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.

Career Girls. This really needs a line-by-line.

I don't know which to feel sorry for the most - my head or my office wall, for there is no doubt that the two will be making repeated thumping contact over the next half hour or so. The Daily Mail has decided in it's infinite wisdom to explain why women only want careers because they're unable to get themselves a man. Yes, really. So here goes:

"Do girls only want a career because they can't attract a man? Provocative study casts high fliers in a new light
By FIONA MACRAE"

Well lets see shall we? Are there any women who are ALREADY IN A RELATIONSHIP who still want careers? Yes, loads. But what a horrific insultory headline! Implying any woman who works hard at her job is desperate. Fuck off!!

"Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree."

I do whenever I see a pair of uncomfortable shoes...

"A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married."

Hang on - lets test this hypothesis further: do you know any unattractive married people? Yes, lots right? And are there any attractive people who are unmarried? Again loads. So even the notion that you have to be attractive to get married is absolute crap.

"The research team, made up of three women and two men,"

Well why are we reading this research then? We know the female researchers are only doing it for the chance to date a lab technician.

"said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'."

Personally, I prefer my men both thin and on the ground. But that's another matter. Are we really surprised that women who aren't raising families are more likely to decide to have a serious career? You're not choosing career over family if the option of "family" isn't really there. You're choosing career over daytime TV and having no money.

"And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace."

They will have measured this on the official SCIENTIFIC plain-ness scale right? The only possible way to rate attractiveness is to ask others to judge. Everyone will judge differently. Are you asking straight guys to judge? Or other women? And then we will also have to adjust for whether she's trying to make herself look professional for the office or whether she has loads of free time to get her hair and nails done, right?

"Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers."

Yes the parallels between hunting buffalo and being an accountant are overwhelming. Similarly those between building a fire pit and ordering groceries online. And lets look at our nearest relatives the chimps and bonobos. They DON'T HAVE homes!! They just build a new (individual, usually) nest each night. So we're left wondering what evolutionary principles we're working from here.

"They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career."

That's not evolution. That's fact - if you haven't got another source of income - you have to get a job. In other news - hungry people tend to congregate around supermarkets and restaurants.

"The researchers carried out several experiments to come up with their startling argument."

Clearly none of these experiments involved looking up the word "startling" in a dictionary.

"The first looked at the number of eligible men in an area, which they called the 'operational sex ratio'."

How exactly are you defining "eligible"? I hope you had a group of sexy young women in the street shouting "Phoar, look at the operational sex ratio on that!"

"After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose."

So with less men around, women had better jobs. Ooops! I think you just discovered workplace gender discrimination.

"In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children."

So with less men around, less women got pregnant? Quick ring the press!! Oh, you already did. Seriously?!

"To prove that a lack of men was behind the trend, the researchers then carried out practical experiments."

Removing the men from a series of small towns? Or maybe just rendering them "ineligible"!! Sounds like the sort of thing I used to do in my late teens...

"These involved showing women newspaper articles"

Hmm, well lets hope they weren't Daily Mail articles, since all you guys publish is a load of sexist dross.

"or photos that gave different impressions of the sex ratio in an area"

Photos? Of the queues for local speed-dating events? Stranger and stranger.

"and then quizzing them about which was more important – work or family."

Stand AMAZED at the magic of SCIENCE! Really? Aren't there people working on a cure for cancer out there?

"When they were led to believe that men were scarce, they were more likely to prioritise career over family."

Wow amazing. Of course there's no way guys would be less interested in their work when there was a sexy woman around. No way.

"However, when questioned, the women didn't believe the shortage of men would lead to more job openings for women. Instead they thought there would be more competition to find a husband."

Was there a tick box for "both"?

"The final experiment tested the researchers' suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner."

So they had a suspicion about a correlation AND they had already pre-decided what the causality between the two would be? When is this research up for peer review exactly?

"The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career."

87 young women? No room for statistical error here then? And remember statistically we would expect 8-9 of these women to be lesbians. So that might slightly skew the husband-seeking activity spectrum?

"They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men."

Oh THAT totally objective measure. Was Samantha Brick surveyed?

"Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated."

So women tended not to say "I'm great at work and totally gorgeous", almost as if they didn't want to come across like Samantha Brick. Or maybe smart women don't see such big advantages in beauty and prefer to play it down? And maybe less educated women lacking job prospects are more likely to feel their looks are important and have built their self esteem on them?

"Researcher Kristina Durante, from the University of Texas at San Antonio, said: 'Does the ratio of men to women in a local population influence women's career aspirations? Real-world archival data and a series of laboratory experiments suggest that the answer is yes.'"

Yes of course it does. More shagging equals less working. I hardly think this is a gender issue.

"In Britain, there are slightly more younger men than women. However, females aged 36 or older are in the majority. And at universities, female undergraduates now outnumber males."

Is this one of those fake newspaper articles intended to trick me into wanting a family? What impact can we expect this "slight" imbalance to have? Maybe a "sight" one. One not worth ringing the papers about. Call me when there's an international man shortage, I have heard the Daily Male suggest this a million times and yet somehow despite it all, I am still getting laid. Who knew?

"Economist Ruth Lea said that on a basic level it made sense that women would have to support themselves if the odds of being supported were low."

Yes on a basic level, it does. I can't help thinking that men will have to support themselves if others don't do it too. That's rather the cruel nature of our free market economy, no? Unless this is a sneaky trick to show Daily Fail readers how important it is to a generous welfare state in place.

"However, she said many factors, from aptitude to ambition, played a much larger part in a woman's career path."

So a better, less misleading, headline would have been: Availability of hot men doesn't have much impact on women's career choices.

"And agony aunt Pam Spurr said:"

Oooh here comes the next bit of science - an anecdote from an "agony aunt". Dear Pam, I've got these strange pimples on my frou-frou and I'm worried I caught them from sleeping with my teddy between my legs after he fell down the loo. Also I can't find anything else to write in my stupid misogynist article and it's only half a page long so far. Love Fiona xxx

"'I often find that women who were getting on well in the workplace will in private conversations with me, express wanting to settle down.'"

Women who have one thing also want another? It's like they're HUMAN! Alert! Alert! Conclusion of article contravenes Daily Mail's official editorial policy! Alert! Alert!

"The study, which was carried out by U.S. and Dutch researchers, is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."

I must subscribe. It sounds great. In next months issue: People with ear wax problems buy more of those sticky cotton buds things that you're really not supposed to stick in your ears but it feels really fucking good when you do EXCLUSIVE.

There is honestly not a single iota of newsworthiness in this whole article. It is just the Daily Mail randomly deciding to attack women by suggesting that successful, ambitious ones are ugly. Well Fiona MacRae - you wrote it and lookie lookie, your name is up there in big letters in a big national newspaper. Don't go getting too near any mirrors huh?

Sisters Doing It For Themselves

Oh dear - Luisa Dillner in the Daily Mail. Has the civil war in Darfur suddenly ground to a halt and peace spread across the middle east while I was napping? Because otherwise I don't see much in the way of a valid excuse for padding out a page-worth of a national newspaper (o.k. I exaggerate - the Daily Male) with this absolute dross.

It's called "Your best friend - and deadly rival: Why the love-hate bond between sisters is the most precious relationship of all" which sort of means "I don't really have anything to write here but I'm trying to make it seem exciting". She describes her two daughters "One has stolen the favourite spot in the bed, and the other feels short-changed on cuddles." Brilliant - this is the sort of information than when someone starts telling me on the phone I switch on the TV subtitles so I can murmer along in agreement while actually catching up on House or Scrubs.

"No one can hurt you like your sister. With a man, you have the nuclear option: you can leave. You don’t have that with a sister." Well unless that man is your brother. Or father, son, etc, right? And actually you can leave your sister. If you really don't get on you can - once you reach adulthood - part company and lose touch if you want.

"It doesn’t seem to matter how big or small your family, or whether you live in Britain or Outer Mongolia - if you’ve got a sister, you’ve got the woman who can change in a heartbeat from being your best friend to being your deadliest rival." Really? Cos my sister and I get on pretty well when we see each other which is a few times a year. If she's my deadliest rival - or best friend - she has a pretty clever way of hiding it by acting like she lives in Southhampton and works in HR...

Who on earth actually lives in Daily Mail world? No-one! Really Luisa Dillner - give up now, there has to be something better you can do with your life!

[And fittingly that is not a picture of me and my sister. It's me and my friend Karen from down the road - I'm having to improvise because I don't have any recent pictures of me and my sister...]

Out, Out, Damn Spot

Oh dear - I just laughed so hard I nearly lost bladder control.

There is an article in The Times about how the female G-Spot is a myth. I will deal with the article shortly. First though take a look at the very first comment added below the article...

"John Chamberlain wrote:
First of all the Dr. was British, Second of all, the doctor was a man.

Heck he'd have a better chance of finding the Ark of the Covenant.

I have been with over a hundred women and they all had G spots, 10% of them saying no man had ever made them realize they had one,

Just because your doing it wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't exist..."

So the G-spot is right there but all these women just couldn't find it on their own until miracle-boy came along? What percentage of them were just saying whatever the hell they thought would stop him scrabbling about pointlessly down there? I'm going 100%, no? Strange how despite his miraculous sexual technique at least the first 99 of these 100 women didn't end up in a lasting relationship with him?!

Can men really be this delusional? Say it like Obama: Yes They Can!

Here's the skinny boys - if a woman tells you she rarely or never has an orgasm from penetrative sex the best response is to find out what other activities do give her pleasure and then be sure to include some of them in your foreplay (look it up FHM readers). Do not spend the next four hours teeth gritted, dryly grinding away in hope of a miracle. A quick survey of my straight female friends suggests the vast majority have faked orgasm, always for the same reason - just to get him to stop before it starts to really sting and without hurting his feelings.

Now the elusive G-Spot. Does it or does it not exist? Well it depends what exactly the definition of "G-Spot" is. The most sensitive part of a woman's (or man's actually) legs might well be the back of the knees. But no-one talks about the mysterious "knee-spot". Most women would agree that different parts of their vagina are differently sensitive too. The most sensitive area for many women is about 2-4 inches in on the front side. But that doesn't make it some sort of magical spot that exposed to so much as a warm draft sends a woman off multiple-orgasming like some sort of professional bonfire night display. It's just the most sensitive bit so if she's into it, and you're into it, it's not a bad place to focus some attention on your way round.

I feel like I just turned into some sort of sex advice agony aunt. Address all problems to "Dear Cruella..."

Economic Tits

So I know - I should expect this sort of thing from The Sun. Seriously though, I would do a line-by-line except as with most Sun stories there's only about three lines. Apparently the recession's over because more people are going to strip clubs. So....

1) Where are the statistics on this? There aren't any. This is based on one guy saying so - one guy who in return gets his chain of misogyny shops plugged in Britain's best-selling paper.

2) Hooray - lets see what other dodgy industries we can use to prop up the economy. People are buying more heroin than ever. Hired assassins have never been so popular. The demand for mugging old ladies has gone through the roof. Oh whoops, except economic benefits don't justify an industry that's riddled with exploitation.

3) If this is all true then it's very very frightening news indeed. Women are already seriously over-represented in the ranks of those affected by the downturn. We earn less across the board and are way more likely to suffer discrimination, way more likely to have dependent family members to support along with complicated caring arrangements. How many more women will start to feel that their only viable economic choice is to work in one of these horrible places? And then when they're not making as much as they thought, feel like they have to start offering sexual services too...

4) Again if this is true then why exactly would we imagine that lap-dancing is more resistant to economic conditions than other activities? What other industries appear to have strong resiliance against bad economic conditions? Alcohol and cigarettes. Stuff that's addictive, stuff that is actually doing you no good at all but over a number of years you've become so used to that you can't live without it. If lap-dancing is really just the "harmless" fun that these assholes constantly claim it is then when money's a bit tight guys would stop going and come back when they have more disposable income. Not happening.

5) Our reliable correspondant says the customers are city bankers. So bad news for the female city bankers who wanted to get ahead with a bit of networking. He also says more and more women are going to strip clubs - I wonder how many of them really have a "different" attitude to "sexiness and fun" and how many of them are just worried about losing their jobs if they don't go along with the team for the socialising.

6) Of course - random excuse to show more tits in The Sun. Why is this "newspaper" not sold on the top shelves? This is not news. News would have found actual market trend statistics, interviewed an economist rather than a pimp, and included, for balance, comments from those who feel that a rise in strip club attendance may have it's negative side too. This is porn. Pure porn. Porn goes on the top shelf - away from where children can reach it.

The Sun "newspaper" has so much in common with strip clubs: Bad for women. Bad for men. Bad for business. Bad for society.

Two footnotes here: (1) on the subject of how young women are now supposed to have a "different" attitude to "sexiness and fun". When the revolution comes and I am magically able to access whatever pleases me whenever I please I'm going to demand regular hot baths poured for me and about an hour a day of cunnilingus. Going to a grimy, tacky strip club full of drunk blokes letching at women who we all know for the most part really don't want to be there strikes me as neither "sexy" nor "fun". (2) The photo - I took it just before xmas in a major chain book store on Oxford Street (I forget which one - Waterstones or Borders I think). There under a huge "we recommend" sign are the gifts for the man who likes to spend his festive season thinking about women's bodies in a strangely dismembered way. The Big Book of Legs and The Big Book of Breasts. I guess great literature isn't dead...

Women Bosses: Line-by-line!

The Daily Mail. Ah. It's my birthday today (drinkies on Saturday at The Comedy Pub, Oxenden Street show at half eight, pub closes 2am, please come if you're in town) and the Daily Mail's lovely gift is clearly this Amanda Platell article charmingly titled "Moody, indecisive and always trying to behave like a man, why ladies make truly lousy bosses". It's a stonker. It really deserves the proper Cru-blog line-by-line treatment so here goes... happy birthday me!

"Why is it that in a society overrun by greedy fat cats - where the Sir Fred Goodwins of this world continue to outrage with their business brutality, unreasonable demands and outrageous bonuses - there is not a single woman’s name in the rogues’ gallery?"

Yes Amanda why IS that? Maybe women are less unreasonable, less brutal and less demanding. Still at least they're not in charge eh?

"Why is there not an equally hated Lady Freda Goodwin, Freda The Shred, riding roughshod over the poor workers, slashing costs and sacking staff? Because, ladies, we are not nasty enough. "

Oh trust me Amanda, I'm only two lines in and already I'm planning to be pretty nasty here. But if women aren't capable of being like Fred Goodwin shouldn't we hire MORE of them? Or are you the only person in Britain still rooting for Fred in this whole fiasco?

"Nor are we single-minded enough, nor focused, nor task driven, nor adept at that simple but essential boss task of giving orders."

No doubt this sort of offensive baseless sweeping generalisation will be backed up with hard cold facts.

"In short, our commercial DNA is not wired for corporate success."

So we're biologically incapable of running a business? Weird that so many of us do run businesses then. Perhaps someone should let Martha Lane-Fox know.

"And nowhere was that more graphically demonstrated than last week when the much-feted co-chairman of Gordon Brown’s Women’s Enterprise Task Force was successfully sued by one of her employees for bullying."

I'm waiting for the cold hard facts and I'm getting a single case study. Just as well you don't run a business Amanda - "I asked my cat and he doesn't want to buy football tickets so clearly there's no market for them..."

"Dr Glenda Stone runs a successful recruitment website, Aurora, with her husband. So even this colossus of female business success, the woman chosen to front such a highprofile government body, co-runs her business with her spouse.

Not much of a triumph for feminism after all, is it?"

She runs a business with her husband? But who cleans the bathroom and does the ironing. Daily Mail head overload alert!! But seriously as an official spokeswoman for feminism - we weren't claiming her as our key triumph this year. I was at Reclaim The Night and the Emma Humphrey Memorial Prizes went to Sandra McNeil and Object. Dr Stone was not nominated but I wish her the best of luck.

"And what’s more, by all accounts in the industrial tribunal, she was a terrible boss - overbearing, foulmouthed, petty, bullying, micromanaging-vindictive."

Foulmouthed, petty, bullying and vindictive? Well if the career doesn't work out she can always get a job as a columnist for the Mail hey Amanda?

"I know that type of female boss well, the Bully Boy Boss, who thinks they have to be nastier than the nastiest male boss to succeed. But more of them later."

Earlier on the problem was that we weren't hard-wired to give orders and nasty enough to run big corporates, now we're too nasty and handing out too many orders? It's almost as if women aren't actually all the same after all. Maybe we're diverse, like human beings...?

"Now, before the hate emails start pouring in from outraged feminists and female bosses, I have a special interest in this subject.

Not just because I’ve had the misfortune of having some of the most God-awful female bosses in the history of modern business, but because I was a boss myself, more than once."

So you're allowed to criticise me because you've got a vagina and a job too?

"I have edited two national newspapers, been the managing editor of one, the marketing director of two and the managing director of one national newspaper group.

As William Hague’s Press Secretary, I was boss to a team of press officers.

I have sat in the editor’s chair, the boardroom and the shadow cabinet. And while I can confidently say most of the people who worked for me liked me and respected me (I always thought of them working with me, but that’s such a girl thing), and, more importantly, worked well for me, I’m not sure I was always a good boss."

So this whole article is about how you're "not sure" you were "always" doing a good job. Who is? Everybody has hurdles at work, everybody tries and learns from experience. I've had male bosses who I AM SURE were ALWAYS doing a BAD JOB. Doesn't mean all men are bad bosses does it?

"Believe it or not, I wasn’t tough enough. I had that classic female trait of being able to get the most out of people - it’s called nurturing now - but I also wanted to be liked, a fatal flaw in a boss."

I mourn whatever you threw away to be liked Amanda because I really really don't like you.

"And like most women bosses, I took things too personally."

Yes that's why Fred Goodwin was so great - he didn't let the little stuff, like a balance sheet flimsier than a sheet of Tescos Value loo roll and bad debts piling up faster than dirty laundry in a student flatshare, get to him.

"I remember one particular incident when my woman boss, who was trying to get rid of me in that usual sneaky female way or undermining me at every point rather than honestly pointing out my shortcomings, called me into an ambush meeting. "

I'm not sure what "that usual sneaky female way" is but I'm pretty sure if such a thing exists it's because when women are direct about what they want they're criticised for being too aggressive and "acting like a man" by people like Amanda Platell.

"She’d assembled various company directors and preceded to humiliate me in a most personal way, for my accent, the school I went to, for not liking the theatre, for my university. Not for a moment that I was bad at my job."

You don't like theatre? What's wrong with you Amanda...

What I mean is: That's unfair and I'm sorry you were treated that way. To me that's discrimination against women, in this case you, and I'm fighting that. What I'm not doing is fighting that discrimination by writing national press articles about women making bad managers. [Although I think you mean proceeded, not preceded, any boss who could time travel would have seen this article coming and retrospectively not hired you in the first place]

"And to my eternal shame I took it personally. Men don’t do that."

No they don't. That's why Eddie Murphy didn't threaten to sue Mel B when she implied he wasn't the most caring father to her child. And Peter Andre didn't sue Katie Price when she said he wasn't the most faithful lover.

"I was a good manager of people, but a lousy risk-taker."

Compared to Fred Goodwin Amanda, I'd say you were a brilliant risk-taker.

"With our typical propensity for multi-tasking, I was more comfortable doing ten things at once and keeping all the balls in the air than what was really needed, to focus on one task and nail that ball in the back of the net."

Yes a good manager only focusses on one thing. Really? So the accounts are sorted but the sales strategy is screwed and the premises licenses have expired. Great management. Our hero Fred Goodwin of course only focussed on one thing - getting rich quick.

"Returning to Dr Glenda Stone for a moment, ironically her job on the quango was to teach businesswomen how to take risks, one of the key areas survey after survey finds women are pathologically incapable of doing."

What surveys? Really. I have never seen such a survey. I saw a survey that said men are bad at taking risk and that's why they make worse car drivers. Even if we could prove somehow that women are more risk-averse though: Firstly when I look at the credit crunch and it's impact on Britain the one thing I have never though is "If only our business leaders took more risks". And secondly it is discrimination to make recruitment and promotion decisions based on generalisations. If you want risk-takers, ask for risk-takers and ask applicants to take one of the many tests of willingness to take risk at interview - don't assume you know what someone is like based on their gender.

"Even in countries where positive discrimination is enforced by law, such as Norway, the underpinning beliefs are that women bring different mindsets and skills to business.

In that country, by law 40 per cent of all corporate positions are now held by women, but even they concede women are by nature more ‘risk-aware’. For which read ‘risk averse’, for which read useless to thrusting, high-risk, high-profit companies."

Yes I remember reading all those articles about how badly Norway had been hit by the credit crunch. Forget all-male-run Dubai, the biggest sufferers have been the Norwegians right? The PROBLEM with businesses right now is that they are "high-risk".

"Women do, however, make a difference to bankruptcy levels, says a study by Leeds University Business School. It surveyed 17,000 companies and found that having at least one female director on the board cuts a company’s chance of going bankrupt by about 20 per cent."

Right so seems like Norway was right all along. And for one this argument actually has a source, it's based on fact.

"Why? Because we’re more cautious. But a study of 2,000 companies in the U.S. found a correlation between companies with disproportionately more female board members and lower profitability and lower market value. "

What study? By who? If you don't give me the source I can go and see whether the methodology is valid can I? Looking back thought at the last ten years of business I think profits were pretty high but risks taken were too high.

"So it appears that companies made up of more women executives are good at keeping afloat, but not at motoring ahead.

We’re good at preventing bust but not at facilitating boom."

Haven't we been saying for a long time we want to get away from a boom-bust cycle and into a steady growth economy? Don't we want more bust-preventers and less boom-facilitators?

"These studies indicate why women bosses are so unrepresented in corporate life. We have different skill sets and the things we’re naturally good at don’t necessarily make companies rich."

I think in the long term "not going bust" is quite a key component of "getting rich".

"That may go some way to explaining why every time a list of overpaid bosses appears, it’s a case of Spot The Female."

Yes it's called a pay gap.

"When the list of 323 public service bosses was published last Friday, there was not a single woman in the top ten. The Royal Mail’s Adam Crozier, Channel 4’s Kevin Lygo, the BBC’s director general Mark Thompson - all household names. Still no women."

If Adam Crozier had been a bit less greedy maybe there wouldn't have been a huge mail strike. Are these examples of great managers? Are these guys SURE they are ALWAYS a good boss. Honestly Amanda I think you could have done better than most of them and there are very few women I can think of I wouldn't have offered the job to ahead of you.

"Women have railed against it for half a century, the Labour government has legislated against it for a decade, and yet we are still in a minority in the companies that dominate our country."

Oh well we had a little try - lets give up now. Did anyone ever say the battle for equality would be easy and over in a fortnight?

"And where women do score more highly, it’s in the caring, catering or fashion professions."

Oh so we do run some industries but apparently these aren't as important as the others? Caring for the needy, feeding people and providing them with clothes to wear - yes I think are the most trivial roles of industry too... Clearly running a TV station or a casino is more important.

"As Dr Stone demonstrated, women bosses tend to fall into two categories - too soft or too hard."

Earlier on we were all the same - now we're scattered at two ends of a (mythical) spectrum. Or could it be that any woman you can't write off as too soft you're writing of as too hard, creating a no-won situation because you have a problem with women.

"There are the Caring Collegiate Bosses you’ll find running shopping, retail, fashion and style companies and the middleranking public service sectors."

Well they seem to be good at what they do, don't they?

"Tesco, Sainsbury and M&S are three of the top 11 companies employing female directors."

And they're on the brink of going out of business right?

"The two great success stories running UK companies demonstrate this point - Marjorie Scardino at Pearson, the publisher dominated by female magazines, and Angela Ahrendts at Burberry."

What point? The point that some women have managed to break through the glass ceiling in publishing, food and fashion and are doing at least as good a job as the men they had to fight out of the way? Yes point well made...

"And then there are the Bully Boy Bosses, like Dr Stone, the women who think you have be tougher than any male to succeed in a man’s world. Yes they’re tough, but they’re also petty, small picture people lacking the risk-taking, taskdriven skills necessary for running a big, successful company."

Yes many women believe (rightly) that they have to be tougher than their male colleagues to succeed. The rest is just meaningless drivel right? Also note that this is the opposite type to the Marjorie Scardino type. She's not tough of course, she got where she is by smiling and agreeing with people.

"Successful bosses mono-task, women multi-task; men are dispassionate, we are naturally emotional; they take risks, we ensure against loss."

So bad female bosses are "petty, small picture people" but men are "mono-task"-ers. That is the same quality only gendered to be negative for women and positive for men. And again what is so dreadful about ensuring against loss?

"But women’s DNA is only part of the answer as to why there are still so few female bosses in corporate life."

Which gene is this in? Which report shows a genetic difference. Go look in your local Early Learning Centre at the pink cookery sets and the blue science kits ... even if we can determine a difference in business performance based on gender - to call it "DNA" is a big (and offensive) leap.

"Even in the U.S., where 60 per cent of all college students are female, less than 15 per cent of board seats are held by women.

In the UK, the picture is worse. While the number of women in the top 100 FTSE boardrooms has doubled since 2000, it is still only 12 per cent."

So why doesn't this dreadful DNA prevent women getting in to university? Surely universities want these risk-takers since there's really no "risk" at university. If student's experiment and fail they just get kicked out or get bad grades.

"That despite a decade of social engineering and an ethos of positive discrimination by this Labour government."

It's almost like there could be nasty forces trying to hold women back? One of them is call YOU Amanda.

"Women are their worst enemies in some ways, with the avalanche of eye-watering sexual discrimination compensation claims in corporate life. Only last week, we had the absurd sight of banker Haley Tansey suing HBOS for £600,000 for sexual harassment."

Yes, absurd, Fred Goodwin deserves millions for running a company into the ground but Haley Tansey shouldn't expect compensation for illegal and terrifying harassment.

"The £39,000-a-year businesswoman said it all began with a colleague tricking his way into her hotel room while she was asleep then appearing naked before her. An eight-year nightmare of appalling sexism followed, she claims."

Oh well as long as nothing BAD happened eh? That's appalling.

"Why didn’t she tackle this undeniably unacceptable behaviour head on, when it happened?"

Because she didn't want to lose her £39,000 a year job? Because she didn't want to go through a horrific dragged-out court case and have her private life splashed all over your newspaper columns?

"A man would have."

How many men are vicitimised by having a naked colleague come in their room in the middle of the night? I've never heard of that happening.

"Victims don’t rise to the top."

You imply Amanda that victimhood is something that people can choose. Not true. Regardless of when she had reported it Ms Tansey would still have been the victim of this incident. And actually many victims of all sorts of crimes do go on to be successful in their own lives.

"Cases like this put the frighteners on companies. I know female bosses who privately admit that it has made them wary of employing female bosses."

You would hope that cases like this made businesses scared of sending naked men into women's bedrooms at night. Sorry if you think Ms Tansey is making a big deal about it - I think she's very brave to come forward and deserves to be thoroughly compensated if her claims are well founded. I think companies need to be sent a clear message that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable.

"Add to that the Government's new generous paternity rights and it's a double whammy for women, especially as it’s still mainly women who take time off after having children."

Then the next thing we need to address is why men aren't more involved in child-raising. See your local Early Learning Centre for clues.

"So it’s not getting better for women, it's getting worse. In this recession, companies have become wary of employing women at their key career stage - in their 30s - when professional women are most likely to step up the corporate ladder but also likely to want to have children."

Do you know that companies are reimbursed 92% of what they spend on maternity pay? And more than 100% for small companies. In a recession a pregnant employee means you can cut your staff temporarily at almost zero cost and ramp back up to full power in a few months.

"Like many women born into the postfeminist generation, the high-fliers of the Eighties and Nineties, I was once surprised by the lack of success of women at corporate level after decades of equality."

How can you be "postfeminist" when I'm still "feminist"?

"Once, we could blame prejudice and sexism, now increasingly we have to look to ourselves. And it’s not just that women are lousy bosses of big companies because of our DNA, it’s also because of the choices we have made."

Of course looking at those women who make it to the top we find that they are in fact not women who have chosen to remain childless. Marjorie Scardino has three children. What holds women back is not choices - it's sexism, sexism that you are all too keen to excuse.

"For perfectly legitimate, complicated reasons of family or love or work-life balance, many of us have chosen to leave or never even enter the corporate jungle."

Lucky that men don't have relationships or families isn't it?

"But we can’t go on blaming it on men and an unfair system weighted against women."

We can - if that's what's really happening.

"You have to ask yourself why even in modern times there are few great female boss characters. There is not one female boss in Sex And The City, the single most iconic feminist TV series of a generation. When we do have successful women bosses, as in The Devil Wears Prada, they’re running fashion magazines, not blue chip companies."

Carrie's boss in Sex and The City is a woman. But I agree - we need more positive role models from TV and films. You do know Amanda, don't you, that those shows are not documentaries?

"Simon Cowell has The X Factor, in which Dannii and Cheryl are little more than pretty props. Even on shows such as Dragons’ Den, there is only one woman dragon."

No wonder our young women are not aiming higher and no wonder senior managers don't think to recruit women into top level positions.

"Can you imagine The Apprentice with a Lady Nicola Horlick at the helm, the ultimate female corporate Superwoman boss?"

Yes I can. I think I might actually watch it whereas Alan Sugar makes me puke my tea up and start grabbing for the remote.

"We’ll know the world has changed when the planned sequel to Wall Street has as its star not Gordon, but that mean mother of all bosses Greta Gekko."

If only Hollywood would lead the way and make a film about a woman who could lead a business. We could call it The Associate and have Whoopi Goldberg play the lead. Or we could make a retro-1980s film with Dolly Parton and Jane Fonda and call it Nine to Five. That'll never happen though will it? Did Platell miss a meeting?

As he famously said in Wall Street: ‘Read Sun-tzu, The Art Of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought.’ And alas in the boardroom, that’s never been more true than it is today for women.

I'm still fighting. Your help Amanda is not appreciated.

Racism: No Laughing Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That one sounds racist to me. Definitely racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Polljack

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

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

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

But Really Though - Are Women Funny?

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

Oh Look...

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

Try Not To Enjoy This Too Much...

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