victim of incest and don't want the child to have that on their permanent record. The father has threatened them with violence or abuse if they "grass him up". They fear that an ex-partner or members of the family may attack or even murder the father if he is named.
2) They genuinely don't know who the father is. They had a one night stand and didn't get in touch afterwards or left false contact details. Or they may have been having simultaneous relationships with several men and not know which caused the pregnancy.
In either case who are they going to prosecute under the new laws? A new mother, baby under one arm, sat there either terrified or just quite honestly unaware of who the father of her child is? That doesn't seem very resonable. And how can they prosecute the father? They don't know who he is!
The quotes from Kate Stanley at The Institute of Public Policy Research are frighteningly out of touch with the realities of the kind of people who might be affected by this legislation:
"Everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day." Presumably newsagents are going to start selling 'Happy Father's Day - thanks for nothing!' cards shortly?
"Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family." Does anyone really believe that writing the name of the man who abused and raped you on a birth certificate is going to result in that man coming round every other weekend to take your child out to the park and dressing up as santa on Christmas eve? And does anybody actually want their rapist round their house hanging out with their kids anyway?
Remember Democracy?
Do you remember the good old days when you went out and voted for the candidate whose policies seemed the most sensible to you? Voting on it's own however isn't good enough any more. Apparently American women need to contribute financially to the campaigns of their favoured candidates too!
It's difficult to know what to suggset - I can understand that politics has become so heavily a money game that people feel the only way to win it is to get our own money out. Trouble is that if we accept a totally money-based game we will then ultimately lose to the group with the most money - the multi-national corporates. In fact this is already happening, remember when MoveOn.org finally raised enough money to put an anti-Bush advert on during the superbowl? The TV companies refused to put it on because even though the money had been raised (a) they knew that future revenue would be greater from the big corporates and it was more important to keep them happy and (b) they were afraid of what the current administration would do to them if they showed the advert.
And remember every penny/cent we spend on these media activities ends up as an extra penny/cent in the pockets of the people who run the adverts - big corporates whose interests end up getting put ahead of those of ordinary people.
If women are involved in the political process but are refusing to pay for candidates air-time, that's ok with me.
It's difficult to know what to suggset - I can understand that politics has become so heavily a money game that people feel the only way to win it is to get our own money out. Trouble is that if we accept a totally money-based game we will then ultimately lose to the group with the most money - the multi-national corporates. In fact this is already happening, remember when MoveOn.org finally raised enough money to put an anti-Bush advert on during the superbowl? The TV companies refused to put it on because even though the money had been raised (a) they knew that future revenue would be greater from the big corporates and it was more important to keep them happy and (b) they were afraid of what the current administration would do to them if they showed the advert.
And remember every penny/cent we spend on these media activities ends up as an extra penny/cent in the pockets of the people who run the adverts - big corporates whose interests end up getting put ahead of those of ordinary people.
If women are involved in the political process but are refusing to pay for candidates air-time, that's ok with me.
Beauty Kit for Little Girls
Really clever spoof adverts for, well, watch and see, creepy and disturbing but not all that far from the messages children are receiving these days. Also watch in wonder/amazement as I successfully embed a video clip...
Messed Up World
There's a website been set up - called myfreeimplants - where women can post up sexy pictures of themselves and men donate money towards buying a boob job, presumably for the one they judge to be most in "need"!? Of course we've seen this before more or less. Remember this one? To go with this there was a documentary on TV tonight about teenagers having boob jobs - many of them long before their breasts are going to have stopped growing.
But then if you look at the most successful women we see regularly on TV and film - a high percentage of them have had boob jobs. So is it any surprise young girls aspire to be like them? Of course media coverage doesn't seem to cover the risk of DEATH from surgery, loss of sensation and ability to breastfeed. And heaven forbid the media should ever imply that women could be valued for something more than their physical appearance - or their attractiveness to men pawing over their photos on a truly repulsive website like the one mentioned. Maybe they should change the name to www.choose-which-girl-gets-cut.com Puke...
But then if you look at the most successful women we see regularly on TV and film - a high percentage of them have had boob jobs. So is it any surprise young girls aspire to be like them? Of course media coverage doesn't seem to cover the risk of DEATH from surgery, loss of sensation and ability to breastfeed. And heaven forbid the media should ever imply that women could be valued for something more than their physical appearance - or their attractiveness to men pawing over their photos on a truly repulsive website like the one mentioned. Maybe they should change the name to www.choose-which-girl-gets-cut.com Puke...
Friday, June 15, 2007
Spot The Intelligence
I guess they call them intelligence services for a reason, and I'm expected to blindly accept that along with everything they say. You'd have to forgive me for wondering though when Jamil el-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi went to Gambia to set up a peanut processing factory, what exactly made MI5 think they were plotting to engage in terrorism. Whatever it was*, evidently it was pretty compelling because now Mr el-Banna is now being released from Guantanamo Bay without charge. [Well of course in a bout of frightening double-speak he has been "cleared for release", which is the new way of letting inmates go without charge without admitting you had no reason to lock them up in the first place!]
The Home Office has responded by pointing out that because he was away for more than two years, he has forfeitted his visa to stay in the UK where his wife and five (British citizen) children live.** Mr el-Banna's ten year old son Anas has written a letter to Gordon Brown, pointing out "My Dad was only out of the country because he was locked up over there." Now that is definitely intelligence.
On the upside Harriet Harman, the Cru-blog's on-going candidate of choice for the deputy leadership (from those running that is) is campaigning for Britain to raise the long-overdue issue of Guantanamo at the UN Security Council.
*If you're really wondering it was a battery charger the men bought from Argos.
**Oh and if you really want to know why they don't want him back in the country it may just be an attempt to hush up the horrific story of how badly MI5 mis-handled the case throughout.
The Home Office has responded by pointing out that because he was away for more than two years, he has forfeitted his visa to stay in the UK where his wife and five (British citizen) children live.** Mr el-Banna's ten year old son Anas has written a letter to Gordon Brown, pointing out "My Dad was only out of the country because he was locked up over there." Now that is definitely intelligence.
On the upside Harriet Harman, the Cru-blog's on-going candidate of choice for the deputy leadership (from those running that is) is campaigning for Britain to raise the long-overdue issue of Guantanamo at the UN Security Council.
*If you're really wondering it was a battery charger the men bought from Argos.
**Oh and if you really want to know why they don't want him back in the country it may just be an attempt to hush up the horrific story of how badly MI5 mis-handled the case throughout.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Carnival!
Cru-blog (that's me) is delighted to announce that it will be hosting the 42nd Carnival of the Feminists. This means that if you plan to write something deeply insightful and thought-provoking, or even something fun and women-related anytime in the first half of July, you could be featured in the carnival. Thinking caps on please!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Herd Instinct
I spent last weekend at the Kilkenny Comedy Festival. It was my best mate from uni's hen do and she currently lives in Dublin so seemed like a good excuse for a trip. Shappi Khorsandi and Reginald D Hunter were fantastic and a great time was had by all. It was a relatively modest hen do by modern standards. We had a meal, drinks and danced a bit in a local pub but there were no strippers, no accosting of strangers, no dares or sprints around the streets in our undies.
Not so Stephen Mallone who took his stag party to Slovakia where he proceeded to get arrested dancing naked in a fountain. The media coverage seems to have focussed on his future wife ("a former carnival queen" - oh please BBC, your reporters can do better than that) and her distress at the prospect of postponing the wedding while he serves time in Bratislava's local prison. Even the local MP has jumped in and appears now to have secured Mallone's release.
Personally I am in favour of locking him up. Not because naked fountain-dancing bothers me all that much (though I can imagine it was intimidating to some). But because I think taking your stag do overseas and then totally ignoring local traditions and behaving loutishly sucks. I've been to Prague twice in my life, once in 1996 when I was struck by the beauty and historical charm of the place, and once in 2005 when I was horrified to see street after street of strip clubs catering exclusively to English stag do tourists, many still roaming the streets shouting at nine or ten in the morning, clearly having been out all night.
I don't see Czecks and Slovaks (nor Poles, Estonians, etc) chasing round the streets of London demanding more beer and access to cheap lap-dancing clubs. At best it's totally unfair that we should force the very worst elements of British customs onto unsuspecting foreigners. At worst it's abusive sexual tourism.
I'd like to think my local MP spends their time following up genuine miscarriages of justice and figuring out how to address real issues like healthcare and education. And I think we should leave Stephen Mallone to rot in jail for a couple of months as an example to the others.
Not so Stephen Mallone who took his stag party to Slovakia where he proceeded to get arrested dancing naked in a fountain. The media coverage seems to have focussed on his future wife ("a former carnival queen" - oh please BBC, your reporters can do better than that) and her distress at the prospect of postponing the wedding while he serves time in Bratislava's local prison. Even the local MP has jumped in and appears now to have secured Mallone's release.
Personally I am in favour of locking him up. Not because naked fountain-dancing bothers me all that much (though I can imagine it was intimidating to some). But because I think taking your stag do overseas and then totally ignoring local traditions and behaving loutishly sucks. I've been to Prague twice in my life, once in 1996 when I was struck by the beauty and historical charm of the place, and once in 2005 when I was horrified to see street after street of strip clubs catering exclusively to English stag do tourists, many still roaming the streets shouting at nine or ten in the morning, clearly having been out all night.
I don't see Czecks and Slovaks (nor Poles, Estonians, etc) chasing round the streets of London demanding more beer and access to cheap lap-dancing clubs. At best it's totally unfair that we should force the very worst elements of British customs onto unsuspecting foreigners. At worst it's abusive sexual tourism.
I'd like to think my local MP spends their time following up genuine miscarriages of justice and figuring out how to address real issues like healthcare and education. And I think we should leave Stephen Mallone to rot in jail for a couple of months as an example to the others.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Big Sister
Some of you will remember I had a preview copy of Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism. This was my quick same-day review. My full frontal review is now up on the F-Word here, and I also slag off Big Brother too!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Any Lawyers Out There?
I'm sadly not qualified myself but I still can't help thinking that it's probably against the law in the UK to threaten MPs. You know if for instance I started telling MPs that unless they voted in parliament the way I wanted them to, I was going to make life difficult for them. I think if I did that I would be on some pretty thin legal ice. And we have to remember that MPs are supposed to represent their constituents interests, not their own, so to treat their vote as a statement of their personal opinion and attempt retribution against that would be a grave mistake.
But of course that wouldn't be the sort of thing that would stop someone like Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Scotland's top Catholic (according to the pope that is, I'm sure the public would vote for Billy Connolly!) has announced that any MP who votes to defend the legal status of abortion will be thrown out of the church. This is very bad news if:
1) You are a catholic MP who believes that women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
2) You are a catholic MP who follows church doctrine yourself but represents an area with a majority atheist/protestant/jewish/muslim/pagan/jedi pro-choice population.
3) You are an atheist MP from a Catholic background and thus viewed as a Catholic by Cardinal O'Brien and co and likely to cause upset in your family if you are suddenly very publically ex-communicated.
But it begs another, for me, bigger issue. Why all the fuss about abortion? The bible says NOTHING about abortion. If God meant the "no killing" rule to apply pre-birth, you would think He would mention it. And look at the miscarriage rate - for someone who disapproves of abortion God sure carries out a lot of them Himself. But also - why isn't there a big fuss about blasphemy. Blasphemy is actually in the 10 commandements - gets a whole commandement to itself in fact. People across the country commit blasphemy every day (God knows I do!) but I don't see politicians being threatened with ex-communication if they fail to vote for lengthy prison terms for those who take the Lord's name in vain.
The truth is that very few people are genuinely anti-abortion out of respect for the "life" of a gnat-sized cluster of cells. The anti-abortion movement should be re-named the "punish women for having sex" movement or just the "anti-women" movement. If they really wanted to cut abortions they would encourage birth control availability and support significant increases in the power of the Child Support Agency and the level of benefits available to make sure that single Mums have the means to raise their children if they want to.
And finally - why are we even thinking about taking advice on how to legislate a sex-related issue from a member of an organisation which has repeatedly suffered humiliation as case after case of child sex abuse has hit the courts? Why are we taking advice on legislating over women's bodies from an old unmarried man who has probably never even seen a woman's body? Why are we taking advice on morality issues from a man who eats what he genuinely believes to be human flesh at least once a week? And why are we giving any media coverage or prestige at all to a man who dresses like an extra from Harry Potter World?
But of course that wouldn't be the sort of thing that would stop someone like Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Scotland's top Catholic (according to the pope that is, I'm sure the public would vote for Billy Connolly!) has announced that any MP who votes to defend the legal status of abortion will be thrown out of the church. This is very bad news if:
1) You are a catholic MP who believes that women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
2) You are a catholic MP who follows church doctrine yourself but represents an area with a majority atheist/protestant/jewish/muslim/pagan/jedi pro-choice population.
3) You are an atheist MP from a Catholic background and thus viewed as a Catholic by Cardinal O'Brien and co and likely to cause upset in your family if you are suddenly very publically ex-communicated.
But it begs another, for me, bigger issue. Why all the fuss about abortion? The bible says NOTHING about abortion. If God meant the "no killing" rule to apply pre-birth, you would think He would mention it. And look at the miscarriage rate - for someone who disapproves of abortion God sure carries out a lot of them Himself. But also - why isn't there a big fuss about blasphemy. Blasphemy is actually in the 10 commandements - gets a whole commandement to itself in fact. People across the country commit blasphemy every day (God knows I do!) but I don't see politicians being threatened with ex-communication if they fail to vote for lengthy prison terms for those who take the Lord's name in vain.
The truth is that very few people are genuinely anti-abortion out of respect for the "life" of a gnat-sized cluster of cells. The anti-abortion movement should be re-named the "punish women for having sex" movement or just the "anti-women" movement. If they really wanted to cut abortions they would encourage birth control availability and support significant increases in the power of the Child Support Agency and the level of benefits available to make sure that single Mums have the means to raise their children if they want to.
And finally - why are we even thinking about taking advice on how to legislate a sex-related issue from a member of an organisation which has repeatedly suffered humiliation as case after case of child sex abuse has hit the courts? Why are we taking advice on legislating over women's bodies from an old unmarried man who has probably never even seen a woman's body? Why are we taking advice on morality issues from a man who eats what he genuinely believes to be human flesh at least once a week? And why are we giving any media coverage or prestige at all to a man who dresses like an extra from Harry Potter World?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Our Heros - The Movie They Didn't Make
A very interesting Alternet article looks at the recent Department of Justice study in the US which shows that ex-servicemen commit rape and sexual assault at much higher rates than those who have not served. Funny how the homecoming scenes in war movies always go for the spinning-the-faithful-girl-round-petting-the-puppy-cue-sunset-pan-out-... rather than the muffled screams and then her in tears in the local police station.
The information is all well and good but it raises more questions than it answers. Is it that the military "belittles" the enemy by feminising them? Is it that nasty potential rapists are drawn to join the military? Is it that rape and sexual assault are commonplace in the military and the culture stays with servicemen after they get home? Is it that life in the military means being away from women for long periods of time and so media messages about women are not counter-balanced by experiences of real women? Is it an expected result of big groups of men hanging out together? Is it that all the training boosts testosterone levels and sex drive? Is it that the military is so disorientating, and doing awful, awful things is taught as being "correct" to the point that judgement is permanently impaired?
The answer is clearly - some of those thing to varying degrees and some other things too.
And the solution is ... complicated. One thing that really would help though is if there were more women in the military. It would change the atmosphere in camps, it would leave male recruits training alongside women, it would result in military leaders being unable to "feminise" the enemy, since their own troops included many women. And - here's the biggie - it would massively cut rape and sexual assault in and out of the forces because women, in or out of uniform, commit those crimes at a tiny fraction the rate men do.
The information is all well and good but it raises more questions than it answers. Is it that the military "belittles" the enemy by feminising them? Is it that nasty potential rapists are drawn to join the military? Is it that rape and sexual assault are commonplace in the military and the culture stays with servicemen after they get home? Is it that life in the military means being away from women for long periods of time and so media messages about women are not counter-balanced by experiences of real women? Is it an expected result of big groups of men hanging out together? Is it that all the training boosts testosterone levels and sex drive? Is it that the military is so disorientating, and doing awful, awful things is taught as being "correct" to the point that judgement is permanently impaired?
The answer is clearly - some of those thing to varying degrees and some other things too.
And the solution is ... complicated. One thing that really would help though is if there were more women in the military. It would change the atmosphere in camps, it would leave male recruits training alongside women, it would result in military leaders being unable to "feminise" the enemy, since their own troops included many women. And - here's the biggie - it would massively cut rape and sexual assault in and out of the forces because women, in or out of uniform, commit those crimes at a tiny fraction the rate men do.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
What Women (Don't) Want
Imagine taking the very worst of those magazine's supposedly aimed at women and distilling it in a big vat of misogynist nonsense and then unloading it onto the web. Welcome to Jezebel, the new "women's" blog from Gawker.
I think the view Gawker has of women is very neatly summed up when they mention "Nebraska" and feel the need to add "(a state)"... I wish I was making this up.
So what is it that us women are interested in then? Mainly relationships - other peoples it seems, a good two-thirds of stories are about celebrity relationships. Personally I AM interested in celebrity relationships - I'm interested in how they're portrayed in the media and how they highlight gender issues that "ordinary" people may be experiencing.
For instance Anne Heche's divorce - we're told she's a poor cook while he looks up internet porn while he's meant to be looking after their child. Those are some really interesting issues. As a woman - what do you do if you discover your partner uses large amounts of pornography? How does it affect your relationship, how does it make you feel and how do you react if there's a risk of children finding it? And these days a lot of women and even more men have very limited kitchen skills. The wide availability of pre-prepared food may appear to be making life easier but if it creates a generation who are effectively unable to prepare fresh food from fresh ingredients, then that has serious implications for our health and wellbeing. (Discuss...)
Sadly that's not the Jezebel response. They've gone with "Sounds like a normal marriage to us!". Never mind that more men admit to poor culinary skills than do women. And remember ladies - all men look at porn, just get used to it.
As for the rest of it, try these extracts for size...
"Does this mean we can stop coloring our hair?" (When were we supposed to start? Did I miss a meeting?)
"Guess those fake breasts paid off!" (Since when was cosmetic surgery a business plan?)
"You can never be subtle enough when it comes to reminding a guy where his vagina is coming from" (Any sentence with the words 'his vagina' needs a re-think doesn't it?)
"Conventional wisdom holds that women's magazines aren't as good as men's magazines." (At what? And who writes half the cr*p in so-called women's magazines? Men! I don't think the author of this piece has subscribed to BUST yet...)
"Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon asks, 'What is wrong with women?'" (Speak for yourself thanks, I'm fabulous.)
"Males of the species: Now, sadly, even more irrelevant." (Again speak for yourselves, the men in my life are very relevant thanks. Of course the article is about fertility treatment. Because remember ladies - life is about baby-making!)
"We thought feminism was supposed to be straightforward" (Who told you that? It's as diverse as, erm, the women who definitely WON'T be reading your stupid website!)
I think the view Gawker has of women is very neatly summed up when they mention "Nebraska" and feel the need to add "(a state)"... I wish I was making this up.
So what is it that us women are interested in then? Mainly relationships - other peoples it seems, a good two-thirds of stories are about celebrity relationships. Personally I AM interested in celebrity relationships - I'm interested in how they're portrayed in the media and how they highlight gender issues that "ordinary" people may be experiencing.
For instance Anne Heche's divorce - we're told she's a poor cook while he looks up internet porn while he's meant to be looking after their child. Those are some really interesting issues. As a woman - what do you do if you discover your partner uses large amounts of pornography? How does it affect your relationship, how does it make you feel and how do you react if there's a risk of children finding it? And these days a lot of women and even more men have very limited kitchen skills. The wide availability of pre-prepared food may appear to be making life easier but if it creates a generation who are effectively unable to prepare fresh food from fresh ingredients, then that has serious implications for our health and wellbeing. (Discuss...)
Sadly that's not the Jezebel response. They've gone with "Sounds like a normal marriage to us!". Never mind that more men admit to poor culinary skills than do women. And remember ladies - all men look at porn, just get used to it.
As for the rest of it, try these extracts for size...
"Does this mean we can stop coloring our hair?" (When were we supposed to start? Did I miss a meeting?)
"Guess those fake breasts paid off!" (Since when was cosmetic surgery a business plan?)
"You can never be subtle enough when it comes to reminding a guy where his vagina is coming from" (Any sentence with the words 'his vagina' needs a re-think doesn't it?)
"Conventional wisdom holds that women's magazines aren't as good as men's magazines." (At what? And who writes half the cr*p in so-called women's magazines? Men! I don't think the author of this piece has subscribed to BUST yet...)
"Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon asks, 'What is wrong with women?'" (Speak for yourself thanks, I'm fabulous.)
"Males of the species: Now, sadly, even more irrelevant." (Again speak for yourselves, the men in my life are very relevant thanks. Of course the article is about fertility treatment. Because remember ladies - life is about baby-making!)
"We thought feminism was supposed to be straightforward" (Who told you that? It's as diverse as, erm, the women who definitely WON'T be reading your stupid website!)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Money-making Scheme
Saw this one via Sparklematrix and Feministing - so a woman's in bed and her boyfriend comes in and they have sex and then it turns out that that wasn't the boyfriend - that was his brother, impersonating him. Is it rape? According to the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court - no. apparently if you don't physically struggle, it ain't rape, even though it's done by deception.
So by this arguement... if a few of us dress up as Securicor/Securitas van drivers and walk into a bunch of local shops and banks, pick up the money from the till and drive off with it - is that theft? The shop-keepers didn't put up a fight? To be on the safe side - lets only rob shops in Massachusetts!
So by this arguement... if a few of us dress up as Securicor/Securitas van drivers and walk into a bunch of local shops and banks, pick up the money from the till and drive off with it - is that theft? The shop-keepers didn't put up a fight? To be on the safe side - lets only rob shops in Massachusetts!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Dodgy Diplomas
The BBC seems for reasons best kept to itself to be on a mission to get the much lauded diploma scheme back on track. I am not a fan of the idea. I think if GCSEs are getting easier it is because of the fragmentation of the exam boards and the fact that they are being run as independent financially competitive operations. Schools are able to shop around for the easiest exams which incentivises the boards to get easier and easier. What is needed is the return of a centralised independent moderation board who have the power to reject proposed courses and exams if they feel that the standard is dropping. Diplomas will do nothing to solve this problem.
Instead the plans will create other problems because they roll all of the existing GCSEs and A-levels into one qualification meaning:
1) Difficulties for those who prefer to study more slowly - such as those who dropped out of school and are catching up while working full or part time or those whose disabilities (physical, recovering from illness or surgery, dyslexia, etc) mean they can't study as fast as other students.
2) Brighter students are not able to take one or more subjects early.
3) Adult learners who study new subjects cannot incorporate the new skill into their existing diploma. Instead other qualifications will be needed to fill that gap. Hence an employer will be faced with e.g. an applicant with a diploma that includes some study of Spanish versus an applicant with a no-Spanish diploma and a seperate qualification in Spanish. Employers won't know how to compare the two, and may even have to start asking applicants to take a test as part of their application.
4) Students who fall out with an individual subject or teacher have their overall mark brought down rather than being able to show employers or universities that they have good marks across the board and that the problem has been in one area only.
Instead the plans will create other problems because they roll all of the existing GCSEs and A-levels into one qualification meaning:
1) Difficulties for those who prefer to study more slowly - such as those who dropped out of school and are catching up while working full or part time or those whose disabilities (physical, recovering from illness or surgery, dyslexia, etc) mean they can't study as fast as other students.
2) Brighter students are not able to take one or more subjects early.
3) Adult learners who study new subjects cannot incorporate the new skill into their existing diploma. Instead other qualifications will be needed to fill that gap. Hence an employer will be faced with e.g. an applicant with a diploma that includes some study of Spanish versus an applicant with a no-Spanish diploma and a seperate qualification in Spanish. Employers won't know how to compare the two, and may even have to start asking applicants to take a test as part of their application.
4) Students who fall out with an individual subject or teacher have their overall mark brought down rather than being able to show employers or universities that they have good marks across the board and that the problem has been in one area only.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Maddy-ness
If you're easily offended - look away now. I am really fed up with hearing about Madeleine McCann. You know - the little girl who was abducted in Portugal recently. Before I get my account deleted, let me say - I am not pro-abduction. I am fed up with being told that I should help find this child.
I've now had six emails sent to me with photos of Madeleine on and details about her distinctive eye colouration so I can help look out for her. Despite the fact that she was abducted (or may have wandered off on her own and got into trouble) in the Algarve in southern Portugal, I am expected to hunt for her in North-East London...? Most parents and child-carers around here would have me arrested if I started trying to examine their children's eyes.
I am also expected to leave messages of support for her parents. I'm expected to pray for her safe return. I'm supposed to download and print out posters of her and post them up. And I'm being asked to contribute to a fund which will pay for the ongoing search and "bringing her abductors to justice" (although who exactly is going to decide who those abductors are and how to unload the power of all that money onto them remains to be seen).
And that's just me - pity John Terry, the Chelsea and England captain, who has had to make speeches on TV appealing for information, regardless of the fact that the McCann's are Everton fans (of course the media insist that Madeleine herself is both a Christian and an Everton fan without making the point that she's way too young to have those kinds of opinions, if she is found alive she may well grow up to be an atheist who doesn't like football). I'd like to know whether any crime EVER has been solved as a direct result of showing a brief video before kick-off in a football match? I strongly doubt it, and in this case clearly they should be showing it before football matches in Portugal, if anywhere.
If you have five minutes of your life to spare and want to do some real good in the world, go visit Cru-blog's favourite charity Wateraid - they have tons of volunteering positions open and need all sorts of help and of course fund-raising. And the thing about buildng clean water pipelines in the third world is: it DOES work, you WILL save lives.
I've now had six emails sent to me with photos of Madeleine on and details about her distinctive eye colouration so I can help look out for her. Despite the fact that she was abducted (or may have wandered off on her own and got into trouble) in the Algarve in southern Portugal, I am expected to hunt for her in North-East London...? Most parents and child-carers around here would have me arrested if I started trying to examine their children's eyes.
I am also expected to leave messages of support for her parents. I'm expected to pray for her safe return. I'm supposed to download and print out posters of her and post them up. And I'm being asked to contribute to a fund which will pay for the ongoing search and "bringing her abductors to justice" (although who exactly is going to decide who those abductors are and how to unload the power of all that money onto them remains to be seen).
And that's just me - pity John Terry, the Chelsea and England captain, who has had to make speeches on TV appealing for information, regardless of the fact that the McCann's are Everton fans (of course the media insist that Madeleine herself is both a Christian and an Everton fan without making the point that she's way too young to have those kinds of opinions, if she is found alive she may well grow up to be an atheist who doesn't like football). I'd like to know whether any crime EVER has been solved as a direct result of showing a brief video before kick-off in a football match? I strongly doubt it, and in this case clearly they should be showing it before football matches in Portugal, if anywhere.
If you have five minutes of your life to spare and want to do some real good in the world, go visit Cru-blog's favourite charity Wateraid - they have tons of volunteering positions open and need all sorts of help and of course fund-raising. And the thing about buildng clean water pipelines in the third world is: it DOES work, you WILL save lives.
Come Have A Laugh With Cru
I have lots of comedy gigs coming up in London, Windsor, Andover and even Dublin so if you live near one of those places please come along!
Tonight (Sat 19th) - Hampstead Comedy Club 8pm for 9pm, £9.50
Tomorrow (Sun 20th) - King and Castle in Windsor 8pm for 9pm, FREE!
Monday 21st - Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martins Court 8pm for 8.30pm, £5 if you mention the Cru-blog (this is the place Mr Cru runs and I am resident compere)
Wednesday 23rd - Propaganda Music Canteen in Andover 8pm for 9pm, FREE!
Thursday 24th and Friday 25th - Bath House, Dean Street, 8pm for 8.30pm, £7
Saturday 26th - Samurai Comedy Club in Dublin, 7.30pm for 8.30pm, EUR10
Monday 28th - Soho Comedy Club as above.
Tonight (Sat 19th) - Hampstead Comedy Club 8pm for 9pm, £9.50
Tomorrow (Sun 20th) - King and Castle in Windsor 8pm for 9pm, FREE!
Monday 21st - Soho Comedy Club, Roundtable Pub, St Martins Court 8pm for 8.30pm, £5 if you mention the Cru-blog (this is the place Mr Cru runs and I am resident compere)
Wednesday 23rd - Propaganda Music Canteen in Andover 8pm for 9pm, FREE!
Thursday 24th and Friday 25th - Bath House, Dean Street, 8pm for 8.30pm, £7
Saturday 26th - Samurai Comedy Club in Dublin, 7.30pm for 8.30pm, EUR10
Monday 28th - Soho Comedy Club as above.
A Glimmer Of Optimism
Seems there is no escaping Gordon Brown as the next leader of the country. I hope he'll do a better job than Blair but I'm not counting on it. The decision is still far from made however on who will be deputy leader alongside Brown. And of the six candidates with their cards on the table there is in fact one who I quite like.
Harriet Harman does care about womens issues and has actually been working to improve the lot of women (shock horror!). You can read more about it in Johann Hari's column.
Further she has come out and said she doesn't think there should be any more faith schools!
It's not that I agree with her on every issue. Jon Cruddas is the only contender who backs a full enquiry in to the Iraq war - but then we don't have the best recent track record on enquiries do we? Might be a waste of time and resources. But Harman's interests seem not only worthy but also (a) forward-looking and (b) achievable. So if you do happen to be a member of the Labour Party, that is my secularist feminist preference please...
Harriet Harman does care about womens issues and has actually been working to improve the lot of women (shock horror!). You can read more about it in Johann Hari's column.
Further she has come out and said she doesn't think there should be any more faith schools!
It's not that I agree with her on every issue. Jon Cruddas is the only contender who backs a full enquiry in to the Iraq war - but then we don't have the best recent track record on enquiries do we? Might be a waste of time and resources. But Harman's interests seem not only worthy but also (a) forward-looking and (b) achievable. So if you do happen to be a member of the Labour Party, that is my secularist feminist preference please...
Friday, May 18, 2007
You may not need this book ... but someone you know does!
I've been fortunate enough to be given a review copy of Jessica Valenti's book Full Frontal Feminism. And here is my review...
Jessica Valenti and I could probably argue all week about the finer points of feminism. I am rather less tolerant of the pornography industry and rather more tolerant of what she sees as the movement's slightly chequered past. And then we could spend a happy month agreeing with each other on reproductive rights, media representations of women and what it means to be a feminist. By the end of it along with a big stack of self-congratulatory "exactly" and "you are so right", we might find she had moved my views a little on a couple of issues and I might have talked her in to taking one ot two of my more left-field theories seriously (like putting a chapter on religion in to the next version of the book).
But that's not the point of this book. It's not to hone the movement or highlight details we could all agree to differ on. The point of this book is to wake women, especially young women, up to the idea of feminism, and turn them on to it. And that's something that is desperately needed and stands to benefit all of us dramatically.
What's great about this book is that it's to the point and easy to read. It makes a simple case and it makes it clearly, convincingly and in a way that doesn't seem stodgy, old-fashioned or plain frightening. Add to that that Valenti includes specific practical examples of how to get involved and list sources of further information alongside the kind of reading list that you might actually look at and you start to understand how it could make a difference.
If you're a regular on sites like this one, The F-Word and Valenti's blog then this book might provide a nice recap of things that we've all covered and continue to talk about. When you've finished reading it though is when this book will really come into it's own. Pass it on to young women you work or socialise with or family members (teenage upwards). Give it as present to someone you know who could use a bit of feminism in their life, someone with energy and resources who could be a catalyst for change, or if you're stuck for ideas - donate it to your local school library and wait for revolution.
Jessica Valenti and I could probably argue all week about the finer points of feminism. I am rather less tolerant of the pornography industry and rather more tolerant of what she sees as the movement's slightly chequered past. And then we could spend a happy month agreeing with each other on reproductive rights, media representations of women and what it means to be a feminist. By the end of it along with a big stack of self-congratulatory "exactly" and "you are so right", we might find she had moved my views a little on a couple of issues and I might have talked her in to taking one ot two of my more left-field theories seriously (like putting a chapter on religion in to the next version of the book).
But that's not the point of this book. It's not to hone the movement or highlight details we could all agree to differ on. The point of this book is to wake women, especially young women, up to the idea of feminism, and turn them on to it. And that's something that is desperately needed and stands to benefit all of us dramatically.
What's great about this book is that it's to the point and easy to read. It makes a simple case and it makes it clearly, convincingly and in a way that doesn't seem stodgy, old-fashioned or plain frightening. Add to that that Valenti includes specific practical examples of how to get involved and list sources of further information alongside the kind of reading list that you might actually look at and you start to understand how it could make a difference.
If you're a regular on sites like this one, The F-Word and Valenti's blog then this book might provide a nice recap of things that we've all covered and continue to talk about. When you've finished reading it though is when this book will really come into it's own. Pass it on to young women you work or socialise with or family members (teenage upwards). Give it as present to someone you know who could use a bit of feminism in their life, someone with energy and resources who could be a catalyst for change, or if you're stuck for ideas - donate it to your local school library and wait for revolution.
Newspaper Pulp
(As posted on The F-Word) Those Cru-blog readers living in London will not have missed yesterday's copy of The London Paper which ran with the headline "'RAPE' GIRL GRATEFUL FOR SEX, SAYS LAWYER".
Yes I know... And the article goes on back up this argument by saying that the victim was overweight at the time of the attack. Evidently rapists are getting picky these days.
Now you sort-of can't really blame the lawyer because it is her job to get the guys (three of them in this case) off the hook, although personally I don't think I could live with myself if I said things like that in a court of law and a case like this. However what sort of a newspaper takes such ridiculous comments and reprints them as "news"?
Oh hang on - THIS sort of paper. Page 2 features Dita Von Teese in only a thong and a couple of pasties. Page 3 features entrants in the send-in-a-photo-of-yourself-in-swimwear contest. And by page 23 they are asking readers to phone in to a premium rate number and vote for which woman should receive the top prize of ... wait for it ... a modelling contract. And, for those of you who live outside London, this paper is distributed aggressively for free on all major train, bus and commuter routes, to the point where by 7pm my bus is literally carpetted with copies people have glanced through and dropped. Your free misogynist handout every day. If by any weird chance you don't think The London Paper is the best thing to happen to London in years, the good news is they would love to hear from you (apparently). Contact, be nice now!
Yes I know... And the article goes on back up this argument by saying that the victim was overweight at the time of the attack. Evidently rapists are getting picky these days.
Now you sort-of can't really blame the lawyer because it is her job to get the guys (three of them in this case) off the hook, although personally I don't think I could live with myself if I said things like that in a court of law and a case like this. However what sort of a newspaper takes such ridiculous comments and reprints them as "news"?
Oh hang on - THIS sort of paper. Page 2 features Dita Von Teese in only a thong and a couple of pasties. Page 3 features entrants in the send-in-a-photo-of-yourself-in-swimwear contest. And by page 23 they are asking readers to phone in to a premium rate number and vote for which woman should receive the top prize of ... wait for it ... a modelling contract. And, for those of you who live outside London, this paper is distributed aggressively for free on all major train, bus and commuter routes, to the point where by 7pm my bus is literally carpetted with copies people have glanced through and dropped. Your free misogynist handout every day. If by any weird chance you don't think The London Paper is the best thing to happen to London in years, the good news is they would love to hear from you (apparently). Contact
Thursday, May 17, 2007
How Do We Deal With FGM?
(Also posted on The F-Word) There is a rather shocking video out which you can download from IRIN News , the video is linked on the right hand sidebar. It shows how widespread the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) still is and how little is actually being done about it.
At the same time I have just read The Caged Virgin by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is regarded as an extremist by many, principally those who think that religion somehow trumps human rights. Personally I agree with a great deal of what she says. She believes from her own experience as a translator in the Netherlands that FGM is still widely practiced in the western world behind closed doors, that many girls living in the west are taken abroad for FGM, and that something should be done about it. And she advocates screening girls from "at risk" communities on an annual basis and prosecuting parents who allow their daughters to be mutilated.
There's no doubt that such a screening process would be viewed as intrusive, and as singling out and stigmatising those communities defined as "at risk". I have an alternative solution:
Give all children an annual health check-up, by a same-sex specifically trained nurse, which includes checking the genitals.
This is clearly achievable - when I was a child we were all checked by the nit nurse for head lice and we all received certain innoculations - and would likely have the added benefit of identifing a significant number of children being sexually abused (I have recently read an autobiography of a victim of child abuse who suffered genital herpes in infancy), some children being physically abused, early signs of diabetes, unhealthy lifestyles and all kinds of other conditions that parents may not have noticed or may be deliberately keeping quiet about.
What we can do about the practice of FGM overseas is a tougher call. In the areas where it is most prevalent supported by the government. Most advocacy groups and charities oppose the practice but almost no-one has an actual program in place that specifically addresses the issue. However the one organisation that does at least collate information globally on the subject is in need of volunteers with computer access and skills and time to spare (maybe that's you...).
At the same time I have just read The Caged Virgin by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is regarded as an extremist by many, principally those who think that religion somehow trumps human rights. Personally I agree with a great deal of what she says. She believes from her own experience as a translator in the Netherlands that FGM is still widely practiced in the western world behind closed doors, that many girls living in the west are taken abroad for FGM, and that something should be done about it. And she advocates screening girls from "at risk" communities on an annual basis and prosecuting parents who allow their daughters to be mutilated.
There's no doubt that such a screening process would be viewed as intrusive, and as singling out and stigmatising those communities defined as "at risk". I have an alternative solution:
Give all children an annual health check-up, by a same-sex specifically trained nurse, which includes checking the genitals.
This is clearly achievable - when I was a child we were all checked by the nit nurse for head lice and we all received certain innoculations - and would likely have the added benefit of identifing a significant number of children being sexually abused (I have recently read an autobiography of a victim of child abuse who suffered genital herpes in infancy), some children being physically abused, early signs of diabetes, unhealthy lifestyles and all kinds of other conditions that parents may not have noticed or may be deliberately keeping quiet about.
What we can do about the practice of FGM overseas is a tougher call. In the areas where it is most prevalent supported by the government. Most advocacy groups and charities oppose the practice but almost no-one has an actual program in place that specifically addresses the issue. However the one organisation that does at least collate information globally on the subject is in need of volunteers with computer access and skills and time to spare (maybe that's you...).
Monday, May 14, 2007
Some very important advice
Look both ways when crossing roads. Seriously. Mr Cru and I were out on Friday night and witnessed a horrific accident on our way home. A young guy styepped out to cross the road just as the lights had changed and a car hit him. There was an almighty bang and he was sent flying through the air. We called an ambulance and then waited around to give statements to the police (with the driver, who stopped).
I was on hold trying to get through to the ambulance service for several minutes (eeek) but fortunately a passer-by was a doctor and took control of the scene telling the guy not to move his head while we directed traffic around him. Finally the ambulance arrived and loaded the guy onto a stretcher amid shreiks of agony. One of the policemen said to me later as we were giving statements that he didn't really rate the guy's chances of making it based on what he'd seen. So that could be it - one minute you're walking down the street on a friday night, the next you're in agony staring at a bit of concrete while a paramedic asks your name and then you're dead.
Between three and four thousand people a year die in road accidents in the UK. Since Friday I've been crossing the road like it's no man's land and I've really noticed how many people wander out into the road chatting on their phone or to their friends, without really looking round at all. I think because we live around cars all the time, people blank out or forget how dangerous they are.
I was on hold trying to get through to the ambulance service for several minutes (eeek) but fortunately a passer-by was a doctor and took control of the scene telling the guy not to move his head while we directed traffic around him. Finally the ambulance arrived and loaded the guy onto a stretcher amid shreiks of agony. One of the policemen said to me later as we were giving statements that he didn't really rate the guy's chances of making it based on what he'd seen. So that could be it - one minute you're walking down the street on a friday night, the next you're in agony staring at a bit of concrete while a paramedic asks your name and then you're dead.
Between three and four thousand people a year die in road accidents in the UK. Since Friday I've been crossing the road like it's no man's land and I've really noticed how many people wander out into the road chatting on their phone or to their friends, without really looking round at all. I think because we live around cars all the time, people blank out or forget how dangerous they are.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
I Hope You Find It!
I've jusy been checking the sitemeter data for referrals to this site (if you dont' know what this means don't worry, read on). Someone has gone onto google typed in the search term "clitoris" and ended up on the Cru-blog. Now I know men are alleged to have trouble locating the thing, but really guys, if you're looking for it by typing it into google you ARE doing it wrong!
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Pornographers Gone Wild
The latest far-from shocking news to hit the blog-o-sphere is that some of the women featured in the (otherwise extremely high quality...no really) show "Girls Gone Wild" were co-erced into participation. The more astute of us might have argued we could see this coming on at least three counts:
1) There is a long history of co-ersion in pornography. And an equally long history of a refusal to truly address the abuses in the mainstream media. And why should we be surprised by that? Guys who want to make porn films for a living were never going to be the most wholesome types were they? And these guys respect the women involved so much that while they make small fortunes out of the video sales, the women are usually given just a T-shirt or baseball hat...
2) We know about the methods used to collect the footage used on "Girls Gone Wild". For instance crews are offered a $1000 bonus for collecting footage of girls who have only just turned 18. Crews target bars and clubs where women may already be intoxicated and frame their efforts as a "competition" to see which group of women is "the most wild".
3) The videos are marketed under titles and slogans which suggest strongly that subterfuge has been used in obtaining the footage and that vulnerable women have been targetted. Seperate vidoes offer footage of "first timers" (as though every woman experiences a "first time" getting her tits out on camera...?).
The response has been focussed on what can be done to prevent this sort of thing happening in future and the most popular idea so far seems to be raising the age of consent for appearing in pornography to 21 or indeed 65 (that would work). In the UK you can still appear in porn from the age of 16 - no one tell Joe Francis please or he'll be hanging round sixth form colleges in a heartbeat. I think the UK age could well benefit from being raised to at least 18 and preferrably 21. I don't however believe that would completely solve the problem. I have an alternative suggestion which I think would go a bit further:
A pornography cooling-off period.
Think about it this way. If a guy knocks on your door and sells you something you have seven days to change your mind. If he asked you to change electricity or gas supplier you have fourteen days. If you buy travel insurance from him, you have fourteen days to change your mind. If the same guy finds you drunk in a local bar and asks to film you topless your decision is final. In both scenarios the guy is working on big bonuses, so one would imagine equally unscrupulous tactics of persuasion.
This would present pornographers (not that inconveniencing them would bother me much) with two options:
1) Invite women to sign up in advance if they wish to participate in filming.
2) Film women and issue them with consent withdrawal forms which can be returned if they decide within a reasonable period (say 14 days) that they regret their participation and wish to have the footage of themselves destroyed.
I think this approach would have the added benefit of opening up the debate on the subject of these nasty videos. Women might question why they are signing away rights to footage of themselves without being paid. Relatives, friends and tutors would be more likely to be aware of the situation and have a chance to influence people who they feel may not be making the best decision.
And having said all that there is one more point I want to make... A great deal of the fuss about the footage is centred on the idea that women who have participated in these shows will have the remainder of their lives haunted by the footage and find themselves ineligible for good jobs, frowned on by polite society, etc. Personally when I was a student groups of women, including me, often ran naked or semi-naked around the streets late at night. It was something we did as a dare, as a challenge to ourselves, to shock people, push boundaries, generate scandal and most importantly because it's fun! It was a part of growing up and finding out about ourselves. This does not make me unsuitable for government office, the armed forces or indeed lasting relationships. And the fact that when these young women did the same thing there was a f*ckwit on hand trying to film proceedings shouldn't affect our opinion of them later in life.
1) There is a long history of co-ersion in pornography. And an equally long history of a refusal to truly address the abuses in the mainstream media. And why should we be surprised by that? Guys who want to make porn films for a living were never going to be the most wholesome types were they? And these guys respect the women involved so much that while they make small fortunes out of the video sales, the women are usually given just a T-shirt or baseball hat...
2) We know about the methods used to collect the footage used on "Girls Gone Wild". For instance crews are offered a $1000 bonus for collecting footage of girls who have only just turned 18. Crews target bars and clubs where women may already be intoxicated and frame their efforts as a "competition" to see which group of women is "the most wild".
3) The videos are marketed under titles and slogans which suggest strongly that subterfuge has been used in obtaining the footage and that vulnerable women have been targetted. Seperate vidoes offer footage of "first timers" (as though every woman experiences a "first time" getting her tits out on camera...?).
The response has been focussed on what can be done to prevent this sort of thing happening in future and the most popular idea so far seems to be raising the age of consent for appearing in pornography to 21 or indeed 65 (that would work). In the UK you can still appear in porn from the age of 16 - no one tell Joe Francis please or he'll be hanging round sixth form colleges in a heartbeat. I think the UK age could well benefit from being raised to at least 18 and preferrably 21. I don't however believe that would completely solve the problem. I have an alternative suggestion which I think would go a bit further:
A pornography cooling-off period.
Think about it this way. If a guy knocks on your door and sells you something you have seven days to change your mind. If he asked you to change electricity or gas supplier you have fourteen days. If you buy travel insurance from him, you have fourteen days to change your mind. If the same guy finds you drunk in a local bar and asks to film you topless your decision is final. In both scenarios the guy is working on big bonuses, so one would imagine equally unscrupulous tactics of persuasion.
This would present pornographers (not that inconveniencing them would bother me much) with two options:
1) Invite women to sign up in advance if they wish to participate in filming.
2) Film women and issue them with consent withdrawal forms which can be returned if they decide within a reasonable period (say 14 days) that they regret their participation and wish to have the footage of themselves destroyed.
I think this approach would have the added benefit of opening up the debate on the subject of these nasty videos. Women might question why they are signing away rights to footage of themselves without being paid. Relatives, friends and tutors would be more likely to be aware of the situation and have a chance to influence people who they feel may not be making the best decision.
And having said all that there is one more point I want to make... A great deal of the fuss about the footage is centred on the idea that women who have participated in these shows will have the remainder of their lives haunted by the footage and find themselves ineligible for good jobs, frowned on by polite society, etc. Personally when I was a student groups of women, including me, often ran naked or semi-naked around the streets late at night. It was something we did as a dare, as a challenge to ourselves, to shock people, push boundaries, generate scandal and most importantly because it's fun! It was a part of growing up and finding out about ourselves. This does not make me unsuitable for government office, the armed forces or indeed lasting relationships. And the fact that when these young women did the same thing there was a f*ckwit on hand trying to film proceedings shouldn't affect our opinion of them later in life.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Blog-Roll Up!
I'm in the process (as you may see) of updating my links, which have been stagnating for some time now. So if you'd like to be included please let me know, ideally by commenting here. I'll mainly be taking submissions on the basis that they're really cool interesting sites, but in case of discrepancy I may be swayed by the news that you're a regular Cru-blog reader and/or you've linked to me. Ok...go!
Misogyfication
This is an interesting piece about the state of hip-hop and among other things the use of misogynist and other unpleasant lyrics - which I've talked about before on Cru-blog.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Comedy, and Mr Cru, as an Art Form!
I was off performing in Birmingham at the Glee Club yesterday having a very nice time. Meanwhile Mr Cru was at Bury St Edmunds doing a very interesting one-off show at the opening of a new exhibition at the local Art Gallery. The new exhibition is called Joking Aside and it's all about humour in art and so Mr Cru was performing in the gallery to the assembled art lovers to make the opening. He seemed to enjoy it as did 21st Century Mummy who has blogged a review of the event.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Pass the Bucket...
This post has just gone up as part of my guest blogging on the F-Word. But it's a biggie and I think an important one so I'm double-posting it here. Also this is my 400th post since I started the Cru-blog and it seemed like a suitably gritty one to mark the quad-centenial(?) of the blog. Roll on the next 400! And pass the bucket...
...and not so I can put my £5 in it - so I can puke! Today's question is: Is Stripping Feminist? and today's answer is: No. Or possibly Oh Please - How Can We Still Be Having This "Debate"?
If you read to the end of the article you'll see that Sarah Katherine Lewis' conclusion is that stripping IS feminist, not because of the whole dancing about in your underwear bit. No - because you earn good money and so you can have more free time and more economic power to do feminist-y things.
Well if it's just about money I look forward to the follow-up articles: Is Drug-Dealing Feminist? Is Human Trafficking Feminist? Is Directing Snuff Movies Feminist? and of course Is Manufacturing Child Pornography Feminist?
So that leaves us with four questions to answer:
1) Is it easier to "be a feminist" when you're doing well financially? Definitely. For starters there is a poverty line below which idealism simply doesn't exist, there's a point where all a person cares about or can care about is how to get enough food, water, shelter and medicine to survive the next 24 hours. People below that line may be feminists but they certainly can't afford to be activists. By the same token you'd need to be above that line to be an activist for any cause - socialism, environmentalism or even the anti-women's movement. If you can't afford pens and paper, you can't write your manifesto.
2) Was it possible for Lewis to be financially capable of activist feminism without stripping? Yes, of course it was. She suggests repeatedly that her only options were stripping and waiting tables. Not so. Clearly others from her generation emerged as powerful voices without removing their clothes for money, so why can't she? Remember this woman was stripping in the mid-90s, not the 1800s. I was at college in the mid-90s too and I sold electric underfloor heating on commission in my holidays, I also ran a college tea-shop during term and later did a well-paid placement with an investment bank over the summer break. She was already at college when she started. This isn't about keeping her head above the poverty line - this is by her own admission about eating in nicer restaurants.
3) Is there something "wrong" with stripping? Yes. When I worked in finance, both in London and Tokyo, the company regularly entertained clients at strip clubs. I usually wasn't invited, this gave me less access to clients and very tangibly diminished my career prospects. In Tokyo, where the problem was more widespread, the spill-over into attitudes towards women was obvious, lewd remarks and women not being taken seriously as colleagues went hand in hand. When I complained to human resources, it turned out the guy assigned to discuss my complaint was one of the most regular visitors to these places. Creating an environment where women are unable to earn good money other than through stripping of course is unfair on those women who don't want to strip.
But it runs even deeper than that. Not all strippers are making money and not all strippers are doing the job of their own volition. This very interesting article starts off innocuously enough. By the end we're looking at women who appear to be underage being traffiked into the country, told they've run up debts and must strip and possibly have sex to get out of debt. The author is also underage when she enters the industry. The clubs encourage the myth that strippers make a lot of money, to get more women interested in the job. The real money is made by the clubs who are charging each woman $100 up to $300 and then charging customers exorbitant prices for drinks too. Feeding that industry, both by working in it when you have other options and by writing about it in such glowing terms, will lead to more traffiking, more women working under duress, more women being pushed over into prostitution against their will. In other words more RAPE.
4) Could the "good" achieved with the stripping money outweigh the damage done by participating in the industry? Well really depends how you measure "good". But let's try to figure it out by having a look at the great feminist and humanitarian works of our guide in these matters - Sarah Katherine Lewis...
...except there aren't any. She's written a book. It's called "Indecent, How I Make It And Fake It As A Girl For Hire". I read the intro and it reads like a hommage to sex work, prattling on about how exciting the idea of working as a whore is to little girls (really, I know...).
She also claims in the article that she writes feminist articles. I found a few online. They were ALL about how sex work IS actually feminist, and how all the feminists have got it wrong. That's all she does.
The strip clubs must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of all the extra money coming in from young feminists lured into the industry by Lewis, not to mention guys convinced that maybe it's not such a bad thing after all arriving as customers.
I hope she gets commission from the clubs for writing rubbish like that. And I hope supposedly serious media outlets like Alternet (which I once respected) see the light and don't bother publishing such rubbish again...
...and not so I can put my £5 in it - so I can puke! Today's question is: Is Stripping Feminist? and today's answer is: No. Or possibly Oh Please - How Can We Still Be Having This "Debate"?
If you read to the end of the article you'll see that Sarah Katherine Lewis' conclusion is that stripping IS feminist, not because of the whole dancing about in your underwear bit. No - because you earn good money and so you can have more free time and more economic power to do feminist-y things.
Well if it's just about money I look forward to the follow-up articles: Is Drug-Dealing Feminist? Is Human Trafficking Feminist? Is Directing Snuff Movies Feminist? and of course Is Manufacturing Child Pornography Feminist?
So that leaves us with four questions to answer:
1) Is it easier to "be a feminist" when you're doing well financially? Definitely. For starters there is a poverty line below which idealism simply doesn't exist, there's a point where all a person cares about or can care about is how to get enough food, water, shelter and medicine to survive the next 24 hours. People below that line may be feminists but they certainly can't afford to be activists. By the same token you'd need to be above that line to be an activist for any cause - socialism, environmentalism or even the anti-women's movement. If you can't afford pens and paper, you can't write your manifesto.
2) Was it possible for Lewis to be financially capable of activist feminism without stripping? Yes, of course it was. She suggests repeatedly that her only options were stripping and waiting tables. Not so. Clearly others from her generation emerged as powerful voices without removing their clothes for money, so why can't she? Remember this woman was stripping in the mid-90s, not the 1800s. I was at college in the mid-90s too and I sold electric underfloor heating on commission in my holidays, I also ran a college tea-shop during term and later did a well-paid placement with an investment bank over the summer break. She was already at college when she started. This isn't about keeping her head above the poverty line - this is by her own admission about eating in nicer restaurants.
3) Is there something "wrong" with stripping? Yes. When I worked in finance, both in London and Tokyo, the company regularly entertained clients at strip clubs. I usually wasn't invited, this gave me less access to clients and very tangibly diminished my career prospects. In Tokyo, where the problem was more widespread, the spill-over into attitudes towards women was obvious, lewd remarks and women not being taken seriously as colleagues went hand in hand. When I complained to human resources, it turned out the guy assigned to discuss my complaint was one of the most regular visitors to these places. Creating an environment where women are unable to earn good money other than through stripping of course is unfair on those women who don't want to strip.
But it runs even deeper than that. Not all strippers are making money and not all strippers are doing the job of their own volition. This very interesting article starts off innocuously enough. By the end we're looking at women who appear to be underage being traffiked into the country, told they've run up debts and must strip and possibly have sex to get out of debt. The author is also underage when she enters the industry. The clubs encourage the myth that strippers make a lot of money, to get more women interested in the job. The real money is made by the clubs who are charging each woman $100 up to $300 and then charging customers exorbitant prices for drinks too. Feeding that industry, both by working in it when you have other options and by writing about it in such glowing terms, will lead to more traffiking, more women working under duress, more women being pushed over into prostitution against their will. In other words more RAPE.
4) Could the "good" achieved with the stripping money outweigh the damage done by participating in the industry? Well really depends how you measure "good". But let's try to figure it out by having a look at the great feminist and humanitarian works of our guide in these matters - Sarah Katherine Lewis...
...except there aren't any. She's written a book. It's called "Indecent, How I Make It And Fake It As A Girl For Hire". I read the intro and it reads like a hommage to sex work, prattling on about how exciting the idea of working as a whore is to little girls (really, I know...).
She also claims in the article that she writes feminist articles. I found a few online. They were ALL about how sex work IS actually feminist, and how all the feminists have got it wrong. That's all she does.
The strip clubs must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of all the extra money coming in from young feminists lured into the industry by Lewis, not to mention guys convinced that maybe it's not such a bad thing after all arriving as customers.
I hope she gets commission from the clubs for writing rubbish like that. And I hope supposedly serious media outlets like Alternet (which I once respected) see the light and don't bother publishing such rubbish again...
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The F-Word
I'm doing some guest blogging this month over on a feminist blog site called The F-Word. I'm not going to double post because it's boring for people who read both sites but so that Cru-blog readers don't miss out I will post up links. Here's my first piece for them. You also can't post comments easily over there so I figure you can do that here if you want to.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Good to be Back
Mr Cru and I spent the last two nights (Mon and Tues) in Bury St Edmunds where he compered and I headlined the comedy proceedings going on as part of the Bury St Edmunds Fringe Festival. Top blogstress Ruby In Bury was present to record and review proceedings and she seemed to like it. Thanks to all those people who I haven't seen for years and years (and some I have seen) who showed up, was really fun!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
War of the Words
Mark Steel's Independent column is always worth a read. He focuses this week on politeness. He points out that the "war" on rude and anti-social behaviour always seems to focus on poor people, when in fact rich people are much, much worse.
When I started out in comedy it was pretty common for new acts to be asked to go out and hand out flyers in the street promoting shows in return for a 5 minute spot on the bill. It's not the world's most enjoyable job but it's interesting because you see the world from a very new perspective - the bottom. Sometimes it was just funny - like the students who bought me a litre of apple juice out of the blue - that's the time you think "I really need to buy new clothes and get a haircut". And not quite so funny - like people offering me jobs as a tequila girl and a "masseuse" ("I don't know how to do massage", "That doesn't matter") but then there are times when it really gets pretty nasty, usually alcohol is involved. Rough drunk blokes will shout "Alright darling, give us a smile then", but the ones that grab your arse or "hilariously" start humping your leg as their mates look on and cheer are always the posh ones. I remember kneeing a particularly horrid one in the nuts as he tried that kind of stunt to which he responded by spitting at me and calling me a lesbian. When they had finally fucked off I was stood in Leicester Square with a sense of disgust and disbelief and then the Polish waiter from the Italian restaurant opposite where I was standing came over with a cup of tea "is ok, on ze house". I cried.
Or to offer another example. Gerrard Finneran, the super-rich financier who was told he wouldn't be getting any more alcohol on his First Class flight. The highlight for me is section 6: "A male flight attendant then entered the first class section and saw FINNERAN with his pants and underwear down defecating on a service cart used by the flight crew. FINNERAN then used linen napkins as toilet paper and wiped his hands on various service counters and service implements used by the crew. FINNERAN also tracked feces throughout the aircraft". Some days you'd be glad you didn't get offered an upgrade.
And then there's the corporate rudeness. Varying from "Your call is important to us and will be answered by the first available operator", and then six hours of muzak to the ones I seem to get every day now "Hello Mrs Smur-i-ta-waite, I'm calling to ask you about your electricity bill", "Is this a sales call?", "No, no, no, I'm trying to save you money", "By getting me to buy your product?", "I'm just calling to let you know", "So you're just an information service, if I want to sign up for your service, you can't help me? ", "You would like to sign up? Certainly, do you wish to pay by direct debit...". Personally I find that pretty rude, not on the part of the guy in India making the call, but on the part of the mega-corporate who are paying him a wage he needs to earn to ring me up and lie to me.
Finally Steel goes on to praise volunteers, who do good in our communities without expecting anything in return. Personally I would advocate a national policy of a 2% tax cut for people who do at least four hours a week of voluntary work in approved schemes: mentoring, fostering, community projects. Suddenly the well-educated high earners would have an incentive to get involved in sharing their skills, and encouraging them to see how the other half lives might just bring them down a peg or two. Plus of course it would boost the voluntary sector to unfeasible highs and give kids across the country access to extra tuition, after-school clubs and mentoring, there'd be shopping services for older people and coffee mornings being organised, and a bunch less kids in care which would in fact save money...! When do I get to be prime minister?
When I started out in comedy it was pretty common for new acts to be asked to go out and hand out flyers in the street promoting shows in return for a 5 minute spot on the bill. It's not the world's most enjoyable job but it's interesting because you see the world from a very new perspective - the bottom. Sometimes it was just funny - like the students who bought me a litre of apple juice out of the blue - that's the time you think "I really need to buy new clothes and get a haircut". And not quite so funny - like people offering me jobs as a tequila girl and a "masseuse" ("I don't know how to do massage", "That doesn't matter") but then there are times when it really gets pretty nasty, usually alcohol is involved. Rough drunk blokes will shout "Alright darling, give us a smile then", but the ones that grab your arse or "hilariously" start humping your leg as their mates look on and cheer are always the posh ones. I remember kneeing a particularly horrid one in the nuts as he tried that kind of stunt to which he responded by spitting at me and calling me a lesbian. When they had finally fucked off I was stood in Leicester Square with a sense of disgust and disbelief and then the Polish waiter from the Italian restaurant opposite where I was standing came over with a cup of tea "is ok, on ze house". I cried.
Or to offer another example. Gerrard Finneran, the super-rich financier who was told he wouldn't be getting any more alcohol on his First Class flight. The highlight for me is section 6: "A male flight attendant then entered the first class section and saw FINNERAN with his pants and underwear down defecating on a service cart used by the flight crew. FINNERAN then used linen napkins as toilet paper and wiped his hands on various service counters and service implements used by the crew. FINNERAN also tracked feces throughout the aircraft". Some days you'd be glad you didn't get offered an upgrade.
And then there's the corporate rudeness. Varying from "Your call is important to us and will be answered by the first available operator", and then six hours of muzak to the ones I seem to get every day now "Hello Mrs Smur-i-ta-waite, I'm calling to ask you about your electricity bill", "Is this a sales call?", "No, no, no, I'm trying to save you money", "By getting me to buy your product?", "I'm just calling to let you know", "So you're just an information service, if I want to sign up for your service, you can't help me? ", "You would like to sign up? Certainly, do you wish to pay by direct debit...". Personally I find that pretty rude, not on the part of the guy in India making the call, but on the part of the mega-corporate who are paying him a wage he needs to earn to ring me up and lie to me.
Finally Steel goes on to praise volunteers, who do good in our communities without expecting anything in return. Personally I would advocate a national policy of a 2% tax cut for people who do at least four hours a week of voluntary work in approved schemes: mentoring, fostering, community projects. Suddenly the well-educated high earners would have an incentive to get involved in sharing their skills, and encouraging them to see how the other half lives might just bring them down a peg or two. Plus of course it would boost the voluntary sector to unfeasible highs and give kids across the country access to extra tuition, after-school clubs and mentoring, there'd be shopping services for older people and coffee mornings being organised, and a bunch less kids in care which would in fact save money...! When do I get to be prime minister?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Consumer Rights
Apparently John Reid's just found out there is "no guarantee" of a win in the war on terror. So I reckon we should ask for a refund.
When you buy a washing machine or a DVD player, you have these rights, like it's got to do what it said would do, and if it doesn't you can take it back and you'll receive a full refund, and if it happens a few times you can take the store to court and have them closed down. I'd like consumer rights extended to political parties. So when, for instance, you vote for what claims to be a "left wing" party and they claim they're going to fix the health service, then they spend your money killing innocent civilians in the middle east, you can get a refund. And if it happens a few times you can have them closed down...
When you buy a washing machine or a DVD player, you have these rights, like it's got to do what it said would do, and if it doesn't you can take it back and you'll receive a full refund, and if it happens a few times you can take the store to court and have them closed down. I'd like consumer rights extended to political parties. So when, for instance, you vote for what claims to be a "left wing" party and they claim they're going to fix the health service, then they spend your money killing innocent civilians in the middle east, you can get a refund. And if it happens a few times you can have them closed down...
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Same Shit, Different Headgear
Don't you hate those Muslims nutters and the way they treat women as second class citizens? Oh sorry, that was the Jewish fundamentalists there. If you were a woman living in the middle east right now it'd be pretty tough to know which side to be on (but easy to know which end - the back).
The other thing I hate is when they (whichever kind of "they" they are) talk about defending women's modesty. What exactly is my "modesty"? I think they're defending me from the gruesome possibility of my being humiliated by looking sexually attractive in public. I looked it up and it says (paraphrasing):
1. Having or showing a moderate estimation of one's own talents, abilities, and value.
2. Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself.
3. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress.
4. Free from showiness or ostentation.
So they're trying to save me from appearing talented, able, of high value, from attracting attention, from doing anything unconventional and from being showy or ostentatious. And further they think sitting me at the back of the bus is going to do this for me?
Believe me - they sit me at the back of the bus and I will use my considerable talents to draw a lot of attention. I shall be breaking with convention and screaming my head off in a definitely showy way...
The other thing I hate is when they (whichever kind of "they" they are) talk about defending women's modesty. What exactly is my "modesty"? I think they're defending me from the gruesome possibility of my being humiliated by looking sexually attractive in public. I looked it up and it says (paraphrasing):
1. Having or showing a moderate estimation of one's own talents, abilities, and value.
2. Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself.
3. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress.
4. Free from showiness or ostentation.
So they're trying to save me from appearing talented, able, of high value, from attracting attention, from doing anything unconventional and from being showy or ostentatious. And further they think sitting me at the back of the bus is going to do this for me?
Believe me - they sit me at the back of the bus and I will use my considerable talents to draw a lot of attention. I shall be breaking with convention and screaming my head off in a definitely showy way...
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Unspeakably Obvious
Turns out Cru-blog is not the only place that thinks public funding for major sporting events may not actually help encourage sports at grass roots level. The question of course now is why doesn't someone pay me a small fortune to sit on the sports council.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Holiday Snaps
If you'd like to see the pictures of myself and Mr Cru off adventuring around Lapland last weekend then please take a peek here. We had a fantastic time.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Upcoming Excitement
I'm in Wimbledon tonight doing a show for Laughing Horse. It's a competition so support would be much appreciated. Details in Time Out, etc.
I'm also compering Soho Comedy Club on Monday - 8pm at The Roundtable, St Martin's Court, £5. Features James Sherwood and Pete Jonas so it'll be a great show.
Thurs 26th Apr I'm in Cambridge at the Footlights Bar. Details here, it's £10 including buffet curry.
And Mon 30th Apr and Tues 1st May I'm in Bury St Edmunds for the fringe festival, doing my latest solo show - Apes Like Me at Benson Blakes's bar on St John's Street.
Hope to see you there. I do have a mailing list by the way so if you'd like to be added just drop me a line. Cheers!
I'm also compering Soho Comedy Club on Monday - 8pm at The Roundtable, St Martin's Court, £5. Features James Sherwood and Pete Jonas so it'll be a great show.
Thurs 26th Apr I'm in Cambridge at the Footlights Bar. Details here, it's £10 including buffet curry.
And Mon 30th Apr and Tues 1st May I'm in Bury St Edmunds for the fringe festival, doing my latest solo show - Apes Like Me at Benson Blakes's bar on St John's Street.
Hope to see you there. I do have a mailing list by the way so if you'd like to be added just drop me a line. Cheers!
Friday, April 20, 2007
Bullsh!t headline alert!
The BBC tells us "One in 30 aborted babies lives" and when you open the article it says one in 30 fetuses (they're not babies until they're born thanks) aborted for medical reasons (which represents a tiny fraction of abortions and tends to be the very late term abortions because (1) it often takes several months for major medical problems to become apparent and (2) it's often illegal to have non-medical abortions late into a pregnancy) is alive when they bring it out and lives for no more than a few hours. You expect better of the BBC.
Stuck in the Middleton
Well readers in the UK will have done well to avoid the news that Prince William and his girlfriend Kate Middleton have split up. To be honest it wouldn't be news at all if it wasn't for the media perpetually speculating that they were going to get married and what-sort-of-queen-would-she-be? rather than taking the situation at face value as two young people who were dating. Still there seem to be a few hilarious versions of events going round:
1) Middleton isn't classy enough for the royals. Evidence for this (seriously, from the Daily Mail) - she says "toilet" instead of "lavatory". Right. Now only the other week William was pictured drunkenly grabbing a woman's breast while dancing in a nightclub while his brother Harry was falling over in the street in front of the paparrazi. When did that become less offensive than usng the term "toilet"?
2) The queen has told William to steer clear of Middleton because she's too bossy. Mmmm. As a rule of thumb when your granny tells you to dump your girlfriend, it'd be your granny who's the bossy one.
3) William has decided that Middleton isn't fun enough. Apparently Harry's girlfriend Chelsy Davy is "more fun" and Diana, his mum, would have wanted him to "have fun". There's no telling what is meant by this but it does seem to me a bit symptomatic of a worrying trend these days to define "fun" as "drinks til she pukes at least three times a week", which is what Harry and his chums spend most of their time doing.
So what is "fun"? Drinking far too much? Try asking for a soft drink next time you're out with friends and see how long it takes before you're accused of being "no fun". I feel like Mary Whitehouse saying that people should realise you don't have to be (1) drunk, (2) stoned, (3) gambling, (4) spending money or (5) in a big group of people your own age to have "fun", whatever the media might seem to tell us. I suspect when Diana said whatever she ssaid about her kids having fun she didn't mean "go and grope random women in nightclubs"...
1) Middleton isn't classy enough for the royals. Evidence for this (seriously, from the Daily Mail) - she says "toilet" instead of "lavatory". Right. Now only the other week William was pictured drunkenly grabbing a woman's breast while dancing in a nightclub while his brother Harry was falling over in the street in front of the paparrazi. When did that become less offensive than usng the term "toilet"?
2) The queen has told William to steer clear of Middleton because she's too bossy. Mmmm. As a rule of thumb when your granny tells you to dump your girlfriend, it'd be your granny who's the bossy one.
3) William has decided that Middleton isn't fun enough. Apparently Harry's girlfriend Chelsy Davy is "more fun" and Diana, his mum, would have wanted him to "have fun". There's no telling what is meant by this but it does seem to me a bit symptomatic of a worrying trend these days to define "fun" as "drinks til she pukes at least three times a week", which is what Harry and his chums spend most of their time doing.
So what is "fun"? Drinking far too much? Try asking for a soft drink next time you're out with friends and see how long it takes before you're accused of being "no fun". I feel like Mary Whitehouse saying that people should realise you don't have to be (1) drunk, (2) stoned, (3) gambling, (4) spending money or (5) in a big group of people your own age to have "fun", whatever the media might seem to tell us. I suspect when Diana said whatever she ssaid about her kids having fun she didn't mean "go and grope random women in nightclubs"...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Phew!
Mr Cru and I had a pretty amazing weekend away. We've been in Lapland - northern Sweden Husky Mushing, Cross-country Skiing, Snowmobiling, Reindeer Sledding, Fishing through a hole in the ice, meeting the locals, eating a lot of reindeer and moose and staying in the Ice Hotel at -5 deg! I'll probably put the photos into a seperate blog when I get them but suffice as to say I am physically shattered but emotionally still on a high today. This was the tour we did, expensive but highly recommended.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Crisis in the Wrong Place
When kids misbehave the media reaction is always the same: blame the schools. And the government reaction is always the same: more regulation in schools. Articles like this one from the BBC address the issues of behaviour, school work, politeness and discipline but they do so in a completely false context - they assume that the kids in question come from loving, supportive homes.
The latest advice says teachers should send postcards home when badly behaved children make improvements. I have to ask - how many parents of these uncontrollable children go so far as to read postcards from teachers? I have two friends who work in specialist schools for children with emotional and behavioural problems - kids who have been excluded from regular school. Both have told me that they hate parents evening... not because of the complaints or the upset, not because of the late hours and the administrative work, but because they sit there all night and NOT ONE PARENT EVER COMES IN.
We shouldn't be sending postcards home, we should be sending inspectors round to find out why these kids aren't being raised properly. The only reason the government doesn't do this is that they are desperately short of foster carers and they know if they see what goes on they will have to take these kids into care. I was always top of the class at school (creep) but there were teachers who I believe knew or suspected they knew about my abusive home life but not once in 18 years of suffering did anybody come round to check up or ask me about my home life.
I would advocate annual parenting checks, questionnaires for kids to fill in and follow-up visits to observe what is really going on and question parents about their practices.
The latest advice says teachers should send postcards home when badly behaved children make improvements. I have to ask - how many parents of these uncontrollable children go so far as to read postcards from teachers? I have two friends who work in specialist schools for children with emotional and behavioural problems - kids who have been excluded from regular school. Both have told me that they hate parents evening... not because of the complaints or the upset, not because of the late hours and the administrative work, but because they sit there all night and NOT ONE PARENT EVER COMES IN.
We shouldn't be sending postcards home, we should be sending inspectors round to find out why these kids aren't being raised properly. The only reason the government doesn't do this is that they are desperately short of foster carers and they know if they see what goes on they will have to take these kids into care. I was always top of the class at school (creep) but there were teachers who I believe knew or suspected they knew about my abusive home life but not once in 18 years of suffering did anybody come round to check up or ask me about my home life.
I would advocate annual parenting checks, questionnaires for kids to fill in and follow-up visits to observe what is really going on and question parents about their practices.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Range Of Opinions
Right-wing rubbish paper The Daily Mail has found space between the usual rants about asylum seekers and the horrors of the EU to publish this fairly standard piece about how abortion is deeply wrong and Miranda Sawyer used to be pro-choice but now she's changed her mind. Of course we here ar Cru-blog are used to such misogynist nonsense at the Daily Mail and take no notice. We prefer to read something high-brow, pro-feminist and left-wing like The Guardian. Who have run with an article about how abortion is deeply wrong and Miranda Sawyer used to be pro-choice but now she's changed her mind...
And whole chunks of the articles are exactly the same, whole paragraphs. Andthe articles, both of them, are pushing a documentary about the same subject shortly to be screened on TV.
Well I used to be pro-choice and I still am. I would put up a neat refutal of all Ms Sawyers arguements but she doesn't actually seem to have any. She says she spoke to people on both sides and it was hard for her to decide but in the end she decided she was anti-abortion. Needless to say she did her extensive research (1) in the deep south of the US and (2) while on a trip away from her infant son, just to make sure she was feeling irrationally emotional about children at the time. Seriously, and two papers and a TV station are publishing her piffle.
And whole chunks of the articles are exactly the same, whole paragraphs. Andthe articles, both of them, are pushing a documentary about the same subject shortly to be screened on TV.
Well I used to be pro-choice and I still am. I would put up a neat refutal of all Ms Sawyers arguements but she doesn't actually seem to have any. She says she spoke to people on both sides and it was hard for her to decide but in the end she decided she was anti-abortion. Needless to say she did her extensive research (1) in the deep south of the US and (2) while on a trip away from her infant son, just to make sure she was feeling irrationally emotional about children at the time. Seriously, and two papers and a TV station are publishing her piffle.
No Idea Whether To Laugh Or Cry
Some kid had the brilliant idea of filming his mothers reaction to the news that he's an atheist.
What A Tosser...
...I'm talking about Howard Johnson of course. Now I'm not a big fan of IVF treatment, I think people unable to have children should be encouraged to consider adoption as a preference to invasive medical treatment. Inevitably however some people feel that they want to have their own biological children for whatever reasons and when they do so IVF is the first port of call.
Natalie Evans is up for her last appeal in court. Unless Mr Johnson consents to her having the embryos created with her eggs and his sperm - frozen when she went in for treatment for oarian cancer - implanted, she will never have children of her own. The legal side of the case is complicated and has been through several layers of the court now but wouldn't be an issue in the first place if he wasn't just being horrid. Surely it's obvious that this is a special case, exceptional circumstances and that the only decent thing to do is to offer consent for their use?
If the court doesn't accept exceptional circumstances and rule in Ms Evans' favour then her best hope is the Mr Johnson dies - several women in this country have been sucessful with appeals to have fertility treatment using sperm from dead men. Notable Diane Blood and Diana Scott.
Natalie Evans is up for her last appeal in court. Unless Mr Johnson consents to her having the embryos created with her eggs and his sperm - frozen when she went in for treatment for oarian cancer - implanted, she will never have children of her own. The legal side of the case is complicated and has been through several layers of the court now but wouldn't be an issue in the first place if he wasn't just being horrid. Surely it's obvious that this is a special case, exceptional circumstances and that the only decent thing to do is to offer consent for their use?
If the court doesn't accept exceptional circumstances and rule in Ms Evans' favour then her best hope is the Mr Johnson dies - several women in this country have been sucessful with appeals to have fertility treatment using sperm from dead men. Notable Diane Blood and Diana Scott.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
How To Tell When Someone Really Cares
They spend a whole £2 on you... The government is today expecting some sort of gratitude for announcing they're putting a whole £2million in to research to fight anorexia. The BBC article kindly juxtaposes that news with a photo caption pointing out that there are 1 million people in the UK with an eating disorder. Don't spend it all at once guys!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
It Aint What You Say...
Like many newsapers, the Evening Standard can do a great job of turning a regular little report into a specific targetted attack.
Headline: NURSERIES TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO YOBS
Implication: Mothers who don't stay home full time are literally asking for their kids to turn into violent criminals.
Actual story: The report concludes "Long hours in the nursery (more than 35 hours a week) had both positive and negative effects on children's behaviour: they were more confident and sociable, but also more antisocial, and more worried and upset." So, err, six of one,...
And of course the article concludes that the government should shift it's focus away from childcare provision. The alternative option that occurs to me is the government should improve the quality of available childcare.
Headline: NURSERIES TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO YOBS
Implication: Mothers who don't stay home full time are literally asking for their kids to turn into violent criminals.
Actual story: The report concludes "Long hours in the nursery (more than 35 hours a week) had both positive and negative effects on children's behaviour: they were more confident and sociable, but also more antisocial, and more worried and upset." So, err, six of one,...
And of course the article concludes that the government should shift it's focus away from childcare provision. The alternative option that occurs to me is the government should improve the quality of available childcare.
Why Is It Always Our Fault?
The Guardian in it's quest to provide the latest and most insightful research, is now publishing the results of surveys by FHM... This in itself poses a problem for me. If we are to assume that results of a survey compiled through FHM are a fair portrayal of the views of men in British society we are implicitly accepting that FHM's readership is an "average" sample of men. Of course it's not - it's a minority of men who enjoy reading deeply misogynist material. So unsurprisingly the results reflect that.
So this apparently is what men want: "a 50/50 partnership, in which both they and their partner would go out to work, sharing childcare and housework". So how would that work then? You would pop the child in a drawer in the office from nine to five while you both worked? I don't think it's possible to do half the housework and half the childcare and hold down a full time job. And where is the evidence that these modern-thinking guys are actually doing any more housework or childcare?
Here's another quote: "men believe they have made a dramatic shift in roles in the last 30 years - at the behest of women - the survey also suggests that men feel women have now changed their minds and want to go back to old roles." Sure. Or women stuck with these neanderthals are realising that if they want the job done properly they need to do it themselves.
So this apparently is what men want: "a 50/50 partnership, in which both they and their partner would go out to work, sharing childcare and housework". So how would that work then? You would pop the child in a drawer in the office from nine to five while you both worked? I don't think it's possible to do half the housework and half the childcare and hold down a full time job. And where is the evidence that these modern-thinking guys are actually doing any more housework or childcare?
Here's another quote: "men believe they have made a dramatic shift in roles in the last 30 years - at the behest of women - the survey also suggests that men feel women have now changed their minds and want to go back to old roles." Sure. Or women stuck with these neanderthals are realising that if they want the job done properly they need to do it themselves.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The Sporting Post
Ok, this is going to be a big one. There are things in life that we take for granted, things we've always known to be true and don't usually feel the need to question. And then sometimes for one reason or another we end up questioning them and sometimes they hold up to that questioning and sometimes they don't. Now I'm going to say something controversial:
Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.
I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.
Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.
Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.
Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?
And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.
By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...
What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?
I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.
When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.
Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.
What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?
Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.
When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.
As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.
Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?
Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.
But what if I like watching sport?
So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.
But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?
We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...
Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.
I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.
Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.
Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.
Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?
And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.
By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...
What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?
I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.
When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.
Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.
What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?
Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.
When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.
As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.
Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?
Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.
But what if I like watching sport?
So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.
But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?
We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...
Monday, March 26, 2007
Don't Forget To Leave a Good-Looking Corpse...
...while you're still alive girls! The Huffington Post has the most thorough coverage on the subject I think. To summarise, the producers of what-were-we-expecting misogyny parade America's Next Top Model have set the women contestants the "challenge" of staging their own deaths. Luckily the size zero women already look pretty close to death in most cases so maybe the exercise was just to save on make-up...
The Right News For The Wrong Reason
Rapper Snoop Dogg has been refused a Visa to come and perform in the UK. And the concert's been cancelled as a result! In fact he's been refused because of a previous violent incident at Heathrow. What he should have been prevented from performing for is having lyrics clearly intended to incite hatred and violence against women. For instance:
"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "
"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "
Love Not Actually
Spot the deliberate mistake. Stephen Marsh loved his wife deeply. So he took several lovers and started a sadomasochistic relationship with one of them behind his "beloved" wife's back. You know, just for a "bit of fun". But he loved his wife deeply, no really.
Is that the sort of evidence you would expect to hold water in a murder trial? No, me either.
Is that the sort of evidence you would expect to hold water in a murder trial? No, me either.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Does Anyone Ever Actually Get Convicted of Rape?
Yet another stomach-churning story, this time from overseas. Key flaws in the defence's arguement - swallowed by the judges include:
Firstly they claim a discrpancy between the number of men accused and the number of men she said raped her. The offence they are charged with is "sexual aggression" so presumably the fourth guy sexually assaulted her without actually raping her. She also claims to have been blindfolded throughout the attack. So how is she supposed to count the number of guys attacking her while blindfolded?
Secondly - and this is the really nauseating bit - they claim "she had invited them to have sex "without a word". ". Yup "without a word". So she consented silently? Guys here's an idea - before having sex with a woman, ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Clever huh? Do I get a prize?
Firstly they claim a discrpancy between the number of men accused and the number of men she said raped her. The offence they are charged with is "sexual aggression" so presumably the fourth guy sexually assaulted her without actually raping her. She also claims to have been blindfolded throughout the attack. So how is she supposed to count the number of guys attacking her while blindfolded?
Secondly - and this is the really nauseating bit - they claim "she had invited them to have sex "without a word". ". Yup "without a word". So she consented silently? Guys here's an idea - before having sex with a woman, ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Clever huh? Do I get a prize?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Born Again Virgins...
There's an article on Alternet about the phenomenon of Born-Again Virgins. Which is all very well and I find the subject kindof amusing until we get to the bit where the author, Amy DePaul says:
"There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them."
Why does having sex mean you're not in control of your own body? The implication is that women who have sex are doing so because men want them to. Maybe some women actually like sex.
More importantly the whole article is about women's virginity, no mention is made of whether men should try the whole not-having-sex thing. No it's women for whom virginity is an issue - of course!
"There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them."
Why does having sex mean you're not in control of your own body? The implication is that women who have sex are doing so because men want them to. Maybe some women actually like sex.
More importantly the whole article is about women's virginity, no mention is made of whether men should try the whole not-having-sex thing. No it's women for whom virginity is an issue - of course!
Is this Appropriate?
The BBC has published a glowing review of Phil Spector's career - to mark the beginning of his trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson. I think that's a bit sick.
Oranges are not the only Book Awards
Article in The Independent on the nominations for the Orange book award. The article starts off saying women's fiction is too domestic and not imaginative enough (that's right Ms Rowling, teenage wizzards and quidditch and platform 9 and 3/4 or whatever isn't imaginative enough, sorry). And it goes on to complain that there are too many books about "rural school teachers". Well someone must want to read about rural school teachers or no-one would publish such books. Then the article goes on to say women authors are doing so well that maybe there's no need for a special prize. Well hold on, you can't have it both ways. Either women are less imaginative than men and need special help or they're doing so well they don't need a prize - you REALLY can't claim that both are true.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Parental Rights and Wrongs
There is yet another push afoot to force contraception and abortion providers to tell girl's parents if such services are being requested. Tory MP Angela Watkinson says parents have a "right to know".
Well I agree, parents do have a right to know. If they wish to exercise that right they need only raise their children in a loving supportive environment where they make it clear that they are there to help, not to judge. Do that and your kids will tell you what's going on in their lives. When kids don't want to talk to their parents, there's a problem. Usually fear. To be honest if kids are getting pregnant while they're still at school, that's one sign that the parents haven't done the best job to start with.
If such a law were passed it would lead to:
1) More runaways, pregnant teenage runaways sleeping on the streets getting ill, getting raped and murdered, getting co-erced into prostitution and drugs, babies born hooked on drugs, infanticide.
2) More domestic violence and child abuse when abusive parents find out about their childrens sex lives.
3) More late term abortions - because why tell your parents you're having an abortion at 8 weeks when you can wait til 14 weeks, just after your 16th birthday, and have one secretly then?
4) More teenage pregnancy - because girls dont' want their parents to know they're taking contraception.
5) Even more teenage pregnancy - when parents find out and confiscate contraceptives.
6) More STDs - because teenagers don't want their parents to know they asked for free condoms.
7) Less education on the subject - because teenagers who feel unable to ask their parents for sexual advice will be afraid to visit clinics for advice in case their parents find out.
But of course Angela Watkinson han't thought about this. She's such an expert on the subject that she even added "The first thing [parents] learn may be when their children are reported to have some form of sexually transmitted disease", which would only make sense if everyone who requested contraception or abortion ended up with an STD. Clearly at least those requesting free condoms are less likely to get an STD, and it's perfectly possible to catch an STD without getting pregnant or using contraception.
But finally the whole thing is of course about knowing when GIRLS are having sex. No-one wants to talk to the parents of the boys who are getting teenagers pregnant, and no-one wants to talk to teenage boys whose girlfriends might be using contraception, nor indeed who might themselves be asking for free condoms. Because of course sex is only shocking and awful when women do it...
Well I agree, parents do have a right to know. If they wish to exercise that right they need only raise their children in a loving supportive environment where they make it clear that they are there to help, not to judge. Do that and your kids will tell you what's going on in their lives. When kids don't want to talk to their parents, there's a problem. Usually fear. To be honest if kids are getting pregnant while they're still at school, that's one sign that the parents haven't done the best job to start with.
If such a law were passed it would lead to:
1) More runaways, pregnant teenage runaways sleeping on the streets getting ill, getting raped and murdered, getting co-erced into prostitution and drugs, babies born hooked on drugs, infanticide.
2) More domestic violence and child abuse when abusive parents find out about their childrens sex lives.
3) More late term abortions - because why tell your parents you're having an abortion at 8 weeks when you can wait til 14 weeks, just after your 16th birthday, and have one secretly then?
4) More teenage pregnancy - because girls dont' want their parents to know they're taking contraception.
5) Even more teenage pregnancy - when parents find out and confiscate contraceptives.
6) More STDs - because teenagers don't want their parents to know they asked for free condoms.
7) Less education on the subject - because teenagers who feel unable to ask their parents for sexual advice will be afraid to visit clinics for advice in case their parents find out.
But of course Angela Watkinson han't thought about this. She's such an expert on the subject that she even added "The first thing [parents] learn may be when their children are reported to have some form of sexually transmitted disease", which would only make sense if everyone who requested contraception or abortion ended up with an STD. Clearly at least those requesting free condoms are less likely to get an STD, and it's perfectly possible to catch an STD without getting pregnant or using contraception.
But finally the whole thing is of course about knowing when GIRLS are having sex. No-one wants to talk to the parents of the boys who are getting teenagers pregnant, and no-one wants to talk to teenage boys whose girlfriends might be using contraception, nor indeed who might themselves be asking for free condoms. Because of course sex is only shocking and awful when women do it...
Monday, March 12, 2007
Action to take Today
The UK government will vote this Wednesday on the renewal of the Trident Nuclear programme. Blair wants to spend around $20bn on nuclear weapons which almost no-one in the rest of the country thinks is a good ideas. Johann Hari has done a lovely job in The Independent of explaining why "renewing" Trident puts us at more risk than ever of nuclear holocaust.
My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".
And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.
Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.
My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".
And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.
Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.
McCruella
Good news for Scottish fans of me and my comedy. Myself and Mr Cru are off on a mini-tour of Scotland during the latter half of this week and you can catch us at:
Thurs 15th Mar:
The Moffet Tavern, Forres, Scotland
Fri 16th Mar:
Flannigan's Elgin, Scotland
Sat 17th Mar:
The Harbour Bar, Buckie, Scotland
Thurs 15th Mar:
The Moffet Tavern, Forres, Scotland
Fri 16th Mar:
Flannigan's Elgin, Scotland
Sat 17th Mar:
The Harbour Bar, Buckie, Scotland
Real News!
Last night on my way back from gigs in Ladbroke Grove and Camden I was on a 341 bus going past Islington Green, up Essex Road when the bus stopped and ahead of up I witnessed at least 10 police cars and at least 30 police officers, half of whom were carrying guns, filling the road. Some of them were even crouched behind their cars pointing their guns across the roof. They appeared to have stopped a dark blue car and were going through it very carefully seat at a time and through the boot and bonnet too. The car was stopped right in the middle of the road - it hadn't pulled over and there was some broken glass on the road though it wasn't clear where from. I've been watching the news to see a story about a drive-by shooting or something but nothing coming up. Probably just plod over-reacting to a speeding infraction. Shame cos I was rather hoping to sell this picture for a small fortune to one of the tabloids:
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Women and War
It can't be fun going to war. And of course when things ain't fun you can guarantee they're even less fun for the women involved. This video is really shocking. Turns out female US military personel are routinely not going to the toilets on their own for fear of rape by their own male counterparts. This has led to some of them not drinking and subsequently dying of dehydration and the situation has been deliberately hushed up rather than addressed.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Showreel Time
I have a new showreel boys and grrls - which means all you Cru-blog fans in obscure parts of the world who don't get to come to my shows can experience the same effect from the comfort of your own living rooms/parlours/bedsits/hostels/internet cafes/offices. Just click here.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Family Facts and Figures
David Cameron has for some reason decided that the pressure on single parents isn't enough. I have no problem with him chasing up runaway parents (mostly Dads) for maintenance money. Forcing people who don't want to do so to spend time with children however doesn't strike me as a sensible plan and his focus on the importance of marriage above all else in child-raising offers little encouragement for the 1 in 4 women in this country who will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.
His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.
His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Best Excuse For Abuse...
...religion of course! Being ostracised from your family is a form of abuse. Being shut out from your entire community and left without any support systems is even worse. When we hear about gay people who've been ostracised because of their sexuality we are rightly outraged. Similarly parents who turn their backs on disabled children or those who look a little different from the rest (such as when a recessive gene gives white parents a black child or vice versa) are considered contemptible without question. If your child however says "Hey I just figured out there may actually not be a big guy with a beard flying around on the clouds, playing the harp and simultaneously monitoring and judging everything that we do, not to mention writing a highly mis-interpretable book" then it's fine to never speak to them again and tell everyone in the family and community to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
