A problem called Maria. Or why this government is a DISASTER on women's issues. Line-by-line.

Maria Miller is the government's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports and Minister for Women and Equalities. Note firstly just how much has been dumped on one persons plate. Presumably she allocates Mondays to her constituents, Tuesdays to parliamentary business, Wednesdays to Culture and uh-oh, appoints an underling to cover Equalities once they've finished the photocopying. Secondly note the horrific contradiction. Sport and the media are two of the areas where women get the roughest deal. The Leveson Enquiry has heard about women's appalling treatment in the major papers and sport these days is another word for a section of the paper aimed exclusively at men. I want a Womens Minister who's going to grab the Secretary of State for Sport by the lapels and not let go til legislative change begins. Thirdly note the order of the jobs, culture first, women and equalities last. Fourthly, yes FOURTHLY, it's that bad, have a look at the article Ms Miller wrote today in the Huffington Post. It's called "The Airy Fairy Generalisations of Women in the Workplace" because discussing how sexism can be overcome is a fluffy subject and all us silly girls who waste our time lounging about spilling yet another bottle of Chardonnay discussing it need a good talking to. Here's what's wrong with every single line of it...

"There's an awful lot of nonsense spoken and written about women and employment."

I know, not least because I sense I might be reading it right now.

"Airy generalisations slug it out with specious stereotyping and the simple reality gets lost in the clatter."

This doesn't really seem to mean anything does it? We have to generalise about problems in the workplace if we are to solve them. Unless she plans on going round every woman in the UK individually and helping them one by one. We have to identify common problems and solve them. Inaccurate (or specious) stereotyping of women is also known as sexism. One thing we need to do it identify that and call it out. None of this is clatter - it's prejudice and efforts to combat it. The reality is not simple at all, if it was we'd have solved it centuries ago.

"Because the truth is, that women are at the heart of this country's economic growth strategy."

Yes. As far as I can tell the economic growth strategy is to rip every piece of support out from under the feet of women (and of course children, the elderly, the disabled and the health service) and spend the money letting mega corporations off their tax bills, right?

"And if we're serious about recovery - and we are - we must to do everything possible to maximise their contribution to the workplace."

Hmm, but women already do more hours of (paid and unpaid) work every week than men. I don't want my contribution maximised, I want my reward for that work equalised. 

"But, although there are more women in work than ever before, there are still real barriers to women entering and progressing in work."

Oh yes, sexism, let go Maria, cut the clatter and call out the sexism.

"And this is not just about focusing on boardrooms, and encouraging more female faces there."

I don't remember anyone saying it was, guess I must have hit the target with the Chardonnay that night! But more "female faces" (not bodies, eww, with their icky vaginas and breasts) in the boardroom is vital to raise the aspirations of women further down the ladder. So we "clatter" on about it for a reason.

"It's just as important to work on how things are in everyday families, and what women are doing to balance their financial needs and career aspirations with family life."

Screech... Stop right there, two things (1) Did we just suddenly jump from what's best for women to what's best for families? Trust me, whatever is best for me is also best for my lodger, my fuckbuddy and that stray cat I sometimes feed. But DO NOT go assuming women = families. Even if I did have a doting husband, 2.4 kids and a golden retriever it is still not acceptable to assume my needs are subordinate to theirs. (2) Another problem word here is "balance", I image you used it because some underpaid intern told you "juggle" was totes last year. Women do not want to balance their needs or juggle their priorities they want to meet their needs and satisfy their priorities. As soon as you say "balance" or "juggle" you imply that women who dare to breed are wilfully putting themselves in a precarious and probably untenable position. Anyone caught balancing or juggling children should be asked to leave the circus.

"Whenever women get together to talk about the prospect of going back to work after having had a baby, it's a fair bet that the one worry that unites them all, regardless of their background or circumstances, will be a single question: what am I going to do about childcare?"

Also whether anyone can get the Chardonnay open with a steak knife cos one of the kids appears to have eaten the corkscrew. Same old, same old. But yes, accepted, this country is crap at childcare, we can do better, onwards, Miller, onwards.

"And I stress the first person singular in this because, for all the advances that have taken place in modern relationships, this remains one question that pretty well always falls to the mother to resolve."

Maybe true. So lets tackle that first up. Paternity leave. Lets make it as long as maternity leave, shall we? Write that down please.

"And if it's not sorted out to the mother's satisfaction, then it very often becomes a show-stopper for the whole return to work issue."

Yeah those crazy women who aren't prepared to leave little Timmy in a disused silo for the afternoon, eh? Whatcha gonna do?

"If a mother can't be as close to 100 per cent sure that her child is safe and well cared for, her chances of working effectively can dwindle to nothing."

Because its a gender thing. Men are able to focus fully on the photocopying while their little darlings are gaffer taped to the wall in the utility closet.

"And for every woman - and there are far too many, I fear - that ends up abandoning the world of work because there are just no childcare options available, other than mum staying at home, there can all too often be another missed opportunity for personal fulfilment."

Lets hope your idea of personal fulfilment doesn't involve making it onto the executive board though, cos we're having none of that!

"Which is not to denigrate or dismiss stay-at-home mums."

No, but it is to very rudely ignore stay-at-home, single, primary care-giver and gay dads. In case you were wondering. You've also completely forgotten to do anything for women who don't have kids. But ho-hum, eh. 

"It's having the choice that makes the difference."

If you're well off that is of course, if you dare to be poor and on benefits your choice to stay home with your kids is out.

"And it's not having the choice that stifles ambition."

Also sexism. The one word Maria Miller can't say out loud. Sexism.

"So a big priority for me as Secretary of State in the government with responsibility for women and equality, has been to see what can be done to address this."

...and you'll get on the case just as soon as you finish criticising women who are promoting other ways to boost women's position in the workplace. I suppose I shouldn't moan, at least you're not in a jungle eating bugs.

"I'm beginning with a new £2 million scheme to provide grants to help people wanting to set up a nursery or child-minding business in England."

Seriously, there are women out there, like me, with a maths degree. That's less than 4p per person in the UK. That's how much childcare matters to you? That's one three thousandth of the estimated tax bill your colleagues have just let Vodaphone off the hook for. It's pathetic, it's so insulting you might as well just write "FUCK YOU" on every single child benefit cheque sent out.

"From next April, grants of up to £500 will be available to help cover things like legal and insurance costs, training, equipment and adaptations to premises."

I strongly suspect this isn't going to be enough to make much of a difference, but I'll humour you on this one Maria, lets assume 100% take-up and success rate (you know, like other government projects have had...).

"This could lead to as many as 6,000 more childcare businesses getting off the ground."

And assuming an ambitious 8 kids per day care, that's an extra childcare place for every 1,292 people in the UK. Better hope the other 1,290 don't decide to have their kid in the same decade as you, eh?!

"And this could be an especially neat win-win, because the businesses themselves will provide jobs themselves, as well as helping to get their clients back to work."

Great news stay-at-home mums, the Minister for Women is here to liberate you from raising your kid on your own to raising eight kids all at once! Now act grateful.

"And the great majority of the new jobs created in the sector will, on past experience, go to women."

So the plan is, seriously, lets not push women into boardrooms, lets have them mop up baby puke for minimum wage? Really? That's the plan?

"Another thing I like about this kind of solution is that it goes with the grain of how people - and not just women - prefer to operate."

Yes that's how I prefer to operate. I like to have someone make incorrect assumptions about me, refuse to do anything about my actual problems and offer me a distant long shot at a pittance in support to do an incredible difficult and important job that I probably don't want for not much money.

"There's no compulsion in it, no externally imposed requirement that puts a burden on businesses which, in many cases, are finding it hard simply to keep their heads above water."

Oh great, lets fight sexism by not actually requiring businesses with demonstrable track records of sexism to do anything about it. After all what if not being an asshole is DIFFICULT or something?

"The grants will complement people's drive and initiative as they set up childcare businesses, and help provide a genuine and much-needed service for employees and employers alike."

But just to be clear it will still be the employees who are paying for this. And the employers will contribute their 4p a head by paying tax. Well they might do, or they might manage to sort that out quietly over canapés at some flash Whitehall function.

"But the wider point here, as I said at the beginning of this piece, is to do with the position that women occupy in our society as a whole and in the workplace in particular."

Wider? Than 4p worth of help each? Oh Maria, you charmer...

"We're serious about this and our childcare business grant initiative comes on top of a package of measures that the Government is taking forward to boost childcare, including extending the right to request flexible working to all employees and allowing parents to share up to a year's leave to care for their new born child."

Yes allowing parents to share up to a year of leave. The same year that women used to get while men got at least a few weeks. I'm all for making it flexible - which, footnote, was Nick Clegg's idea so (1) not your party and (2) probably wont actually happen then - but ultimately you're actually taking away leave, not offering something extra.

"So we're on the way to creating the conditions in which a truly fair and equal society can exist."

We're 4p a head and several weeks less overall parental leave on the way. Excuse me if I'm not skipping.

"There's much still to do, and I can't wait to get on with it."

Here's the next thing I think you should do. Take one large glass of Chardonnay, call a press conference and say this: Sexism exists. Sexism is a problem. Women's issues are not the same thing as childcare issues. The pay gap is real, discrimination is real. Equality is impossible with rape and domestic violence at epidemic levels. We need to stop dismissing discussion of women's rights as "clatter" and start listening to and acting on what experts in the field are saying. This is more important than sports and culture. This is more important than me desperately trying to appease as many people as possible for the benefit of my career. This is so important that I'm going to stand up to Cameron and Osborne and fight for this until real money is committed and real change takes place.

That would mean a lot more to the field of women and employment than this nonsense.

Cameron's brain-dead perspective

According to a joyfully-written piece in the Daily Mail David Cameron is taking steps to reduce benefits to families with large numbers of children. But he doesn't seem to have twigged that as he punishes those irresponsible parents who have dared to reproduce without thoughtfully going to Eton first, he seems to forget that he's also punishing all eight of their children - eight children who have done nothing wrong and now can't afford to eat. How is it fair to punish those children for their parents being out of a job while Cameron does nothing to improve their economic prospects. Makes me so angry!

In all of his expensive education - did he never read Voltaire's Candide: "Dieu a puni ce fripon, le diable a noyé les autres.". Or indeed "Economics for Dummies"!.

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.

Chilling News

When John Worboys was arrested for raping a passenger in his black cab his name was printed in the papers and dozens of other victims came forward. Without them a conviction might never have been secured, and women who had been drugged by Worboys and awoken confused and worried might never have found out the truth about what had happened to them. The full Lib-Con (Con-Dem, etc) coalition document has in it a promise to provide anonymity for defendants in rape cases.

The evidence suggests that false rape claims represent around 2-8% of cases (much lower than the false claim level for crimes relating to car insurance claims). And the notion that guys who are not convicted of rape are stigmatised is simply not true (consider the dozens of acquitted footballers still pursuing grossly overpaid professional careers) and when they are it's usually because the evidence against them was so overwhelming (like the "I might have raped her in my sleep" guy).

The law giving rape victims anonymity is there to encourage women to come forward despite the stigma felt by rape victims in many cases. This change will cut the rape conviction rate to even lower than it's current appalling level and leave women at even greater risk.

People Of Britain: Stop Believing Crap!

On election day I was on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. They laid on a car for me and as I had a busy day I asked the driver to drop me at the polling station rather than at my house. We started chatting and I asked if she was planning to vote. She said as an immigrant single mother she thought it was in her best interests to vote Conservative. Well it's just as well I wasn't the one driving because we would have ended up in a tree.

Once I'd cleaned the tea off the leather upholstered back of the passenger seat I started to explain. The conservatives would cut public services, close one in five SureStart centres, cut money for schools, eliminate child trust funds, increase student top-up fees and make it harder to claim basic benefits. Worse, from her point of view, they'd cut funding to the BBC, most likely closing more or less all of their operations in London and leaving her out of a job.

She explained that she'd read in the paper that of she didn't vote Conservative loads of new immigrants would arrive and threaten to take her job.  When I told her that Britain has more emigrants leaving than immigrants arriving she didn't believe me.

I was horrified at how the lies and distortions pedalled by the Murdock press are actually affecting voters, causing them to unwittingly vote not only against their own interests but against what they believe and hold dear.

When I finally crawled into bed at 9am the following morning I was relieved. A hung parliament. Enough of us had known or understood what Cameron and his cronies truly stood for to ensure he didn't have a majority. I slept soundly.

When I woke up, I assumed, Brown and Clegg would have teamed up with a coalition of those who believe in social justice, human rights and putting people ahead of corporate profits.  Instead Clegg was talking to Cameron.

There were, as I understood it, two groups of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats. The Cleggmania crowd who wanted electoral reform, no income tax on the first £10,000 of your earnings and the scrapping of the Trident project and the anyone-but-Cameron crowd who were voting tactically in constituencies where the Lib Dem respresented the most viable alternative to the Conservatie candidate.  Neither of these groups will get what they want in a Tory-LibDem coalition. So why are we even talking about it?

Again it's because of lies in the Murdoch press. Of course it is. Did we really think team Murdoch would give up that easily?

Firstly they tell us "60% of public want Brown to resign" which may be true. But if the remaining 40% are happy to have Brown as PM then he's streets ahead of Cameron who didn't manage to get 40% of the public to vote for his party.  The reality is that of the 60% who want Brown to resign in fact 30% want him to resign as PM so that Cameron can take over (and that 30% do so mostly because they've believed the press lies in the election build-up), and the other 30% want him to resign from the Labour Party leadership so that Milliband, Straw, Harman or indeed Nick Clegg can take over leading a left-wing coalition.

And secondly we are told that "the markets" need a quick resolution to the hung parliament situation. Yes quick, flush away the last shreds of democracy, ignore the will of the people, do whatever is necessary to help the markets...!  The markets, we are told, hate uncertainty. This despite the fact that bankers for years have made their money trading and gambling on exactly that uncertainty.  In a former life a tall tanned handsome Frenchman took me round the LIFFE futures trading floor. "Buy the rumour", he advised in an accent like a Rolex sliding down a thick wrist, "sell the fact".  When the announcement is made there's no more profit to be made on the story.  The markets can cope for a little bit without us.

The difference is though that before the election to save us from a future the vast majority of us have never wanted we needed at least two thirds of the country to see through and reject the Murdoch lies. Now we need only one man. So please Mr Clegg - do the right thing.

Election Comedy Video

(and I didn't write this one...)

New Super Sandra Video

Please watch it and vote for me/add me to your favourites/forward me to your friends. Thanks!

Super Sandra on David Cameron - watch more funny videos

What The Hell!!

I am a little bit angry today...

Someone has reported my comedy sketch about the election to Facebook as "abusive" and rather than look at it and realise there is no reasonable way anyone could take offence ... they've broken the link! The irony being that I post up links all the time to stuff here on the blog where I'm quite actively talking about very sensitive political issues like religion or abortion. But they've never taken those down. Well if you want to see it you can still do so on the blog (it's here). And if you have a website please put the link up, I am missing out on huge numbers of potential audience.

I can't express how angry I am about this. Especially when Facebook has not taken down (though I know I for one have reported it as abusive) the group page "FUCK OFF WITH YOUR TRAGIC STATUSES ABOUT HOW "MEN R ALL TWATS" you slut." which operates with the tag line "Go run infront of a bus. You DUTTY MUGGY BITCH.". Really - that group exists, you can go look if you're on Facebook. Clearly that is not offensive whereas a woman in bunches talking too fast about David Cameron is...

I was in the process of making a sequel to the sketch, now I am starting to feel it might be more productive to bang my head against the nearest brick wall. So let me say finally: AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Please watch this and vote for me!

Super Sandra Party Political Broadcast - watch more funny videos

About Face

Yesterday David Cameron said "There’s a contrast in this campaign, frankly: no new ideas from Labour, a negative campaign all about attacks and trying to scare people and very positive agenda-setting ideas from the Conservatives.".

Today the Tory manifesto was launched and facebook was kind enough to show me an advert for the Conservatives facebook page. I clicked of course, since advertisers normally get paid per click and I feel at least some of Lord Ashcroft's money should be spent on me! The page had at the top the new manifesto, and right next to it a very, very unflattering picture of Gordon Brown and what I can only describe as, well, I suppose an "attack"...Almost seems like Mr Cameron just says any old toss he thinks we want to hear and doesn't even bother to check if he own party website directly contradicts what he says. Well in the interests of political balance I would hate to put up a picture of Mr Brown here on the Cru-blog and not one of Mr Cameron. Here's one that really brings out his natural warmth and humanity:What a smug over-paid slimy misogynist git. Also pictured: Peter Stringfellow.

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.

Family Facts and Figures

David Cameron has for some reason decided that the pressure on single parents isn't enough. I have no problem with him chasing up runaway parents (mostly Dads) for maintenance money. Forcing people who don't want to do so to spend time with children however doesn't strike me as a sensible plan and his focus on the importance of marriage above all else in child-raising offers little encouragement for the 1 in 4 women in this country who will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.

His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.

Cruella Would Pick...

...Someone other than David Cameron to run the country. David Cameron meanwhile has said he intends to pick "a faith school" for his daughter. Interestingly he doens't specify which faith so possible a Muslim madrassa or a Jainist commune?

Bizarrely his reasoning is that she might feel "lost" in a secular school. Personally I find a bloke in a frock telling me on the basis of no evidence whatsoever about angels living on clouds, how Jesus lives in my heart and how there's a holy book written by an all-powerful deity but it shouldnt' be taken too literally pretty bewildering. No offence to blokes who like to wear frocks by the way - you are not all priests...

More Thought Needed

There are some aspects of David Cameron's suggestions about fathers looking after kids that I approve of. I do think that father's should be expected to put in the hours in terms of parenting as much as mothers. At the moment if a child is found abandoned on the streets - the mother is prosecuted, clearly it would make more sense if both parents were prosecuted. The idea needs more consideration though. We need to look at the 25% of women in this country who experience domestic violence. Clearly these women need the same level of support but not from their actual partners.

His second point - tax breaks (more tax breaks) to "help families stay together" is nonsense. It's much cheaper to share accommodation than to live alone, there are inherent savings in having a live-in partner. This really amounts to bribing people to stay in relationships that may not be working out. Those relationships are not the kind of places children benefit from growing up in.

We have to steer away from making rules that mean support is reduced for "unconventional" families: single mums and dads, step-parents, extended families and co-habiting partners and friends. children are best raised in happy homes, well above the poverty line. Biological parentage is not what counts.