What is WRONG with Giles Coren?!!

I can only presume the Daily Male were advertising for a columnist and Giles Coren thought - fuck it, there's a recession on, I'll just put my sense of decency in this handy dustbin, I could sure use the money. Here's the line-by-line on a little piece called So why is it all right for women to be sexist about MEN?

"The two Sky Sports presenters who were caught on tape making disparaging remarks about women earlier this week are a pair of daft old duffers, and no mistake. It is important for me to say that first, before I get to the business in hand."

Well before I start let me say on behalf of women everywhere: thank you. Good to have you on our side for once.

"Andy Gray and Richard Keys are a couple of dull, flabby, middle-aged football bores and are just the sort of doddering old clowns you would expect to relax off camera by swapping ancient prejudices and poking fun at women — in this case a female linesman — for not understanding the offside rule."

I wasn't personally in favour of sacking them because of their age and weight. I'd call that ageism and sizeism. For me the problem was the whole sexism thing.

"You shouldn’t pass unflattering remarks about women behind their backs because it is not a well brought-up thing to do, and they needed to be told. I would never do it myself. Not because I am a feminist, but because I am a gentleman."

Oh so now it's classism? You don't believe women deserve equal rights and opportunities (that would be feminism), you believe working class people shouldn't have good jobs.

"But while Gray has now been sacked, I don’t expect that will be the end of the matter."

Lets hope not. Let's hope that the public consciousness on the matter has been raised far enough to wonder just briefly if we're really all ok with a 5.1% rape conviction rate or a pay gap the size of the rift valley.

"We will hear an endless shrieking to ‘kick sexism out of football’; a PE teacher will be fired for telling his goalkeeper to ‘stop crying like a girl’; and a hapless League One manager will be deported for describing a fight between players as ‘handbags at dawn’."

Wow - sexism in football getting the same treatment racism has had in the past. Yes that would really be going too far wouldn't it? And PE teachers (who by the way are all male) and League One managers should be allowed to be sexist if they like too.

"There will be the endless apologies, public soul-searching and self-flagellation. And as usual the rest of us men will be expected to atone as a sex for a couple of remarks by two fat, superannuated fools on the telly, and to grovel for forgiveness with every snivel and cringe of our waking lives."

How many times have you grovelled and snivelled about this one so far Giles? I've counted none. Nor have I so far asked any men I know ever to apologise for remarks made by other men. On the contrary the world of "other men" will be distinctly enhanced by the recent events in one obvious way: two of them are about to get jobs as commentators on Sky Sports...

"Not that that’s anything new. To be a man in this country is constantly to have to apologise for oneself and to be ever so very careful about every sentence we speak or write which contains any reference at all to members of the opposite sex."

If you have to be "ever so very careful" to avoid making overt sexist remarks Giles, then please go right ahead and be "ever so very careful". You would think you wouldn't need to worry though what with how frightfully well brought up you are and all that...

"While at the same time, and this is the shame of it, we ourselves are fair game for women. While sexism from men is the outstanding social crime of the modern world, women can say absolutely whatever they like about us."

Really? I said a few times on air this week that I thought it was right that Andy Gray was sacked (an opinion it appears you agree with though for odd and different reasons). Since then I've had the usual string of abusive messages on my blog, facebook and email. My work has been attacked on public forums by people who've clearly never seen it. And just for raising the issue I've been accused of "moaning" and told in no uncertain terms to get over it. I dread to imagine what would happen if I made an actual sexist remark against men.

"For make no mistake: sexism is alive and well in this country and applauded in all quarters — as long as it is practised by women. And they are allowed to say the most terrible, terrible things."

Hold on these are two very different things. Women are paid less, lack power, property and respect in every level of our society. Women (the oppressed group) are very much entitled to highlight their situation with humour and make comment on how to escape it. Men (the oppressing group) are not welcome to use humour to reinforce and perpetuate those negative attitudes and stereotypes.

"Only last week, for example, Jo Brand, the newly crowned Best Female TV Comic at the British Comedy Awards, was on Have I Got News For You and replied to the question ‘What’s your favourite kind of man, Jo?’ by saying: ‘A dead one.’ Oh, how the audience fell about. And the other contestants, all male, chortled away too."

On Tuesday night I watched a male comic say he had sex with his wife while she was asleep. Luckily, he remarked, she sleeps with her mouth open. Your go Giles.

"I’m not saying it wasn’t funny. I’m just saying we live in a world where the thorough-going awfulness, uselessness and superfluity of the male sex is such a given, that a frontline television comic can get big laughs by saying she’d prefer it if we were all dead."

We also live in a country where due to the violence experienced by women at the hands of their male partners and ex-partners two of us every week actually do end up dead. Hence why the other way round the joke doesn't really work.

"And I’m trying to imagine a world in which I am on that show and they say, ‘What kind of women do you like, Giles?’ and I reply: ‘Dead ones.’ I just don’t think it would get the same laughs, do you?"

Ah well let me explain the nature of humour Giles. Humour arises from the unexpected. There's nothing unexpected about a man killing or wanting to kill a woman. I get death threats fairly regularly from men who find an opinionated outspoken woman who believes in actual equality an unbearable possibility. Do you?

"Here’s another of Jo Brand’s (excellent) gags. ‘What’s the way to a man’s heart? Straight through the chest with a kitchen knife!’ Again, not unfunny. But predicated on the idea that killing men is hilarious. Whereas killing women, as we all know, is a very serious affair and not to be joked about."

Actually killing women, as I explained above, is a fact of life in the UK. And a fact of life that neither the government nor the police seem all that bothered about.

"It’s not just Brand, it’s all women. ‘What do you call the useless flap of skin attached to a penis?’ they joke. ‘A man!’ they all reply, and clink their chardonnay glasses and chortle till dawn. How on earth did this get to be OK?"

Well two things: (1) Earlier on you complained you and all other men were expected to take the blame for Andy Gray. Now you are blaming me and all women for remarks made by Jo Brand. Fuck off. (2) What parties do you go too?! Chardonnay? Did your parents spend all that money on your upbringing only for you to spend your evenings in Yate's wine lodge? I last heard that "joke" when I was about 16 and I don't remember it being funny or interesting then.

"I’ll tell you how. It is because pretty much from birth women are schooled by their mothers to deride men. They are sugar and spice, we are slugs and snails."

If only women were all well brought up like you eh? Shame your expensive prep school probably doesn't even take girls. What's the word for that? Oh that's it - discrimination!!

"They are reflective and sensitive, while we run around kicking balls and shouting. And then as girls push towards puberty their mothers take them aside and tell them: ‘Boys are only after one thing!’"

Firstly I'm not sure that is what parents do to girls any more. I think they're just a touch more nuanced than that though since you grew up in a Victorian novel perhaps you had it differently. But secondly if we "warn" girls that boys only want sex, we seem to be simultaneously warning girls that they don't (or shouldn't) want sex, that they won't (or shouldn't) like it and certainly shouldn't have it. All lies. We (if we do, I think a lot of modern parents are past this though) are effectively telling our girls that regardless of their personality, their academic achievements and physical strength, their true value lies in their virginity. That's a horrible hateful message that values women purely in their desirability to men.

"The great lie. All men want is sex. Not so. If anything, it is women who think only of having it off. Girls on average lose their virginity much younger than boys and have more sexual partners in youth."

Girls on average go through puberty earlier than men. And excluding the gay community men and women have to be having, overall, the same number of partners, if girls have more sexual partners in their youth (and you would think he would lay on some statistics here cos I'm not familiar with this "fact") men must be having more when they're older. Dirty fuckers...

"As a teenager, I was terribly shy about sex and yet girls were trying to do it with me all the time. I used to run, literally run, from their bedrooms when they tried it on. And yet women are allowed endlessly to harangue us with our supposed lechery."

As a teenager I never ever, not once, got as far as a boy's bedroom seeking sex and then had him run away. Not that there aren't sexually forward women and sexually inactive men, but I don't see any evidence to suggest your experience was typical Giles. And lechery is actually very different from wanting to have sex. If you want to have sex with someone, you can ask them out. There's no need to be lecherous. Lechery is stuff like overtly gawping at someone's body, making repeated sexual remarks, etc. The vast majority of lecherous people would jump out of their skin if the object of their attention turned round and said "ok, lets have sex".

"And the prejudice festers. Harriet Harman says that men caused the banking crisis, and the harridan legions nod their heads. ‘If women ruled the world,’ they cry, ‘there would be no wars.’ "

So name the women behind the banking crisis? Is Fred the Shred short for Frederica? And a minute ago you were saying you had to watch every word you said - now you are calling women harridans. Maybe you should add that word to your special dictionary of words to watch out for...

"What nonsense. Women are far meaner, more brutal, aggressive, small-minded, jealous, petty and venal than any man."

If women are so much more brutal, why do we commit so much less of the domestic violence, the street violence and the crime in this country?

"If women ruled the world countries would be invaded because ‘she’s always been jealous of my feet’ and because ‘she looks down on me for going out to work’."

Which women are these? Not the ones in my life. I've never known anyone look down on another person (male or female) for "going out to work". You really have to be super-super rich to fail to appreciate the necessity of earning a living in this world. You might as well look down on people for eating yogurt with a soup spoon. Peasants!!

"Millions would die, torture would increase. If women ruled the world there would be carnage."

Yes women who right now commit a tiny tiny fraction of the violence in the world would definitely get into power and decide to kick things off with a big old round of torture. Is your article based on anything but hate?

"And what sort of an insult is it anyway to suggest that most women don’t understand the offside rule? It’s true, for a start. Most women don’t. And most of them declare it proudly."

Erm, how badly are you not getting this. Andy Gray and Richard Keys were saying a female linesman - with a professional refereeing qualification - didn't understand the offside rule. That's like saying a dentist can't fix teeth because of her gender. It's rude and way out of line (pun intended).

"Most of them use football as an example of one of their favourite gags, the one about how men never grow up, about how we’re all just children — most often manifested in the one where a mother-of-two says ‘I’ve got three children’, you raise an eyebrow, and she nods towards her husband. Hilarious."

How awful it must be for these men to be looked after like a child - to have their food made for them, be exempted from housework and their clothes laid out every morning. If you don't want to be called a child - act like an adult.

"And nor are men, in this female narrative, merely puerile, aggressive and underdeveloped. They are hypochondriacs, too."

Amazing that in the face of all these inadequacies we've let so many into the cabinet isn't it? Not to mention the management of all the big companies...

"‘He’s got a touch of man flu,’ say the womenfolk and titter. But what nonsense is that? It is women who make a big fuss about mild discomfort, not men."

I even saw this one on Mythbusters and it was proved the other way - women had a much higher pain threshold than men. Also by the way "titter" is misogynist for "laugh".

"I have never had so much as a cold in my life, nor claimed to. I even suspect sometimes that the whole palaver about the pain of childbirth is a conspiracy to ride roughshod over men."

Seriously? We're making it up about childbirth? You deliver a watermelon through your penis and call me back on this one ok?

"My own mother, a consultant anaesthetist herself, has always claimed that giving birth was a breeze but that she pretended it had been painful to build bargaining chips with my father."

Yeah things that can help ease the pain of childbirth part one: being a consultant anaesthetist. And why the hell did she need to build up bargaining chips? Couldn't she just do what she wanted or did your father have to issue permission first?

"You look at shows like Loose Women and you wonder how on earth they get away with the terrible things they say about men. I went on once and it was horrific. I wanted to die."

Well you had a bad experience. You would hope you would come away from it with a sympathy for women who go through something similar every time they go to work. Imagine being a camerawoman on Top Gear. Or a female co-presenter with Andy Gray. He'd probably make lecherous remarks asking you to help him adjust his microphone cable in his trousers...

"No male-hosted show could treat women the way those outsized harpies treat men."

(1) As we've seen, they can, and do. (2) What has size got to do with it? (3) Another word for your "watch every word" dictionary: harpie, noun, derogatory term for women.

"I don’t especially want to throw my hat in with Dominic Raab, the slightly bonkers Tory MP who has called for an end to legislative discrimination against men, but there is no question that women today have it all."

Oh yes we sure do - last I heard there were almost as many women in the cabinet as there are Magdalen College Oxford graduates. We've clearly made it. Release the party poppers...

"They retire younger and live longer to such an extent that minor inequalities in pay levels are obliterated when you consider whose money pays for those 25 years of retirement. And it just isn’t fair that they are allowed to be so vile about us."

Of course female poverty in old age is another area of inequality we haven't even talked about. Also bear in mind that the gender life expectancy gap is actually mostly down to lifestyle - to the fact that men drink and smoke more and eat less healthy diets.

"I suppose, in a way, British men are like white people were in Nineties South Africa or young Germans after the Second World War."

That seems unfair - white South Africans and younger German people seemed on the whole at least willing to admit and learn from the mistakes of the past.

"We are expected to go through a period of atonement for the sins of our fathers. To be treated worse than we merit because of crimes previously committed in our name: in this case the crime of feeding, protecting, loving and nurturing women in accordance with our biological imperative."

Who knew that "feeding" would involve so little cooking, "protecting" so very much murder, "loving" so much rape and "nurturing" so much direct discriminatory behaviour? And biological imperative? Don't make me laugh. Go and read Cordelia Fine, and come back when your top notch education has actually taught you something worth knowing.

"They don’t want that any more. They want to be linesmen. And so we have to let them tell us endlessly how they wish we were all dead."

Oh whoops ladies - apparently we now have to choose whether we want to be loved and nurtured or whether we want to be linesmen. And I know, I know, earlier on he said we could have it all but of course he didn't actually mean IT ALL, he meant, y'know either a partner or a career. Or neither if you like!

"If that’s not off-side, I don’t know what is."

Oh well let me explain. Offside is when there are less than two members of the defending team between yourself and the goal line at the time that the ball is passed. It doesn't apply to free kicks, corners and goal kicks or when you're in your own half or not interfering with play. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. For instance looking for that sense of decency...

Problems in the Drunk Tank

This BBC report is about a centre in London that deals with people who've drunk too much in an attempt to ease the burden on hospitals. It's not entirely clear whether the point is that since symptoms are similar there's an efficiency improvement or whether it's just accepted these days that if you somehow "brought your illness on yourself"* you deserve substandard treatment. Looking at the "beds" - thin mattresses on the floor in mixed sex overcrowded rooms, I'd guess the latter.

In the video a male medic says that the women are "leaving themselves vulnerable to sexual or physical attack" and that such attacks "needn't have happened". He fails to use the phrase "men should stop attacking women who are drunk" or the phrase "we take all reports of sexual assault seriously regardless of how much the woman has drunk". Then a female medic says "they say 'I've been spiked' and I say - no, it's the alcohol". Surely what she should say is "we'll perform a full set of tests and store the results in case they're needed in a criminal prosecution"?

This is on Newsbeat by the way - aimed at young people. Hey kids! If you drink too much alcohol and get raped, it's your fault and if you don't drink too much (or even any) alcohol and get spiked and raped, we'll assume you drank too much alcohol and blame you anyway.

Talk about irresponsible journalism. Oh and irresponsible behaviour on the part of medical professionals too... Ugh.

*Footnote: not withstanding that alcohol addiction is an illness so it's not actually reasonable to blame people for suffering from it.

Big Opinions and Big Conversations

So I was on The Big Questions again this morning. And it's up on iPlayer for the next 7 days if you want to watch it, click here. There's no particular bit to watch - I speak in all three debates.

I didn't get a chance to reply to some points though. I guess the biggest two are:

(1) "Islam's not a sexist religion, what do you know - you haven't read the Koran". Well firstly I have read quite a lot of the Koran but more to the point the people telling me Islam isn't sexist have also just said they would accept their husband having more than one wife but not accept a woman with several husbands. That's erm, what's the word, yes, sexist. And one of the people saying this is veiled to the point of only having her eyes visible - I have never seen a Muslim man dressed like this.

(2) "But as a feminist you must support these women converting to Islam because it's their 'choice'". No. I'm absolutely in favour of women having the right to make choices for themselves but only when they are able to do so on the basis of fair circumstances and true information.

The phrase "pro-choice" is used a lot when it comes to abortion - the right to choose what happens to your own body. But that's different when we're talking about a woman in China who has discovered she is pregnant with a girl in a family and culture where only a boy will do. She might be making that choice but it's not a choice made in fair circumstances. Similarly a vulnerable young woman who chooses not to terminate because a counsellor on a fake help line has told her to do so will give her breast cancer isn't acting on true information so again it's not a case of "her choice".

What we need to do is to take away the unfair circumstances and give women ready access to true information. Then their choice will be meaningful. But in the meantime we need to make sure women are not pushed into choices like this which can ruin their lives and leave them timidly peering out at what is left of their world through a tiny slit in a piece of fabric.

I had a very interesting message on the way home from a viewer: "I work for social services in mental health and I’ve seen a disturbing amount of converts (mostly female) to [Islam] I’m even working with the police as it would seem that there are radicals targeting people with mental health or people with a low IQ. I myself work with 4 people who have converted or are thinking about it. Any who I just wanted to say it’s great to see someone like yourself voicing there [their] opinions on national TV." Now that is both unsurprising and deeply deeply frightening.

This evening I did a much lighter piece on LBC about the British Comedy Awards and how Frankie "isn't Down's Syndrome hilarious" Boyle isn't even up for one or involved in the awards show. My conclusion was: great news, lets hope he stops it and/or goes away now. An on the other awards I'd like to give them to (from the nominees): David Mitchell, Jo Brand, Sarah Millican and Britain's best sitcom: Miranda! Love you all! You can listen to the show on the podcast from LBC but you have to register and I think pay money so I'll leave the link here - you have to follow the Richard Arnold show and today's episode is called 'Colin flying the flag' - but frankly if it's more than £2.50 I will cut you a deal and repeat my words verbatim over the phone for £2*!!

* Which would by the way be £2 more than my TBQ and LBC appearance fees combined, just for the next time someone says since they saw me on TV I must be super-rich!

Paleontologists Discover Evidence of Catherine Hakim's Evolutionary Line

Text by me, artwork: Tristan Rogers.

The Police and The Streets

Joan Smith has written an ace piece about exactly what Jeremy Vine and I were discussing earlier in the week with a total idiot (by which I mean one of the Daily Mail's finest writers).

Before I did the interview on BBC Radio Two I did another interview for an Iranian TV station about abortion (and no, I don't know where and when it's on, maybe someone will let me know when they see it). Between shootings I was chatting to the producer and she told me that the night before she had been walking home around half ten when a man approached her and asked for directions. She directed him but then noticed he didn't walk off in the direction she had advised him to go - he started following her instead. She tried doubling back on herself but he still followed. Now feeling rather stressed she spotted a branch of a gym open and went in to the reception. She could see the guy hanging around outside. She called the police and explained what was going on. They asked her where she lived and where she was then told her "it's only a few blocks, just go home". She explained again that she was being followed and didn't feel safe doing so. They told her they were busy and couldn't come and help her for at least an hour and a half to two hours. The gym closed 30 minutes later and she had no choice but to run home hoping he had given up and gone away.

What is the point of issuing warnings to women and not being prepared to respond when women heed these warnings and contact them for help?

Fresh Outlooks

So the article I was interviewed for has been published here.

Questions About Catherine Hakim

A journalist has just asked me to answer some questions about "Dr" Catherine Hakim and her forthcoming report about women in the workplace. [Spoiler alert: she thinks gender difference are all down to us hopeless women and our biological pre-destination for the kitchen and the scullery]

Anyway here is what I was asked and my answers - you may at some point see some of this quoted in an online paper called The Fresh Outlook.

What is your opinion on women's advancements in the workplace?

I think that women's advancement in the workplace is restricted by something called sexism. Reliable, tried and tested reports consistently show that it is discrimination, nothing else, at every level, that holds women back. The pay gap in this country is wide and shows little sign of narrowing at present.

Do you believe that equality has been achieved for women?

No, of course not. As a comedienne I am regularly told by promoters that they "simply" don't think women are funny. How can that be equality when my ability to do my job is pre-judged based on my gender? I battle daily to get half the work men around me get. I don't know a woman in any profession who hasn't been held back by sexism in some way at one time or another.

Do you think that women would like to marry a man who earns more than
them?

I think women are all different. I wouldn't dream of generalising like that. I think most people, men and women, can see advantages in marrying someone who has a lot of money. I think that's obvious. And given how tough it is for women to progress in the workplace it seems likely that this would encourage them to seek other means of securing their - and their families - future financially. I don't think seeking a rich partner means a person doesn't want to work or wouldn't prefer to earn their money themselves. It's a very practical choice.

Do you think women see their role as the primary carer of children in the
family?

Again some do and some don't. It would be weird, would it not, if women were all the same?And again those that do may do so because of what they sense as a biological urge, other may feel pressured to by society, family, and culture and others may do so because their workplace opportunities are so poor, they decide to focus their efforts elsewhere - or of course a combination of those reasons and others.

Further comment: This report has yet to be actually published so far as I can see. "Dr" Catherine Hakim is a terrible researcher. Last year she published a similarly misogynist report entitled "Erotic Capital" which I read and it's methodology was laughable. She quoted the book Belle De Jour as a key source without questioning it's veracity and made a series of bizarre and contradictory statements. That she is accepted by the academic elite serves only to highlight the entrenched and unquestioning sexism which permeates academia. That her "reports" are quoted as fact in every major newspaper before publication and peer review serves in turn to show the entrenched misogyny in the media. Only last year Cordelia Fine published a whole book (Delusions of Gender) debunking the "gender as innate" myths with painstaking, incontrovertible research and in a fun and easily readable way - it received little to no coverage. Personally I think every woman in the country should be sent a copy of that book and should gather as one and slowly beat Catherine Hakim to death with it.*

*Not the official view of the F-Word (through whom the request came) or the feminist movement. The official view of me however.

Tidings of Little Comfort or Joy

So Mr Cru and I went for a little walk today and on our way back a guy was putting up a sign above a doorway at the end of our road that says "Sauna open". I figured there is at least a one in a million chance that they're actually opening a sauna rather than a brothel so I went over to ask how much they charge for deep cleansing mud treatment and reflexology and, reassuringly, he ran away. I called the Met and they tell me they're going to send their "safer neighbourhoods" team round - oddly not the human trafficking squad but I suppose better than nothing, which is what I imagine they'll actually do. [Oh that's not fair - they might go round and ask for a price-list, perform some quality control...]

Daily Mail Special: Gay Man Writes Homophobic Column!

Oh dear. This one should honestly come with it's own little paper sick bags. So time for a line-by-line.

"The Mail's ANDREW PIERCE is both adopted and gay. But that doesn't stop him saying... Why I'm repelled by Elton and his partner's grotesque selfishness
"

Really? Are you Andrew? Is your best friend also black and has he granted to express permission to use the n-word? Sorry doesn't work like that. One of the things about equality is that even though you're both adopted and gay - you still might be a bigoted scumbag. Or worse - you could even be a columnist for the Daily Mail...

"The title of an infamous fly-on-the wall documentary made in 1997 about Sir Elton John was Tantrums And ­Tiaras. It tells you almost everything you need to know about this showbusiness diva."

It's a film. Made by a documentary maker (called David Furnish) - no-one thinks a documentary where he just pops out for milk and watches Midsummer Murders is going to make it to TV. At best it presents a tiny snapshot of his life and at worst it's essentially a carefully-planned publicity stunt.

"One minute he was flouncing off a tennis court in the south of France and demanding a private jet home because a fan had the temerity to greet him publicly."

Flouncing? Is that a homophobic word for "walking"? And he was upset, he left the tennis court and said he wanted to go home.

"The next he was threatening to walk out shortly before another sell-out concert. ‘I’m sick of these shows,’ he raged."

And is a pop star not allowed to hate their job once in a while and not be in the mood for it.

"The decision to become a father appears to be another grotesque act of selfishness from Sir Elton who, along with his partner David Furnish, has bought a baby son from a surrogate mother in California for a reputed £100,000"

How terrible - it would have been much better if the surrogate mother had received only £2.50 and a couple of signed albums... The last thing they should be doing is paying the medical bills and making sure she's comfortable during her pregnancy.

"In that film, Elton John came across as ­brilliantly talented — and deservedly so, for he is one of the most gifted musicians and ­performers of his generation."

You discovered he was a talented musician by watching a film? You are officially the least knowledgeable person on the subject of Elton John I have EVER encountered. There are rural herdsmen in sub-saharan Africa who know more about him than you do. So stop judging him.

"But he was also petulant, spoilt and selfish."

Well "spoilt" is really when someone else buys you things you haven't earned. Whatever your view of Elton you can't really deny he made his money himself.

"And it is this side of his character that came to mind when I read this week’s news that Sir Elton, 63, and his partner David Furnish, 48, have bought a baby son from a surrogate mother in California for a reputed £100,000."

Mmmm - so you heard a gay couple were starting a family and you immediately started to think about negative aspects of their personas? I think that's called prejudice. Well done.

"I have no doubt of the couple’s ‘over­whelming’ happiness and joy at the arrival of their son. I am quite certain that the child’s unorthodox parentage — he was born to an unidentified surrogate mother who had ­carried the child after being implanted with a donor egg from another mystery woman — will prove no barrier to the love the couple will ­lavish on him."

When you say "unidentified" and "mystery" you mean you don't know who they are don't you? I think David, Elton and when he's older, the child, will be fully aware of these people's identity. And anyway so bloody what?! There are plenty of awful uncaring "orthodox" parents - which incidentally is code for "had a fuck".

"Yet I can’t help feeling that his decision to become a father is another grotesque act of selfishness from Sir Elton, and that the child is a little Christmas bauble he and his partner have awarded themselves. How telling it is that he was born on Christmas Day."

What evidence do you have for this? One of the two partners once shouted at a documentary camera-man. How does this make them the new Fritzls?

"As far back as 2001 Sir Elton admitted that he was too old for fatherhood, He told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet: ‘I have come to the conclusion that it is too late for me. Had it been 20 years ago, then I would ­definitely have done it. I don’t want to be 70 years old when my daughter turns 16.’"

Mmm and he changed his mind. He would be the first person ever. Also this decision was made by two people, not one. If might well be David Furnish who was keen to have a child.

"Yet he will now be 79, not 70, when his son turns 16."

Yes but David Furnish will be only 64. Maths alert!

"It was once his wish to adopt a child, rather than create his own, but can you imagine any respectable agency even contemplating ­placing a baby with a man who will be collecting his state pension in only 15 months time?"

Well how about one that had a lot of needy children and a shortage of loving homes to place them in. And if you really watched the whole of that film you might have figured out he probably won't need to collect his state pension.

"So why should he be allowed to buy one?"

He didn't just start bidding for them on ebaby.com... Surrogacy is a long and complicated process, to describe it as "buying a baby" makes it sound like a livestock market. What next: baby futures?

"Sir Elton once admitted that he was too busy for fatherhood and spent too much time travelling."

And you think we should ban anyone who says they're busy from becoming a parent? Is that it?

"Yet next month he embarks on a 26-date tour of the U.S. and Europe and is unlikely to take his turn on nappy duty. The happy couple will, as normal, host their Oscars party in Hollywood in February."

So parents shouldn't work or have parties? OK lets get that one into law shall we? And 26 days is less than a month.

"Perhaps Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John will make his first appearance on the red carpet."

Right exactly - for all we know Elton plans to spend time with the child during the tour too, he can certainly afford to have him with him if he wants.

"Let me make my position clear. I am a gay man and I believe same sex couples should be allowed to adopt or have their own children — although I think that in ideal ­circumstances a child should be brought up by a mother and father."

Not making yourself very clear here. Either you disapprove of same sex couples having children or you believe children should be brought up in settings which are not to your mind "ideal".

"I have two very good male friends who are in a civil partnership and have adopted a little girl. They will make wonderful parents not least because they are absolutely ­committed to each other, but also because one of them has given up his job to be a full-time parent."

So these are the new rules - one parent must stay home? And while Elton is touring is there any evidence that David won't be looking after the child? Or is it different rules for anyone you've seen a short film about and taken a dislike to?

"So what of Sir Elton? In many ways, he is to be admired. He has spent millions of pounds of his own money on his Aids foundation. He has successfully battled against drink and drug addiction."

Indeed, yet you're still judging him based on a brief documentary in which you thought he "flounced".

"The warm public reaction to his civil ­partnership with David Furnish underlined his status as one of ­Britain’s most popular singers. He still tops the charts after a career spanning four decades."

But we're just the great British public right? If we like someone we're idiots but if you decide to hate someone because of some aspect of their personal life that's ok?

"But he is also an ageing, ­pampered, self-indulgent millionaire — look at the absurd names he and Furnish have given the poor child, for ­heaven’s sake!"

The kid's called Zachary. It's a relatively common biblical name. In 2008 it was the 72nd most common boy's name in the UK. In fact it's ideal because names in the top ten can mean kids end up with three in their class at school.

"And it is the nagging suspicion that Elton — a man who is by nature an obsessive — has simply acquired a son to satisfy his latest fixation that I find repellent."

Well if his "fixation" was that he wanted a kid - what better reason to have one. What other reason is there for having a kid? Broken condom? Shortage of chimney-cleaning staff?

"Forget the media circus that will ­surround this poor little rich boy for the rest of his life."

Yes - and what's more Andrew - YOU'RE IT. You are the media circus. Leave them alone.

"What really ­disturbs me is the selfishness of a world where it’s apparently ­acceptable for women in their 60s to pay for expensive IVF or for ­superstars who, in a parody of ­consumerism, ‘buy’ children from ­African orphanages as they think the normal rules don’t apply to them."

And the "normal" rules are what exactly? No babies without unprotected sex? Those are dead stupid rules and in no way guarantee quality parenting.

"But those rules — honed over ­thousands of years — do matter."

On the contrary the idea of people who are not the direct biological parents raising a child has been around for ever. Adopting a child and having a child raised by more distant relatives (grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc) is as old as the hills.

"And Rule Number One is that, by and large, a child needs a loving mother and father."

A child needs one or more loving parents.

"Rule Number Two is that a child needs to know where he or she comes from and what their genetic identity is. Two stories in the Mail this week highlight these truths."

I'm not sure this child won't know their genetic identity? All we know is that YOU don't know it. And many adopted children decide not to trace their birth parents when the opportunity arrives, I've not seen any evidence to suggest that is a "rule".

"There was a survey published ­yesterday from the Prince’s Trust, which concluded that young men with no male role models in their lives, and women without a mother figure, are hugely disadvantaged in life."

Firstly we should bear in mind that many of the benefits of having two parents (who for obvious reasons are likely to be one male and one female) are financial. But also this kid has not one but TWO male role models in his life. So presumably he's better off than a lot of kids.

"Then there was the poignant story of Pat Fitzgerald who, wrapped in blankets with a dummy in her mouth, was abandoned on the steps of a Cardiff hotel when she was only five weeks old."

Hankies out...

"Now, 71 years after that act of unimaginable cruelty, Mrs ­Fitzgerald, in a desperate bid to fill the huge hole in her life, is trying to discover her true identity, even though she was brought up as an only child by devoted ­adoptive parents."

Right - but lots of adopted children don't feel the urge to do that.

"I ached when I read about the yawning chasm she still feels in her life even though she has four ­children of her own."

But do we know whether she wouldn't have felt a gaping chasm if she'd been raised by her biological parents? We'd probably want to look at a slightly wider survey than one woman.

"But then I know something of Mrs Fitzgerald’s agony. I was ­christened Patrick Connolly in Bristol and spent the first two years of my life in a ­Catholic ­orphanage in Cheltenham."

Oh and you've picked a single example that backs up your own personal experience. This theory just doesn't say "will pass peer review" to me.

"My birth mother — a single woman — used to visit, but there was no place then for a single mother and her son to be together in the harsh moral climate of ­Sixties Britain."

Yes and your paper is trying to return to that harsh moral climate with its continued attacks on single mothers and the benefits they need.

"My salvation came in the form of a working class married couple. They already had three of their own ­children, but very little money."

Having kids when you've not got much money - the Daily Mail hates that. See this story, now taken down from their website (hopefully for being obnoxious and ludicrous) but available on an archiving site..

"But they had lots of love to give and they travelled to the ­orphanage for two hours on the bus each ­weekend. I’m glad they came. They adopted me a couple of months later and I will always be ­profoundly ­grateful to them for their love and support."

Check the start of your own article you say you have no doubt Elton and David with "lavish" love on their child. I assume "lavish" is homophobic for "give".

"Today, I regard them as my real parents, but I would not be telling the truth if I didn’t admit that I still wonder about my birth mother and father."

Wondering isn't quite the same as feeling a gaping chasm as you claim Mrs Fitzgerald does. So no consistent experience.

"So imagine the demons that could plague Elton John’s little boy with his unconventional parentage. Apart from the surrogate mother carrying the egg of another woman, there’s the question of who’s the father."

Unlike you, this child will be raised by his biological father. So whatever demons he ends up with "why isn't my biological father raising me?" is off the list.

"Just what is Elton going to say to him when he’s a troubled 16-year-old and asks: ‘Daddy, where did I come from?’ Imagine the chasm in that boy’s life."

Well I'm guess Elton and David will, err, answer the question. Obviously lets not forget Elton will be 235 years old by then so maybe he'll just say "where's me biscuit?"... I mean seriously if you're going to criticise older parents - make the most of it!

"As an adopted gay man, I have no interest in having children of my own — although I don’t ­denigrate those who want to."

Yes you do - see every other line in this article.

"Let’s hope Elton John’s son gets the same chances that I had, which had nothing to do with money. My parents had little of that."

Are you actually claiming only the poor should have children? That's significantly out of line with your paper's editorial policy...

"What they offered instead was the love and support of an ordinary, hard-working couple who were always there for their children."

Well if they were always there - they weren't as hard-working as all that. You can't be in two places at once.

"How often will Sir Elton be there for his son?"

Well given his enormous wealth and propensity to demand what he wants when he wants it, even if it means walking away from fans and paid work, I'd have to say: as often as he wants to be.

Argh! Daily Mail Fail (as usual)

And there was me thinking I wasn't angry enough for the day, thanks Daily Mail!

First up Giles Coren has written a relatively reasonable piece about the shortage of women in the comedy DVD charts. I agree with a fair few of his points although it is frustrating that he says that women comics "tend to avoid accusations of sexism because they don’t want to sound like they’re whingeing" and then doesn't bother to address the fact that the real problem might be, erm, sexism, or indeed uber-sexism to the point where a woman can't even mention the s-word without being criticised for it! Also - and I hope this is a failed attempt at humour - he says "the Christmas television schedule: endless male comedy and not so much as a snort from the girls, unless you count the last episode of Miranda." In what sense is Miranda Hart NOT a woman? Has there been a rule change? I have a vagina, am I still in?*

Anyway he says in the middle he generally find women funnier than men and goes on to rave about his regular co-star Sue Perkins and how hilarious she is. Yet somehow the Daily Mail saw fit to title this article "So why aren't there any FUNNY women comics any more?". which implies that there are hundreds of female comics out there being offered DVD deals and their own shows, but sadly they're all rubbish. But I can't find a stand-up DVD by a woman on sale right now. Releasing a DVD is a huge deal - it requires planning and marketing. It's not a case of writing some funny jokes and wandering round the circuit until someone offers you a deal - deals are done years in advance and then promotional tours organised, posters, TV and radio appearances... In Edinburgh this year one magazine gave my panel show 5 stars and John Bishop's solo show 2 stars. But he got the Wembley Stadium gigs and the DVD deal. What gives? It has to be systematic sexism that means no women are getting to produce stand-up DVDs. How can we be dismissing as rubbish a group of DVDs that DOESN'T EXIST. Doh!

Anyway it gets worse.

Isabelle Caro - the French model whose emaciated body was at one point used to highlight eating disorders - has died. And the Mail chooses to mention that she blamed her disorder on her "difficult childhood". They mention NO OTHER contributing factors to eating disorders.

Now... Read down the headlines on the right hand side of the page:

Look out Posh! Now Geri Halliwell makes her fashion design debut with her own swimwear range. And she modelled line for next.

Lose TWO INCHES of festive flab by tomorrow - and look svelte for New Year. Feeling bloated after the Christmas festivities? Help is at hand.

That's not going to help your diet! Michael McIntyre takes his lookalike sons out for lunch. Family outing to McDonalds.

"My husband says he'll divorce me if I get fat". While SAMANTHA BRICK was poorly with an upset tummy, Pascal kept reminding her that she'll be losing weight.

Elisabetta Canalis's bikini can't shore up much support as she emerges from the sea... revealing a little too much.

Beaming Kate Moss can't hide her excitement as she and Jamie Hince jet off for New Year's holiday. Couple heading for Phuket in Thailand.

Kourtney Kardashian reveals slimming secrets after beating her sisters in diet battle. She's lost 3st 2lb.

And nine of the photos down the side of the website feature women in revealing bikinis/beachwear. None of them with any visible "flab".

Isn't it time to quit the faux concern and admit the Daily Mail itself is part of the problem?

*Two footnotes here: (1) There are some women comics with big enough ovaries to point at sexism and go "oh look - it's sexism". See, erm, my solo show, my blog, my career, etc. (2) Yes there are some female acts who tend to get drowned out on panel shows. But women are not all alike, we're not a "genre" actually. If you have a panel show, and you want to look all liberal and modern and not like a douchbag, call me - I will be more than happy to interrupt all the guys, be hilarious and rip Frankie Boyle a new one, the only question is what shall we do AFTER lunch?

Column in Management Today

I had a little column published in Management Today about me and the comedy circuit. It's part of a bigger article about the business of comedy and how money is made, etc. I am mostly excited about being cartoon-ised!! But if you click on it you get a bigger version and you can read what I wrote too.

When Is Prostitution Not Prostitution?

This interview from the BBC with a woman who works as an "escort" - selling sex - makes for very uncomfortable viewing. But it also serves to highlight one of the big problems with finding solutions to the abuses and horrors of the industry.

First of all the woman being interviewed insists that she is not a prostitute (or prostituted woman as many survivors prefer to be known) but an escort. When asked what the difference is she explains that (1) she worked indoors on the streets and that (2) she didn't wear high boots. Later she describes being physically forced to have unprotected sex against her will. The interviewer (less than tactfully) suggests "that's rape" and she responds saying she didn't see it that way because she was paid.

Now evidently what is happening is that she is in deep deep denial of what she goes through. But this is totally unsurprising - people in unbearable situations develop multiple personalities issues to allow them to "be someone else" during the awful bits. We know that many rape victims convince themselves that what they have experienced isn't rape as a coping mechanism. Should we be surprised that victims of repeated systematic rape and other abuses use euphemistic language to help them survive their experiences?

And bear in mind the stigma attached to words like "prostitute" and "rape victim". While men who pay for sex and rapists are often hailed as hyper-masculine. My boxing gym still has Mike Tyson's face on the wall and Wayne Rooney still plays top flight football and appears with his glamourous "WAG" wife in magazines like "Hello".

We have to distinguish however between being respectful to those who have had traumatic experiences and wish to chose their own language to describe them and those who are in fact defending the "right" of abusers to carry on abusing.

How Women's Rights Could Actually Save The Planet

Oh dear Peter Preston in The Guardian. Talk about missing the point!!

The thing is that YES - solving the problem of runaway climate change is dependent on limiting and reducing the population. But NO that doesn't mean adopting a China-style one child policy or running around like crazed eugenicists sterilising anyone without a degree. And it also doesn't mean doing away with child benefit. Because (surprise Peter!) child benefit is not paid to encourage people to have children. It's not a reproduction bribe. Who the hell would decide to raise a child for 18 years in return for £15 a week? It's paid to help parents afford to raise their children well. Once you've fed, clothed, housed, educated and entertained your child you're not necessarily going to have much change left to treat yourself to nights out and designer clothes...

But here's the good news. There are millions of women around the world and right here at home who desperately want to have less or no children, to have children later in life and to control their own fertility. Furthermore some of us crazy feminist types actually think it is their right to do so and to be given access to the tools and education to enable them to make those choices in their own lives. We call them reproductive rights.

Free access to and information about contraception - including condoms which also prevent the spread of HIV and other STDs - and abortion are basic rights that every woman should have. All we have to do is provide them.

Of course it's harder than it sounds. We're not up against "crazy" lefties insisting that benefits be made available to enable parents to afford basics for their children. We're not up against "polite" society's refusal to discuss legislation which would force limits and restrictions on women who wanted to have larger families. We're actually mostly up against religion. Organised religion has worked tirelessly to deny women access to contraception, abortion and even to basic sex education and information about how their bodies work and the options available to them to control their own fertility. Religions benefit from encouraging their adherents to have large families, and this plays straight into a huge patriarchal structure that has attempted for centuries to control women, treat them as breeding factories and keep them in the home raising the next generation of brainwashed disciples.

The planet has much to gain from limiting and reducing the population but the mechanism for this needn't be controlling women's fertility - it can be empowering them to control their own fertility.

Sleep Crime Rules

Sad that this needs addressing, but it evidently does. If you commit a serious, violent crime but are found innocent because you "did it in your sleep" you are a risk to the public. Until you can demonstrate that medical science can cure you of your sleep criminality you need to remain under medical or police or prison care at all times, especially if you appear to be nodding off.

For some reason it is always men who commit these dream-attacks against women isn't it? The most recent is the murder of Christine Thomas. But we have had similar issues before with sleep-rape (of course check with Whoopi Goldberg, this is different from rape-rape...). James Bilton was cleared of three counts of sleep-rape while his reassuring medical team opined that only 1-2.5% of the population suffered from this condition. So we can all sleep easily knowing that only 1 in 40 guys are liable to rape you in the night and get off scott free. Shame he never bothered to sleep-check-for-consent first.

Well just so you know, I'm developing a dreadful condition where I sleep-take-revenge-for-crimes-committed-by-the-criminally-asleep. If you find me stood over you with a hand gun, I am probably having one of those buying-a-gun-on-the-street-and-shooting-you-in-the-head-dreams. Gosh will I be embarrassed when I wake up...

NEWSFLASH: Jody McIntyre 3 million times more articulate than news presenter

Now this is how to do a great BBC News interview!

Outside the Man Box

This is ace, you should watch it.

Remember Ladies...

The Daily Mail today is advising Kate Middleton to never let William see her without make-up unless she's ill. Really? I mean I don't even know HOW you would do that - sleep in make-up? Then you will wake up with it all smudged across your face looking like the aftermath of some awful student binge-drinking session. Sleep in another room? Oh well THAT will help your marriage a great deal. Wait til he's a sleep then creep out, wake up before him and sneak out and apply? Then you will forever get less sleep than him which is a bit tiring and restrictive...

Daily Fail - Vote Now!

Seriously - today's online poll in the Daily Mail is this:

Ha ha ha ha ha....

Sun, Sea and Sex Crimes

Well I was away over the weekend doing a couple of gigs in Tenerife (yeah I know, tough life, but ex-pats deserve to be entertained too!). The highlight for me was the opportunity to bag a boat-trip from Puerta Colon and go out and watch pilot whales basking in the sun just a few metres away from me. The lowlight was at the show on Sunday night...

The compere's onstage, doing well, asks a guy at the front what he does for a living. He says "rapist". Now honestly I'm not that phased by this. People get nervous when a comedian speaks to them from the stage and it's not uncommon for them to wrongly think that saying something outrageous or unbelievable might be the best way to avoid embarrassment. [Hint: in general it's not - you're much better off to just tell the truth. Or if you really don't want to get picked on - say you work for a children's hospital charity, most comics don't want to make jokes about terminally ill children.] Anyway I figure he is trying (and failing) to impress his mates although I notice when the compere repeats it, he does a "power salute" to another guy in the room who returns it - I assume this is his "mate" who thinks his answer is "hilarious". The compere makes a joke along the lines of - that's not a job, you can't do that for a living... The show continues and I'm the first act on.

I tell this guy it is really weird that he seemed "proud" about the rapist remark. I say most guys would want to play that down. I say in fact even most rapists wouldn't really want to draw attention to it. And I make a joke suggesting the women at his table might want to move elsewhere. Then I figure he's been made an example of enough for saying something stupid and inappropriate in a bit of a panic. I get on with my set. Later he reveals he's Scottish and I refer to him as the McRapist. I finish my set, get a beer and go to sit at the back of the show and watch the next act. During the second act the guy comes up to me at the back of the room and grabs my hand to shake it. I'm expecting him to apologise or (people do this a lot) say "Ah, you got me, you did well" (to which "no, I got you, and it was incredibly easy, if I'd done well you'd be crying..."). Instead while still holding my hand firmly he looks me right in the eye and says "It's all true - I was convicted and all".

He is definitely not joking.

And he walks off.

And I can't really scream because it's the middle of the show and another act is performing and that would be incredibly unprofessional of me (though in retrospect I think unprofessionalism might have been more than justified at that point).

I find myself sitting there looking at my hand where he's just been touching me. I go in the kitchen and wash it several times. Eeeeew.

Now I understand the policy of once people have been convicted and (one hopes) served their time, needing to rehabilitate them into society. And given how low the conviction rate for rape is there's no doubt I've shaken hands with unconvicted rapists many times. But what the hell is going on when this guy is overtly publicly proud of having committed rape? Ick ick ick.

Marie Claire Loves Cru-blog

How sweet - I'm featured in their December edition as one of their favourite blogs to read... You can see the page by clicking here. And if you've just arrived after reading Marie Claire then welcome. I'm a bit lower on make-up tips than them and a bit higher on the old vicious satirical feminism, but I think we'll get along just fine.

Actually since I have to wear make-up to work (onstage even guys usually wear make-up otherwise you end up looking really pale and ill) maybe I should give tips:

Translucent foundation to even out the skin and hide spots I've picked.

Dull-coloured blusher to fake a shadow under the cheek bones, little bit of highlighter on top.

Dark eyeshadow round the outside end of the eyes, lighter round the inside and really light white/cream up under the eyebrows.

Tons of mascara, just keep going.

That lipstick that comes with two tubes in a box and one is the colour and the other tube is the gloss. Only thing is this stuff is the devil to get off so extra-powerful remover needed.

Or better still get yourself a TV interview right before your show and then they'll do your make-up for you and probably do a really good job of it that you can just leave on.

Ok - maybe I should stick to satire and feminism...!

Daily Mail Woman of the Year Coverage

Despite my interest in women's rights, the Harper's Bazaar Women of the Year awards are not something I pay much attention to. The fact that shoe designer Manolo Blahnik won one this year for designing shoes so uncomfortable some women have actually had toe amputations in order to wear them for me adds that aroma du patronising sham so highly prized in the fashion industry's attitude to women.

Could help noticing the Daily Fail coverage though... Apparently Yasmin Le Bon bade a terrible mistake by wearing a fur sash. "It's not a beauty pageant Yasmin!" apparently (so what the hell is Monolo Blahnik doing there?!) so Ms Le Bon was too dressed up for a serious event. Meanwhile a woman called Natalia Vodianova (it not being a beauty pageant, one assumes, it won't be full of models... She must work for Land Mine Action.... Oh no, hang on... She's a model) made a terrible mistake by showing up with unshaven legs. She won an award for being "Inspiration of the Year" - inspiration to what? Eating disorder sufferers? In fact I'd wager the most inspiring thing she's done all year is not bother shaving her legs. [Where's my award, I do that every week!]

So are you supposed to dress up or not for this event? Or is it just a case of "here comes a woman, lets criticise her appearance!". Hold on, check masthead, that'd be it...

And then to add insult to injury in the midst of this pathetic excuse to congratulate one another for the thrilling idea of sticking a few frills on a pair of shoes they have the nerve to give an award to Zaha Hadid - the incredible Iraqi architect. I hope she sends it back with F*** OFF written all over it.

Sweden Tour

I'm on my way out to Sweden for some gigs. If you are out there or know people who are please let them know - would be great to see some friendly faces. Most of the shows I'm performing at are Swedish-language but obviously my bits will be in English and you're welcome to hang round the bar and ignore the rest if, like me, your Swedish isn't good enough to argue your way out of Ikea.

Sun 17th Oct

Tiny Comedy 7pm at Southside Pub

Big Ben 8pm on Folkungagatan

Tues 19th Oct

Komikaze at Sugar Bar on Kammakargatan

Weds 20th Oct

Skrattarå Comedy Club in Årsta

Thurs 21st Oct

Laughs at the Liffey in Gamla Stan

FLOPP 8pm at O'Leary's on Liljeholmstorget

Also any top tips about sightseeing in Stockholm or getting around much much appreciated!

Review: Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine

Review of Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

Oh dear. Drain out the money-banks, you are going to need a lot of copies of this!

Stop me if you've heard this one before. You're chatting to a friend with kids and you mention being a feminist. They give you sage look that says "Hey I once had unprotected sex and now I'm an expert on humanity" and explain how despite the entirely gender-neutral upbringing their kids have had little Marlon Rambo and Rosie-Boobookins-Princess are just "hard-wired" to adopt traditional gender roles. Well great news, starting now you can respond by simply pushing this book into their hands, muttering "hang on in there" to the kids and walking away.

And while she's on the subject Fine also neatly does away with the raft of Men - Mars, Women - Snickers and Why Women Should Try Shutting Up And Following Orders-type books that seem to have become so utterly commonplace recently. Admittedly in debunking this nonscience she does have to go into a fair amount of heavy-going methodology but she does a careful job and keeps it humourous and interesting throughout.

And to top it off she also takes care of indirect unintentional discrimination. The manner in which people make subconscious sexist decisions and then justify them to themselves in non-sexist ways. "I'd hire him because he's more _________* than her" *insert any old rubbish here.

One side effect of the book has to be looking back through my own life at times when I've missed out on promotion or work I wanted and was well qualified for. Only a few weeks ago I was talking with someone who runs a high profile comedy show which I would be ideal for. I emailed my CV and demo reel over in advance and then in person suggested he should consider auditioning me for the show. He laughed like a drain. Like it was the funniest thing he'd ever heard. And that's exactly it. If you asked him if he was sexist he'd be horrified and insist he wasn't but he doesn't regard me as a serious performer despite the fact that I'm undoubtedly better at it than most of the people (men) he does use. If I had a penis he might tell me he wasn't hiring right now but he wouldn't find it quite so hilarious.

So you should read this book as an eye-opener on your own life. You should also keep a couple of spare copies about your person for throwing at idiot parents and anyone who thinks the shortage of female Nobel prize winners is something to do with rotating three dimensional objects rather than raging sexism. Delusions of Gender is really important, much-needed and should be compulsory reading for parents, educators, employers and politicians. Well written and convincing. Just great.

Cru in the Mail

I'm quoted today in the Daily Mail. And they actually reproduced the full quote I gave them without twisting it or mis-representing it. Ten points. The article is here.

Best Shot

A few months ago I gigged with a great comic called Steve Best. As a hobby/bit of fun he takes photos of all the comics he works with. And they're really great photos. Click here to see the one of me, which I love!

Two Interesting Reads and a Related Thought

This is a great bit of insight into what's wrong with the way our criminal justice system deals with rape cases. And she counts as one of the "lucky" ones in that her case actually went to court. I know several women who have been raped and either decided not to go to the police or were disbelieved by the police (like being refused a rape kit... how is it legal for the police to refuse to send a woman who asks for it for medical testing for rape drugs and sperm?).

Secondly Laurie Penny makes some great points about the way that misogyny is deeply seated in our culture. She's so right!

Yesterday I appeared on a show called Sunday Morning Live on the BBC (available via the link on iPlayer for another 5/6 days) and on the show the discussion was about prostitution and I said I thought the Swedish/Nordic model (criminalising those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it) would be a good idea in this country. Later in the evening a comedy promoter who had spotted me on TV "chatted" me on Facebook and said "So I guess you will never become my prostitute then xx". Yes - with kisses - like there was something cute about that remark. This is someone who I have to be nice to because I work freelance and he has a lot of paid work to offer (though to date he has never paid me, despite repeatedly promising me that he would and admitting I was better than some of the acts he was paying). If it was the only club like this I'd just not play the one club but in fact his behaviour is completely typical and I have to gig somewhere. It's so infuriating having to put up with this crap when I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO MY JOB!

(That's me by the way leading the chanting at the Anti-Pope rally!)

Sunday Morning Barely Alive

I was just on Sunday Live on BBC One talking about prostitution. It should be available on iPlayer in a bit.

Divorce Line-By-Line

Todays appalling piece of women-hating journalism is brought to you by one Harriet Sergeant who tells us all in the Daily Fail about The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce (top tip by the way if you plan to use children as a weapon - sharpen their heads first...). Line-by-line as usual by yours truly...

"About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention."

Hankies out - who needs facts when a one-off tear-jerker case study will suffice...

"Not for this little boy a visit to the zoo or the excitement of a football game. Instead, he had chronicled a weekend's battle between his divorcing parents."

As we all know - no-one argues in the park or at the zoo. And only couples who are divorcing argue - not those who have decided to stay together for the sake of the kids but actually hate each other. But interesting angle - I think the kid shows great potential as a columnist - lets hope he aims a bit higher than the Daily Mail.

"'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose."

If the kid hears Mum calling Dad names there are two conclusions we can draw: (1) We have no idea what Dad is doing - where he is, who with, what he's saying to Mum. (2) Mum is looking after the kids, including making them tea with cake.

"'I want the parents to see what divorce they are doing to their children. They should be ashamed of themselves,' she said."

Shouldn't teachers be better at grammar than this? Also I do pity the child whose story was really well written but who didn't get picked to go up on the board because the teacher was pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with the national curriculum or quality education.

"My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs."

Most drug-users I'm aware of are pretty secretive about their habit. If this kid told your son about his habit I'd be prepared to suggest a possible explanation: maybe your son takes drugs too. In fact maybe your son is the dealer! But do carry on telling the rest of us how to parent.

"Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes."

Yes and how down to earth and clued up is Sir Nicholas Wall? Well lets put it this way - in his spare time he enjoys "composing clerihews". Exactly. And even he is talking about parents - both parents - not just mothers.

"'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.'"

I've got one! Something worse for a child than their parents denigrating each other: the parents denigrating the child. Also famine, disease, child labour and having parents who read the Daily Mail.

"Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents."

So you were "all too aware" of the issues but now you feel the need to harp on about them for the rest of the world's benefit? Thanks. I don't even have kids and you're getting right up my nose.

"We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him."

So you were actually doing this dreadful thing that we all need to be told (by you) not to do. And even in retrospect you admit you "wanted to murder him"? Easy now, remember your son is reading this on drugs.

"A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.'"

My friends are not like this. Your friends are.

"Her reaction is not unusual. The battlefields Sir Nicholas Wall describes are too often of the wife's choosing."

How often is "too often"? I mean I think the one in four women in the UK who is a victim of domestic violence is pretty much entitled to "badmouth" her partner. Particularly after he has "blackeyed" her. And bear in mind the most common time for violence to start in a relationship is while the woman is pregnant, so there's a really good chance kids will have been witnessing violence.

"This is because most divorces are initiated by women due to their husband's infidelity, as the fatherhood research body Fathers Direct points out."

Aaargh! No! In 100% of these cases it is the husband who has instigated divorce by BEING UNFAITHFUL. Oh dear Fathers Direct - seems almost like you might be some sort of "men's rights" organisation... Mind you I was guessing that when your website said your aims included "helps shape national and local policies to ensure a father-inclusive approach to family policy" and no mention of "helps end domestic violence perpetrated by men".

"These women are hurt and they want to get their own back through the children, money or both. They are determined the husband is as much divorced from his children as his wife.

One wealthy man I know finds himself, despite his riches, at the beck and call of his former wife."

Are women supposed instead to lie to their children - tell them "Daddy's been totally faithful, he's just friends with that aerobics teacher with the huge breasts"? And if you do tell your kids that then no doubt they respond by blaming Mum for the divorce. You've surely got to be honest with your kids at very least.

"The strategy is very successful. This otherwise powerful man submits to every capricious demand."

Though presumably the strategy wasn't effective enough to stop him screwing around in the first place. Ho hum.

"'With just two hours' notice, I had to cancel an important meeting and take them to the dentist,' he said. If he refused, his wife said, he would not see them for a month."

And what if the wife had an important meeting just at the same time as an emergency dentists appointment? Presumably she should cancel it...? Gosh, it's almost starting to sound like kids are a responsibility, not a fun weekend treat...

"An advertising director found himself equally powerless when his wife suddenly moved from London to the Midlands with their two sons."

Almost like she was trying to get away from you huh? Why would that be?

"'How can my wife hurt me? How could she bring me to my knees?' he asks. 'Through my children.'"

Of course if you really loved her - she could hurt you by leaving you. But that bit doesn't seem to bother you much does it mate?

"'She did not tell me. One day she just stopped answering the phone. Until then I had been seeing my sons every weekend,' he says."

OK that sounds harsh, but we'd need to hear her side to pass judgement wouldn't we? Not at the Daily Mail!

"By the time the case reached court, the sons were settled in a new school. The judge admitted that what the woman had done was illegal, but because it was in the best interests of the children to be with their mother, he did nothing."

Now of course the judge had the power to remove the children from the law-breaking mother and place the kids with dad instead but decided not to do that. But don't let a little gap in information like that prevent you drawing sweeping conclusions about how awful women are.

"'She had got away with effectively kidnapping my children,' said the father. His relationship with his sons has all but broken down. Their new home is too far for them to come to London."

So go visit them - it's only the Midlands - not the Middle East.

"When he goes to see them, he has to stay in a hotel."

How awful. I do hope there's no pool.

"'The children get bored in an hour or two,' he says. 'They have their friends and their sports, which they would rather do instead.'"

So take them out. As I understand it there are zoos, theme parks and fun fairs in the midlands. Or since you're visiting them - take them to play sports or meet their friends.

"He tells me he finds the situation 'so goddamn painful. I try to play the role of a father - but how can I when I have been deliberately moved to the periphery of their lives?'"

Try? Not very hard by the sounds of it.

"The situation leaves many men I have interviewed distraught. They describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'."

No doubt there are guys who mean well and want to see kids but there are also plenty of Dads who don't bother to see their kids and don't bother to contribute financially. In the interests of balanced journalism shouldn't we hear briefly about them too... Well I guess we would but we're too busy laughing at the concept of "balanced journalism" being mentioned in the same blog post as "The Daily Mail".

"It is no wonder that within two years of divorce, half of fathers lose contact with their children."

Yes women just love single parenthood so much they're filled with contempt at the idea of someone actually helping them out. What is frightening is that within two years of divorce 50% of mothers are effectively on their own raising kids.

"As one man said sadly, divorce 'leaves many fathers on the edge of a bloody great abyss. Many fall off and are never seen again'."

Maybe they should think about this before they start screwing around?

"Douglas Alexiou, one of London's pre-eminent family lawyers, agrees that the wife holds all the cards in a divorce case."

That is odd since most judges are men and the law is designed so that the number one priority is the kids. Now if it turns out that most women have much better relationships with their kids than men, that would work in their favour. Men could combat this by spending more time with their kids. I know, I know, it's a radical idea...

"'Court order after court order is served. The wife claims the children are ill or just do not want to see their father,' he says."

We all know in real life kids are never ill and never don't want to see their father.

"'There is very little a court can do if a mother has poisoned the minds of her children against the father. There is no sanction against the mother apart from a jail term - and no court will do that."

A court could also award custody to the father. Of course that would only be relevant if the father was prepared to do the hard work of parenting, not just the odd visit.

"'Perhaps one day a judge will be bold enough to jail a mother and finally set an example.'"

Yes no doubt single motherhood would be greatly enhanced by being jailed.

"In all this there is only one real victim - the children. If one of those wives was handed an axe and ordered to hack off a limb of her child, she would be appalled. Yet so many women are happy, even gleeful, to commit the equivalent emotional amputation on their children by depriving them of their father."

Yes - ruthlessly keeping their kids playing sports with their friends instead of in a creepy hotel with Dad. How evil.

"U.S. author Kathleen Parker in her excellent book Save The Males points out that in depriving a child of their father, 'we reduce a child's chance of a successful and happy life.
'Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity.'"

Yes Kathleen growing up without a father is a reliable indicator of poverty. One parent families do worse. And poverty is an excellent indicator of all sorts of future problems. That wouldn't be the case of course if fathers paid towards the upkeep of their absent kids. Yet the statistics show that many don't. And if they're not sharing the cost - why should they share the fun parts?

"But this misery is not only the fault of the parents. The family court system is adversarial and encourages couples to fight, says Nadine O'Connor, campaign manager at the lobby group Fathers4Justice."

Fathers4Justice? That would be the discredited organisation that had to be disbanded after revelations that a number of senior members were perpetrators of domestic violence...

"And change, she says, will be a long time in coming - until lawyers stop making their own killing from warring parents, children will continue to be used as weapons."

Even Nadine thinks it's lawyers at fault. Harriet it's only you who has managed to blame women here...

How is it that you write a whole article about how male infidelity leads to divorce and unsupported single motherhood and wind up coming down on the side of blaming women for problems their kids have?

Protest The Pope Video

I am the one shouting into the microphone, leading the chanting from the back of the truck. Of course!! Good lip-readers will notice I am shouting "Arrest The Pope!"

Papal Aside

I didn't see Mock The Week the other day but I did see the short clip of the comments made on the show about the papal visit. Inevitably none of the panellists seemed impressed by the visit. However I was sat watching seven straight white guys (yes, an all-male, all-straight, all-white panel) discussing the dreadful attitude the Pope has towards women and homosexuals and thinking "Have you looked at your own house lately...?". Yes the Pope's attitude is dreadful but it's also enormously commonplace albeit at a more subtle level right across the most supposedly liberal parts of the UK. Sad. Especially for people like me who (a) could use that sort of work and (b) would make an awesome job of it.

Aaarrrrgh!!!!

So the BBC today has 99.9% of it's coverage focussed on the Papal Visit - what did his Holiness wear? What is the significant of St Ninian's feast?

I wonder what the SECOND most important story on the BBC website today might be.

"Trident cash timetable could change - minister". Oh ok, so it's just about a rescheduling of defence budget spending... Lets just double-check and read the first line:

"Britain remains committed to replacing its nuclear weapons but the timetable for financing the scheme could change as a result of a value for money review, Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey has admitted."

But of course that's only the Armed Forces Minister. It's not as if David Cameron has made a big statement in support of Trident. Oh hang on - lets check paragraph 13. Really.

Am I the only one who thinks the bit about the Armed Forces Minister and payment schedules changing is not the key message here? The Prime Minister has announced we are going to spend billions of pounds on a totally unnecessary nuclear weapons system that will reduce global security and that very few people in the UK want.

Talk about hiding the real news.