Tory Politics

I'm quoted in an article about Tory plans to "de-incentivise" (i.e. rip off) single and teenage mothers leaving them without the benefits they need to raise their children. Apparently this will make our country a better place...? You can read the full article here.

Although the quotes from me are totally accurate and I have no problem with them or the way they are expressed - I did actually say a lot more than that to the journalist and (of course) she has chosen the bits that fit the feel of her article rather than quoting me in full. Still for the benefit of Cru-blog readers: here is the full interview I gave:

(The journalist asked) There was an article in the Daily Mail recently by Quentin Letts entitled: "The First Ladette: How Germaine Greer's legacy is an entire generation of loose-knickered lady louts". Would be great to get a response from you on your thoughts on equating feminism with a)rising violence towards women, b)rising teenage pregnancies c) women getting drunk and 'immodest'.

Also would you be able to comment on the Tory policy towards women and the family - more specifically de-incentivising teenage pregnancies and single parent families by taking away social support?

(And I responded) I was appalled by the Daily Mail article, it seemed to be totally missing the point. To blame feminism for rising violence against women makes no sense to me. Women have rights and if men's reaction to women exercising those rights is to respond violently then it is men who are in the wrong and those men responsible should have their rights taken away (by being imprisoned).

Teenage pregnancies are not a new phenomenon. In fact they have been around forever. The difference over the last fifty years the big change is that we can talk about these things - rather than keeping secrets. My grandmother found out on her wedding day that her aunt who she believed had raised her after her real mother died was actually her mother. The ramifications were traumatic for everyone involved. Every family in Britain has one of these skeletons in the closet if you dig hard enough. If the sexual revolution means we can now talk about the fact that many teenagers have sex then great - that means we can also talk to them about contraception, sexual health and issues surrounding pregnancy choices and then support them when they choose to keep and raise their children without adding an extra burden of shame to their worries.

Finally the notion of women being drunk and "immodest". Well I feel that if women want to get drunk then that's their choice and we should respect it. Women still drink considerably less than men and drunk men are responsible for much greater amount of crime and disorder than drunk women. So if we think society has a problem with alcohol abuse then we should start by cracking down on men. And the term "immodest" - well - by traditional Islamic standards what you are wearing right now (and since we're talking by email I can't even see what you're wearing) is definitely "immodest". But really "immodest" in this context probably means "in a way that stands out and is conspicuous" and if young women choose to stand out and be conspicuous then I am thrilled about that and support them fully.

I don't see Tory policies on removing benefits for single mothers and teenage mothers as "di-incentivising". I see these policies as purely punishing women for having sex. What would benefit single and teenage mothers is support to help them raise their children well. Of course we should also be chasing up absent fathers who fail to contribute financially to their children's well-being. Also addressing inequality in the workplace both in terms of the pay gap (we need gender pay, promotion and recruitment audits) and in terms of companies who fail to offer flexible working to carers and who discriminate against pregnant employees would make a big difference.

Overall I guess I am just horrifed at the notion that giving women rights can be seen as taking something away from women. I may have made some bad choices in my life which I regret, but I don't regret that I had the choice to make my own mistakes.

Racism: No Laughing Matter

Oh dear, this is really awful. Where to start?

I have never written a biography of Sir John Betjeman. Somehow though I don't think that entirely invalidates my views on comedy.

A.N Wilson - who has written just such a biography - but who appears to have nothing else under his belt to recommend him to the world of comedy critiquing - is today complaining in the Daily Mail that sexists jokes are not, well, sexist.

Now first up he totally misses the point on the Jordan Wimmer case. As has been repeatedly stated throughout the case - no-one denies that Ms Wimmer complained about sexist jokes long before she decided to take legal action. If someone makes an error of judgement and genuinely apologises and stops the behaviour when it is pointed out, I'm all for giving them a break. However when someone persists in saying inappropriate things after they have had the fact pointed out to them - that is deliberate abuse.

Plus remember that Wimmer is also claiming that her former boss Mark Lowe brought an "escort" dressed in hotpants into meetings. Wilson says that Lowe "hotly denies" this. He would do though given he's in a court of law and looking like he's not got a leg to stand on.

But Wilson's point is really not about the rights and wrongs of the case - it's about comedy and how we all ought to lighten up about a little harmless racism. Yes really - that is his point.

"Making remarks or jokes which you know will be upsetting to another person in your hearing is obviously the mark of a bully and it cannot be defended"

Now firstly - that is exactly what Mark Lowe did - he make jokes about blonde women in hearing range of a blonde woman who had complained about such jokes previously. But secondly - no, it is not ok to tell sexist jokes when there aren't any women in earshot, nor racist jokes in an all-white group. The problem with such jokes is actually much less that individuals are offended but that they normalise attitudes of prejudice and stereotypes which lead to hatred.

"Some of Bernard Manning’s jokes were offensive. But some were really quite good jokes: “If you dial 999 in Bradford, you don’t get the police coming round – you get the Bengal Lancers.”"

That one sounds racist to me. Definitely racist.

"I think you would need to be an incredibly humourless Bangladeshi not to see that this reference to a regiment from the high days of the British Raj was quite a funny joke about immigrants."

And that's racist too - insisting that only Bangladeshis would "not get" the joke.

"Manning was not making a mockery of people from Bengal because they were from Bengal. He was making a joke about the fact that Bradford is very full of Asians.

And in so far as jokes depend upon an element of surprise, there is something picturesque about expecting the arrival of Z-cars and getting instead the Bengal Lancers on their horses, dressed in topis and turbans."

Seriously - could he dig himself any deeper? Is there anything more he could say at this point that would make it any worse?

And then he gives and example of a joke that he is offended: something about "intimate parts of the Queen's anatomy"*. And then four pages later in the same paper there's a cartoon that shows the Queen and Prince Phillip sat on sofas with a large matron-like character in the background and the Queen saying "Call out the guard, Philip! There's a deranged person here who keeps saying "Get yer kit off, it's bathtime"" ... which would be ... oh hold on ... a joke about the Queen being ordered to expose her intimate parts ... no?

Now the irony of the juxtaposition of Wilson's despicable article and the Queen's bathtime cartoon strikes me as a lot funnier than any Bernard Manning line he cares to quote.

*That's what she uses when she has a "royal wee"!

Proper Nightmares

I am not an expert on sleep disorders. I have no idea what sort of strange mental disorder - if any - would cause a man to dream there was an intruder in the house and sleep-walk his way to murdering his own wife. What I do know is this: if you can convince a court that you have such a mental disorder and as a result are cleared of murder then since I am not aware of any wonder-drugs that instantly cure sleep-uxoricidality I can only conclude that you should remain in a secure mental health facility for the rest of your life for the safety of others.

Seems like sentencing those who commit violence against women is having a bad week in general. In Scotland a man was given 18 months probabtion for "having sex with" a 13-year-old (and when the BBC says "having sex" you will realise that what they mean is "raping" since 13-year-olds are not considered old enough to give meaningful consent under British law). Still no doubt being on probation for a few months will make him think twice about doing it again..?

By way of comparison if you accuse someone of rape but then turn out to be an "escort" (and check the double-speak here because aren't escorts supposed to be "high-class" prostitutes who are at liberty to pick and choose which of their clients they have sex with?) and therefore are presumed to have consented to any and all sex ... you get two years in prison.

My advice if you're planning on getting sexually assaulted this weekend (because of course it is women asking for it - not men perpetrating it, remember!) try to get your case heard in front of (a) Judge Paul Downes or (b) whoever sits at Preston Crown Court who seem to have a better grasp of how to deal with rapists.

Whoopee, We're All Gonna Die

Just in case you didn't read the news today (maybe you were watching Michael McIntyre's latest DVD, or singing along to Jedward...) - just to let you know: Remember back in 2007 when the IPCC said that the planet was headed towards catastrophic climate change? They highlighted a range of possible outcomes depending on at-the-time untested variables projecting the impact on the planet of continues CO2 emissions.

Well following some more research (i.e. having tested those variables) it turns out that of the possible scenarios the one we're actually heading for is the worst case scenario - 6C of global temperature rise, large parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable, massive waves of migration towards dwindling resources leading to wars and genocides and ultimately potentially the end of the human race forever.

I think - if we survive - one day our grandchildren will look back on those of us who didn't campaign to stop climate change the way we look back now on ancestors who supported slavery. The future equivalent of shows like Who Do You Think You Are? will see our descendants digging through records deserately hoping to turn up an eco-warrior and quick to stop the cameras rolling if the National Facebook Profile Archive lists your favourite TV shows as Top Gear.

Ultimately though the government needs to take action. And I don't mean by putting out adverts with images of dolphins on and softly worded guilt-trips about recycling. If only those who choose to reduce their footprint then those who don't are placed at an economic advantage, incentivising others to do the same. Nor do I mean by fining people who put two pieces of garden waste into the blue box. I mean by actively funding research - here and overseas - into alternative energy sources, by actually paying for people to have their homes insulted and double-glazed, by removing tax breaks on airline fuel, subsidising public transport, cutting the number of flights that can be made, cracking down on emissions from factories and power plants and making sure that developing countries have the support they need to do the same without compromising progress.

If you didn't already - sign up to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plane Stupid and/or some of the other amazing environmental organisations out there today.

Old Jokes

When I pay good money for my daily copy of The Independent I have to say it angers me to see the same story I've read in the paper on the Daily Mail website. But then most articles by Dominic Lawson annoy me and frankly they deserve to be in the Daily Mail since they amount to little more than hate-mongering. This one (repeated here in the Mail) I feel I should say something about because it's about comedy.

Firstly Lawson says he doesn't know what "alternative comedy" means and how it differs from "not alternative" comedy. But surely Lawson is old enough to remember the days when comedy simply meant racism. Bernard Manning, Roy Chubby Brown and Jim Davidson? Club comedians who often all told the same jokes as each other, crude mother-in-law jokes and bawdy references to women, etc. So alternative comedy was originally conceived to counter that - as something that was progressive and often overtly political.

There is no denying that the line nowadays has somewhat blurred. Many of the acts perceived as the most "alternative" are doing jokes about rape and about women that Bernard Manning would be proud of. In fact Jimmy Carr once did a joke so suitable for Jim Davidson that the latter literally nicked it and had to later apologise.

Now apparently the antidote to this latest wave of offensiveness is Michael McIntyre, a very brilliant and very competent comic whose material is consistently about the minutae of day-to-day life and who flinches from politics and controversian subjects like a slug in a salt dish. And I don't mean that as a criticism - some people prefer their comedy funny and unchallenging. It's not my taste but even I have to admit that he's great at what he does.

There are two issues I have though...

Firstly I think when it comes to offensive comedy the media has got it all wrong. There's nothing offensive about doing a joke about rape. What is offensive is when the punchline to that joke is that the woman in question "deserved" it or "was asking for" it. If you write a joke about rape where the punchline is about the dreadfully low conviction rate or the poor attitude of the police then great.

Lawson mentions the incident with Andrew Sachs and Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross and seems to be offended that sex was discussed on air when what was offensive about that situation was this noxious idea that a woman's Grandfather is or should be the guardian of her chastity.

Jimmy Carr's joke about British soldiers forming a great Paralympic team for 2012 is a joke about the incompetence of government policy - it's one of the best lines I've heard from him. On the other hand I've seen him do jokes about rape and about Roma people which I found offensive.

The solution to offensive material not to demand that comedy focus only on topics which would make a good episode of The Tellytubbies but to seek out comedians using their art to express something meaningful and valid, breaking through prejudice rather than compounding it (Translation: Give me my own series!).

Secondly Lawson seems to be implying that McIntyre has been a victim of some sort of conspiracy to keep him off the airwaves because he's overtly middle class. He quotes McIntyre as saying "People used to come to my show and love it, and critics were coming and not seeing that...".

Well sure but why should we believe that is specifically middle class hatred. I'm a political feminist comedienne and after six years I've yet to be reviewed on the biggest UK comedy website Chortle. And while I'd love to be reviewed by them, I don't see it as a conspiracy that I haven't been. And if I do get reviewed by someone who doesn't find me to their taste or is in a bad mood that day or catches me on an off night then I can make my case against the review but I can't imagine concluding that it's because I'm middle class. The vast majority of comics on TV are middle class as far as I can see.

But for another thing - the reviewers may have a good point. Sometimes I go to a comedy show and laugh more or less the whole way through but come away feeling empty and unsatisfied. Other times I might only laugh a few times but I also learn something new, understand something new and see the world in a new light and I come away feeling uplifted. So which is the better "comedy" show? For my money the latter. To measure comedy against a laughs-per-minute ratio seems to me a very clinical and limiting way of looking at it. If reviewers have seen past that, good for them.

And finally the notion that it's been so tough for McIntyre and that the odds have been so terribly stacked against him seems to have been countered recently by the fact that every DVD shop I go past has his grinning cardboard face looming out of the window above a legend about ideal Christmas presents for all the family. Whatever wrong the establishment did him on the way up - I think they're making up for it now.

But then that wouldn't exactly fit with the Daily Mail/Dominic Lawson vision of the poor hard-done-to straight white male. That sort of revolutionary talk would be better suited to .. erm .. The Independent... Oh shit.

In fact clearly what is happening here is I, your humble blogstress, should be writing for The Independent and instead they've gone ahead and hired a posh straight white bloke called Dominic Naffing Lawson!

Vine Again

Back on BBC Radio Two again today (click link, listen again, then forward to 1h 40) to discuss whether or not Colonel Gadaffi is pro-women. Pretty obvious to me that you can't call a man who runs a country where women are imprisoned for being victims of rape "pro-women". Still my opponent's point wasn't that she denied any of this (nor should she - since I was quoting directly from the Human Rights Watch report I had in front of me). Her point was that women around the world - especially in Islamic countries - have few rights, so we should be grateful for the fact that Gadaffi is a little bit better than other Islamic countries.

I however fail to see how gratitude is helping our cause. Was it after men saw how grateful we were to have some women allowed to vote in 1918 that they decided in 1928 to give the rest of us the vote? No - it happened because women continued to fight for their rights. And thats the thing about rights - you have a right to them - so you don't have to be grateful when you get them and you certainly don't have to be grateful when you get a few of them and not others.

Lots of celebrity "spots" in the studios today - just as I was arriving Alan Davies was leaving and while I was waiting on the sofa outside the studio Graeme Norton walked by. Most exciting of all for me though was the guest before me in the studio - Judge Constance Briscoe (pictured) - author of the brilliant autobiography of her early years of abuse "Ugly". Well I lent her my pen as she was going in to do her interview (she is before me on the show if you are interested - though not talking about her childhood or book, but about sentencing regulations) and she forgot to give it back so I guess she still has it - and she is very welcome to it... (spot the sad groupie!).

Yes I know it's Dangerous

...but this is still really cool!

Doing Vine

Ah, after the horrors of LBC yesterday there was something little short of warm and cuddly about being on today's Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio Two. Sure they had brought in not one but two right wing idiots to argue with me (in the form of Spectator columnist Venetia Thompson and UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom) but we actually had the debate, you know like where everyone gets a chance to give their opinions and respond to the comments of others. Radical stuff.

Up for discussion was the line between office banter and sexual harrassment and discrimination, in the light of a new tribunal case being brought by Jordan Wimmer. You have seven days to listen to the discussion (which starts eight minutes into the show) by clicking "listen again" here.

...and please do go listen - it's only ten minutes and I do a smashing job!

Boris Balls-Up Link of the Day

Boris' policy on women...

Asshole of the Week: Nick Ferrari

Did one of the most infuriating radio spots of my life this morning. LBC rang me up and asked if I would go on Nick Ferrari's breakfast show and talk about the group of female MPs who are complaining that the new expenses regime will mean they have to sometimes take late night trains home and that this could put them at risk of sexual assault.

Now I agree, travelling late at night alone is dangerous. I have to do it all the time so I should know how frightening and intimidating it can be, and of course we all know the statistics on how rape is dealt with by the police which are even more frightening. But at the same time I don't think the solution to that problem is to give MPs more expenses money - the solution needs to protect not just MPs but all women in the UK and involve a major overhaul of the law and policing policy.

Now first of all I've had problems with LBC before - a very misogynist station in general, they often have "debates" along the lines of "should women be allowed to do XYZ?" or "have women's rights gone too far?" which I just conceptually don't understand. Plus one time before I was on there and the presenter (one N. Ferrari) started screaming at me towards the end of the interview and kept changing the subject, so we went from "Should the current maternity pay scheme be extended?" to "Why should women get maternity pay at all?" to "Why should single Mums get benefits, why do we let them sponge of the state?" in less than a minute without my getting a real chance to answer any of those stupid questions.

But this morning really took the biscuit. Before I got to say a word he did a huge intorduction in which he criticised these MPs in the harshest possible terms for even raising the issue. He said things like "Women say they want equality but as soon as the going gets tough..." and "I'm not going to hold back, I'm going to name and shame the women who are doing this right now, right here on air..." and finished up with a tirade about how if they have this kind of attitude the country is better off without them.

I started to explain why I think that we do need real answers to the issues of rape and sexual violence against women but that the connection to MPs expenses was something of a red herring. Clearly unhappy he interrupts to say that I might not think so but other feminists support these MPs... Effectively by this stage he's arguing with himself and screaming at me that this shows that women in general are - well - generally wrong about everything (I'm paraphrasing here). I actually had to threaten to hang up just to get him to listen to me for a few seconds.

So I said "hold on this is only four MPs...". Now bearing in mind I only found out about the interview ten minutes before I was live on air, it came as little supririse to me to be informed that in fact it's five MPs in the group who have made this statement. I am happy to be corrected. Instead I get screamed at "GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT", "IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME ON HERE..."

And the stupid thing is this guy is the presenter! If it was me and some uber-right wing nutter with a presenter refereeing things to make sure we all got our say it would be a bit much but I would probably put up with it. What is the point of having a guest on so you can ignore what they say and harangue them about what you assume other people, not on your show, think? Seriously the whole interview was like "here's a feminist - I'm going to shout at her".

LBC call themselves "London's Biggest Conversation" but a conversation is where two of more people exchange opinions. When one person expressly invites another person to "discuss" something and then fabricates their opinion and screams over every word they say I think we're out of the realm of "conversation" and closer to the realm of "psychopath".

I may stop doing LBC interviews, they are fairly poorly paid and one of the researchers told me one time - you're the only feminist who ever agrees to go on air with us... so maybe it will leave them in the lurch.

Quick Polljack

Polljack, noun, the art of getting everyone you know to visit the Daily Mail website and spoil their hate-filled polls.

Today's poll is (wait for it) "Are greater rights for mothers making women less employable?"

So click here and vote "NO" and lets see if we can spoil their attempts to spread the hate!

Catch-Up Post

So I haven't been blogging much lately and I know there are a number of big subjects I just haven't covered at all...

Firstly stuff I've been doing:

Some people are still talking about my plinthing (pictured), including the fabulous Daily (Maybe).

I hosted the 2009 Feminism in London conference which was awesome. The highlight for me was a speech by Rebecca Mott about her experiences of being a prostituted woman. You can read the transcript of what she said here. I didn't get to see much else of the conference because I was running about organising things although I was very touched to see the contribution from the London Pro-Feminist Men's Group - they were running the creche! There are hundreds of photos of the event here.

After the conference we held a cabaret party with an all-female line-up which again I hosted and which raised over £600 towards the cost of running next year's conference and was followed by a DJ and most of the conference organisers and me hitting the dancefloor to let our hair down!

Meanwhile Soho Comedy Club, where I am resident compere, has been expanding and now takes up two rooms on a Saturday night (if you want to see me - ask at the door which room I am compering and you'll be sent the right way). We've had several brilliant Swedish comedians on tour recently including Magnus Betner, Tobias Persson (his blog is in Swedish but you can use google-translate), Lasse Nielsen and last night Fredrik Anderssen. This coming Friday (13th) we host one of the most outspoken acts you will ever see - Norwegian Dag Soras. There are a few tickets left but if you want to come please book now at the Soho Comedy website.

And as things are going so well there I have moved my Comedy Manifesto show over to Soho Comedy Club's main venue. We're there now every Thursday. It's a (the UK most popular and most successful) live topical panel show. And since it's all been rolled into Soho Comedy Club again you can buy tickets in the same place - hope to see you there some time soon.

I also did two runs of my solo show (The New At Kate) from Edinburgh at two brilliant places - one at Goldsmith's College and one at a great monthly show in Camden called Better Living Through Comedy. Thanks to everyone who came along to those. The next performance I'm doing of that show is in Southport on Sat 21st Nov. It's at the Floral Hall and is a benefit for striking journalists. Support, I hear, will be brilliant all-female sketch group Ladygarden. I'm not sure where you can get tickets but if all else fails show up on the night and I reckon they'll let you in for a modest fee.

I've also been on a few radio shows. On Friday night I was on the Stephen Nolan show on BBC Radio Five Live, just before midnight. I was supposed to be talking about office Christmas parties [have yours at Soho Comedy Club...] but we got distracted and ended up talking about sex education at school and how important it is. The good news here is that the government is going to make sex education compulsory from the age of 15. So even those kids whose parents choose to opt them out will have to have one year of sex ed before they leave school at 16. The bad news is: 15 is very very late to find out how your body works. By that age kids will have heard about sex in the playground, seen pornpgraphy on the internet or in newsagents and many of them will have already had sex. Still it's a start.

And secondly what's been happening in politics:

Well there was some good news here. The House of Lords passed Clause 14 which will criminalise the buying of sex from a person who has been exploited. In other words "I didn't know" will no longer be an excuse for buying sex from a woman being prostituted against her will. And if you're thinking "Oh no, what about my right to buy women's bodies for sex?" then surprise - you don't have such a right... But women do have a right not to be exploited. The campaign continues here.

Less encouraging is the announced closure of the Karma Nirvana helpline for women at risk of forced marriage and so-called "honour" killing [by which I mean brutal and pointless murder]. The government has decided quite randomly to cut funding for services supporting such women. You can sign the petition to urge Gordon Brown to reverse this decision here. Of course Gordon Brown is probably too busy to worry about stuff like women getting murdered - he has to focus on issues of national importance like who's going to win X-Factor... no really.

Johann Hari had a great - if very frightening - piece about David Cameron's policies in the Indie. And rather than looking at how dreadfully his manifesto betrays Britain's poor or coming out in support of funding for the Karma Nirvana helpline, Cameron decided to spend his time announcing to the world that he's deeply religious.

A report out about gender-related bullying in the school playground makes for disturbing reading but all the more reason to get involved with the Pink Stinks campaign to promote exciting female role models to young children which I found out about through their stall at the Feminism in London conference.

And what's coming up:

Sadly (but also happily) I will be away doing my show for striking journalists on Sat 21st Nov but what I will be missing is this year's Reclaim The Night march in London. I cannot urge my female readers enough to go along and male readers to show up afterwards for the rally and party - it's just one of those things that make you feel great and inspires you to go out and start changing the world. Have a great time.

Schools of Thought

Ah doesn't this piece demonstrate *exactly* why faith schools are a dreadful idea? Turns out that every religion has it's own interpretations of what constitutes a member of their faith... So Jewish schools claim the child's mother must be Jewish, Catholic ones claim it's about being Christened in a Catholic church while very young and when I went o a Church of England school when I was a kid it was pretty clear that my parents flimsy last-minute flurry of attendance at the local church had much less of an effect than my good grades and behaviour record. If you look at faith groups it's pretty clear that they divide up along heavily ethnic lines. So faith schools allow some schools to quietly carry on being selective and turns others merely act to divide children up to be educated along lines of race. Add to this the implications to science and reason from allowing religious leaders to be involved in the selection of teaching staff and I really don't see what possible reason there can be for the government to continue funding them.

Hitler Was An Atheist

Not really true - he was Catholic. But so what if he was? He was a vegetarian too. Not generally considered his most memorable attributes! Sam Harris on misconceptions about atheism.

Not Big Enough Questions

So again I was on The Big Questions on BBC One on Sunday. The replay function is here if you want to check it out. Although I came accross pretty well (I thought, thanks those who messaged me to say nice things) I was a bit annoyed that I didn't get a chance to answer two points relating to the debate on Mother Teresa being canonised. Of course I had my hand up and was halfway out of my seat tugging on Nicky Campbell's jacket and begging but they ignored me. Sulk.

Firstly Louise Bagshawe said that it was irrelevant that Mother Teresa opposed birth control and abortion. Her point was that as a Catholic of course she opposed these things and that as canonisation was a Catholic honour it is up to Catholic leaders (or indeed God) to make the decision on how good a Catholic she was.

But that's total rubbish. If a branch of Islam decided to canonise (or the equivalent) a suicide bomber she would be the first one on her high horse condemning that decision. Mother Teresa did not spend her life at home praying and affecting no-one else - she was deeply involved in international politics and her actions and efforts on birth control and abortion as well as the reprehensible way she ran her so-called charity caused totally unnecessary suffering and death to people around the world. In fact she caused much more human suffering and death than any suicide bomber ever did. If (when) the Catholic church chooses to canonise her any self-respecting Catholic should leave the faith and those who don't should expect to be on the receiving end of serious criticism.

Secondly the guy who claimed to have had his mental health problems cured miraculously after he prayed to Mother Teresa. Isn't it interesting how those who experience miracle healing always seem to have conditions where there are other secular cases of those same conditions spontaneously righting themselves? You show me a guy who prayed to Mother Teresa and his missing leg grew back and I will line up with the faithful!

New Resource for UK Women

I am told that Hollaback UK is up and running and accepting submissions right now. The email is: HollaBackUK01@gmail.com and the idea is to send photos and desciptions of guys who are rude to you in the street to get your own back by publically shaming them. This has been a big hit in New York for many years so I think we really deserve our own eh?

Live On The Plinth

Here's is the interview I did with BBC Radio Foyle from the top of the plinth. Click to listen. It's featured in their "best bits" round-up.

Listen To Yourselves!

So I'm working on my computer and (without wishing to make excuses) Mr Cru has had his lunch and left the TV on which is now showing the diet and weight-loss show "Biggest Loser USA". One of the competitors, talking about how desperate she is to lose weight because she has family history of diabetes, just said "I want to live to see my son graduate from college, to see my daughters get married..." Bleugh! I want to live to see this woman's children grow up and tell their mum they don't care about stupid gender-based aspirations imposed on them by others when they're still too young to understand them. I want to live to see this woman have to plaster on a smile and pretend she's happy as the daughters pick up olympic boxing medals and the son stays home to raise triplets.

Story about my plinthing

In the Belfast Telegraph.

Spot The Difference

Ok so I did something rather newsworthy today. You may have already heard. I became the world's first living art forgery. Cool huh?

I went on Anthony Gormley's fourth plinth installation in Trafalgar Square. And I did so by impersonating someone else.

I'm exhausted from doing interviews all day so rather than explain it in a great deal of detail I'm just going to cut and paste the press release (which I didn't write so I don't vouch for it but it looks like a decent job at a glance). We can discuss in more depth when I've had some food and some shut-eye...

Pictured above myself and the woman, Goretti, I was impersonating. To see photos of me on the plinth look here.

PRESS RELEASE: Fake plinther highlights the hurdles Northern Irish women face accessing abortions

Abortion rights campaigner and comedienne Kate Smurthwaite impersonated her way into Anthony Gormley’s exhibit One & Other on the vacant fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square Wedenesday, quite possibly becoming the world’s first living art forgery.

One & Other is an art project by the Anthony Gormley, putting up one person every hour from around the UK onto the vacant fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square from 6 July through 14 October and webcast live at http://www.oneandother.co.uk/.

This slot was originally allocated to Goretti Horgan from Alliance for Choice, the campaign for Northern Irish women to be given the right to an abortion. However, Kate Smurthwaite, at Horgan’s request, secretly took Horgan’s place.

“Of course it would take a lot of effort and cost a lot of money for Goretti to come over to be on the fourth plinth —just like the effort and expense incurred by women from Northern Ireland who are forced to travel to England, Wales and Scotland to access abortion services,” Smurthwaite said. “So we decided instead that I would go along and impersonate her.”

The staff at One & Other carefully check identification to ensure that the winners of the plinth drawing receive their spot.

Smurthwaite explained the ruse: “Goretti sent me her passport and a utility bill and luckily they were busy in the office and didn't check the photo too closely. I am also 20 years younger than Goretti so lucky they didn't check that either. I was being careful to play along but it was difficult especially since one of the women in the One & Other office was called Kate so I had to concentrate on not looking up when they called her name.”

The ruse only lasted until Smurthwaite was on the plinth because the organisers could hear her being interviewed.

“Once I was up there Goretti, the real Goretti, contacted the press in Northern Ireland about what I was doing and I did a live interview for BBC Radio 4 Ireland while I was up there.”

“I also took a toy horse along with me — since the statue on the plinth opposite the fourth plinth (the third plinth?) has a horse to sit on I figured I should blend in,” explained Smurthwaite, who is a stand up comic when she isn’t campaigning for abortion rights. “I explained several times to the cameras on the plinth about the campaign to extend the abortion act to Northern Ireland (and I had a huge banner which read "EXTEND THE ABORTION ACT TO N. IRELAND)".

Smurthwaite explained the issue, saying: “I talked about the 40 women every week who come over from Northern Ireland to have an abortion and about how abortion services which are free for residents of England, Wales and Scotland cost Northern Irish women from £600 to £2,000. A lot of money to raise at short notice. Abortion is totally illegal in Northern Ireland — even in cases of rape, incest, abuse and health risks to the mother. It's so wrong that women in certain parts of the UK should have fewer rights than others, that Northern Irish women should be treated as second class citizens. My partner David Mulholland handed out flyers explaining the message to those who had come to watch.”

The ruse took preparation. Smurthwaite said: “I'm really surprised we got away with it— I spent all week thinking someone would find me out and learning things like Goretti's phone number, date of birth and address and running through my back-story so I could explain why I didn't have an Irish accent.”

Smurthwaite added: “When I came down the team in the office seemed pretty annoyed with themselves for not spotting that I was a fake but it was all too late to do anything about it. I really hope it will generate publicity and help raise awareness for this really important cause.”
“So who am I really? I'm a stand-up comic and political campaigner,” Smurthwaite explained. “I met Goretti through my work with Abortion Rights — the UK-wide campaign for a woman's right to choose on abortion. I also write a blog called Cruella-blog: www.cruellablog.blogspot.com. And if you want to come see me perform I also list upcoming shows on there — it would be great to have you along!”

Notes for editors:

Anthony Gormley is probably most well known for his iconic sculpture, The Angel of the North, the 20m high figure overlooking the A1, near Newcastle, and Another Place, the 100 figures placed along a 3km stretch of shoreline in Crosby, Merseyside. He is one of Britain's best loved artists.

The Fourth Plinth is the name given to the empty plinth in the north-west corner of Trafalgar Square in London. It was originally designed by Sir Charles Barry and built in 1841 to display an equestrian statue. There were not enough funds available at the time to create a statue and so the plinth was sometimes referred to as the 'empty plinth'.

In 1998 the RSA commissioned a series of three works - by Mark Wallinger, Bill Woodrow, and Rachel Whiteread - to be temporarily displayed on the plinth. Ever since, the 'empty plinth' has been home to a number of temporary works of art commissioned from leading national and international artists. The Fourth Plinth project is now managed by the Mayor of London's office, with advice from a special commissioning panel. In 2005, Mark Quinn's sculpture, Alison Lapper Pregnant, attracted a high level of interest from the public and media alike. A portrait of disabled artist Alison Lapper when she was 8 months pregnant, the 3.5m high sculpture was carved out of a single block of white marble.

Thomas Schütte's sculpture Model for a Hotel 2007 has been situated on the Plinth since November 2007. It is built of specially engineered glass in yellow, red and blue which collects the light, reflecting it through the edges.

Antony Gormley's One & Other replaced Model for a Hotel in July 2009.

Kate Smurthwaite has worked as a professional comedienne since 2004. She has performed three solo shows at the Edinburgh Fringe festival, including this year’s “The New At Kate”. She also hosts the live political panel show The Comedy Manifesto and is the resident compere at London’s Soho Comedy Club.

Are You Too Busy/Tired/Confused To Be Politically Active?

I understand. It's not easy to find the motivation. What if I paid you hundreds of millions of dollars to do it? You'd do it right? Of course.

Well here's the thing. I can't pay you hundreds of millions of dollars to stand up for what you know is right. But the guys standing against what we all know is right ... they're making hundreds of millions of dollars. Frightening. We have to keep fighting even when it seems like way too much effort. Our opponents have a lot of motivation.

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"!

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.

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.

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

Full Price £10.00Concession £5.00

(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).

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.

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...

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!

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...

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.]

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.

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!

Political News From The Fringe

Posted over on The News At Kate blog.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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"?

...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.

Oh Look...

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

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.

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?