Thursday, October 01, 2009

Bread and Circuses

So Guy Laliberte, the founder of Cirque du Soleil is going to go to the International Space Station as a space tourist. That I can live with. He's going to do a show about it too. Again I get it. What I don't get is the bit where he says he's doing it to raise awareness about the problems of access to clean water for people worldwide.

Is this the ultimate expression of the now exhausted theme of "going on holiday for charity"? In recent years the notion of people asking you to donate money so they can walk the Inca Trail or cycle the French Alps in aid of charity has become increasingly commonplace. And I'm always wondering exactly how much of the money is going to the charity and how much is paying for the trip.

But of course whatever the amount spent on grappling hooks and sun cream, if money is going to good causes that otherwise wouldn't you can't really knock it. But if it would raise more money to do something a little less close to the tropics, then at least admit that and don't go round acting like you've just grown a halo!

I should justify myself a bit here. I've done the London Marathon and the Caledonian Challenge for charity but in both cases I made a contribution myself to cover the cost of entry (not that much) and all that stuff so that money I got sponsored all went to the actual causes. Also in both cases I freely admit I was doing it because I wanted to and the only way I could get a place was to do it for charity.

We also have a fair few charity and fundraiser events at Soho Comedy Club and when we do we make sure that all the money goes to the causes. We don't charge for the room, the acts perform for free and flyerers and doorstaff always work for free those nights. In fact the only thing we can't recoup for the cause is the booking fee that PayPal charges (usually 9%). Annoyingly they have a function to reduce (but not eliminate) the fee for charities but you have to jump through hoops to get it and you have to be a fully registered charity, not just a good cause or an NGO, etc.

I don't want to sound like I'm against good causes and fundraising - I think it's vital and there should be more of it. But at the same time the word "charity" also doesn't mean "you can't criticise me". So when I read things like this dreadful story about topless models walking through Manchester in aid of "Support Our Soldiers" I totally don't get it. Why can't we support our soldiers without also supporting misogyny? And what about our female soldiers and our gay soldiers and our soldiers who for cultural or religious reasons don't approve of topless modelling?

This also goes for all the half naked calendars in aid of charity too - you know who you are. If you want to do something in aid of charity - do something positive.

Mr Laliberte's trip into space is costing £22m. I think that money would go a long way to giving people around the world access to clean water. Take a holiday if you want mate but don't just do something totally frivolous that you want to do and then pretend to me that you're doing this for the greater good. Believe me people dying from having to drink dirty water will not be looking up at the International Space Station going "thanks Guy"!

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Roman Roads

Horrifying to read the newspaper coverage of the arrest of Roman Polanski. Now if people want to claim he was innocent, they are welcome to do so. Instead several papers have pieces claiming that while he was guilty he should not be brought to justice because (1) he makes great films, (2) he has experienced other suffering in his life or (3) because he has paid for his crimes by living overseas for many years to avoid prison.

If any of these are to hold any weight someone needs to clarify exactly what the exchange rate is:

(1) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment given that my Edinburgh show got a five-star review?

(2) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment given that I had an eating disorder in my teens?

(3) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment as long as I take two weeks holiday in the south of France straight afterwards?

Worse still some people are claiming that he shouldn't be brought to justice because the crime was somehow "not that bad". Points raised include (1) the fact that the victim has said she doesn't want to go to court, (2) the allegation that she was "sexually experienced" and (3) the implication that the rape committed was only "statutory rape", i.e. that she consented to sex and that therefore the rape was only a rape on "technical grounds" because of the age of consent. Well:

(1) The victim gave statements immediately after the event and Polanski pleaded guilty so it would be easy for the judge to rule that she needn't go to court, there is no reason they couldn't sentence him in her absence. The point of the law is not to make victims feel better, although it may be hoped that in some cases it does. The point of the law is to punish those who commit crimes.

(2) Are we really still in the 21st century believeing that a woman who has previously had sex cannot be raped? Of course not. And since she was 13 at the time she hadn't previously had sex - she'd previously been raped.

(3) Firstly this is not someone a few weeks away from being legally old enough to consent. She was thirteen. The law has an age of consent for a reason. If people feel the law is wrong they should campaign to change the law, not ignore it. But secondly, and most importantly of all I think. This was much more than statutory rape.

There is a good piece in the Independent by (dare I say it) Dominic Lawson pointing out that he drugged her with the drug quaalude mixed into champagne and also that the claims of consent from the victim are very flimsy...

Here's the transcript of victim's original statement (warning: not for the sensitive reader):

"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."

That is not consent.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Jordan and Daily Mail Woman-Bashing

I'm not someone who takes a lot of time to follow the career of Katie Price AKA Jordan. We all know who she is and what she does. Whatever you think about her choice to make a career out of topless modelling and publicity-courting, you'd have to admit, she's good at it.

Today's Daily Mail carries a piece about revelations made about her by her former partner the footballer Dwight Yorke. It made me pretty angry...

"Dwight Yorke has broken his silence on his relationship with Katie Price, describing her as 'vain and infuriating' and confessing that he wanted to 'throttle' her former husband Peter Andre.

The footballer has also admitted for the first time that he cheated on Price during their stormy 18-month relationship, although he refused to give any details about the encounter."

So she's "vain and infuriating" (which incidentally also appears in the title of the piece) while he is unfaithful and inclined towards violence? Why am I not feeling his rage over her vanity? You also have to wonder what is going on when a guy dates one of the world's most successful models and then announces she's "vain". That's her job - to look great all the time. If she wandered around in second hand cardigans she'd make a lot less money. If you want to criticise the system fair enough but not much point criticising her for playing along.

"[He] describes in detail the moment his former girlfriend told him she was pregnant with their son Harvey.

'My reaction was immediate,' he said. 'There was no way we could have this baby. I told her, "Our relationship is too unstable. I don't think it's right".' "

Really? So you weren't ready to have a baby with this woman? There are these great things that've been invented especially for guys who feel that way about their relationships - they're called CONDOMS. And if you're really totally 100% sure there's no way you could raise a child with this woman - don't have sex with her.

"He recalls staying down one night and Katie's crowd were heading off to a big party in London.

He said the crowd came back 'steaming drunk' and made a terrible noise, despite the fact that little Harvey was asleep upstairs.

'I challenged her about this lifestyle. She'd desperately wanted our baby but was this her idea of motherhood?"

I don't understand - was the child left unattended? Was the child put at risk? Or was the child at risk of nothing more than maybe being woken up in the night by a bit of noise? Should we also be condemning mothers who snore or live near noisy foxes? What was his idea of fatherhood? "Staying down one night"? What about the other 364 of the year?

"After a night of 'wild' sex, Yorke describes how he pulled out a £45,000 ring and gave it to Price.

'It was clearly an engagement ring,' said Yorke

...

They flew home separately - and Price never returned his ring."

Now for me it's not the value of the ring that tells me it's an engagement ring - it's the guy who gives it to me asking me to marry him. No woman accepting a piece of jewelry as a gift should be unspeakingly understood to have agreed to anything. What next? That was clearly a can-we-try-some-bondage bracelet, and now you've accepted the let's-remortgage-the-house-and-move-to-Spain pashmina you'd better start packing? And no, the whole point of gifts is that they are given freely, if it had conditions attached to it's being offered they should have been stated up front.

Seems to me that the first thing Ms Price has gotten right about raising her child is to keep him away from his unpleasant misogynist father.

Friday, September 25, 2009

You Lucky London Feminists!

Lots of you will I know already be coming to the Feminism In London conference on 10th October. If not then head over here pronto to find out more and reserve your place.

After the conference (and you don't have to go to the conference to come along) we are holding a fabulous feminist fun-packed cabaret show. It's downstairs at The Comedy Pub on Oxenden Street (between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square - SW1Y 4EE), doors open at 8pm and show at half eight, though you can arrive before that and buy tickets if there are any left have a drink in the main bar any time.

The line-up is still being tweaked but I have confirmed appearances from Eve Webster (the impressionist who shredded Ann Widdicombe at the recent Abortion Rights fundraiser) and fabulous headliners Chambers and Nettleton (pictured above).

[Update: added to the line-up: the British Bette Midler... Abi Roberts!]

[Update number two: also added to the line-up: amazing magician Katherine Rhodes!]

Tickets are £10 full price and £5 concessions. I'm not going to make any rule on who is and isn't a concession so if you can afford it, it is a fundraiser, please buy the full priced ticket but if money's an issue get a concession one and don't miss out on the fun.

Other info: The pub is over-18s only (sorry) and the venue is down a single flight of stairs. We will do whatever we can to help with accessibility so give me a shout if you need advice on that. Show will finish about 11pm and afterwards there'll be a DJ (over whom I have no control but it's usually cheery and dancy) and the venue will open up to the public until 2am.

You can buy tickets using the button below.







Full/Concessions








(Oh and by the way once you pay it will tell you to contact David at Soho Comedy Club for your ticket, but this is not necessary, I will just have a list including your name and email address on the door).

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David "Doublespeak" Miliband

A few weeks ago I wrote to David Miliband in his capacity as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to ask him to sign the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. You can find out more about the situation here. Today I received a reply from a Ms Woollard, responding on behalf of Mr Miliband. It was - frankly - a load of shite...

"In principle the Government supports the Convention against Enforced Disappearance. However, we do need to examine the potential impact on our law if the UK were to ratify it. In particular, lawyers are analysing the extent to which common law provisions may need to be replicated in statute law, and whether the introduction of one or more specific criminal offences would be needed."

He's seriously telling me that he's worried about the impact that signing the UN Convention against Enforced Disappearance might have on UK law? If there is any possible way in which UK law could be affected by the UN convention against Enforced Disappearance then it is UK law that needs to change. Effectively his email tells me he's not prepared to condemn enforced disappearances overseas in case he wants to enforce some disappearances over here...?

"If the Government decides to ratify the Convention, these changes to the law would require primary legislation, which would be introduced when Parliamentary time allowed. Decisions would also need to be taken on whether the United Kingdom required any reservations or declarations upon ratification. The complexity of these issues under consideration does not permit a deadline to be set at this time for completion of this analysis, however, work is being progressed as rapidly are possible."

What a load of political double speak. "We'd love to end human rights abuses but we're just so busy right now". "Oh well we couldn't possible stop people from dying until we've had a nice cup of tea and a hob-nob..."

"The UK takes its international obligations seriously. For instance, in December 2003 and after detailed consideration, the UK was the third country in the world to ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. As part of this protocol, on 19 May this year, we established a 'National Preventative Mechanism' to inspect the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in any circumstances within the UK."

The most recent example he has of the UK doing something right in terms of international attitudes to human rights is 2003? Firstly I love the way he writes "the UK" as if I'm not actually part of it. I know about the UN protocol on torture. I wrote to MPs in 2003 and asked them to sign it. I didn't write to Miliband at the time because (doh!) in 2003 he was MP for South Shields and held no other governmental position. If anything I was more closely involved in that one than he was.

It's actually a waste of government time in my opinion to be to-ing and fro-ing about an issue as simple and clear-cut as this. Do we support human rights abuses? No. Next.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Dark Knights

Last night I was on BBC Five Live discussing Harriet Harman's plans to stop businesses from reclaiming VAT on "expenses" trips to strip and lap-dancing clubs. Well we were supposed to be discussing that. Instead I got screamed at by a guy called Chris Knight (the one on the left) who described himself as the president of the lap-dancers association. Weird for two reasons - firstly elsewhere on the web he's listed as the vice-president and secondly because why would a guy be head of the lap-dancers association? I mean isn't that kind of like having a white guy as head of an organisation which represents black people?

Anyway there were three things that I was angry about.

Firstly because he just shouted over everything I said, which sometimes I do too on air, sometimes you have to stop someone taking up all the air time with some irrelevant or just outright wrong point. But this was not it - this was just him trying to silence me. He didn't listen to a single point I made, however brief.

Secondly he had this manner of saying things as though that made them true. He said "the law as it is works perfectly" - and that's really not true of any law. The murder law doesn't work perfectly, murder still happens and some people trying to assist suicide for the terminally ill can be at risk of prosecution. He also said "if anything illegal happens the police sort it out" when in fact what is true is that when illegal things happen if the police find out about them there is a chance they'll try to sort it out.

Finally though when I agreed to do the interview I was told there would be one other person on air - a lapdancer called Naomi. When we went live Chris Knight was there too - effectively Naomi's boss. Needless to say when your boss is sat next to you you're hardly going to be open about the positives and the negatives of you work environment. For instance at one point I asked Naomi if clients ever touched her while she was dancing and she said "no, never". Really? So she's worked for several years dancing naked across the laps of drunk men and not one has ever touched her? Does anyone believe that. Afterwards I had a chat with a friend who has worked as a stripper and I told her what Naomi had said to which she responded (and I quote) "ah fuck that's ridiculous".

Today I noticed that I'm not the only person who thinks Chris Knight is a nasty bully. So do ... wait for it ... the House of Lords! He's been paying lobbists to try to convince Lords to table watering-down motions to the new bill changing the way lapdancing clubs are licensed. The article in The Times (linked above) contains two classic Chris Knight-isms...

"We got the best response from lords because they don’t rely on votes like MPs do."

Or in other words "Boy, if we lived in a real democracy, we'd be in trouble". And...

"It’s hard to get public support when you run strip clubs."

Aw boo hoo. Well don't do it then!

But the best line in the article comes from 78 year-old hereditary peer Lord Bridgeman who said "I’m very happy to discuss this with you but I need to be properly briefed".

...being "properly briefed" is not something Lord Bridgeman or the women working the industry should expect!

Human Sacrifice Related Thought For The Day

On Sunday I was "informed" by various over-the-top religious activists that there is far too much sex ed in schools (see post below). This afternoon I was helping a friend's 8-year-old with her homework which included a worksheet about the Aztecs. All well and good, there were some missing words to fill in and so on. Then there was a blank box above which it said "In this box draw a picture of a human sacrifice". Huh? So we can't talk to kids about sex but it's just fine to have them drawing dismembered bleeding corpses? I suggested she just write in the box "Are you serious, I'm eight!" and her mum suggested drawing the temple without the gory bits but then we left her to make her own choices so for all I know she's been carefully colouring in blood puddles and extricated still-pumping hearts...

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Cru-Blog on the TV (Again!)

Last Sunday I was back on The Big Questions on BBC One. Thanks to everyone who got in touch and apologies for not posting the link sooner - for some reason it wasn't on the BBC iPlayer until today so I didn't want to post the story before you could watch the show in question. However it is up now so please click here and have a look!

Monday, September 14, 2009

Barbie World

I am featured in a student documentary about Barbie dolls and their impact on young women. It's in two sections below - I'm mostly in the first half of the second section. For some reason as soon as I start talking about feminist issues all the cats in the neighbourhood show up - it's like they know that secretly I'm their leader...



Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Argh! And Another Thing...!!

Last night I went to bed angry about The Fix magazine's sexist "Top 50 acts to see at the Fringe" article. In the middle of the night I woke up screaming (quite quietly) having spun the list round in my head and realised something else. From their top 50 acts:

1) 99% white. Pat Monahan has an Iranian parent, other than that all acts and all members of all sketch acts listed were white.

2) I think 98% straight. Of course not everyone puts their sexual orientation on their flyer so I can't be certain but I think Simon Amstell is the only openly gay act listed. And no - out of three female acts they didn't manage to find a lesbian, although statistically that's not surprising.

3) 99.8% able-bodied. I am giving a teeny tiny credit to their choice of Simon Munnery who has problems using one of his hands.

4) 100% cissexual.

And this magazine has as the first word at the top left of the front cover "ALTERNATIVE". Alternative to what exactly? Alternative to equality, alternative to progress, alternative to open-minded?

Spit, spit, spit...

[To begin redressing the balance I have included a flyer from the brilliant Bethany Black - who describes herself as "Britain's favourite goth, lesbian, transsexual stand-up comedian" - you should go see her at the Underbelly soon. And come see my show too.]

Monday, August 24, 2009

OK, Who's Up For A Riot?

I am. There is a magazine about comedy that posits itself as "new" and "hip" called The Fix. Editor Harry Deansway offers us in this edition a run-down of the 50 best acts in Edinburgh, broken down into different categories, each with an explanatory subtitle. And here's who he picks...
Sketch comedy - This is where 2-6 people perform sketches, sometimes with music - 3 all-male groups and 2 mixed groups.
Stand-Up - You know what this is; one man, one microphone and some jokes - 6 men
Hot new talent - Impress friends and family by saying you saw them before they were famous - 6 men
Musical comedy and character acts - Hey, who are these crazy characters???????? - 5 men, one male double-act and one mixed double act
Acts The Fix owes money to - We especially encourage you to see these acts, if for no other reason than to ease the guilt we feel - one man and one all-male sketch group
Modern - Hey man, that comedian just plugged a projector up his arse! You've got to go see this! - 8 men
Veterans - They'll be dead soon, or too rich to come up to Edinburgh any more - 7 men
Women - Well, you've got to let them have a go, haven't you? - 2 women and one female double-act
Something a bit different - Not interested in hearing a man talk for an hour about how small his penis is and why his girlfriend left him? Try some of this weird shit - 5 men
I'm not making this up - it starts on page 37 here.
Of course you may tell me that the comments are intended to be an ironic joke but it's having a direct impact on the careers of women at the fringe. I have had copies of this magazine thrust into my hands several times in the last few days and like most people will have done I flicked through and had I been in a position to visit shows I might well have taken a recommendation or two out of there without noticing that only 6% of recommendations are female acts and a further 6% are mixed groups. I don't know exactly the breakdown of shows by performer gender but I'm pretty sure that's not a fair representation. So female acts are going to be getting less audience as a direct result of his noxious "joke".
Actually if you read more of the mag it's loaded with misogyny. The Editor's letter includes lines like this: "A comedian is the type of person who will say they are not having sex with your girlfriend whilst your mum is giving them a blowjob under the table. That's the sort of person we are dealing with - egomaniacs so mentally unstable that if they thought it was in the best interests of their "career", they would cut off their penis, stick it onto their forehead, and call themselves Dave The Amazing Dickhead." Which of course is supposed to be funny but is also clearly letting us all know that a comedian has a dick, not a vagina...
The mag also contains an advert for it's own online website (on p16 & 17 if you opened the link) with the slogan "NEW FIX WEB-SITE AT LAST ANOTHER REASON TO USE THE INTERNET" next to a "screenshot" of very graphic pornographic images of women.
Of course the magazine is funded by a ton of comedians buying adverts who desperately want to drag extra punters into their shows. The BBC is also an advertiser (p36) as are City Circle Coach Hire (p41), The Pleasance (p13) and Absolute Radio (p7).
I don't have a particular idea what I'm going to do, but please get in touch if you have any ideas, I really think after all the effort put into the female comics photo-shoot we can't let them get away with this.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Please Make It Stop!

OK I love wildlife documentaries - I like watching the scenery and the amazing animals and learning more about the world. So when I saw a new one on BBC One I thought brilliant and couldn't wait to put it on. But "Wildest Dreams" isn't really a wildlife documentary. It's a reality show in which budding wildlife documentary makers are pitted against each other in a pathetic attempt to create drama and tension and win a job making wildlife documentaries at the BBC.
Seriously I've had it on for ages and I've seen about 2 minutes of footage of wildlife and 30 minutes of people sat around a dessert oasis on camping chairs talking.
Worse still it's hosted by Nick Knowles. Why is he doing more and more stuff? He's really irritating - his idea of humour is cheap and uninteresting gags about the cliched "differences" between men versus women. He claims to do charitable work for anti-bullying charities (such as in the inappropriately-posed photo above - seriously, the two young women he is manhandling are in "act against bullying T-shirts) but then he treats the contestants on the show in a really manipulative and patronising manner.
And what exactly does he know about wildlife documentary-making? Why is he the "expert" dishing out the advice? If they had David Attenborough and Saba Douglas-Hamilton I'd at least think the show had some credibility.
This is STUPID. We do not need more reality shows and we do not need any more of that smarmy man. If we are paying a camera crew to go to Africa, they should film the sweeping savannah and the animals and the devastating impact of climate change, not Nick Knowles talking... Hire someone good and go out and make great wildlife films!

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Political News From The Fringe

Posted over on The News At Kate blog.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Are You Not Angry Enough Today?

Got that joys-of-srping feeling driving you round the bend. Need to psych yourself up for the day? Luckily The Male's own Liz Jones is on hand with her blow-by-blow account of how revoltingly women age.
To quote her: "if you are over 50 you shouldn't be smiling".
Angry enough yet? If not why not clear away any valuable crockery and read the whole thing?

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Tory Lessons

The Tories are proposing that school league tables should be adjusted to reflect the notion that some A-levels are "harder" than others. The subjects they think are hard are maths, further maths, physics and languages. Well I happen to have A-levels in exactly those things: maths, further maths, physics and French and I can tell you for free that they're not hard at all. Maths and physics are the kind of subjects that if you have a naturally logical brain you find very easy. I did much less work than my English-studying school mates. And French I found easy mostly because I'd spent several summers in France working before and during my A-levels.

If we really believe that some subjects are "easier" than others the solution (obviously) is to increase the curriculum for those subjects to level the playing field. As soon as we start to say that a maths A-level is somehow worth more than an English or geography A-level we are short-changing those students with a genuine desire to excel at English or geography. If the levels need resetting then fair enough - feel free to add to the syllabus for the supposedly "easy" subjects and reduce the workload for the harder ones but don't tell kids that their brilliance in art can never outshine their weakness in maths.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Old News, New To Me

Several weeks ago I had a call from a journalist at the Mirror who wanted to ask me about the culture of bonuses in the city. I had a chat with the guy and thought maybe he would use a quote or two. Then I forgot about it. Today however we had the fabulous Steve Parry along to be a panelist on The Comedy Manifesto (all info on my shows here) and he mentioned my "opinion piece" in the Mirror and said he was a bit jealous I'd had my own box right next to Vince Cable but thought I'd made some good points. Well they haven't exactly quoted what I said but the general gist is in line with what I meant and indeed I do make some good points...

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

That picture in full...


That would be eighty - yes eighty - female comics. And if you have very good eyesight you may be able to spot me - I am in black and hanging round the central pillar on the left. To the right of me (the other side of the pillar, with her hand pointing over her head) is Hannah George - who was on at the last Abortion Rights fundraiser we had and was recently the first person in the UK to graduate with a degree in stand-up comedy. To the left in a white top and blond hair, my good friend Rachel Anderson who is actually pointing at me to help you spot me!
I also had a lovely review of my show. If you'd like to read it have a look here.

But Really Though - Are Women Funny?

Yesterday morning I joined a 79 other female comics for one big photoshoot to hopefully put paid once and for all to the whole "Why don't women do comedy?" and "Why aren't women funny?" line of uninvestigative lazy journalism. It was a lot of fun.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Edinburgh Nights

By the way I'm not going to go on and on about my Edinburgh show on here. So I've set up a side-blog for me to ramble about that over here. If anything seems to be especially about women in the arts or whatever I'll cross post.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Dangers of Drinking Too Much

A woman in Greece has been in court charged with setting fire to the genitals of a male British tourist who, she claims, had repeatedly sexually harrassed her - groping her bottom and breasts and exposing his genitals to her. Whatever the facts in this particular case it has to be said I find it very very easy to believe that male British tourists cause all sorts of unnecessary grief to local women in the countries they visit. It's sexism combined with racism and xenophobia, the patronising attitude that foreign women won't mind or won't make a fuss if you behave inappropriately to them.

When I have been out flyering for my comedy shows in Leicester Square (which for me was a quick way of boosting audience numbers if we were a bit low, but from the outside to the kind of idiot who assumes no woman could be a comedian, looks like a minimum wage dodgy cash-in-hand job likely to be filled by someone from overseas who doesn't speak much English) I would get a lot of harrassment. And a fair bit, though not all, of it would stop when the perpetrators realised I spoke English, and with a relatively middle class accent.

It's gross. It ties in nicely with the news that the Mayor of Riga is unhappy at the behaviour of British stag parties visiting his country.

Now three things:

1) If British stag parties insist on bringing what is essentially an out-of-control British tradition to countries where it is not welcome maybe these countries should return the favour and set up the Pamplona Bull Run at Old Trafford one Saturday!

2) Stag parties and the sort of stuff that is being described in the Greek case are really a sort of watered-down (in some cases not much watered-down) sexual tourism. If we keep allowing lap-dancing and table-dancing bars to proliferate in the UK and the problems of the underground but widely-tolerated prostitution industry are ignored it is only a matter of time before wealthy tourists from elsewhere will be piling to the UK to get their fix of sexism. And when we don't do anything about rape and sexual assault in the UK, the perpetrators are (a) still on the streets and (b) going to assume they can get away with it wherever they go.

3) Remember all the women-don't-drink-or-it's-your-own-fault-if-you're-raped adverts? And the ones where we were told if we let our friends get in an illegal minicab they'd defintely get raped and it would be our fault. In fact even two weeks ago ministers were warning that women going on holiday to Greece should drink less or ... you guessed it - they'd get raped. So where in the light of this new case are the Home Office paid-for posters warning men that if they get drunk abroad they should expect to have their genitals torched? Instead the guys parents - who were not there at the time - are quoted as saying the twenty-year old who was celebrating the last night of a two week five-lad holiday definitely didn't harrass anyone. Did anyone really expect his parents to say "He probably did it, he can be a right tit"?

Thursday, July 30, 2009

...But Is It "Art"?

Camden Council has decided that burlesque shows where there is stripping and nudity should require adult entertainment licenses, like strip shows and lap-dancing venues do. And I know I sound like the oldest prude in the book but they're right.

And I do feel mean about this because I have a number of good friends who perform burlesque, and for the most part what they do is genuinely alternative and intended at least in a positive way. The thing is that already I've seen amateur burlesque nights springing up around London and they are really using that term to mean "stripping but we can't be bothered to get a license". I fail to see how the line can be drawn. The council will still have authority to grant licenses if they want to.

On top of that I am still not totally comfortable with burlesque as an art form. A number of comedy clubs have sprung up recently offering a "cabaret" of comedy and burlesque. I am not, and am never going to be, comfortable going on stage when the last performer has just stripped off. And it is tangibly restricting my career, just as it used to when I worked in finance and wouldn't socialise in strip clubs.

To give a concrete example of why I feel that way: I was asked a couple of years ago to do warm-up at a highly prestigious burlesque show happening in Edinburgh at the festival. I said I thought I'd feel uncomfortable surrounded by glamourous dancers, to which I was told "no-one will be looking at your face". Confused I asked what they'd expect me to wear and was told "Don't worry, we'll lend you a basque". To be honest that's what I was most worried about so I declined the job and it was given to a male act who performed in jeans and no doubt got his own BBC series on the back of it or some such.

Some venues will still apply for and be granted licenses and for the rest of the burlesque world I can only suggest doing something wildly alternative and positive - keeping your kit on! No-one is suggesting demanding licenses for venues where nudity doesn't happen.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Oh Look...

...me having a good old moan in The Observer!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Dear The Independent Sports Section

I wonder if you remember on March 23rd this year you carried an opinion piece by the then Sports Minister Andy Burnham bewailing the limited coverage of women's sport in national media in the wake of England Women's victory at the the cricket world cup? I wonder in the light of that whether you shouldn't rename your current supplement Great Male Sporting Moments since aside from a brief appearance by Jane Torville all fourteen of the moments commemorated celebrate men's sport. Should your younger female readers conclude that the only physical excellence to which they should bother aspiring is to have a man swing them round an ice rink in a leotard and miniskirt*? Or will you be bringing out a second series next week of Great Female Sporting Moments with classic scenes of Paula Radcliffe, Dame Kelly Holmes, Dame Ellen MacArthur, Laila Ali, Mia Hamm, Martina Navratilova, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Dame Mary Peters, Rachel Heyhoe-Flint and of course the 2009 England Women's Cricket Team? If so I look forward to reading it.

*Not that this isn't a very difficult thing to train for and do - just that it doesn't really represent the breadth and depth of female sporting ability.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

What Not To Wear

This, for starters, is revolting. Women in Sudan being given lashes (not the mascara kind) for wearing trousers in public. Now the issue is that the lashes were given under Sharia law which is only supposed to apply to Muslims - the women were mostly Christian or animist.

Of course the notion that non-followers of a religion should adhere to it's laws is stupid - but still one I hear a great deal in the UK on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But more importantly:

1) Who exactly gets to decide whether a woman in Muslim or not? Is she herself genuinely entitled to a free choice on the matter? I strongly doubt it.

2) Where is the righteousness in following the laws of your religion out of fear of being flogged rather than out of personal piety?

3) Assuming the Muslim community wishes others to follow Islam - how exactly do they think this is going to attract new converts?

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Wimbledon Women

A report yesterday in the Daily Male says Wimbledon officials actually admit they put more attractive female players on centre court and leave the most talented, less attractive female players on outer courts.

Today I was watching the tennis from the sofa largely because I'm something of a fan of the Williams sisters who are much more likely to use the phrase "I'll play any bloke who's brave enough"* than "I'm hoping to move into glamour modeling" and at one point Serena Williams graciously pointed out to the umpire that her opponent had won the point. The (male) BBC commentator (whose name I do not know) commented "One thing that Richard's done - he's made them very good on court. There's no bitching about line calls".

Argh! Excuse me while I bang my head against this handy wall. Firstly Richard Williams did not build his daughters in some sort of lab. Their successes and their graciousness is their own - no one sees Murray win a point and congratulates his coach or his Mum. Secondly if Murray complains about a line call would a commentator say "Oh dear, Murray's bitching about the line call"? One standard for men and a totally different one for women.

*They did this once and lost to a guy ranked about 200th, but not without winning some games on the way there.

"Hilarious" Prostitution Story

This story is hilarious as long as you block out in your mind the notion that women trapped in the sex industry are actually people. I see this happen so often - the idea that a story about unusual behaviour related to prostitution is funny. Who on earth released the story to the press? Police? How sick is that? Shouldn't they be asking what can be done to help this woman? Puke.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Chilling Read

Computer problems here which mean myself and Mr Cru are currently sharing a computer - hence why I've hardly blogged for ages. Anyway to keep you radicalised until it gets sorted out try this piece from The Curvature for size...

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Rape and the Police

LPrapist.jpg


This story from yesterday's London Paper is shocking and horrifying. One element of it that I am still spitting about is the time line. Police were "today" (i.e. yesterday) hunting for a rapist who attacked a woman on 3rd July last year.

This guy hid in a roof above a toilet and leaped down to rape a teenage. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who should be left to roam the streets for a year before being apprehended. How many other women have been attacked while the police did nothing? And how hard would it have been for the rapist to leave the country in the space of a year thus ensuring he never faces charges for his crimes.

Only a few months ago we were horrified to discover John Worboys had been left by police to roam the streets searching for new victims while outstanding cases against him were left to fester. When are police going to start taking rape seriously?

But of course The London Paper doesn't bother asking questions to chase up that angle (like when was the crime reported and why has it taken so long to chase up on it?), instead it focuses on the fact that Bono and Prince Harry sometimes went to the nightclub in question. Well whoopee - I wonder what they usually have to drink and what they think of the music... oh hold on didn't someone mention rape a minute ago? So question two: When is The London Paper - and other media - going to take rape seriously?

F****** Sexism

I was on Five Live on Tuesday night as Richard Bacon's "presenter's friend" which is a really fun job where you get to chat about all the subjects that come up. We interviewed Pete Waterman and met an amazing duo called Nathan Flutebox Lee and Beardyman (whose act you may have seen on YouTube and is really quite amazing). In between the subject of Gordon Ramsay was up for discussion.

In case you have missed the story in question Ramsay is over in Australia at the moment promoting a new restaurant and took the time to appear on a TV chat show hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. While on air he said a few rather rude things to her about her appearance, making fun of a mole on her lip. She took it as a joke and laughed it off. Then at his live show he held up a really horrible picture of a woman on all fours with six breasts and a pig's head and said "This is Tracy Grimshaw". Some sources claim he also suggested she was a lesbian (cos that's an insult right?).

And brilliantly something happened. Grimshaw herself responded to the situation saying she had been very upset by it. She also said - and I love this quote - "Obviously Gordon thinks that any woman who doesn't find him attractive must be gay. For the record, I don't. And I'm not.". The Women's Forum Australia made a statement saying "Why should he get paid for depicting a woman as an animal and publicly deriding her looks? He shouldn't make money through the verbal abuse of women." and even the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd joined in saying Ramsay was "a new form of low life". After initially dismissing it as a joke Ramsay has now been forced to make a very public apology.

Well you know me readers - the last thing I would want to be considered is smug but I do think us feminists can smell a misogynist coming at 200 yards and I've known from day one that Ramsay has a bad attitude towards women. Firstly I remember in one of his early TV shows he had a special section in which he campaigned to "Get women back in the kitchen". The concept behind it was of course a perfectly reasonable one - to encourage people to make more home-cooked food - but he had to make it about women and about reviving antiquated Victorian ideals that have destroyed women's lives for centuries.

Secondly remember when he had three-year-olds going round in badges that said "I'm a vegetarian tart"? I even blogged about it.

So lashing of "Well Done Australia" served up with a sprinkling of "I Told You So".

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Abortion Debate

I wrote a piece for Reuters yesterday about the murder of Dr George Tiller and the implications for current abortion issues here. My piece here or the "balanced"* debate here.

*"Balanced" is very much a matter of opinion I think.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Food, Gloriously Gendered Food!

Re-posted from The F-Word, as discussed elsewhere.

foodks.JPG
I was asked earlier today (as were other writers on The F-Word) if I was interested in commenting on gendering of food through advertising. And I thought it was quite an interesting subject. Here are my thoughts:

I have a real problem with "gendering" food at all. From the "women like chocolate more than sex" stereotype to the notion that certain products will sell better to men if you describe them as "not for girls". At best it's unnecessary and at worst it's directly promoting gender prejudice.

In particular what is a problem is that as soon as food is deemed suitable for women, it will almost certainly be a lower-calorie version of the original food. The inference that women are or should be dieting all the time is noxious in a world where eating disorders affect a huge proportion of teenage girls and adult women and are on the rise. At the same time the "real men don't diet" message makes it harder for men to choose to eat healthily and is certainly a contributory factor in the sky-high (relative to what it could be) levels of heart disease, stroke, etc seen among men in the UK. This imbalance also plays into the notion that men do or should do tougher physical jobs (fire-fighting, military roles, etc) and play sport in their free time while women are seen as weak and in need of a "strong" man to look after them. These are all notions which do nothing for our society except to act as drivers for sexism, stereotyping and discrimination.

If food manufacturers want to sell me their food - they should make better quality food. Organic, traditionally and locally farmed, free from additives and excessive packaging and without those kind of bulking-out products that have become so commonplace on the modern food shelf - "exotic" fruit juice that's mostly grape, "meat" pies that are mostly onion. Real food, real value, and real concern for the environment will appeal to me - not patronising out-dated gender stereotypes.

Twittering Twits

Re-posted from the F-Word, as explained elsewhere.

Difficult to know how much to read into a few (hundred) posts on twitter. First I should briefly explain a concept to unfamiliar readers:

Members of Twitter (and there are loads) post up short messages about themselves or general stuff which appear next to their name. My name on the system is "Cruella1" so for instance I might "tweet" about what I'm doing:

(1) Cruella1 has just finished her lunch and is thinking about going to the park.

or about something I'm trying to draw attention to

(2) Cruella1 has just written a blog post http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/ #feminism

or I might reply to someone else's Tweet

(3) Cruella1 @jester thanks for the advice!

or I might join in a discussion already happening on Twitter

(4) Cruella1 #cornypickuplines do you work in subway? cos you've got me a foot long...

Now I need to explain a bit of etiquette - the @jester in (3) means I'm talking to someone (jester - that's Jess McCabe who edits The F-Word), and the #feminism in (2) and #cornypickuplines (4) are basically search terms. So I know people will go on Twitter looking for info about feminism and I want to direct them to my blog via (2). Also I notice other people I know are having a general chat about corny pick-up lines and I want to join in (4). You can click on these #-terms to see all "tweets" that mention them.

Anyway right now there is very popular #-search term with hundreds of "tweets" including it called #liesgirlstell. And I guess I should warn you that some of these comments might be triggering for some people. I won't name and shame who made these "tweets" but I was quite shocked at the level of disdain and hatred for women revealed...

#liesgirlstell: I'm not a slut, I juss like sex
#liesgirlstell "I don't f*ck on the first date"
#liesgirlstell im a virgin
#liesgirlstell I am low maintenance
#liesgirlstell I didn't get pregnant so you would marry me
#liesgirlstell "I'm strippin to pay for college" (b!tch you are 49!! Your turn is OVER!)
#liesgirlstell "i'm on my period"
#liesgirlstell i am capable of having an intellegent conversation with another human being
#liesgirlstell "i dont want your money"
#liesgirlstell I'm not a hoe
#liesgirlstell IVE NEVER DONE IT TRU THE ASS
#liesgirlstell Kobe raped me.

I don't know what I'm more horrified by - is it:

1) The fact that there are thousands of people happily joining in this debate as though it's normal and funny to make jokes about women being prone to dishonesty (look at all the politicians, most men, lying about everything from war to duck islands!),
2) The repeated suggestion that women who have and enjoy sex are bad/evil/disgusting
3) That bizarre comment in the middle about women not being able to hold intelligent conversations where the author himself can't even spell "intelligent"...!
or
4) The disgusting rape denier at the end.

But suffice as to say sadly that is the world we all live in. And to think some people think we don't need feminism!

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Truth About Antenatal Classes

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

A report out from Sweden says that attending classes teaching breathing techniques and relaxation methods has exactly no effect on your likelihood of needing an epidural. And no impact on your likelihood of needing a C-Section. And no impact on your overall satisfaction with the birth.

Now that's not to say that there aren't some worthwhile things to be taught to expecting parents. To get the low-down I spoke to my sister (Lynda) who had a baby almost a year ago and attended both NHS and NCT (National Childbirth Trust) classes before the birth. She said neither even mentioned breathing techniques or relaxation as discussed in the Swedish report. But she did have some good points about several aspects of them. Here is what she had to say:

1) NHS classes: free but a total waste of time. Around 40 individuals and couples in a theatre-style auditorium. During question and answer sessions she couldn't really hear what other participants were saying and they ran out of handouts. Pain relief methods were discussed briefly as more or less a list of options.

2) NCT classes: £140 for 2 days and one evening, much more useful. Eight individuals and couples with practical opportunities to try things, etc. The most useful thing was the focus on the emotions around birth and new babies, for instance talking about how the mother's partner might feel coming home to find the house a mess and the mother exhausted and desperate to hand the baby over. Provided lots of useful advice for the birth itself - such as bringing along glucose sweets for energy and a kneeling cushion if you wanted to try a kneeling position. Probably much of this is available in books on maternity but also in this class friends were made and a support network accumulated.

As far as pain relief was concerned she was expecting there to be real pressure on women to reject pain relief. In the event there was a run-through of different options with participants asked to make a list of the pros and cons of each type. This might sound even-handed but in fact the "cons" is a long list of unlikely medical complications while the "pros" is one single item "reduces pain" which applies in most cases. Drawing the list like this gives the impression that one pro equals one con when in reality cons like "baby may be sleepy for first hour after birth" may well be pretty trivial against the pain thing.

Worryingly they were told that using the pain-reliever pethidine gives your child a greater risk of becoming a drug addict later in life. Both Lynda and I doubt this statement - though there may be a correlation between hospitals in underprivileged areas who dish out pethidine when they don't really have enough midwives around to cope with all the women in labour and the hospitals where kids turn up eighteen years later with a drug problem. In any case the information is nothing more than a scare tactic unless it says how much the risk increases and where the data is from.

3) Pain. No class can prepare you for the pain. To quote Lynda directly "The only way they could explain to you in a class what the pain is like is if they made you stand barefoot on upturned drawing pins while they loaded you with heavy sandbag after heavy sandbag to weight you down and the only way to make it stop was to shout 'EPIDURAL'!". ...and I am supposed to be the comedienne in the family!

4) Reality. The one thing no class really told despite asking repeatedly at the NHS one was what the most likely outcome was - what percentage of women manage without pain relief, etc and what percentage of pain relief interventions lead to problems, and what type of problems. In the end of five women Lynda is still in touch with, including herself, there were two without epidural and three with epidural. In all three of the latter cases there were complications associated with the epidural (one didn't work - the pain continued, one the needle kept coming out and having to be refitted and one woman was left on crutches for several months with a small baby to look after!). Of course without access to the relevant data we just can't know how much of that is to be expected from an epidural and how much is down to bad luck or overworked staff, etc.

5) Birth plans. Apparently the NCT went on and on about how important it was for women to write a "birth plan" to take with them to hospital. Now it's understandable that women would want to have a document in hand to tell nurses what they want in different scenarios, to avoid having procedures they didn't want forced upon them when they are in too much pain to discuss things. However of those in the group who made a "birth plan" (Lynda refused despite repeated demands by class instructors) 100% ended up not sticking to it and then feeling they had somehow "failed" to have the birth they wanted. In any case who would write a birth plan that says "experience extreme pain, demand an epidural, discover it's too late, baby's heart rate slows, rushed in for emergency cesarean". Everyone writes "no pain relief, baby slips out in 2 minutes, I look stunning", and then nobody lives up to it. So sure take in some notes about particular things you're worried about seems to be good advice, but stay open minded about what happens - don't make too many plans!

6) What they don't mention. There were a few things that didn't seem to get mentioned. Particularly some of the graphic details. Like for instance "you will definitely sh!t yourself at some point". Not to freak women out but so that when it happens they know not to be surprised or embarrassed. Maybe just reading out a few accounts from women who have had babies recently would help.

So in conclusion, there seem to be some real positives from a supportive class covering what to expect throughout maternity, birth and the first year or so of a child's life, although clearly such classes should be available freely (although the NCT does offer discounted classes if mothers have financial difficulties). Information on pain relief doesn't seem to be getting through so well. What is needed in this area is accurate information about all the options and how likely the various outcomes are both nationally and by hospital and clinic so that women can make a considered choice. What is not needed is a load of piffle about trying to relax while you're in excruciating pain.

Footnote: The moment I put this up someone messaged me on Facebook to say they read it. This friend of mine said she had a planned cesarean because of problems identified earlier in the pregnancy. When they told her this she felt ... relieved. What a shame that a woman can't just decide she wants a planned cesarean and discuss that with her antenatal teacher. What's so bad about not wanting to go through a lot of pain? Give women all the information and let them choose what they want for themselves.

(By the way there is a response to this post by another feminist here).

More Free Tampons

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

Lil-Lets have out-done themselves now. After last week's "Free Tampons" offer, they are now offering a free box of tampons with some free sample packs to give to your friends. But this offer breaks new ground in also offering a do-it-yourself "dip test" - their brand and a rival brand of tampons with two test tubes and some suspicious-looking blue liquid for you to recreate the thrills and spills of being in a sanitary product advert! Really! I suggest take the freebee and use the test tubes as shot glasses!

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Try Not To Enjoy This Too Much...

...oh ok, go on then!! At the risk of shocking some readers I think I would have to admit that I enjoyed this story so much I may have to go change into clean underwear!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Tesco and Me

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

Somehow or another I have failed to tick a box somewhere online and I have been added to a mailing list run by Tesco. Today their marketing director Kendra Banks has written me with some recommendations. Her first pick for me is Eminem's new album "Relapse".

This album's title track includes some interesting lyrics, like this one:

"he stuck the bitch with the pitchfork with the long prongs"

I wonder how this fits with Tesco's fancily worded policy on diversity and inclusion: gender?

But maybe lyrics about killing women pale into insignificance next to some of the other things he says in the very same song. Such as these:

"Slice you up and cook you after you`re murdered by strangulation
That`s bacon souffle you makin`, ain`t you? well, thank you jason
There goes one more coma
Due to blunt force trauma"

"The medication is making my hands a little shakier
Hand me the 18 month old baby, come shake `em up
It`ll only take me a second to choke his trachea
Breakin` his neck in eightysome places"


Maybe someone could print out the above stanza and put it in Tesco stores next to the nappies and baby food? Or maybe Kendra Banks should double check what is being sent out to Tesco customers with her name on the bottom!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Free Tampons

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest blogging.

It hardly needs saying that I am a big advocate of alternative menstrual hygiene products* - moon cup, sea sponge tampons, washable pads, etc but of course these don't suit everybody all of the time. So I thought I would mention for the benefit of those interested that Lil-Lets are currently giving away free samples of their new applicator (yes, I know, the waste!) tampons. You have to register but you can opt for not joining the mailing list (or join and then barrage them with messages demanding they switch to recyclable products) to get the free sample here.

*What a stupid term - I mean period products!

The Trouble With Cruella

Re-posted from The F-Word, where I am currently guest-blogging.

As some readers will have noticed, I was interviewed for a BBC Two documentary about working women called "The Trouble With Working Women" which was shown this evening. You can see the whole thing here on the BBC iPlayer. And if you just want to see my bit - it starts at 37 minutes in, so you can scroll it along.

I've just finished watching the whole thing and I thought it was quite interesting, they do speak to a range of people on the subject. I had a few notes though.

They talk a lot about the extent to which having children holds women back but they never stop to ask whether that in itself is a result of sexism. I mean if having children made you a bad employee we would assume that the small number of women who do get to the top would all be women without children. Surprise - not true! Margaret Thatcher has two children, Segolene Royal four children, Hillary Clinton one child. And the most successful women in business: Dame Marjorie Scardino has three children, Dorothy Thompson two children, Linda Cook three children. There is no evidence to suggest mothers make less valuable employees. What we do know is that female bosses, regardless of the number of children they have, work an average three hours more per week than their male counterparts.

Later they gravely warn that one in four women with a degree is "childless at forty" - something they should probably mention to the noxious woman complaining she wouldn't hire a woman of child-bearing age. Note to any female readers currently navigating the credit crunch job market - why not consider a career-enhancing hysterectomy... oh that's right because it's totally screwed up and sickening.

Even so the one in four figure is useless information without telling us what percentage of men with degrees are childless at the same age - among my college friends most of the women have children but almost none of the guys. And anyway one in five women overall do not have children in their lifetimes so it seems like the degree might not be the main factor. Plus what percentage of these women wanted children in the first place? Maybe getting a degree opened them up to other things that they enjoy more. Maybe they're thrilled to be without children and able to focus their free time on travel and artistic pursuits (as a friend said to me the other day "Oh God Kate I wouldn't have had children if I'd know I was creative!"). Maybe they would prefer to be described with the term "child free".

They then say that 30% of mothers stay at home full time but that two-thirds of working mothers said they did so out of necessity. For me there's a gap there where they should be asking what can be done to support mothers who want to spend more time with kids and why the benefit system forces women back to work so quickly after they have children. There is a lot of talk about women making tough choices but the reality for many women is clearly that it's not a choice at all.

But also I'd like to know what percentage of stay at home mothers do so at least partly because their job prospects are so hampered by sexism - certainly true of all the stay-at-home mums I know.

As so often with these things they seem to get totally sidelined into the motherhood thing and away from the real issue - sexism. Amazing when you consider they actually interview guys who say "women shouldn't be allowed to work", "women aren't put on this earth to work". And then you're telling me it's my choices that are holding my career back? No - it's these assholes!

So where is the documentary asking how so many men manage to "juggle" a career with playing golf and downloading internet porn? Whoops, forgot to make that one!

The notion that women having children explains everything from the pay gap to sexual harassment is totally sexist because only women can be "women having children"! I honestly believe if women rather than men grew the vast majority of beards the government would announce they were unhygienic and we wouldn't be allowed to work in the food industry which would overnight become the best paid industry in the country. And if men had the children they'd be automatically promoted every time they squeezed one out because they were demonstrating an ability to shoulder more responsibility...

We're not victims of biology - we're victims of misogyny.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Boris's Big Plans

Re-posted from The F-Word, where I am currently resident guest blogger!

Well I figured it was about time I went online and filled in the survey on the Mayor of London's "consultation" on his violence against women strategy. I was just trundling through, ticking boxes and adding comments when I realised I was experiencing a growing sense of unease over the whole thing.

I mean for instance I'm ticking a box to say that I agree that a priority should be to:

"4. Respond to the needs of at risk and marginalised women."

or

"3.Respond to the needs of children and young people experiencing violence."

or

"2. Clamping down on traffickers"

They are seriously asking me whether or not these issues should be a priority. Did anyone log on and tick "no - don't bother to help children", "no - leave the traffickers alone"?

And here's the thing - no-one would ever EVER do a survey asking Londoners what types of terrorism the Metropolitan police should be focusing on. Tick this box if you think we should try to prevent bombs on the tube, and this box if you're opposed to terrorists spreading anthrax. The strategy has always quite rightly been to do everything possible to prevent all types of terrorism.

Domestic violence kills two women in the UK every week. Rape is so poorly dealt with by police and in courts that it might as well be legal most of the time. What Boris Johnson's violence against women strategy should do is every single thing in its power to end violence against women. Obviously and immediately. A three month long "consultation" consisting of an online survey to find out whether or not Londoners think "at risk and marginalised women" should be protected is a waste of time and an insult to both the intelligence of people of London and more importantly the women suffering rape, violence, intimidation and harassment.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Wrong Wrong Wrong

Today's horrifying must-read link is over at Feministe.

Looking for Inspiration?

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am guest-blogging at the moment.

Great news - on Monday night the award ceremony was held for the Inspirational Women of the Year Awards. Like any keen-to-be-inspired young woman I rushed straight to the media to soak up the positive vibes.

The first thing I found was that The Daily Telegraph had a feature encouragingly titled "Inspirational Women of the year awards". I've put the link there as exhibit A but if you'd like to save the bother here's what the article holds, this is the full list:

A picture of Sarah Brown in a large necklace.
Three paragraphs about Helen Mirren's hair.
One paragraph about Helen Mirren's outfit.
Two paragraphs about Sarah Brown's outfit.
A paragraph describing the event, it's location and sponsor.
A list of other female celebrities who attended.

And that's it. No mention is made or photograph shown of the women nominated for or winning the awards. In fact to the untrained eye it appears Helen Mirren won after the judges ruled she had better hair than Gordon Brown's wife!

Some more digging turned up a second article. No, not in The Times or The Guardian, in Hello Magazine. And they actually (not that it was hard) did a better job than The Telegraph.

The photos were of Helen Mirren and Rachel Stevens in glamourous outfits but the article's five paragraphs included only one about the outfits worn by the various celebs in attendance and a whole paragraph and a half naming the winner and describing her achievements.

The Daily Mail also ran a piece, which they really had to given that their readers were the ones who had been voting for the winners (before you ask - yes all the candidates were predictably white and able-bodied). They provided a very long piece which described in depth the achievements of the winner interspersed with a huge number of photos of the celebrity attendees in glamorous outfits.

I really fail to see how this is going to inspire young women to do anything other than buy fancy shoes.

But in case you were wondering... the winner was Sylvie Silver whose achievements we are told include:

"Serving as a wing commander in charge of 1,300 teen air cadets in the London Air Training Corps, working with children and adults with learning difficulties, helping in a nursing home and acting as a director of a charity for older people."

Well done Sylvie.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Frying High

At last a sensible comment on the MPs expenses debacle! Thank you Stephen Fry.

When I see that an MP has expensed a few pounds on dog food or chocolate or shampoo I don't think I could never vote for that person again.

I think firstly that as an MP you can and should be allowed to charge for the reasonable costs of doing your job and I can't really tell which things fall into that category and which don't. What doesn't seem reasonable is the notion in the papers that the cost of an MPs office is in some way an addition to his or her salary. No-one running a florists in Swindon considers the cost of renting their premises a part of their income. MPs need offices. As for the other things - "reasonable" is a term that means different things to all of us, if you're entitled to expense for food then what I think is a moderate restaurant might seem extravagant to another person who only buys sandwiches and inadequate to another who has grown up with fine dining.

Secondly I think I don't want to vote for someone who spends six hours a day going through old receipts making sure that everything has been carefully accounted for and filed under the right heading.

I'm sure there are plenty of MPs who have shelled out from their own pocket to pay for snacks or coffees for a meeting and then realised they didn't ask for a receipt and effectively paid for something that technically the taxpayer should have paid for. These are trivial amounts of money compared to the cost of for instance the totally pointless war we're still engaged in. MPs should be getting on with sorting out poverty, inequality, injustice, crime, healthcare, education and international affairs. And the media should get on with chasing politicians over these things and stop blowing up a story that isn't really a story.

Feminism, Still Relevant 217 Years Later

Re-posted from the F-Word where I am guest-blogging for a few weeks.

The Independent has a rather poorly thought-out piece about how hip reading left-wing books is this season...? I guess since the realms of history is the only place you see any real socialism any more. One thing that annoyed me though was their dismissive remark about Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. They say "Her central argument that women are as capable of reasoning as men, and have the same right to be educated is not controversial any more".

Now this riles me no end because not a week goes by that some idiot at a comedy club decides fourteen pints is about the right level of inebriation he needs to stumble over and treat me to a fifteen minute discourse on why women just aren't funny. On a good night he's just the member of the audience who loudly left announcing "It's a bird, good time to go to the bar" as I walked onstage. On a bad night, he's the promoter. Either way it feels to me as though that's my powers of reasoning being called into question on the basis of my gender.

Meanwhile in other news a Saudi Arabian Judge has just said women are partly to blame for domestic violence if they are rude to their husbands or frivolous when shopping for a full-length black abaya (which they are obliged to wear at all times under the draconian Saudi laws).

Maybe someone should mention to Andy McSmith, author of the piece in The Independent, that the battle for the vindication of the rights of women isn't actually over yet. In some places it has hardly begun.

Monday, May 11, 2009

All My Daughters

Thanks (not) to the Male-y Telegraph for annoying me a great deal at Sidcup station this morning... A giant version of the above poster which helpfully lets us know that a working class background needn't hold us back. So long as we are white, straight, male, able-bodied, etc...

In fact it's doubly offensive because it marvels at how well they did despite the "lowly" status of their fathers (not that I personally see anything lowly about coal miners, ship stewards or traveling salesmen, but that is clearly the inference of the advert) but no mention is made of their mothers.

In fact Bill Clinton's travelling salesman father died before Bill was born. A much bigger influence on him was his mother who trained as a nurse while he was small and then married the owner of a car dealership who was physically abusive to her.

In fairness there are two other adverts - one about where big companies (Nokia, Lambourghini, IBM) started and one about first venues worked at for three more guys (Jimi Hendrix, Barack Obama and Richard Branson) of whom in fairness only one is white though all are male, straight and able-bodied. The three companies mentioned are all overwhelmingly governed by white men.

But it seems the Daily Telegraph is a men's paper about men, written by men and marketed to men.... to which I can only say "Fuck Off".

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Feminism In London '09


Yes the conference is back again this year and already there is quite a line-up of speakers planned, including one Ms Kate Smurthwaite... I hosted the conference last year and they have asked me to come and do it again. Save the date 10th Oct.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Review: Jessica Valenti: Studs and Sluts and Virgins and Myths

Jessica Valenti, in an effort to make us all feel like we should get up earlier, has not one but two new books out. Both are released in the UK on May 7th (tomorrow).

He's a Stud, She's a Slut (And 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know) looks like one of those rather meaningless "gift books" that you buy for friends when you can't think of anything else they'd like or you've only just remembered that it's birthday drinks you're heading to when you get to the train station with two minutes to spare.

But we know Valenti better than to expect anything so simple. The "fluff" appearance of the book, no doubt soon to be appearing on every thinking woman's toilet shelf, is part of it's brilliance. You really could give it as a fun little inexpensive (£7.99 in the UK) gift to someone who'd never thought about women's rights before. Inside, chopped into sassy bite-sized chunks Valenti presents an overwhelmingly compelling case for the existence of a double standard for women in every branch of society.

The focus is on both the media and public attitudes, as she dissects why women politicians are so over-scrutinised for their appearance and why praise is heaped on men who make the slightest effort to involve themselves in the lives of their children while mothers doing the same are at best taken for granted and at worst left out of a job. The tone is witty and sassy and it comes with lashings of true stories from Valenti's own life from the toys she had as a child to her early relationships and recent media appearances.

The one place where the sass starts to grate for me is in the So... What To Do? sections which follow each mini-chapter. On the one hand I think it's admirable to offer practical suggestions for tackling sexism, on the other hand these become repetitive because what is there to do about sexist stereotyping and discriminatory media coverage? Make a point when you hear someone use it, write to your local paper and if you want to then do the things that society is telling you you're not supposed to. And I'm never one for advising people to shut up and ignore prejudice but if you really called out every time you heard one of the double standards in this book, you'd never get past the end of your road in the mornings!

Still for the uninitiated in matters of women's equality, this easy-to-read entertaining little book will serve as an eye-opener on the inherent injustice of attitudes we have all been brought up with and often ourselves accept unquestioningly. For the long term women's rights supporter of course the fun of the book is very different. Instinctively you find yourself trying to come up with more examples of double standards to add to Valenti's fifty. Here's the best three I could think of:

1) He's had unlucky with women, she goes for "bad guys". Have you heard this? A guy dates a string of women who dump him or stand him up and the reaction is "Women eh?", a woman gets beaten up by one guy, robbed by the next and emotionally abused by the third and the conclusion is "Why does she always go for bad guys?".

2) He's fit and healthy, she should go for regular tests. I'm not knocking a regular visit to the doctors for a check-up if you want to. However there does seem to be a whole pink-coloured industry devoted to letting women know that our bodies are weak and frail and liable to let us down at any moment. Of course there's no denying that it is us women getting the lion's share of the breast cancer and the cervical cancer and other specific womb-related issues. What seems to have been forgotten though is: women live considerably longer than men. Whatever it is that's killing us is doing it later, slower and less often than it does for you guys. There's nothing wrong with Ronan Keating releasing a fund-raising record in aid of breast cancer research in his mother's name but where is the female starlet belting out a teary ballad for sufferers of prostate cancer?

3) He's a lawyer, she's a female lawyer. Seems like certain jobs (good, well-paid jobs) belong to men so very specifically that any woman who dares do them will live forever with the unofficial job title FEMALE doctor, FEMALE MP and, in my line of work, FEMALE comedian. The only time the tables are turned of course is for lower-paid, lower-status jobs, MALE nurse, MALE secretary and MALE cleaner - who is probably given the better title janitor or caretaker and paid a fair bit more than the women doing the same job.

Feel free to add your own once you've checked out Valenti's list!

The Purity Myth (How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women) is a much more serious piece, though certainly not stodgy or academic. It's a systematic critique of the increasing obsession with purity and virginity in modern America and the impact this is having on young women the country over (Valenti even includes a specific section at the end on discussing the issues raised with young people - about as direct an attack on the abstinence schools programme as she could make). These groups have in recent years made minor inroads into the markedly more secular UK but their reach has so far been thankfully limited.

Nonetheless there is no doubt that we do as a nation continue to subscribe to some very old-fashioned notions of purity relating to young women's sexuality. Anyone with half an eye open recently will have seen the scandal involving Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross making unpleasant phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. The furore which exploded afterwards centred on the offense caused to Sachs. No-one seemed to be asking why exactly a man should be upset to discover that his own granddaughter, who is well over the age of consent and living her own independent life, has had sex. And no-one seemed to be wondering what exactly it was about said sex that somehow sullied the woman in question - Georgina Baillie - but didn't do anything to damage the reputation of Brand.

These are exactly the attitudes that this book does a wonderful job of myth-busting. Starting with the fact that virginity has no meaningful medical definition. Valenti addresses the sinister nature of the abstinence-only lobby in the US but also tackles the fallout from this for women who choose not to remain "daddy's little virgin" and are suddenly considered "immoral" and "fallen" women regardless of their hard work, their studies, their volunteer work, their political activism, their ability to care for others and countless other contributions they make to the world.

She also discusses how the attitude of contempt for women who choose to have sex hampers our ability to deal with real problems in society like teenage pregnancy, STIs, rape and the abuses that go on within the sex industry. So as long as our distinguishing line is between disgusting women who have sex and pure women who don't we cannot progress to seeing the nuances of what kind of sex women are having - is it satisfying, is it safe and is it consensual? And while we dismiss those who have sex as dirty it is also impossible to objectively tackle the abuse of women in the sex industry.

On this final point Valenti and I disagree somewhat. In fairness she doesn't reach a conclusion on the subject, she merely says that attention needs to be paid to the issue and suggests that in dealing with it it is important to listen to the voices of the women who work in the industry rather than marching in with ready-made solutions that may not fit the problems. On this I agree, but worry that the issue is more complicated than it may at first seem.

In Britain many groups exist claiming to speak for the thousands of women working as lap dancers, prostitutes, escorts, and so on. The problem is that many appear to be astroturf campaigns (i.e. grass roots campaigns, only fake) run by the club owners, agency managers and pimps promoting an agenda which largely ignores the horrors of the industry - rape, violence, abuse, addiction and human trafficking and instead demands only continued liberalisation in the hunt for ever-soaring profits. We need to be sure that we are hearing the real voices of women working in all areas of the sex industry. Maybe it is less of an issue in the US, but in the UK there is probably a need for a disclaimer on that chapter.

The rest though is bang on and will undoubtedly become compulsory reading for the next generation of pro-sex feminists.