F****** Sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit Low On Anger Today?

These two articles might ramp your anger levels up enough for the time being...

Firstly a young woman in Australia who had been the victim of extensive sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father. The guy took more than 10,000 pornographic pictures of his step-daughter over a four-year period. One day he forced her at gunpoint to give him oral sex then put the gun down behind him. She picked it up and shot him in the head. Are you thinking what a brave young woman? Wrong! She's now being put on trial for murder. I told you you'd be angry.

And the second one is a follow-up on a case I've discussed before. A woman with a mental age of 8 was gang-raped and then covered in caustic soda by her attackers. Now firstly you'll notice that the original report says "up to ten men" attacked her. Other sources also say "ten men". The second report is about the sentencing of three men. The Daily Mail claims one of the men has since been shot and hence only nine could have been punished. Still I guess it's only the worse gang-rapists we should punish - not all of them. And the three who have been sentenced got 9 years, 6 years and 6 years maximim sentences - and it has been suggested they could be out in 2 and a half years with good behaviour, etc. Angry yet? At least the sentences are now being reviewed.

Terrible Teens

I'm generally in favour of not going totally mad with juvenile offenders. You know six year olds who pick up Dad's gun and shoot someone. I don't hold them responsible. I don't believe in locking kids up when they're too young to know what's going on. This is a little more sinister though, I saw it over at Feminist Law Professors. A group of teenage boys (ages 15 to 17 at time of crime) ganging up on a teenage girl, raping her, filming it, distributing the DVD and not even getting a custodial sentence?

And they don't use the word rape either, they say "procuring sexual penetration by intimidation". If anyone understands Australian law better than me I would love to hear how those two crimes differ. I know we've been talking on here recently about rape conviction rates and the difficulties faced by courts in getting convictions, but surely showing the jury the DVD would clear the matter up. Plus the perpetrators pleading guilty. Surely that's enough for more than a lightly slapped wrist?