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?

Bread and Circuses

So Guy Laliberte, the founder of Cirque du Soleil is going to go to the International Space Station as a space tourist. That I can live with. He's going to do a show about it too. Again I get it. What I don't get is the bit where he says he's doing it to raise awareness about the problems of access to clean water for people worldwide.

Is this the ultimate expression of the now exhausted theme of "going on holiday for charity"? In recent years the notion of people asking you to donate money so they can walk the Inca Trail or cycle the French Alps in aid of charity has become increasingly commonplace. And I'm always wondering exactly how much of the money is going to the charity and how much is paying for the trip.

But of course whatever the amount spent on grappling hooks and sun cream, if money is going to good causes that otherwise wouldn't you can't really knock it. But if it would raise more money to do something a little less close to the tropics, then at least admit that and don't go round acting like you've just grown a halo!

I should justify myself a bit here. I've done the London Marathon and the Caledonian Challenge for charity but in both cases I made a contribution myself to cover the cost of entry (not that much) and all that stuff so that money I got sponsored all went to the actual causes. Also in both cases I freely admit I was doing it because I wanted to and the only way I could get a place was to do it for charity.

We also have a fair few charity and fundraiser events at Soho Comedy Club and when we do we make sure that all the money goes to the causes. We don't charge for the room, the acts perform for free and flyerers and doorstaff always work for free those nights. In fact the only thing we can't recoup for the cause is the booking fee that PayPal charges (usually 9%). Annoyingly they have a function to reduce (but not eliminate) the fee for charities but you have to jump through hoops to get it and you have to be a fully registered charity, not just a good cause or an NGO, etc.

I don't want to sound like I'm against good causes and fundraising - I think it's vital and there should be more of it. But at the same time the word "charity" also doesn't mean "you can't criticise me". So when I read things like this dreadful story about topless models walking through Manchester in aid of "Support Our Soldiers" I totally don't get it. Why can't we support our soldiers without also supporting misogyny? And what about our female soldiers and our gay soldiers and our soldiers who for cultural or religious reasons don't approve of topless modelling?

This also goes for all the half naked calendars in aid of charity too - you know who you are. If you want to do something in aid of charity - do something positive.

Mr Laliberte's trip into space is costing £22m. I think that money would go a long way to giving people around the world access to clean water. Take a holiday if you want mate but don't just do something totally frivolous that you want to do and then pretend to me that you're doing this for the greater good. Believe me people dying from having to drink dirty water will not be looking up at the International Space Station going "thanks Guy"!

Following The Story

What a stupid NYT headline today! Happily Married, but still a Stalker's Perfect Target. Err, don't you get it - stalking is a crime, a crime of harassment and intimidation. It is not an expression of love. No-one changes their mind about stalking because their victim is married.

It's also a crime in which the majority of perpetrators are male and victims female. The world does not need a remake of Fatal Attraction, the first one was misogynist enough.

Dominic Lawson: Misogynist

Yesterday there was an incident involving The Independent and the World-Cup-winning England Women's Cricket team. They hinted with a cover photo and an article from Andy Burnham that they felt women's sport deserved greater coverage, then in their sports section - and on their website - totally buried the coverage of the women's cricket and had no coverage of any other women's sport. Today they appear to have explained their mixed-up messages with a full-page opinion piece, this time with a full-size front-of-website link, by Dominic Lawson lovingly titled "Well done our women cricketers. Just don't ask me to watch them."

In the piece he explains - or tries to - why no-one on earth actually wants to watch women's sport. His point - as far as I understand it - is that men's sport is the only sport we all want to watch because it represents the pinnacle of human achievement. The fastest runners, the highest jumpers and the longest throwers are all men. And this, he would have us believe, explains why no-one wants to see women's sports, or - for bonus uncool points - the special olympics.

This misses a few big points. Firstly it forgets that more than half of the population is women, maybe women are more interested in the greatest achievements of their own kind. And maybe for someone with a disability it's a little more inspiring to see what someone with a similar disability can achieve, rather than an able-bodied person.

Secondly if we are really only interested in the fastest, highest, furthest then no-one would go to second division football matches. Yet those matches get much better numbers than most women's games at every level. On top of this we would all watch only the wheelchair marathon. They finish way faster than the able-bodied men. Or for that matter - we'd just watch the motor racing, that is loads faster. Or if you want to insist on racing without mechanical intervention then why isn't there an Olympic competition for cheetahs? They can sure move. No matter how hard you train Dominic, the England Women's Cricket team could whoop your ass and the only way you could fail to be impressed by their speed, skill and teamwork is if you had already decided not to be in your miserable closed misogynist mind.

Thirdly you only need to wander along to see your local school sports day to see that our enjoyment of sports has a lot less to do with the pinnacle of human achievement than it does to do with cheering on those we perceive as "our team". The joy experienced by her family, neighbours and friends when little Jessica comes 19th out of 19 in the sack race far exceeds anything Dominic Lawson has felt watching men's cricket. If the media gave greater coverage to women's sport we would all feel more connected to the players and hence more invested in their victory. We'd maybe know that one of them was from our area. We'd have seen them on TV talking about their recent injury and recovery and we'd be rooting for them to be picked for the squad for the final.

Fourthly watching sport is something that people do for fun. Whether live or on TV it is the experience as a whole that is enjoyable. I've been to the Oval a couple of years ago to watch a (men's) match and I can report with some conviction that most people spent most of the time either eating or drinking. The fun of watching these sports is greatly enhanced by a bigger crowd, which means more atmosphere, more sense of being part of a community of fans and a better range of food and drink facilities. Again more media coverage would have a big impact.

Finally we might accept that Lawson is some sort of weird freaky intellectual anomaly for whom watching sport is a purely scientific intellectual activity where he derives pleasure purely from calibrating in his own mind the limits of the male able-bodied human condition. But then he says this...

"It was with the greatest difficulty that the world's strongest woman chess player, the Hungarian Judit Polgar, was able to persuade the sport's authorities that she should compete only against the men, rather than other women. Yet none of her fellow women players have followed her example, presumably judging that they have a better chance of becoming a "world champion" if they limit the competition to members of their own sex."

The fact that other women have not moved into men's chess might also be because when Judit Polgar did so it was, by your own admission idiot-boy, "with the greatest difficulty".

The world of sport is notoriously sexist, even women looking to become managers or officials or coaches fight a continuous uphill battle to be taken seriously in men's sport while men wanting to take those roles on in the women's game are welcomed with open arms. Those women who do prove themselves as talented as their male counterparts are routinely denied admission to men's teams, even when they could make substantially more money joining the men's team. Funding for women's sports at every level is woefully inadequate. While top-level male athletes earn thousands every week the women in the equivalent teams are likely to be working full time to make ends meet and trying to fit their training around that.

Lest we fear that Lawson's remarks should show him up as prejudiced against those with special needs (clearly it's a-OK if we think he's misogynist) he pulls this winner out of the bag "I too have a child with Down syndrome". Seriously. In next week's column "My hairdresser's gay, so I can't be a homophobe...". Anyway his point is that his daughter's school sports day (by inference an event of similar national importance to England's women winning the World Cup) shouldn't be given extensive media airing.

Given the level of misogyny holding women back at every level of every sport out there, I'm inclined to think - nor should Lawson's noxious remarks.

BBC Rethink Due

In the light of the "scandal" about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross as well as the noxious remarks made by Jeremy Clarkson - who we already don't like - on his show it seems a lot of the papers are calling for a rethink on the way the BBC is funded.

I disagree. I don't think it is the way that the BBC is funded that causes these problems. I think other stations have just as much rampant misogyny and tasteless jokes as the BBC. In fact the way the BBC is funded makes it more accountable to the public than other stations. Remember while Brand is no longer working at the BBC, he still has a show on Channel Four.

I think instead we should be asking - why is the BBC trying to compete with commercial channels? The whole point of the BBC is that it's different to commercial channels and should be offering something to the public which commercial channels cannot offer because of the way THEY'RE funded.

The BBC doesn't need to have the best ratings. There's no need for the BBC to put on these "laddish" shows - like Top Gear and Jonathan Ross - in order to win viewers. They should instead focus on offering more quality cultural shows, more quality documentaries. And as far as entertainment, they should be nurturing new talent, not paying through the nose for established "talent".

Jonathan Ross, we are told, is on £6m a year. For that money you could hire 200 new up and coming writers, actors, performers, comics, singers, dancers, entertainers, directors, etc. I'm thinking a basic £20,000 salary plus £10,000 towards the cost of putting together the show they want to make. Is there anyone in the universe who really thinks the output of such a massive-scale project would be less interesting than yet another middle-aged straight white bloke sat behind a desk asking actresses to describe what it was like working with Daniel Craig...? Of course not.

Now of course I'm biased, I don't seem to have my own TV show yet (although I was on BBC London again yesterday trying to explain to that creep Simon Warr why lap-dancing clubs shouldn't be licensed like cafes). But then again I guess that also makes me pretty well qualified to say that there is a lot of talent out there on the comedy circuit and the acting circuit and in terms of writers and directors and producers that would really benefit from the opportunity to complete their projects.

We love the BBC when it finds new talent and new ideas for us - whether it's The Office or Teletubbies but no-one cares whether they watch Jonathan Ross on the BBC or on ITV or Channel Four. Let the commercial channels pay the seven-figure salaries if these people are really worth it and lets have the BBC be about something different, something that rejects the prevailing misogynist climate and focusses on education, culture and new talent.

A Tale of Three Articles

I spent a lot of time on the bus yesterday and as I didn't have a book with me I picked up the free newspapers. I guess I should have known better. Three stories left me banging my head against the windows/hand rails/emergency exit door. Firstly the amazing case of the disappearing wife-killer...
Here we have a victim and a "cause" in the headline but no perpetrator. What happened to "man kills wife"? Or even "Wife-killer claims...". Phrasing it that way is step one on a slippery slope to victim-blaming. Also - is anyone else sensing that contrary to the spirit of the headline "not being a virgin" isn't actually a legitimate reason for murder? I know there are quote marks round it, but that IS the headline and that appears to be the reason for publishing the story - to let people know that for some at least that is a reasonable thing to do. But most importantly - there is a real story here, totally buried. The daughter of the couple concerned had asked the clinic where the murderer was being treated for depression to keep him in. And they refused, discharged him, and he went on to murder his wife and then commit suicide. The story should be about NHS provision of mental health care for people at risk. Instead it reads like a warning of retribution to women planning to marry in white!

Secondly - justification for the above behaviour from the animal world...You should be able to read the article by just clicking on it. Anyway it's about a probably rather interesting subject - the sex life of the cricket. Apparently scientists with too much time on their hands (presumably AIDS and cancer have already been cured) have discovered the male crickets smell out females who have mated less with other males and allocate more sperm to them. They're wrong (according to Mr Cru) when they say this is the first time a species has been discovered to sniff out and react to competitors sperm, but let's overlook that. The thing is the whole set up of the article seems to be saying that this applies to humans and justifies a social revulsion of promiscuous women.

The opening paragraph explains that human women are viewed as "sluts" if they sleep around, "whereas men doing the same are hailed as studs". This may be true in their strange out-of-date world but in mine women who sleep around are defiant feminist mavericks and men who sleep around are just assholes... Then the article explains "now it seems this type of chauvinism may serve an evolutionary purpose - in crickets anyway".

Except that (a) The actual report in no way suggests that the findings have any relevance to human reproductive strategies. (b) In terms of sperm distribution it would make sense for humans to have exactly the opposite of the cricket pattern. Human females can produce at most around one infant per year so for a woman with only one partner there is no great urgency to impregnation - one sperm will do the job and if the man is unsuccessful this month, he can try again next month. Whereas a woman with many partners is likely to be pregnant soon, so there is an incentive to provide as much sperm as possible as quickly as possible - so more frequent sex and more sperm each time. Mr Cru tells me he has read studies suggesting that this happens. (c) A biological reaction does not always come with a corresponding social reaction. Men may subconsciously seek out fertile women based on smell and hip shape but I've never found "I'm not on the pill and I don't use condoms" works as a chat-up line. Guys are not consciously trying to help their sperm out. And (d) So what! So what if men's sperm count were to react to the smell of other men's sperm? Does that justify treating promiscuous women as second class citizens? And why should women be judged on the basis of the reaction they engender in men? Lets measure women by who's the smartest and who's the best at singing, weight-lifting and playing the didgeridoo (not all at the same time)!

Thirdly - over in the London Paper. And this one makes me the angriest (those of a sensitive disposition please do not read on)...
The crime itself is so horrible, it's hard to discuss other aspects of it. A mentally disabled woman gang-raped by ten men, who then burned her with caustic soda. And by the way this was on page four - the front page was reserved for "Madonna Gets Divorced". The prosecutor - Rosina Cottage - who is supposed to be representing the interests of the victim is (apparently) saying the victim "may have been raped because she had recently slept with three men known to the gang". And the paper is copying that verbatim as though it were a reasonable thing to say. Now there is an issue already about how exactly a 16-year-old with a mental age of eight was able to give meaningful consent to the three men listed. And of course the other issue is how anyone could dare to imply that she brought the gang-rape or the agonising assault upon herself.

When are these awful sub-gutter press publications going to understand that a woman who chooses to have sex outside of marriage does not deserve scorn, hatred, gang-rape, serious assault or murder? When we see these sorts of attitudes in other parts of the world we react with quite justified disgust, but every day free copies of these hate-promoting, murder-and-rape-justifying newspapers are handed out to thousands of Londoners. Anyone want to go picket something? Let me know, I'm there!

How NOT To Write An Article About Women's Lifestyles

First a warning: if you're reading this while having a bowl of breakfast cereal - finish eating before you click the link, otherwise you're going to be spending the next 20 minutes cleaning half-chewed oats and sultanas of your computer monitor. I hardly need to mention which paper is behind this piece from Anna Pasternak.

This is, by the way, a really long one. I couldn't decide which parts of the article deserved derision the most so I did it all line-by-line savouring it as I went... enjoy!

"Recently, the media has been awash with articles suggesting that career women are to relationships what garlic is to a vampire - the kiss of death."

...and when we say the media, we mean the Daily Mail don't we - I haven't seen any such articles in my regular subscription to BUST.

"We're unable to sustain meaningful unions, apparently, because men are intimidated by our intellect, threatened by our higher earning potential and turned off by our controlling, capable, yet powerful personalities."

We? Speak for yourself, myself and lots of my smart female friends are having pretty great relationships thanks. And any guy intimidated by my intellect probably isn't my type anyway. I prefer guys without screwed up power complexes.

"While this has been my personal experience - I was left by the father of my daughter (now nearly five) three years ago when I was the higher earner - I think that the issue goes far deeper."

No doubt you remember him running out the door screaming "Don't earn any more money, I can't stand money, all those ghastly holidays and expensive restaurants!"

"It is more psychological than sociological."

Uh oh, Anna, using big words again - I can hear the sound of a forest of penises drooping now...

"The problem, I believe, is not so much with career women per se, but that women are increasingly out of balance with themselves and, therefore, with men. I know I am."

Hold on the first bit was a huge leap of assuming there is a problem. Now we're on to massive leap number two - assuming that women are at fault. Maybe the somewhat mythical problem is with modern guys, maybe they need to get over themselves and realise women are entitled to careers and to power.

"In the past three years of being single, I have been on a handful of dates."

That would make you the expert then. Last time I was single I slept around like I was in training for the Olympic shag-a-thon so really I think you'll find I'm the expert on men in town (actually in most towns!!).

"Two years ago I went to dinner with a doctor who told me that I 'wasn't in touch with my femininity' as I 'didn't flirt or wear much make-up'."

I've been on dates like that - it's up to you, you can just walk out or if you prefer you can chuck your red wine on his white shirt and then walk out - your call. Take the advice to heart though - men love women who flirt continuously and wear a ton of make-up...

"His diagnosis also included the undeniable fact that I was in 'acute need of affection'."

Sounds really patronising. But I did warn you to leave the date before it came to this.

"The last straw came four months ago when I had dinner with a successful, high-profile entrepreneur who literally screamed at me that I was 'so in control it was scary' - although he did backtrack when I dropped my head towards my plate and started sobbing."

I'm getting this sense that every guy you date you have to tell me how successful their career is. A doctor, a SUCCESSFUL entrepreneur,... maybe it's you who has the bee in their bonnet about dating guys who are more successful and higher earners than you. Maybe that's why you get so few dates. How about pitching for smart, interesting and in a job they enjoy. And what is so scary about being "in control"? Surely being out of control is more of a date-burner? Like, erm, bursting in to tears. And if you're on a date and he's screaming at you - unless it's "get out the way there's a car coming" - leave, just leave, he's not behaving appropriately, you can do better than this.

"As well as being hurt, I was shocked and outraged. What, I thought, had become of modern man's chivalry? But later, I grudgingly reasoned, maybe he had a point - what had become of my femininity?"

Easy mistake to make - he didn't have a point, he was an arsehole. Date someone sympathetic and kind next time.

"The difficulty for many of today's career women is that in order to compete with men, we've morphed into them."

We've morphed in to men? Neat trick. Can we please have equal pay now then?

"We've worked ourselves half to death in order to conquer the career ladder, yet in the process we've trampled our core femininity into the ground."

If women have a harder time than men conquering the career ladder, we need urgent equality legislation to address that. And what core femininity? Hoovering? Ironing? Cleaning floors? Having no money? What did we miss out on? And don't pretend that women working is a new thing. Working class women have worked for years out of necessity. It's is a tiny minority of who haven't worked at all and a tiny minority who have the resources available to them to be able to quit work if they want to.

"De-feminising: Juggling work, children and all of life's trimmings can leave a woman little time for herself"

How is raising children de-feminising? Surely that's one of the most "feminine" things one can do, if you happen to be the sort of person who cares about "feminine" which I really don't. And I hate that word "juggling" - it really implies you're not doing any of those jobs very well. But many women are brilliant at their work and brilliant with their families. Where are the guys "juggling" accountancy, golf and looking awkwardly round a fancy restaurant while Anna Pasternak blubbs into her creme brulee!

"These days, as a single parent and sole breadwinner, I often feel more masculine than feminine."

There is no doubt that being a single parent is hard work, hard work that is mostly done by women. What is "masculine" about being a single parent? And what does it mean to feel masculine? I don't understand what that feeling is. Everything I feel is feminine by definition because I feel it and I have a cunt.

"Working full-time, making every decision, paying every bill, driving myself everywhere, booking tickets for holidays, lugging the Christmas tree in - it's all completely de-feminising."

So feminine would be not working, not making decisions, not being able to go where you want in the car or on holiday and not doing any heavy lifting. I'm not much intot he heavy lifting part, but you can usually get the person at the shop to help you, otherwise, I'll take de-feminising any day if it means I have control over my own life.

"My friend Sophie, 46, who runs her own design company and is a single mother to two boys aged nine and 11, agrees. She has been single for six years, since her husband left her for another woman. Blonde, attractive and kind, she hasn't been on a date since he walked out. 'I have absolutely no idea how to be a woman any more,' she says. 'Because I run my business, my home and make all the decisions about the boys, I feel totally unfeminine. 'I'm terrified of dating as I have no idea how to behave. 'I would love a partner but I feel unattractive, untrusting, unsexy and completely alone.'"

We're back to the "proof by single case study" argument. How convenient that "Sophie" got interviewed rather than, err, me. Which would have changed the nature of the story somewhat.

"That, of course, is the crux for many of us. We honestly believed that if we worked hard, we could have it all and more. Yet so many of us have ended up lonely, exhausted and broken-hearted, with far less of what we bargained for."

Yes despite the victories of the women's movement the work environment can still be tough for women, especially those with children. We have a long way to go. Men with children have it much easier, lets keep fighting til we get there too. And I'd rather be "lonely" (which I'm not) than in a relationship with one of those scumbags you mentioned on your dating stories.

"According to a Mintel report, 39 per cent of the adult population is single - that is 19 million people - and this is expected to rise to 41 per cent by 2011. Clearly, men and women are increasingly out of sync, and the key could be in learning to re-balance ourselves as women and reclaim our essential softness."

So to re-iterate - there's a problem with male-female relationships ... it must be women's fault.

"So I embarked on a psychological make-over to see if I could fast-track my femininity."

Can anyone else smell bullshit around here?

"First, consultant stylist Kira Jolliffe, who runs a company called Wardrobe Woman, appraised my closet."

That would be the problem - working too hard, too much to do at home? Get some new clothes!

"Once she got over the shock of how few clothes I have, she immediately sussed that I 'compartmentalise' my wardrobe. I live in jeans and shirts to write and do the school run, wear nicer tops to work meetings and have a couple of dresses for going out. But as I rarely go out, the more elegant clothes hardly get worn."

Doesn't everyone "compartmentalise" their wardrobe into smart and casual clothes? Otherwise you'd be going to proms in tracksuits and pub quizzes in an off-the-shoulder sequin number. And no, I don't wear my fanciest clothes very often either, that's because they're fancy clothes, for special events and occasions.

"She was correct in saying that I 'try to bring out my femininity for the occasion, as opposed to being feminine whatever the occasion'. My homework was to mix up my wardrobe, ditch my beloved chunky loafers and not save smarter clothes for some mythical special occasion. Femininity is about an internal experience with your self and clothes are about the external appearance,' she explained. 'But your clothes can be a tool to remind you of it; a way of tapping into the essence of who you are."

Never pay anyone to give you homework. That's just dumb. She's on your time - tell her to go find you some funky new clothes and if she refuses, withhold payment.

"'This has nothing to do with showing cleavage, for example, as there is nothing less sexy than enforced femininity. Femininity is all about being relaxed with yourself.' The problem for the career woman, according to Jolliffe, is that in the corporate world, women often use dress as an armour. They over-do their hair and make-up and then it becomes difficult to drop the armour, both sartorially and emotionally, for a date."

Earlier on the doctor she should have walked out on said she didn't wear enough make-up. Lesson - people are full of crap and will tell you anything to mean-spiritedly belittle you. You don't need these people in your life, throw them out, stick on a pair of patchwork dungarees and hang out with fun people.

"'But to equate femininity with florals and chiffon is childish and simplistic,' she cautioned. 'To suddenly wear floaty tops in the office smacks of trying too hard. 'WAGs, for example, are the antithesis of femininity because they reek of desperation. Artifice is the least sexy thing. Femininity is about authenticity.'"

WAGs - don't they wear fancy clothes and make-up all the time and for the most part not have day jobs, but just hang off the arm of their rich footballer hubbies? And WAGs by definition are not "lonely", they're women with partners. Very, very successful partners actually. Isn't that what you wanted?

"After a week of trying to up my feminine ante by wearing nicer shoes and adding jewellery or a pretty top, I understand why Jolliffe insisted: 'If it feels false, don't do it.' I spent the first day staggering around in a little skirt and heels, feeling ridiculous considering my life in the country."

So that was money well spent then? A week later you realised you looked ridiculous.

"'Sexiness is about getting the balance between the feminine and masculine with panache and confidence,' she had said."

Earlier it was all about being feminine, now it's about balance. Maybe sexiness is about just being yourself... Radical!!

"'It's about being soignee, not overdone. It's about being vulnerable and empathetic without being a victim."

Being a victim happens when someone else abuses you. You can be as vulnerable or as invulnerable as you like. Others make you a victim. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the millions of victims of abuse of all kinds around the world.

"'But you need to be realistic about your sexual identity because being sexy isn't necessarily being feminine."

I don't even know what she's on about any more. We're out of touch with our femininity, we're too controlling, we are de-feminised by child-raising and we should try to strike a balance between feminine, which isn't about floaty dresses and masculine, which is about having a job but that still isn't necessarily sexy and there's no point pretending, especially not if you've worn too much make up and now you're crying in a restaurant...? Is that it? Or is it more like this: ARE YOU A WOMAN? THEN THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

"'My advice to career women is to get into the habit of rubbing really expensive body cream in after a bath."

That's it? That was the point of the article? Moisturise?

"'It's amazing how being at one with your body puts you more instinctively in touch with your physical self-esteem.'"

I've found that going wing-walking, sky-diving, white-water rafting and then having a lot of really good sex can put me instinctively in touch with my physical self-esteem.

"The most valuable lesson I've gained has been to wear the clothes I enjoy, instead of saving them for best. Interestingly, I've had more comments on my appearance lately. I'm beginning to see that femininity is like a flower. Water it by paying attention and it will blossom."

So you wore nicer clothes and people noticed? Wow, maybe they have eyes...

"Next, I went to see renowned cosmetic surgeon Dr Jean-Louis Sebagh. Responsible for some of the most beautiful faces in the world, including Cindy Crawford, he is nicknamed the Botox King."

I think Cindy Crawford was ok-looking to start with. I don't think he can claim 100% of the credit.

"He had just returned from Russia, where he took part in a documentary on the subject of women and femininity. 'Russian women don't have that hardness of women in England and America,' he said. 'They get their men because they are extremely feminine and they listen to their men, yet they are not regressive. They have managed to hold on to an old-fashioned prettiness. 'In contrast, most of the women I see in Europe have become warriors. They are feisty and aggressive. 'They see relationships as business transactions, and they treat dating the same way they climb the corporate ladder, which makes them look and seem hard.'"

To paraphrase: YOU ARE UGLY, GET YOUR CHEQUEBOOK OUT.

"So can he help feminise a woman? 'My job is to make a woman look attractive to a man, but I cannot change her character. 'I can soften her looks, but I can't get a woman in touch with her soft side.'"

So the woman who was crying while a guys screamed at her on a first date in a restaurant needs to be softer? No, she needs to toughen up so she can walk out of abusive situations before they get to that stage.

"But how do we do that? 'I think that it is difficult to be a woman today,' he adds. 'Our society is quite harsh, and if you want to enjoy the materialism, then you lose your soul. 'If women can stay away from their corporate brains, then they can tune into this softness and core values.'"

Yes women, leave your brains behind, they're so unattractive. I think it takes real brains to find those core values. My core values right now for instance are telling me I shouldn't let idiots like Pasternak fill my head with nasty rubbish... mmm.

"Interestingly, Dr Sebagh says that his happiest clients are in their 50s and 60s. 'They are in touch with what matters in their life. They want men for companionship, not some lifestyle choice. 'They have souls and are far more authentic. 'Ironically, I believe that the credit crunch will force more women towards that authenticity because they will no longer be able to pretend that they are rich or successful."

Women under 50 apparently don't have souls. That's true though - and of course not do women over 50, no-one does, it's just brain chemistry creating the illusion of consciousness. Tune in next week for more philosophy from me and a guy with a big pointy needle of botulism aimed at your face. And what about women who are rich or successful? Will they still be able to pretend they are. I think women are pretty realistic about their careers and wealth.

"'How can you find yourself if you are fake and pretending to be someone that you are not?'"

Did he steal that line from the Scientologists?

"Some may consider Dr Sebagh's helping hand towards the appearance of softness fake in itself. However, when he administered Botox to me, the results were fantastic. Far from looking taut or frozen, I looked like me, only less worn and haggard. I look fresher - and because I look softer, I feel softer."

This directly contradicts Sebagh's statement that he could only change appearances.

"However, as both Kira Jolliffe and Dr Sebagh concur, the appearance of femininity is meaningless without the inner experience of it. Psychologist Jeff Allen, founder of Psychology of Vision, who coaches for relationship and business success, said: 'Independent women look like they are tough and have their acts together, which is appealing, but really they are well-defended because they don't want to get hurt or be vulnerable."

Fuck off. REALLY FUCK OFF. Independent women look like they are tough and have their acts together because ... they're tough and have their acts together. When you say a woman's strength is a sign of weakness, you are saying all women are weak whatever they appear to be.

"'But to be feminine, at some level you have got to be open. 'Being open allows connection, intuition and compassion-these are the feminine gifts.'"

In case you're wondering - the masculine gifts are better pay for work of equal value, the right to buy and sell women's bodies and the fun of peeing standing up.

"So how do we open ourselves up to our feminine energy, especially if we also want to survive career-wise in a male-dominated world?"

The answer isn't moisturising? I'm confused.

"'The feminine principle is about allowing things to unfold and happen, not always interfering."

So I should just shut my pretty little mouth up and put up with whatever anyone else decides should happen to me? Of course!

"'Career women think that they have to be in control to make it happen, but if they stop and tap into some kind of emotional intelligence and empathy, it makes them better problem-solvers.'"

No if you want to make things happen you DO have to be in control. No fucker is going to do it for you.

"According to Allen, you cannot have true success or a successful relationship without the balance of masculine and feminine: 'The reason career women feel lonely within themselves and often have a deep sense of failure is because they are not connected to their hearts."

But career women don't feel lonely, the only women I know who feel lonely are the ones stuck at home with the kids all day.

"'I'm not saying career women should chuck it all away, but if they connect to things that really matter to them, if they start to appreciate little beautiful things every day - literally stop and smell the roses - then what they will have to offer will be really quite profound.'"

How am I going to smell the roses when I am doused in expensive moisturiser?

"Allen also says we must stop competing with men, especially in relationships, as competition is totally destructive."

No-one should be competing in relationships, men or women. Everybody HAS to compete at work. Otherwise they'll end up out of a job.

"Researching this article, I feel that I have undergone a subtle yet seismic change."

Called botulism-in-the-face. Lovely.

"I can see that being feminine is about allowing oneself to yield more and control less."

It is? Then I do not want to be feminine. I want to chose for myself the stuff I want in my life and have the power to make it happen.

"Two nights ago, I went to dinner with a male friend, and for the first time in years I looked more feminine, acted more femininely and, crucially, felt more feminine. Not in a simpering way, but with a profound realisation that being able to show vulnerability isn't a female weakness but a sign of a woman's strength."

But as we discussed earlier feminine is not the same thing as sexy so presumably you didn't get a shag. And showing vulnerability is a sign of vulnerability, not that there's anything wrong with being vulnerable with your friends, if you trust them. Anyway, enough, what did this male friend do for a living and was he SUCCESSFUL? We need to be told.

Can you believe the editors didn't pick up ANY of those glaring misogynistic issues with the piece? It's almost as if they hate women too...

More Misogyny Vicar?

Money on the table please! Which will happen first? (1) The Church of England agreeing to appoint women bishops or (2) The whole institution being rendered obsolete because no-one actually goes or believes a word of their rubbish any more? In any case reading this article made me hopping mad. Did you know that the Church of England has paid out £27.4m to clergy who left the church because they were unhappy about having women priests? That's split between about 500 guys so that's about £50,000 each for refusing to work with women. And they're set to pay out loads more if and when they allow women to become bishops.

The group who are now opposing women becoming bishops describe themselves as "traditionalists" which is a very friendly-sounding way of describing misogynists. No doubt they consider the BNP to be "history fanatics". But more importantly why are they paying money to these people - what about compensating all the women over recent decades who've had their careers cut short by the sexist policies of the CofE?

Beached Whale

Talksport DJ James Whale has been sacked from his job for telling his listeners to vote for Boris Johnson. Apparently this constitutes a breach of the impartiality laws, who knew!?

Now I had the joy of working with Mr Whale a couple of years ago on a rather low budget panel show called Where In The World? which is still occasionally shown on SkyTV's Overseas Property channel. Two things I remember:

1) He asked a male comic who had been a panelist to come and be a guest on his radio show. He also invited me to do so - but only if I sat in the studio naked. I declined the offer.

2) During a break in filming someone brought out a tray of pastries and I grabbed donut and promptly spilled half the jam on the floor. When everyone realised what I'd done, I looked round and jokingly said to the other guests "sorry, does anyone have a tampon?" whereupon Whale launched in to a dramatic and extended rant about why-o-why do female comics always have to go on-and-on about their periods. This was the only remark I had made all day on the subject and - if he's bothered to come see it he'd know - my normal stage routine doesn't mention periods, period(!). And so what if it did - there are enough male acts out there talking about their dicks, about masturbating and defecating and urinating and all kinds of bodily functions - including for instance the rather poor masturbation joke that TalkSport use as an advertising slogan on the London taxis they sponsor (pictured). And what's so disgusting and unbearable about the totally natural process of menstruation? Unless of course you're a big misogynist.

I just hope that this move turns out to be a genuine death knell for his career, that he's not hired next week by an even bigger radio station.

(Reposted from the F-Word, photo by James Cridland)

Trouble in Comedy-Land

What a day - Mayday protests, an election and now I discover my own profession is being brought in to disrepute with those who care about women's rights (and lets hope that's pretty much everyone).

I'm talking about Johnny Vegas's behaviour towards an audience member during the show hosted by Stewart Lee at the Bloomsbury Theatre last Friday. I wasn't at the show myself so I can only comment on reports from those who were. One audience member James Williams, posting on the NOTBBC forums said the following - and I apologise for the long quote but it is quite hard to locate the original post on the forums so easier to read it here, also I don't want to quote pieces out of context without the disclaimers James himself includes:

"It was pretty contentious, so I'm slightly concerned about misrepresenting what happened if you didn't see it with your own eyes. I can't give you the complete context without recounting the whole set, and that would take forever and I'd probably get it wrong anyway. With that in mind, I'll try to explain what happened, but please take what I say with a pinch of salt and bear in mind that it's my intepretation.

Anyway, fairly early on in his set, he stated that he had no material, and that he was there mostly to get laid; it came across as quite possibly the truth spoken in jest. He started chatting up girls in the front row in an exaggerated, slightly cartoonish way, and quickly focused on a girl who was about 18 or 19 and was very obviously unnerved by it. To cut a long story short, he fairly insistently press-ganged her into getting carried onto stage by six members of the audience, while pretending to be dead. The premise was that they would then lay her down on the stage and he would bring her back to life with a kiss, and he warned her that there probably would be tongues. Honestly, you couldn't have found a nervier or more passive girl if you'd scoured all of London - she was like a rabbit in the headlights, but she was giggling and clearly somewhat enjoying the attention, so it just sort of went ahead without so much as a yes or no from her.

Once she was on the stage with the 6 'bearers' lined up at the back, he told her to lie very still and he turned back to the audience for a bit. She couldn't stop her nervous giggling, so he told her to shut up and look more dead or he'd kick her in the ribs. There was a menacing tone to his whole set, so I have to admit it didn't come across to me entirely as a joke. There wasn't anything funny about it anyway, unless you find that funny in itself.

Eventually he got down next to her and started stroking her breasts. That hadn't been mentioned before, and in the light of of the repeated refrain of "don't fucking move" it seemed like an abuse of power. She could have got up and walked away, but it would have taken a lot of courage to do that in front of a large room full of people, against the explicit orders of the famous guy with the microphone. Then he started running his hand up her leg and pulling her skirt up. Every time he looked up to address the audience, she'd reach down and pull her skirt back down, but he kept pulling it back up and ended up fingering her through her clothes for a second or two. Then he straddled her, completely pinning her to the floor, and kissed her quite full-on for quite a while. Then he asked if they could bring the curtain down, which they couldn't, so there was an awkward minute until Simon Munnery came out and brought down an improvised curtain consisting of his coat.

It was pretty hard to know what to make of the whole thing. I came away with the distinct impression that she was given very little chance to say no, if at all. The six 'bearers' made it even more grim, as it seemed their sole purpose was to make it look more acceptable - more endorsed, if you will. If it had just been him and her on the stage, I think it would have been rather harder for the half of the room who laughed through it to do so.

I say half, as my impression at the time was that people were going along with it and broadly enjoying the set, but on leaving, I heard nothing but "that was disgusting", "that was practically assault", and so on. My girlfriend was quite upset that she'd sat through it and not done anything, but I'm not sure what she could have done - walk out, I suppose. I was just fucking confused by trying to find a way in which it was acceptable. I don't like to think that any area is out-of-bounds for comedy, even if the comedy is lazy nonsense (which on this occasion, I think it mostly was) - but that really only applies when you're talking about words and ideas. Once you've got someone pinned down on the stage, it becomes a rather different matter."

Alternatively there is an eyewitness account of what happened on the Guardian blog website.

Two other eyewitness accounts, the reviews posted by the Evening Standard and Chortle make much less mention of the incident.

Now here are my points:

1) Why has no-one used the word "rape"? William's account says she was held down forcibly and Vegas was "fingering her through her clothes". If that's true the word for the situation is "rape". "Sexual assault" is a term for assault that does not include any penetration. Trying to soften the language used to describe violence against women is one of the all-too-common ways in which people trivialise and normalise it, we should fight it at every turn.

2) Why has no-one been to the police? Surely with several hundred eye witnesses, someone has the decency to contact the police.

3) Why is anyone asking what the boundaries of comedy are? Yes, it's ok for comics to say offensive things - that's because we all have freedom of speech. We all have the right to say offensive things if we want to. Personally I think we shouldn't reward comics who make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist jokes, and in some cases there may be a case to be made against them for inciting hatred or crime, but that's a totally separate issue. None of us, including comedians, have the right to rape or sexually assault. That's nothing to do with comedy, that's everything to do with the laws of this country. Would we be having this "discussion" if a comedian had injured someone physically on stage? Of course not.

4) Most frightening of all are some of the comments on the various websites. Of course these aren't necessarily representative of what the public at large think, but they are representative of what the people who posted them think. Comments suggesting that the woman's nervous giggles indicate that she was "having a great time" throughout suggest to me that people don't understand what rape is - giggling is not consent, and without consent penetration of any kind is rape. This brings me back to a point I have been banging on about for a very long time: We need education about women's issues and women's rights to be compulsory on the national curriculum. Now.

Hillary, Boris and Media Sexism

This Alternet article is really worth a read. Making the point that sexism is so comfortably tolerated in the media these days. I noticed that last week when Silvio Berlusconi suggested there were too many women in the Spanish parliament the reaction even in supposedly left-wing media was to do articles asking "Who's winning the battle for women in politics?" posting a few interviews with female politicians against a series of misogynist quotes from Berlusconi and others. Surely the question that should have been asked is "What is this prejudiced idiot doing in power?".

This suitably ridiculous piece from the Independent stands as a case in point. On the pretext of imagining what would happen if women ruled the world they allow misogynists like Terence Blacker to call women dull and humourless. And Dan Snow is given the opportunity to suggest that women left in charge in the past have some sort of bad track record (using such scientific methods as claiming Louis XV was "egged on by his mistress") and of course they trot out Adrian Hamilton to tell us women already are in charge. And if that's true it's rather benevolent of us to be in charge but insist on taking 17% less pay than our male minions. Although one positive take-out from the article is that Janet Street Porter should probably be prime minister the next time we get the chance to install one.

I would make the comparative point that a politician who was openly racist wouldn't get many votes. But then I would have been forgetting about Boris Johnson. And for good measure he's misogynist and homophobic too. Oh and an idiot.

I'd Rather Go Naked Than Support Misogyny

A few years ago there was an anti-racism campaign that featured Ken Livingston saying "Would i still be mayor if i was Asian?" and then CGI effects made him look Asian. And various other dignitaries with similar remarks and CGI-effect racial morphings. The advert, which was on TV, included a "glamour" model (Gail Porter?) saying "Would I still be as cheeky if I was Chinese?" and then Peter Stringfellow (pictured*) going "Would I still be as irresistible if I was black?" and I was wondering "Would you still run a club where women are objectified and abused if you were a woman?". But of course if I dared complain about the advert I was instantly informed by all parties that I was racist...

Today Julie Bindel in The Guardian asks exactly that question: Why do we have to put up with misogyny when it's for charidee?

*Apologies if you were drinking coffee and are now going to have to pay for a new computer screen.