That internet, eh?!

The sort of weird shit I get on Facebook:

"hey, i saw you on big question and to be honest i didn't really agree with a lot of your points on certain matters. also the way in which you presented your points was very abrupt and aggressive, HOWEVER ... i have this inexplicable, major sexual attraction to you and i have no idea why, seeing as i quite frankly find what you have to say really irrritating most of the time. Yet I seem to find myself incredibly drawn to you. I thought i would tell you this, seeing as  their is nothing to really lose, and would be interested to see if you have this effect on other individuals!

regards

anand gopinathan

p.s. wouldn't you rather not live like their isn't a god, than die and find out there really is?"

Mmmm, you mean give up half a day a week, a proportion of my income and all the good sex I have on the off chance of something so improbable it can be dismissed out of hand? No thanks.  Also there is nothing inexplicable about your "major sexual attraction to me".  I am super-hot. Cheers.

Fawcett March and some radio clips

Yesterday the Fawcett Society organised a rally to protest the disproportionate way in which women are being affected by the cuts. I was asked to speak afterwards at the rally about the threat to reproductive and abortion rights. I am mentioned in the Morning Star newspaper.

I was also on BBC radio 5 Live Weekend Breakfast show yesterday talking about internet abuse. You can "listen again" here starting at 2h43m in to the show. Since then I've been discussing it a bit on Twitter with Dr Evan Harris and others. The question of what can be done about it is a tricky one. Certainly I get quite a lot of messages that are definitely the wrong side of the law - especially if they contain specific threats. But I don't really have time to launch a police case every time this happens. When I have contacted the police - they've been rubbish and done nothing. And for the general hate messages there is the issue that people are entitled to free speech but it also seems unfair that I, and hundreds and thousands of other women with an online presence (plus, I must add ethnic minority, gay, trans, etc bloggers who I'm sure get plenty of crap too) have to wade through this stuff in our inboxes every morning. We know young people have been driven to suicide by Internet bullying. My solution as ever is to tackle the hate culture, not the expression of it. But seems like not much progress is being made on that front either!

And this morning - yes that was me on BBC Radio Ulster debating whether single women should be allowed IVF on the NHS. Can't believe we're still having this debate really. Why would a health service offer "moral" or relationship advice. Loads of single women are great mothers and if they're coming for IVF it's not like they haven't given the matter serious consideration... And who wants to turn down the recently widowed, or a woman who's just escaped domestic violence? We have to trust women to decide what's best for them.

Anyway the most fun bit was that right towards the end the woman I was debating with opined that single women shouldn't be allowed to have IVF kids because it was against the bible's model of a family. Well it was left to me to point out that not everyone in the UK shares her religious perspective and blah blah blah. Anyway just as the interview was ending I casually mentioned that there is no God. Good morning Northern Ireland and you're welcome!! Sorry it's not available on iPlayer.

Footnote: thanks Paul - I stand corrected (and pleased) - you can listen to the Radio Ulster debate show here. My bit starts from 34m in and skip forward to 44m is you just want to hear my big finish!

New Statesman piece about me and other blogstresses.

I'm featured in a piece in the New Statesman today about internet abuse. You can read it here.

My Atheist B*tchslap and the Internet

Most of my regular readers (hello new people and welcome) will know that I've been a fairly frequent guest on BBC One's religious debate show The Big Questions. My most recent appearance culminated in me calling religious people "idiots". At the time unsurprisingly the assembled religious leaders who were on the show reacted as if I'd defecated on the studio floor. But I wasn't really expecting the general public to have that much of a reaction to the clip. I mean "idiots" is hardly the harshest insult. At very least it's the sort of insult that goes out on BBC One on a Sunday morning.

However recently when looking for the clip to show to a friend I noticed something: it's gone a bit viral. Well actually a lot viral. It's on YouTube several times and now it's on ebaumsworld which is a very high traffic site. There are various versions of the clip - this is a fairly extended version, showing the debate before and after my "idiots" comment:

This clip also has a fairly generic title. Most places have titled it "Atheist B*tchslap". I generally think the term "b*tch" is an unpleasant one, but in this case it seems to be being used positively so I don't mind.

Anyway here's the thing. Between all the various places it's been put up, it's had over 250,000 views. Yes - quarter of a million views and counting. I rather wish whoever has been posting it up would put my name, twitter tag and blog site in the title so people can find me and follow me and come to my comedy shows. But hey, I guess I'll just get a T-Shirt printed up with "Atheist B*tchslap" on it and that should jog people's memories!

And here's the other thing. As you may know I moderate comment on here and on my YouTube channel. I didn't for a long time but there were some particularly nasty internet trolls who would repeatedly post up the most horrible things and I just wanted my readers to feel they could read my site safely. I still approve comments from those who disagree with me, just not those who are creepy and threatening and all that sort of thing.

Of course on the wider Internet I don't get to moderate these things. In particular ebaumsworld clearly has no policy for moderation and doesn't even have a "report this comment" or a function that allows a comment to be hidden if a large number of people have "dislike"-d it. And it's getting pretty ugly. Trigger warning - I'm going to quote some of the comments (asterisks are mine, mostly to stop my page being blocked for anyone with a half decent Internet firewall).

"IF THIS TRASH TALKING K*NT HAD HER F*CKNG

TONGUE RIPPED OUT OF HER SUCK-HOLE, I BET THE
VERY FIRST WORDS TO LEAVE HER FACE WOULD BE

"OH-MY-GOD""

Mmm, that was from the reassuringly-named ebaumsworld commenter "pygmiesrfun". And here's "southernguy3030" to remind us how kind and compassionate religious people are:

"She will remember those words when she faced

God. Have fun burning in Hell."

And this one:

"she looks like a lesbian b*tch anyways"

Ah yes that age-old insult "looking like a lesbian". I'm hoping that user "Montreal" means like a cross between Amber Heard and Tegen and Sara. That would be AWESOME! And someone else who spent a long time choosing a username: "sh*tpuppet" wants to be clear it's not just lesbians he has the problem with:

"No you're a woman right? Therefore by

induction, you're an idiot."

The fact that his sentence doesn't even make sense (induction?) really backs up his point too... But just cos you're educated enough to be pedantic about language doesn't make you a very nice person either. Look here's "jteague" with his/her insightful spelling advice:

"atheist not athiest. tard"

I think "tard" is actually short for "retard"!!? Seriously - that'a apparently a hip insult now and not in the least bit insulting to people with learning difficulties. Someone call Ricky Gervais... On the subject of spelling mistakes lets get back to the threats of violence. This one is from "canadianbeer":

"She needs to be gang reaped."

And atheists can be horrifically sexist too remember, thanks "mrcronic":

"so from now on when a make a chick have an

abortion ill just tell her the babys going to

heaven"

And guess what peacemakers like "Skab" want to do to end fighting between atheists and religious people:

"Here's a solution that can unite all the

religious f*cks. Gang-b*ng her in a rainbow

unity and problem solved."

I'm only about a third of the way through the comments, and even then there's loads more I could post up, but I think that's enough to show I'm presenting a general trend, not just a couple of isolated idiots.

I guess three points:

(1) The anonymity and freedom of speech afforded by the Internet certainly have their benefits, as we've seen with the Arab Spring and reaction to suppression of news about human rights abuses in China, etc. But in general, my advice is, if you've got a site - moderate it... You can just glance at stuff and approve everything that isn't overtly horrid (note: there is also some nasty racism on the comments, aimed at the black people shown and at the Muslim guy). With a smart phone you can do it on-the-go so as not to stifle debate too much. Or failing that leave up a way for people to highlight comments they think should be removed and have a check through. I'm sure these guys didn't mean for their site to become a haven for hate speech.

(2) Interesting to see how a lot of people actually feel. I know almost no-one would say these horrid things to my face. So in a sense it's good that the Internet lets women and other groups see how much some people really hate us.

(3) Interesting and horrifying how quickly it all comes back to rape time after time. There are also a fair few people complaining that the clip doesn't show the "b*tch" actually getting slapped and posted by people who were clearly looking for pornography. If anyone ever tells you we don't live in a "rape culture" world - show them this. It's frightening but it does highlight the need for action to bring about dramatic change.

And let me add one very important thing about the clip. The show has tagged me as "National Secular Society" IN ERROR. I am a member, which clearly they have in their notes somewhere, but I'm not in any way a spokesperson for them... I'm just a spokesperson for me in the clip.

Memorandum to journalists about social media

Hello all. Sorry for the round-robin message, I know it's only a small number of you who are letting the others down but I really think I need to have a word here.

It's about social media. Yes Twitter, Facebook and blogs are exciting new platforms for communication and sharing of information. We can certainly look at them and see what subjects people are discussing. However what we can't do is this: Take one or two specific quotes from members of the public on Twitter, Facebook or a blog and act like that's the nation's opinion.

Let me show you what I mean.

Example 1: An article about Adam Ramsay in the Daily Mail.

"Last night, several messages were posted under Ramsay’s blog by readers mocking his background. One of them pretended to be his mother, writing: ‘Adam darling, We’ve got no caviar left and the staff have taken the day orf... please be a dear and pick some beluga up when you and your Uni chums pop into Fortnums... Mwah, mwah, Mumsy.’"

Stop press! SEVERAL messages? Really so lets say "at least three". Clearly what Ramsay was doing (he was alleged to have been something to do with UK Uncut) was attracting a lot of attention. Lets assume 20,000 people heard of him and his blog. And lets assume five of them wrote something "mocking his background" (I did have a look at the time, that's about right). That would be one in 4,000 people. I'm pretty sure that one in 4,000 people in this country has written to Points of View because they're "morally outraged" by Blue Peter. And at least two in 4,000 go to the pub and try to convince their friends that Elvis is alive and works in Lidl. It's not a measure of national opinion, it's a measure of the random opinions of a tiny handful of people. It hugely smacks of "I've run out of arguments to support my stupid point" and also rather of "I know I'll get my teenage nephew to write something on Twitter and then quote him in the national press".

Example 2: The Sun chucking its toys out of the pram on the proposed Lib Dem Page 3 ban.

"The ploy sparked a wave of fury on Twitter, with one user saying: 'A country full of problems and in desperate need of solutions, and the Lib Dems are voting on banning Page 3. Sheesh!'"

They have exactly one example of this "wave of fury" and it's not even from someone who says they disagree with the measure - its from someone who thinks it shouldn't be a priority. And where is this "wave" really? Twitter uses hashtags (where you write the theme of a comment in the form #Page3 so people can search for it) to allow you to see who else out of their 100 million global users is talking about a particular subject. At noon today I was interviewed on the subject by Wendy Austin from BBC Ulster. She put a post up on Twitter asking people to contact her show with their opinions. That was 14 hours ago and there have been 10 comments about #Page3 since - none of them really expressing "fury". So that's less than one comment per hour from 100 million users! The fairer news story would be to say "there wasn't much reaction on Twitter, most people were still talking about Ashton Kutcher".

Quoting Twitter, Facebook, blogs and social media on news stories is stupid and lazy. It's fair enough to quote a person who is directly linked to the news story. And it's fair enough to discuss overall trends, what were the top subjects discussed or the results of a fairly-conducted, large sample size survey. It's even, arguably, fair enough to publish a selection of responses to a particular issue from social networking sites.

But to quote "a Twitter user" or "a person who made a blog comment" is as ridiculous as saying "a man on the 24 bus said he thought the war in Iraq was a good idea" and "a woman in a blue cardigan in York agreed". It's not news, its propaganda. Stop it.

Thanks very much for your time. All carry on now.

Women and the Internet

In 1970 Germaine Greer wrote "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them". Well on behalf of women everywhere I'd like to say a big thank you to the internet for making it abundantly clear.

A couple of days ago the popular and deeply talented comedienne Shappi Khorsandi tweeted "I never understand why people get so cross if they don't like a comedian. I never lose sleep over bands I'm not in to.". It doesn't take much research to figure out she's referring to the reaction she gets on the internet. And I should know because my work gets exactly the same reaction. Flicking through our videos on YouTube, or those of any female act, there are stacks of nasty comments and repeated evidence of comments which have been removed. I know at least once a week I take such remarks down from the videos I have posted myself, footage others have taken of me I just have to leave. Some are just straight attacks on our work, some criticise our appearance and some attack all women in comedy.

In some ways it makes no sense that people who purport to hate my work have taken the time to watch so much of it. If I see internet videos that aren't to my liking, I don't even finish watching them, I look up something else. And even the notion of making negative comments about comedy is odd. Clearly comedy is subjective, what makes you laugh varies from person to person. Because something doesn't make me laugh doesn't mean it's "not funny", it means it's not the sort of comedy I want to watch. So I don't.

But of course what's going on is not odd at all - it's just the joy of internet anonymity letting these men express the hatred Greer knew all about 40 years ago. Why should Shappi's, or my appearance even be relevant? Only if you think that as women it is somehow our job to be sexually attractive to all men at all times. Plus the comments so often come down to an issue of overt misogyny. "Women aren't funny", which makes as much sense as "men can't sing" or "gay people make bad dentists".

And I would add - before anyone suggests that it's just a random internet abuse issue - that my husband (a less experienced comic than me) gets no abuse whatsoever. He has never had a nasty comment added to a video or online review of him.

Most of these sites are moderated in some way but no-one seems to take down overtly misogynist remarks. And they appear on the same review sites that promoters check before deciding who to book for their shows. And below the video links I want to send out as showreels to people looking for acts. I'd like to imagine good promoters can see past this sort of thing but at a subconscious level all that negativity has to seep in.

And much as I'd like to claim it doesn't - it affects me too. It erodes my confidence. And it eats up my time dealing with it, deleting comments and getting myself back into a frame of mind where I can work.

Of course all those negative effects work the other way too, so if you've got a few minutes to yourself here's an idea for a random act of feminism - look up half a dozen female acts on YouTube or Chortle and say something nice! You might even enjoy the videos...

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...!

In Defence Of The Blogosphere

I am not interested in William Hague's sexual orientation. Although I am a bit disgusted that in all the frantic denials of having ever had a gay relationship he has never once stopped to point out that there is nothing shameful about it if he had. Denying that he's been unfaithful to his wife might be important to her. Denying that he's ever had "improper" relations with another man implies there's something "improper" about gay relationships. Which there ain't by the way.

But this made me laugh out loud... Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticising the blogosphere in general for "breaking" this story. Yes indeed Ms Alibhai-Brown, we in the blogosphere invented the unsanctimonious outing of people in the public eye. The bloggers invented political sex scandals. No really.

So untrue is that that The Independent itself only a few months ago actually published an online photo-gallery of the history of political scandals... and guess what? Some of them pre-date the blogosphere.

The truth is if the press was doing it's job, the bloggers wouldn't be nearly so important, but as long as the papers cut and paste press releases and leave the real news aside, we need the blogs. And if once in a while they believe some false hype or chase a metaphorical wild goose, that's a reasonable side effect. And no-one would have bothered about the story if it hadn't been picked up by the "proper" press, particularly the likes of Alibhai-Brown.

Some Deeply Surprising Facts

Hello Trolls,

How lovely to hear from you. Here's some advice for trolling on the Cru-blog:

1) The blog is now moderated. I used to have a policy of letting you all post comments at will on the basis that you would eventually say something stupid enough to discredit yourself and also because I figured that in answering your "points" hopefully I was helping others out there understand the issues more clearly and deal with people like you they might be unfortunate enough to meet in real life. But of course one of you had to take it "too far" and start being extremely rude and vulgar about not just me but other people. You have only spoiled it for yourselves. But just to clarify - there is no point posting the same obnoxious comment over and over again. No, your "send" button is not broken - you are a fuckwit.

2) No I am not impinging on your right to "free speech". This is my blog. You may write whatever you wish on YOUR BLOG. I reserve my right not to bother reading it.

3) In answer to your charming questions: Yes my sex life is going very well thanks and no it is not limited to the visually impaired. You may move along now.

Love Cru

My Blog, My Rules

Right - I am sorry it has come to this but I am now switching ON comment moderation so your comments will not appear on my blog until I have read them. I've resisted doing this for a long time because I find most comments are reasonable and considered, the occassional one or two that weren't I would delete when I noticed them.

This last week I did exactly that - I spotted a comment I was not prepared to leave up and I took it down. Suddenly I had a barrage of comments demanding to know why I had removed it, including from people who I had specifically asked not to comment on my blog any more. Among the wilder accusations were that I was failing to provide an "open forum" and "What is the point of having a blog in which only your views can be aired?". Well the simple answer is - it's my blog - the whole point of it is that my views can be aired. Many blogs don't allow comments at all and even more moderate comments as I'm going to. Anyone can have a blog - go right ahead, set your own up and fill it with whatever the hell piffle you like.

I often leave up comments that I disagree with. I often respond to points made. I plan to continue to allow comments of all kinds. However the following will not be allowed - so you know:

1) Offensive remarks about specific people/groups. This includes sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and classism and nasty unjustified personal attacks on individuals or organisations. Obviously.

2) Lies and distortions.

3) De-railing. If I'm writing about violence against women and you want to know why I haven't mentioned violence against men I can only say THE CLUE WAS IN THE TITLE! Why not ring up the cats protection league and demand to know why they don't help dogs? I have better things to do.

4) Blatant attempts at advertising (unless it's for cool stuff - e.g. new ace feminist blogs or events - that I am happy to promote).

5) Whatever the hell else shows up that I don't want to publish. For instance totally reasonable considered intelligent comments from people who I have asked not to comment here.

So my apologies to all my commenters who want to say reasonable things. I will try to approve your remarks as quickly as I can. Perhaps in a few months I will be able to remove this restriction if it scares away those who are causing the problem. Thanks!

Twittering Twits

Re-posted from the F-Word, as explained elsewhere.

Difficult to know how much to read into a few (hundred) posts on twitter. First I should briefly explain a concept to unfamiliar readers:

Members of Twitter (and there are loads) post up short messages about themselves or general stuff which appear next to their name. My name on the system is "Cruella1" so for instance I might "tweet" about what I'm doing:

(1) Cruella1 has just finished her lunch and is thinking about going to the park.

or about something I'm trying to draw attention to

(2) Cruella1 has just written a blog post http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/ #feminism

or I might reply to someone else's Tweet

(3) Cruella1 @jester thanks for the advice!

or I might join in a discussion already happening on Twitter

(4) Cruella1 #cornypickuplines do you work in subway? cos you've got me a foot long...

Now I need to explain a bit of etiquette - the @jester in (3) means I'm talking to someone (jester - that's Jess McCabe who edits The F-Word), and the #feminism in (2) and #cornypickuplines (4) are basically search terms. So I know people will go on Twitter looking for info about feminism and I want to direct them to my blog via (2). Also I notice other people I know are having a general chat about corny pick-up lines and I want to join in (4). You can click on these #-terms to see all "tweets" that mention them.

Anyway right now there is very popular #-search term with hundreds of "tweets" including it called #liesgirlstell. And I guess I should warn you that some of these comments might be triggering for some people. I won't name and shame who made these "tweets" but I was quite shocked at the level of disdain and hatred for women revealed...

#liesgirlstell: I'm not a slut, I juss like sex
#liesgirlstell "I don't f*ck on the first date"
#liesgirlstell im a virgin
#liesgirlstell I am low maintenance
#liesgirlstell I didn't get pregnant so you would marry me
#liesgirlstell "I'm strippin to pay for college" (b!tch you are 49!! Your turn is OVER!)
#liesgirlstell "i'm on my period"
#liesgirlstell i am capable of having an intellegent conversation with another human being
#liesgirlstell "i dont want your money"
#liesgirlstell I'm not a hoe
#liesgirlstell IVE NEVER DONE IT TRU THE ASS
#liesgirlstell Kobe raped me.

I don't know what I'm more horrified by - is it:

1) The fact that there are thousands of people happily joining in this debate as though it's normal and funny to make jokes about women being prone to dishonesty (look at all the politicians, most men, lying about everything from war to duck islands!),
2) The repeated suggestion that women who have and enjoy sex are bad/evil/disgusting
3) That bizarre comment in the middle about women not being able to hold intelligent conversations where the author himself can't even spell "intelligent"...!
or
4) The disgusting rape denier at the end.

But suffice as to say sadly that is the world we all live in. And to think some people think we don't need feminism!

Links Updating!

I notice a few blogs who have added me to their blog-roll. Thanks if that's you. I try to link back if your blog looks interesting but inevitably I miss some. So this is an open post - put your link up if you'd like to be in my blogroll and I'll have a look.

Letter To Chris Brown

While I am in something of a link-frenzy here is - wait for it - a brilliant article by a man. Yes I know! And it's not even Johann Hari.

And A Little More Ammo

For the argument Jean Kilbourne is making in the video here. A great blog post from The Illusionists.

A Special Message For Some Of My Regular Commenters

...you know who you are. Not just here but all over the feminist (and indeed lots of other areas of the) blogosphere. Before you bother wading in with no real points whatsoever but still totally certain that I don't know what I'm talking about why not read this!!

Spot The Class-A Arsehole

It won't take long. In the second sentence he 'hilariously' jokes "calm down feminists..." and then a few paragraphs later we are reading "The second time I married, it was mainly to avoid AIDS.". Yes really - he wrote that and they printed it with the nonchalance of a light-hearted celebrity fluff piece. And now sports...

Internet Find Of The Day

Interesting post on murder, feminism and the internet...

Cheers Ada

By the way interestingly today is Ada Lovelace Day - a day assigned to celebrate women in technology - i.e. bloggerettes like me! You can read about her achievements at the link above. She's pictured left interestingly in much the same outfit I like to wear while blogging.

Quick Link: Alpha Female

This is from back in December but I thought it was interesting - a discussion of the media paranoia about so-called "Alpha Females". It rang a bell with me because Chortle (one of the biggest comedy websites around) reviewed me last year when I was in the Hackney Empire final and said "she was funny ... [but] ... I sympathised with the underdog rather than Kate’s alpha female". I wonder how much criticism a confident male performer like Chris Rock or Al Murray gets for being an "Alpha Male"? Answers on a miniature postcard please.

Having a Hoot

Nikolai Grushevski is either a nutter trying to grab five minutes of fame or he might just be the most exciting new feminist on the block. He's taking Hooter's - the restaurant chain that serves objectification of women as well as disgusting food - to court because they won't give him a job.

I guess I've wondered several times whether Hooter's couldn't be effectively brought down from the inside by a series of cases like these. Would be really interesting to see if older women or disabled women could also sue over the restrictive employment policy.

Sadly we live in a culture where misogyny is so rife that even supposedly young and trendy, right-on news sources like Current TV where I found this article feel the need to add remarks like this "Thankfully, the lawsuit says that Grushevski isn't trying to stop the restaurant from hiring Hooters Girls." So don't worry, even if he wins you'll still be able to eat gross food and stare at women in tight T-shirts and tiny shorts.

And of course the comments are even worse: one says "no dude wants to sit down expecting a hot chick to come up and then get a dude waiter at a suggestively-themed restaurant". Which may be true but I can think of at least one "hot chick" - me - who would really love to be a fly on the wall and watch that scene! Go Nikolai!