Might have known this would happen sooner or later

They have this problem all over the place in the US. Pharmacists refusing to hand over the morning after pill. Of course this story covers the very very nice end of the spectrum - the couple in question actually do feel in some way ready to have a child. Elsewhere is isn't going to be so pretty. It's going to be teenagers too afraid and intimidated to seek help elsewhere. It's going to be women who are physically handicapped and have been advised not to have children as it might jeopardise their own health. Its going to be people having treatments for other illnesses which are likely to harm the child. And its going to be people who for whatever reason do not want to have children, who don't feel they're ready for children. And the children will suffer too.
The pharmacist has I think broken the law by not offering information on where else to go for the drugs. Also insisting that the reason for refusing the pills is "high morals"?! I have "high morals" and among them is I think people have the right to chose what medication they take for themselves.

Of course the article only bothers interviewing the woman cos as we all know girls - its our own fault if we get pregnant isn't it? Men have nothing to do with pregnancy whatsoever!

Weirdly at the same time, thanks to increased traffic on here after I was listed in the britblog round-up of UK blogs, people are arguing that pregnant women (and women who MIGHT get pregnant) should be excluded from the job market! And then we discover that women who try to avoid getting pregnant are refused the help they are entitled to. To the untrained eye it might look as if it had very little to do with "high morals" or "economic rational" and everything to do with deep-seated wide-spread misogyny.

Missing the point over and over again

Have a look at this article from the Guardian about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace! Now I find the levels of discrimination described utterly believable. I have two particular friends who have attempted to work in finance and had three kids each. Both of them have had to get new jobs every time they got back from maternity leave because the job they left has been "changed" and they don't want the job they're given when they get back. They both also had significantly diminished pay as a result of their pregnancies. As the article confirms discrimination is the norm and occurs in at least half of cases.

So why does everybody interviewed on the subject play the problem down? The report itself, we are told, "Though it stresses the discrimination faced by some women, its recommendations bow to the concerns of employers". And Jenny Watson from the Equal Opportunities Commission says "Employers, particularly small businesses, need more help in managing pregnancy at work if they are to reap the benefits of retaining pregnant staff.". What about penalising those firms who persistently discriminate against women who are pregnant? It is supposed to be illegal to do so!

Trade and industry secretary Alan Johnson says "While the report shows that the vast majority of employers understand and see the need for the fair, effective legal protection that already exists". Sorry Alan, but clearly that is not the case. Clearly at least HALF the employers in the UK don't believe women deserve the protection that is offered to them by the law. We know this because they break the law and discriminate against these women.

We then hear from Susan Anderson from the CBI (the employers body) and she says "Most employers are trying their level best to accommodate the needs of pregnant employees, and illegal discrimination is not nearly as widespread as this report suggests.". So the report is false...? And where is the proof for this? Isn't it a bit odd to dismiss it without offering any alternative numbers or evidence?

Still not being taken seriously?

Article on the BBC today about rape. Raises several interesting points:

1) Before we even get to the point of the article there is a sentence which incenses me: "figures show one in five reported rapes in London leads to a caution or charge"... a CAUTION or charge? Who is committing rape and getting away with a caution? Thats very naughty, now don't rape anyone again? If we needed evidence that reported rapes aren't being treated as serious crimes that is surely it in glorious technicolour!

2) Well seems like (and this is the point of the article) depends which borough you're in as to whether or not you are "believed" when you report rape at your local police station. Now they don't tell us the breakdown so maybe I shouldn't comment but I'd like to see where the best areas are and name-and-shame the areas doing worse.

3) "In one case from London, officers said they had lost the evidence". So the campaign to have it taken seriously is going well then...?

4) Now lets hear from Det Ch Insp Osborn... "If one recognises that the vast majority of rape cases are committed by people known to each other, the issue is now over consent and how it's defined.". Thanks for that. I only know one definition of consent. Its pretty clear cut in my mind. I've never been uncertain as to whether or not I've consented to sex. I've never left my partner in any doubt as to whether or not I'm consenting to sex. Shouldn't we be questioning here whether or not DetCh Insp Osborn is a fit person to work on the inquiry into treatment of reported rapes?

5) And here's what he says next: "It's about judges, juries, the Crown Prosecution Service, interpretation of the law and what rape is - as it's no longer the classic definition of stranger rape." I'm sorry, did we EVER think that rape was only rape if committed by a stranger? Do we treat murderers differently if they've murdered someone they know? Or assaulters? Or arsonists? This guy IS symptomatic of what's wrong with the police service in London and why it doesn't afford rape victims the respect and care they deserve and why it consistently fails to garner convictions for those who have committed really horrible crimes.

Great news for those opposed to ID cards

In this article on the BBC, Charles Clarke tells us that "There would be no compulsion on anybody to show their ID card in the street." So as long as you live on the street, and sleep on the street at nights, buy your food and drink from street stalls, urinate and defecate on the street, you won't need a card. Cool.

So you won't need to carry it round with you? When will you need it? When you enter or leave the country? Just like we already do with passports? Opening bank accounts and buying houses? Does anyone really believe that the allegedly thousands of evil-doers lurking in our midst won't be able to do these things? And that this will stop them from planning their evil plots?

Think of what we could do to benefit society with all that money, how much suffering we could alleviate. Makes me really angry.

Do these guys really want to be taken seriously?

Yes folks, the search for Pope John Paul II's miracles is on! The Vatican needs to find evidence of at least two miracles which have occurred since his death as a result of people praying to him, in order to make him a saint. Suggestions on a postcard please!

Personally I've been praying to him to make my toast pop out of my toaster with his face burnt on so I can sell it on Ebay. Amen.

An early push...

I'm hosting a charity function next month in aid of Hand in Hand for Asia. They're a group doing lots of great work, but in particular they're sending skilled medical persons into Burma to alleviate suffering. Plenty of people willing to go but we need money urgently to pay for supplies for them...

The show is Sat 23rd July 7pm to 11pm (and you will be fully entertained throughout that time!) at Cecil Sharp House. Tickets are £15 available from Emily on 020 7387 1489. The show will feature:

Ruth Rogers, violinist extrordinaire
The Ornate Johnsons, comedy sketch group
mi-ro, acoustic musical duo
The Lung Busters, brilliant up-beat jazz group
...and me as compere
...and some info about the situation in Burma at present from Human Rights campaigner Ben Rogers
..and a raffle.

Its a huge venue, 400 seats, and we're hoping not only to fill it but to encourage people to dress up a bit for the occassion to make it all a bit special too. I shall certainly be in full regalia! There is a bar there and we will be making room for dancing by the time mi-ro and the Lung Busters are on (you may not be able to help yourselves). The night IS suitable for older children if you want to bring some along (I have promised not to swear!).

I'm really keen to promote this too so if you are London-based and know of anywhere I can put up a poster/hand out flyers/otherwise drum up support then please let me know, would be much appreciated.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered...

...to say R.I.P. to not one but two things...

1) The toe-nail on my right foot, little toe. Gone but not forgotten. The Caledonian Challenge proved too much for it. Apparently I will still be able to play football and go skiing. I may feel mildly self-conscious in open-toed sandals however.

2) My career in finance. Handed in my notice this week and just clearing out the old desk. Time to concentrate fully on the stand-up career. I'll post up dates for up-coming gigs soon and hope some of you can make it along. Should leave me with more time for blogging too I think!

Caledonian Challenge

Bad news for those who kindly offered to sponsor me: My some sheer miracle, I made it to the end. No-one is more surprised than me in fact. In numbers: 54 miles. 22 hours 45 minutes. 7 blisters on my feet, 2 on my hands (from the walking poles). 4 random fellow walkers enlisted to help me along against their will (thanks Rajit, Andrew, Andrew's mate and Pat). 30 miles walked by the time my body refused to keep any more solids down (lived on lucosade after that). 1 enormous thunderstorm walked through in the middle of the night. 1 full day spent in bed recovering. zero chance of me ever doing it again.

The link for belated cash pledges is here. Our team name was katkattom (and, yes, "other kat" and "tom" also finished the course, Bagel the dog made it almost to the 22 mile point although had to be carried for a while after expending too much energy chasing sheep!). All in a whole collection of good causes.

A few points raised

Very interesting article in the Guardian about rape during war-time. There's not much getting round it, basically every major war in history has seen rape used by both sides as a basic modus operandi. And then they tell us that they don't think we should let women fight in the army... Does anyone think maybe we shouldn't let MEN fight in the army? I do. What is also clear here, as though anyone were ever in any doubt, is that rape is not a sexual act, not related to frustration and attractiveness but an act of violence and aggression, reflective of an underlying hatred of women. Its about a desire to hurt, not a desire to please. That hatred and desire to hurt women permeate our culture in peacetime too, think of films like the disgusting Boxing Helena or the nasty end of the porn industry, some of the lyrics of popular music, games like Grand Theft Auto where running over hookers is a standard tactic...

Bush and consistency

It's not often that the Cru-blog sees fit to link to the "Adult Industry News" site. And yet I feel compelled to make at least passing comment on this little "tit-bit" (sorry, weak pun...). Porn star Mary Carey has been invited to join a lunch with George Bush. I can't help wondering how her performances in a series of hard-core pornographic films fits with the Bush abstinence-only policy. Although fittingly the series of films she has starred in do run with the responsible adult tag-line "no fake boobs and no condoms". Also as highlighted here in a very witty interview Bush's loathing for all things homosexual seems to be at odds with her appearance in the charmingly-titled "Lesbian Big Boob Bangeroo"...!

This new religious hatred law...

Was just reading this article on the BBC about children being tortured and murdered for allegedly "being witches". Now how did these kids get labelled as "witches" and who suggested as a result that they should be mis-treated? Well, it was members of the clergy, as described in this article, in which Pastor Modeste Muyulu from the Pentecostal Church of the French Christian Community in Harlesden (north London) says "There are people who are used by the devil to bring a curse or bad luck to other people's lives, even to kill them ".

Now articles on the subject are a mish-mash of lies and conjecture about witch-craft as far as I can make out. There is a significant UK wiccan population, actually I know some British witches and they're a very peaceful, friendly bunch, interested in herbalism, candles, crystals and in spending time outdoors. Much as I generally oppose religion, I think witches are alright. They're often the first ones on the scene to fight against environmental degradation, they are very active promoters of women's issues. They're also practitioners of the UK's original and indigenous religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism have all been brought in over the centuries from overseas. And they're a non-evangelising religion, there's no knocking on doors trying to recruit new members, which is a winner with me. Most witches I know are evolutionists rather than creationists. Contrary to popular perception they have very strict rules, such as the wiccan rede "an harm ye none do what ye will" and don't do things to harm others. You can read more about them on the Children of Artemis site.

So can I take Pastor Modeste Muyulu to court for inciting religious hatred against practitioners of wiccanism? I'd really like to cos I think "incitement to torture and murder small children by insisting that 'God' wants you to" should be very much against the law. It even fits with one of my "Seven Big Lies" of religion.

Interesting movie

Ever heard the one about the people who were persecuted for NOT being religious? Actually it happens at a subtle and a less subtle level all the time. And a very interesting movie has been made about a particular case in the US, called Heart of the Beholder. It's being screened as part of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association film festival. Bookings here.

Blogger in trouble

Zach, a young blogger from the US is being sent off to a church-sponsored camp called (horribly ironically) Love in Action to "cure" his homosexuality...! Surely there is a law against this sort of thing? Surely its "unconstitutional"?

The guy who runs the camp is quoted as saying "I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery."

You can contact Zach himself through his blog, although I suspect he's not being allowed on it during his incarceration in this horrible brain-washing facility. Lots of other bloggers have picked up on it too, I saw it at Alas, A Blog and Tennessee Guerilla Women. Perhaps if it gets some media attention someone will be able to do something about it.

Perhaps I should start a little summer camp to de-program people who've been brainwashed by fundamentalist right-wing nutcase Christianity...?

Who needs Big Brother on TV?

The government's latest plan to impinge on our civil liberties apparently involves watching our three-year-old for signs of criminality! Professionals will be looking for tell-tale signs such as "difficulties respecting boundaries or responding to adults". Isn't that what kids are SUPPOSED to do? And if your kids do this too much they could apparently be taken away from you and put into care! Smells a bit like 1984 to me.

Three recommendations

1) Go and see the Frida Kahlo exhibition at the Tate modern. It's brilliant and so is she! I went on Thursday night for the opening (flash, me...).

2) Take your other half on an Eco-retreat in the Welsh countryside. I went this weekend (not telling you who with though!) and it was great. I couldn't really cope with the cold showers (used a bowl of hot water instead though) but the countryside, the walks, kite-flying, finding baby owls in the middle of the night, playing petanque, meditation session, visit to the C.A.T. centre, etc were all just fab. Shame my train back was delayed making me late for...

3) The Babycham Funny Women awards. Semi-final last night. There's another one tonight in Manchester and the final is 4th July at the Comedy Store in London. Of course it would be even better if I was in it, but there is a lot of talent out there, last night's show was great.

A few more steps back

Sex education booklets currently being published will focus on emotions and relationships, rather than the "mecanics" of sex. So i.e. less information about contraception. Who is supporting this? oh its the "Life" (read "Destruction of Women's Lives") Group! They think it's a great idea. They're no doubt looking forward to a new generation of pregnant teenagers they can pressure into keeping their unwanted children, sacrificing their own education and being permanently trapped in poverty.

The "mecanics" of sex may not sound like the sort of thing that we enjoy talking to kids about but that's EXACTLY why it's essential that we do, and essential that schools do to ensure no child is left out of the loop. A child has a right to know in practical terms how their bodies work. I think that's more important than telling them how we as a society have collectively decided it would be best use it. As a promoter of casual sex I should like the right to excuse my children (I don't have any really, a reflection of my sound understanding of the mecanics of contraception) from sex education classes if they are going to promote abstinence, which is undoubtedly the core message of these pamphlets.

Football crazy

I love football, I play it, I watch it, mens and womens, whatever I can access (usually mens). In fact I even play for a mens team (there isn't a women's one near me with places going, although I am not fussy, I just want to play). But I'm not fan of the exorbitant wages the men in the game get. Of course market rates, etc, etc, other aspects of the game would be impaired if we started limiting wages. It rankles though that the women in the game are paid such a pittance and given such a tiny amount of exposure, while the men rank among the country's biggest landowners and property buyers. And its the direct result of (a) the hangover from the FAs banning of women from the game which was in place from 1921 to 1970 and (b) the failure since the ban was lifted of the various bodies to put any tangible effort into promoting women's football.

One glimmer of hope for women's football recently is the latest exhibition at the National Football Museum.

The Seven Big Lies

The government is pressing ahead with plans to illegalise "inciting religious hatred". So if you wanted to incite any, make sure you do it soon.

I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I think ANYONE who believes ANY of the following things is a BLINDING IDIOT and should be barred from working with children, in the media or in any position which offers them an opportunity to significantly influence others:

1) That anybody continues to live after death in any recognisable form.

2) That the earth and universe were created by a god of some sort.

3) That any human being has ever performed "miracles".

4) That there is any religious justification for murder or war.

5) That there is any religious justification for removing any basic human rights or freedoms from any group, such as women or homosexuals, or for treating those people differently from the rest of society.

6) That any religious law which they may choose to follow should be incorporated into national law.

7) That prayer can change anything other than the mind of the person praying.

I think of them as a sort of securlarist seven deadly sins...

Raising money for charity

In two weeks time I am off to attempt the Caledonian Challenge, an easy-peasy wander about in the park type effort, just 54 miles in 24 hours along the west highland way. Training has been going ok but not really well enough to convince me that I can actually do it. Will need some miracle super-human strength on the day. If anyone would like to sponsor me and my team (consisting of me, my housemate Tom and our friend Katalin) then they can do so here by selecting our imaginative team-name KatKatTom! All in aid of the Scottish Community Foundation which does lots of good work in communities up there, especially children and women's groups. Very much appreciated!

On an only slightly related note I was talking to my dear grandma about Live 8 and the latest fundraising efforts and she said (remember she's 85...) that she'd pledge £100 to feed people in Africa if Sir Bob Geldof would "get a ruddy haircut". If anyone else (or anyone else's grandma) would like to pledge money on that basis please let me know and I'll total up the pledges and mail the suggestion off to his team. I imagine a fair amount could be raised on this basis!

Bright idea number 473...

Oh gosh I've had another one... Spent the morning twitching at this article in the Guardian. Lorna Martin, who has just had her ovaries measured to assess her likely fertility in the future, is waxing lyrical about the joys of motherhood. She hasn't tried it.

"I thought the menopause was an ugly but unavoidable metamorphosis that afflicted older women. It never crossed my mind that it might hit me before I'd found Mr Right, married him and we'd created at least three, preferably four, beautiful children." Even the most beautiful children keep you up all night screaming. Even the most "right" Mr Right will argue with you. And if you're going to have kids you can never count out the possibilty that they may have problems, minor or major, mental or physical disabilites or emotional problems. They might even be ugly, you can't do much about it. If you don't realise that, you should really think twice about having kids at all.

"I couldn't ignore it for long. The tick-tock of my biological clock, which had been a constant but distant sound all my life, had erupted into a deafening alarm clock whose snooze button no longer worked." Seems to me that Ms Martin has developed a rather unhealthy obsession with having children. She doesn't even know if she's actually fertile, many women aren't. It's not a good idea to let yourself get so worked up about these things.

India Knight pipes in with a sensible remark: "Many childless women seem to adhere to the notion that babies are pretty much like really sweet dollies"

Then as if we hadn't read the earlier part of the article Ms Martin is back with "I do not regard babies as playthings to be discarded once I'm bored. Nor do I think it is my fundamental human right to have one, perfect or otherwise. But it has been for me, as for millions of other women, something I always thought I wanted." Ok but you did say earlier it had never crossed your mind that you might not have three or four beautiful ones...?

She heads home and then she has a bright idea: adoption "Single women are increasingly adopting children alone. But then came a warning. 'If you are only looking to adopt a child to prevent loneliness, to keep you company, or because you think it might be a good idea, think again.'" If you were going to have a child naturally or by adopting for any reason other than you wish to raise a child, then of course you shouldn't. But this puts Ms Martin off and she decides she needs to conceive and bear one naturally. Presumably, as we've established, for the wrong reasons.

She then remarks that "an increasing number [of women] would trade in their careers to settle down and have babies" Would they? I don't see any data on this or any evidence. It may be true given the lack of progress in narrowing the wage gap and the increasing hours many companies seem to expect to have worked by employees. Seems like a huge unsupported generalisation though.

Then she really starts to go mad, quoting Jools Oliver: " 'All I ever wanted was the babies, the baking and the roses round the door,' I felt envious. That's pretty much all I ever wanted, but I was too afraid to say so." Life isn't like that. Even Jools Oliver admits to tears and anger and that its been really hard at times - and I may only have watched ten minutes of his TV show but I can tell you for a FACT I couldn't live with Jamies Oliver! And "all I ever wanted" seems to imply its not much to ask for. It's a lot to ask for. Before the feminist revolution it is NOT TRUE that all women had this. In fact there were many spinsters and widows and childless couples back then too. The good news is that we have more freedom and more choice now and we should fight to have that freedom and that choice. Jools Oliver evidently wasn't scared to say what she wanted. The women's movement has for years been demanding more respect and support for stay-at-home mothers.

Well my bright idea is that women who don't have kids and want kids should either adopt, foster or volunteer at a childcare centre, women's shelter, after school club or local single mother's group. There are loads of kids out there who could really use the extra support. And for those who feel that they need to raise a child which is biologically theirs I would point out a couple of things: (a) its only 50% biologically theirs anyway and (b) scientists reckon that kids grow up based on 20% nature and 80% nurture.

Certainly my experience from when I used to date a single dad was that his kid learnt loads from me. Her teacher even commented on parents evening that she must have been learning from someone new recently cos she'd made some comment in class about women's rights in the middle east (she was 6 or 7 at the time). Her dad was in stitches laughing cos it was so obvious where she'd picked it up!

If you want to be involved with kids, get involved. If you're having recurring nightmares about an alarm clock timing your likely fertility, you need to stop listening to the unrealistic messages in popular culture and get your head sorted out. A few hours spent minding unruly toddlers will soon bring you back down to earth...

Two links to choose from

Click here to see the pictures from my holiday in Uganda. Mountain Gorillas, Friendly locals, stunning scenery, etc.

Or click here to see a very charming piece from News Hounds (the anti-Fox News guys) in which anti-abortionist nutter Neal Horsley admits thats his "first girlfriend" was a mule...!! Seriously!

Those terrible Williams girls...

If ever I saw an arguement for the pro-choice movement, surely that was it. Since all three girls were under sixteen when they fell pregnant, my basic understanding of UK law would make all three of them victims of statutory rape. Since when were the victims of crime vilified for allowing themselves to become victims? We may tell our toddlers not to accept candy from strangers and warn older people not to carry too much money about, but we don't blame them or refuse to support them when they are the victims of crime. Their mother suggested better sex education in school would have helped them. Wouldn't it be great if schools could genuinely create an atmosphere where victims of statutory rape could report the situation and receive support and confidential advice on emergency contraception as well as termination, adoption and the benefits available to them if they bravely decide to keep the child? While in general I abhor this sort of human interest shock-tactics journalism, it does rather stick two fingers up at the anti-sex-education, pro-forced-pregnancy* movement.

*I don't call any movement that sets out to destroy women's lives "pro-life".

Go George!

Anyone who didn't see George Galloway giving evidence to the US senate, you're in for a treat. Take the phone off the hook, make yourself a nice cup of tea, put your feet up and click here on this link. Now go to the video section. Its a long piece - 47 minutes, and the first ten or so are kinda slow as the senators present their accusations, you can skip that if you like. Its a pure joy though once Galloway gets going. Even the most right-wing nutters would have to admit he really made them look like the bunch of nasty idiots they are.

This is quite frightening...

Two months ago we heard that a young girl was raped in her own home in Essex by an intruder. She was quoted as giving a very detailed description of her attacker: "a black man, aged 18 to 20, with dirty teeth, one of them being distinctively clean. He is skinny and wore a grey top and loose ripped trousers, with a loop of chain down one side." Later an artist's impression of the attacker was released again based on her description. Now we are told that the rape claim was false. Now I have no way of knowing the details of the case and what is going on but I do know that only 6% of reported rapes lead to convictions in the UK and that police and prosecutors failing to "believe" victims is a key problem. I'd like to see the case reviewed.

In praise of casual sex

For once the Grauniad's "gender" pages have produced something I can relate to. An article about the morning after pill. For those of us who aren't deeply religious (or even shallowly religious) and don't subscribe to any stupid notions about three little cells having a soul, the availability of the morning after pill offers the freedom to be more spontaneous and have sex even when you've forgotten to pack for it! Hurray!

And before anybody bothers to mail in their comments on the potential risks of having unprotected sex, let me remind you of the risk of NOT having sex: You might wake up one day, discover you're 85, your sex drive has long since dried up, you've got about a fortnight to live and you're still a virgin...!

Something else which is all our own fault...

The charming Yvonne Roberts in the Grauniad reports that working mothers are putting in up to 125 hours per week holding down jobs as well as taking on nearly all the housework and child-care and in many cases preparing meals for the men of the household too. However she says these women "have nobody to blame but themselves". All they need to do is "Do less - and make sure that what is done is properly valued at current market prices." So its now a woman's own fault if her husband doesn't do much housework? Does she really expect women to let their families go hungry for a few weeks until he realises he should probably go to the supermarket? The article is full of enthusiasm for how "It's not difficult to end the rule of 'Supermum!' and bring about a revolution", yet there doesn't seem to be any actual practical advice on how that can be achieved.

There's no doubt that a better model for division on labour in the home would benefit many women. Seems to me however that the problem needs to be approached in a way that doesn't leave the toilet uncleaned and festering with germs for six months at a time while young children are around. One minute she is talking about the plight of single mothers and the next she adds that all they need to do is "let him wear the pinny."

But then for some reason the women (who can blame Yvonne? She probably has kids to feed too!) who publish this sort of preachy misogynist nonsense always get a lot more column inches than those who highlight the real issues. I guess newpaper editors must feel more comfortable reading about how women's problems are all their own fault...

The trouble with Star Wars

Well I'm not much of a film buff but apparently we're off to see The Revenge of the Sith with the guys at work soon. Piccies here on the BBC. Now like most people I love the original three (although I think there should be more female Jedis) and am Lucas-warm about the new three. And here's the thing. The new three lack one key element that the old three have - Hans Solo! Or a character like him. A character who doesn't take himself too seriously and laughs at the way the others do. A character who is motivated by self-interest rather than grandiose ideals. A character we can genuinely identify with. And Hans makes the ludicrous parts seem all the more believable because he's sat in the middle of it going "I can't believe this either".

Without him it ends up feeling more like a third rate version of Lord-of-the-Rings. Well hopefully this next one will be better. Seems like everyone out there agrees the new three aren't as good as the old three but no-one can indentify why. Well problem solved folks. Also there should be more women in it with interesting roles (but that's true of every show on TV more or less).

No school for the wicked

I was rather horrified to read this article. I think religion should be kept out of schools. I had a similar problem when I was a kid, the best local school was C of E so we asked a local vicar to write a letter saying I was a regular church-goer. He obligingly did so even though my entire family are atheists and never go to church except the occassional carol concert. Why should religious kids get a better education than secular kids? Thats really unfair.

Also I think religion should be taught, if at all, in the home, not forced on kids by the school. Schools should teach science, languages, history, geography and life skills, not superstitious mumbo-jumbo about Jesus walking on water and God appearing in a burning bush...virgin births...people rising from the dead... I don't pay tax dollars so the government can teach children rubbish like this as if it were fact.

The porn post

Well this question seems to come up one way or another pretty regularly so lets answer it now and then I'll be able to post the link... Is porn damaging to women?

On the surface of it sexy piccies of consenting adults don't do a great deal of harm. Of course women can be simultaneously sexy and valuable to society in other ways. There are I think three problems with it though:

1) A lot of pornography seems to be more to do with power, celebration of subversive hatred of women and generally trying to make women look foolish and stupid, rather than sexy.

2) Evidence suggests that large portions of the pornography market are exploitative, paying low wages to the women, co-ercing women into participating. A significant amount of production takes place illegally and sometimes minors are involved.

3) Since men are able to easily and readily access a vast range of pornography, and this has become the cultural norm, we create a society in which the acceptable way for men to deal with sexual desire or frustration is to access porn. Women are rapidly headed the same way with the proliferation of sex-toy shops, porn for straight women, male strip clubs, etc. Now I wonder if this is really the healthy way forward...

Not being prudish (hell no) but if you spend more time downloading porn than you spend ACTUALLY HAVING SEX, you should really be asking yourself what went wrong. With the abstinence-only policies spreading round the globe I think we risk becoming a society that sits in their rooms alone downloading the daily allowance of porn approved by the government and the porn offered by the big corporates in return for eating ten happy-meals and buying four pairs of trainers... All a bit "Brave New World" isn't it? Already our advertising billboards and magazines are full of quasi-porn-based adverts. Sexiness shouldn't be a quality designed in a media executive's office based on the results of an extensive market research campaign. It should be discovered and invented by two people in an act of intimacy. Insofar as the proliferation of porn weakens sex as a weapon of human connection and intimacy, it threatens us all.

Phew! Think I need a cold shower now.

Blame yourselves girls!

Oh god, here we go again.... Another poster campaign telling women how to behave if they don't want to be violently assaulted. This poster warns, we are told, of "the dangers of drinking too much - from losing valuables to being assaulted".

Why do we continue to run these kinds of campaigns, implying that at some level it's women's own fault if they are a victim of crime? Aren't we trying to build a fair and free society? Isn't it the perpetrators of crime who we are supposed to be locking up, not the victims?

I go out and get at least moderately drunk on a relatively regular basis, once every week or two. Often an unlicensed minicab is the only way to get home and, yes, sometimes I go on to parties or to houses with people I don't necessarily know all that well. I refuse to be told that I can't live my life as I choose to and I refuse to accept that it's my own fault if I'm attacked (which I've never been in a good 15 years of behaving like this).

Now also - men are more frequent victims of muggings and assaults than women. As demonstrated in this Home Office report (see page 8). So why is it that women are being singled out for warnings? The same report states that: "While women were slightly less often victimised, they were much more fearful than men". Lets warn men that if they go out drinking, they could get mugged...

The report also states that "Roughly a third of those who had been mugged reckoned that their assailants had been drinking; of those assaulted, over half believed their attackers had been drinking". Now what this probably indicates is that the kind of people who become muggers and assaulters are more likely than others to develop a drink dependency problem. Alternatively however it could indicate that people who've had too much to drink are more likely to commit these kinds of crimes. Note that "The vast majority of alcohol-related assaults involved male offenders only", that's from another government website, CrimeReduction.gov.uk. It goes on to say that 90-95% of drunken crime perpetrators are male. So perhaps we should be encouraging men to avoid going out drinking in case they turn into criminals.

When I'm drunk I may well dance like an idiot to 80s music and I might well snog someone I hardly know too. I'm at very little risk of physically attacking anyone though. So don't tell me how much I can and can't drink. Thank you.

You must read this

Best round-up I've seen of the anti-feminist movement. Enough to make your skin crawl. This is what we're up against girls!! I picked it up from Trish's excellent feminism and family rights blog - see the link over there>>>.

Micheal Howard

Cardinal Ratzinger

Something of the night...?

Seems like quite a few people in blogsphere have been playing celebrity lookie-likeys with the new Pope. My personal favourites are Daily Blatt and Pharyngula. Personally I think I've spotted an alarming similarity between Cardinal Ratzinger and Micheal Howard. I'll try and post the piccies up (if I can remember how) and give everyone a good laugh. They have some similarities in terms of how much I trust them and how open minded they are about cultural differences.

Anyway I could write a couple of essays on the potential ramifications of another fundamentalist Pope. I could write about the potential impact on women's rights, condoms and AIDs, the gay community and the third world. Frankly though, what do you expect from a group of people who believe in all seriousness that a man rose from the dead, raised the dead, cured the blind and crippled, transubstantiated water into wine, walked on water,... The one about father christmas coming down the chimney is more believable. So rather than try and argue with them, why not sign up to the National Secularist Society?

Very poor journalism

I am reluctant to even start on why this article is a disgusting outrage, and shouldn't have been published... And before anyone starts wittering on about "free speech", please don't bother. Who would publish an article suggesting that more extreme members of the civil rights movement were paranoid delusionals who "saw prejudice everywhere" and "set the civil rights movement back 20 years"?

Why is it that women's rights are the forgotten kid sister of the human rights movement over the last 100 years? One in 4 women is a victim of domestic violence in the UK, the conviction rate for rape is now around 6% the main reason given for the low rate being that prosecutors and police don't "believe" victims. We DO HAVE a problem with women's rights in the country, we DO HAVE a problem with women being persistently mistreated and abused, we DO HAVE a problem with widespread misogyny and abuse of women. Let us at least admit it and open up the debate on how best to deal with it.

While the likes of Havana Marking and Deborah Orr (in the Independent on Saturday) are insisting that Ms Dworkin was too ugly to have been raped, elsewhere we discover toddlers and pensioners are being raped. So that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. And why every article has to focus on her appearance is beyond me.

I hope Andrea comes back to haunt the lot of them!

And here are some of the winners so far!

Mail me your best suggestions (from the post below) and I'll link them. Best entries so far are:

The cerebral view

Some political science

One for the kids

Good point

One for the clergy

From EU Serf (I think this is the UKIP entry!)

They will all be at it soon

Playing this little web game!

Any movement needs both radicals and liberals

So it is with great sadness that Cru-blog notes the death of Andrea Dworkin. The article leads with "she never hated men". Bit odd really, somebody's got to hate men. There are plenty of men out there who hate women. When you consider they have all the good jobs, all the economic power and doing most of the war-mongering and murdering I think I hate men a bit at least. Andrea had also been raped a number of times. If she didn't hate men a bit I would be quite surprised.

She is most famous for fighting against pornography and actually drafted a law defining pornography as discriminative against women. Personally I work in an industry (finance) where taking clients out to strip clubs is a normal way of networking and generating business. I think that sucks. Needless to say her views didn't make her very popular. Instead the "porn establishment", the likes of much-glorified Larry Flint, etc focussed on her appearance as a point of attack, thus confirming all our worst fears about the type of prejudiced society we live in.

Yeah she was fat and wore dungarees, no make-up and didn't get a haircut very often. She didn't exactly go for regular waxing either. Personally I think that's cool. There is a poster in my gym for electrolysis (permanent electrical hair-removal boys) which reads "Imagine if you never needed to wax or shave again...". Underneath I have written "you don't". I don't think people get it anymore.

She said she would like to be remembered thus: "In a museum, when male supremacy is dead. I'd like my work to be an anthropological artefact from an extinct, primitive society". Although desperately unfashionable I think a lot of her ideas still hold a lot of water. I hope they rise again some time and make it a bit further onto the political agenda.

Quick flutter

Personally I don't believe a woman can win the Grand National.

I think a horse will win.

Mourning for the pope

Everybody's at it. Tony, Cherie, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy, Charles and Camilla, every newpaper columnist and quasi-religious leader this side of the Milky Way (I shall refrain from links, if you have eyes you've seen the outpouring of "grief" on all sides).

Its sad when someone dies. I am still mourning the millions of Africans who could have been saved if the Pope had not so fervently opposed the idea of using condoms to combat AIDS. And of course the women dying in illegal backstreet abortion clinics because the legal ones have closed down or been outlawed thanks to ideas he advocated and promoted.

Sure he had some good ideas too but on balance I reckon he was a pretty rubbish pope. I hope they get a better one next time.

In the beginning...

Despite the pre-noon, April 1st date on this BBC story, apparently there is some truth in it. Yes there are folks living in BRitain who honestly believe that God made the world in six days and Darwin was a nutter! They actually have an exhibition up in Portsmouth and are distributing a book titled "True Science agrees with the Bible"! They quote Dr Monty White who says "Evolution is not compatible with Christianity". Which raises two good points I think:

1) Christianity is not compatible with the Christianity. The Bible contradicts itself many times over and different parts of the church can never agree on the details of a lot of issues.

2) If evolution is not compatible with Christianity, then maybe Christianity isn't true.

I'd like to see a museum called the Darwin Expo, coupled with a book entitled "True Science proves there's no God". Lets no go the way of stupid America. If anyone tries to talk to you about creationism, tell them they're an idiot and walk away.

In the meantime however here are some top blog-sters and other web resources who have covered the issue:

Bazz-fazz
Pharyngula
World-of-Dawkins

I saw Dawkins speak once when I was a student at Oxford. He's a great ambassador for the voice of reason, atheist, rationalist, Darwinist folk. If this nonsense persists I hope he comes out and clobbers them.

Women writers article in the Guardian.

Having read this article I have written the following letter to the Guardian...

I'm so angry I could scream!

1) Why should "women" writers be considered a single
genre?  Do we ever generalise about "men" writers?

2) The writers you name were writing a long time ago.
Many people find old literature dull or boring.
Thomas Hardy and William Wordsworth hardly wrote
thrill-a-minute, action-packed, up-beat works.

3) Women's lives historically were predominantly spent
heavily involved in domesticity.  I don't think they
had the experience to write about air-sea rescues.
They wrote about what they knew and thus provide us
with a facinating insight into how our ancestors
lived.

4) Can't a domestically-based novel be exciting?
Thousands of great novels about family groups have
been written.  Very few novels are set in an
accountancy office.

5) Have you ever heard of any of these people: Toni
Morrison, Maya Angelou, Agatha Christie, Margaret
Atwood, Barbara Kingsolver, Kate Chopin, Daphne
DuMaurier or Anais Nin and Pauline Reage or even JK
Rowling (the most successful author of all time).  I
refer to books about everything from ghosts, slavery
and liberation, global travel, flying wizards and
future worlds to stacks of steamy sex.  What exactly
do you want from women writers?

I'm going off Kylie

I used to like her. Not her singing really so much as her general upbeat attitude and gumption. I did like that song she did with Nick Cave though and I thought "Can't Get You Out of My Head" had a certain charm. However she's now getting a bit older and has reacted firstly by taking so much botox in her forehead she's starting to look like a cert for the next Tefal advert. And now, secondly she's apparently decided to cram her previously perfectly gorgeous 23 inch waist into a 16 inch corset.

Top reporter Lucy Barton in the "gender" section of right-on paper The Grauniad comments:

"Kylie having set an irresistible challenge, I find myself in Rigby and Peller's central-London store"
"Yes, breathing is tricky, laughter impossible, yet I feel curiously emboldened."
"...there is something about women and corsets."
"...beneath the ebb and flow of fickle fashion, we harbour a constant, low-lying throb of affection for the corset."

Then she admits, with reference to the historical use of corsets:

"The effect, after all, of all that lacing and whaleboning and thick metal rivets was an array of physical problems that one might broadly describe as 'squishing the innards'. Tales abound of welts, fainting, even of unborn foetuses crippled in the womb."

Now having read that I must admit I'm not really feelin a low-lying throb of affection for the corset. I'm feeling DISGUST and OUTRAGE.

She continues:

"And yet still fashion salivates over that hourglass silhouette..."

KILL FASHION then! But no...

"The corset seemingly freezes the female form into a perpetual state of being in flagrante: the arched back and heaving bosom, even the state of breathlessness"

Breathlessness, my dear Lucy, is NOT GOOD. Then she says some feminists claim its good for you to wear a corset. If it was good for you - men would do it. Next she goes on to suggest that corsets have been replaced by plastic surgery (so why does Kylie want both?) as if the 70s never happened and feminism has been some sort of side-show to the centre-stage quest for more glamourous underwear.

But in conclusion...

"... all the collagen implants and surgical sculpting money can buy cannot really compete with the irresistability offered by the corset: it is the thrill of the unknown, the gift to be unwrapped. Cinched and breathless in a shop fitting room on a grey Monday afternoon, even I have to concede this to be true."

What exactly do you mean by "even I" Lucy? You seem to be implying that you're really not the sort of silly person who goes for this sort of thing, despite the fact that your article, which wouldn't look out of place on the pages of FHM/Loaded, is full of praise for the joys of corsettry. Are you sponsored by the lingery industry? Or by the Daily Mail?

Any kind of plastic surgery, including "minor" treatments like botox injections is dangerous. So is trying to cram your waist into a girdle thats 7 inches too small for it (try it now - put your hands round you waist, now squeeze in seven inches... hurts a lot doesn't it?). We have to break out of that kind of culture. I'd like to see this rubbish taken out of the papers and Kylie kept off our screens before someone stupidly tries to copy her and does themselves an injury.

Domestic Violence in the UK

Anyone who has ever thought that domestic violence is a small problem, something that happens to a small minority, or is more of an issue overseas than in the UK might benefit from reading this article in the Guardian. The fact is its a huge issue in the UK and the government needs to focus on it. Personally I would advocate compulsory lessons on the issues surrounding domestic violence in schools as part of social education. But at very least, lets make it an election issue... I might write some letters...

Remember, women don't really have brains!

So Michael Howard (a Jewish dude) thinks the UK should lower the limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks. Some Catholic dudes agree with him. There is an article in the Independent called Abortion: The Facts. It talks about viability (the age from which a foetus can survive outside the womb) and about consciousness and the ability or otherwise of a foetus to feel pain. It doesn't mention the pain felt by the woman involved.

If people have religious reasons for not having abortions then that's fine. Those people shouldn't have abortions. Others have religious reasons for not eating pork or going to church every week. Bringing these things in as law seems a bit much. We can hardly jail all those who covet their neighbours wife can we? Poor Jeffrey Archer(!) would never get out of prison.

Secondly catholicism is a minor UK religion. It has six million UK adherents. There are another 36 million other Christians, 9 million stated Atheists, 1.6million Muslims and 390,000 Jedi Knights.

I don't like to see a load of over-bearing men passing laws about what women can and can't do to their bodies. I'd like to see some input into the debate from women who have had abortions (although due to the shame associated with abortion and the risk of death-threats from the inappropriately-named "pro-life" movement this is pretty unlikely). And I'd like to see real options given to women facing that decision. Quality benefit packages for single mothers, full-time specialist care available for disabled children, creche and child-care facilities, confidential advice available to women of any age concerned about pregnancy and free contraceptives widely available. The fact is that even small steps in any of those directions would do a lot more to cut abortion rates than the law change Mr Howard is proposing.

Gordon Brown, texture like sun...

Well here's that prime ministerial manifesto (sorry budget) in full (ok in brief) folks...

...and here's my quick comments on it:

1) Stamp duty threshold raised: good. Still won't help anyone trying to buy anything bigger than a kennel in London but hell, its an improvement.

2) £2,000 to encourage single parents to return to work. I think cheaply available quality childcare would do more to help. I think in general single parents do need more support but I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it. Will lead to more unsupervised kids, street crime, etc. Why can't we support those who want to stay home?

3) New rules to encourage incapacity benefit claimants into work. This panders to a right-wing minority (technically known as Daily Male readers) who believe the DSS offices are full of benefit fraudsters pretending to be ill cos they're too lazy to work. Annually corporate fraud costs the country a lot more than benefit fraud. Lets clamp down on some of that!

4) Free local bus travel for pensioners. Good idea in principle, works well in London but in other regions which have tried it there's been a problem with the buses all being full of old folks who just think its nice to see the sights from the top of a bus. Nothing wrong with that per se but I think regions should reserve the right to charge them during rush hour. Otherwise it can discourage the rest of the population from using the buses.

5) £2bn savings from cutting back on the civil service. Thats quite a lot. You have to ask how they failed to notice where that was being wasted in the past. On the other hand what has been cut? Does include consumer and trading standards and food inspectorates. Mooooo-ooo.

6) Extra £400m for defence. Why would we need this? Who are we invading next?

7) Tax breaks if injured troops stay in the forces. Thanks for volunteering to have your arm blown off, now you can save yourself some cash if you don't mind having the other one done too. And the worst the injury, the bigger the payment, the more you can save. Well we know there's a troop shortage out there, whatever next? Tax breaks for single parents and the long-term disabled to join the para-troopers. This is noxious.

8) Debt reduction deals with 19 of the world's poorest countries. No dude, not enough, we should cancel the debt.

The divorce courts and journalistic standards

The Guardian has an article today about how long-term co-habiting partners are to be granted some of the rights currently extended to married partners when they split up. Personally I'm not too strongly in favour of this. If people want to offer full financial support to one another then they have the options of getting married or transferring money into one anothers accounts at the requisite level for the support they wish to offer. If people wish to live together without financially supporting one another, why should the government have any right to meddle with that situation?

The truth is, I suspect, that they think it will be a nice way to reduce the amount of benefits they have to pay out. Mothers (or fathers) deserted by their partners will be told they can't claim benefits because technically they own half of the over-mortgaged house they live in, have a right to half the value of the furniture in there, the car he/she ran away in or the money in the bank account he/she is rapidly spending. Or worse that they can't receive benefits until they have legally established what their ex-partners are worth (very little in several senses I suspect).

The Guardian however has thrown its weight behind the plan, citing three cases of wealthy middle-class unmarried couples where the woman was left unexpectedly penniless after a split-up or the death of her partner. What about some couples where the women earn more than the men? And what about the practicalities of implementing the scheme?

Hurray for Ken

...and people wonder why he wins the mayoral elections by such a landslide! Have a look at his article in the Guardian today about Israel and Palestine. It's so spot on it really cheered me up.

Sickening or what?

Crime figures out today show that the rate of convictions in rape cases in the UK has fallen from 6% to 5.6% - the lowest rate EVER. Key issues mentioned are:

1) "sceptical" prosecutors and police often did not believe victims

2) "some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law"

3) Defendants were far more likely in rape case to claim the victim consented to the alleged attack.

4) An overestimation of the scale of false allegations among some officials led to victims losing confidence in the system.

So basically girls if you're raped this weekend, don't bother going to the police. They won't believe you and they won't do anything about it.

Funny women, sad men

Somewhere in deepest darkest Ontario, Dr Eric Bressler is researching the role of sense of humour in sexual attraction. For his latest "trick" he has polled 150 students about what they meant by a “sense of humour”. He found that: "for a woman, a GSOH means someone who makes her laugh. For a man, it means someone who laughs at his jokes." Presumably he means that overall there was a trend in that direction, I refuse to believe all 150 students responded exactly along gender lines.

I really pity the guys with such shrivelled senses of self confidence that they have to go out and find women who laugh at their jokes. I suppose they also prefer women who are impressed with their shoddy shelf-building and inept sexual fumbling. Come on lads, sort yourselves out please before you trouble us with your prescence...

Meanwhile those of you familiar with the Cru-blog will know that I do a bit of moonlighting as a stand-up comic, please email me for my upcoming gigs around London. My old stand-up teacher always reckoned that women had a natural advantage over men especially when it comes to observational comedy becuase they tend to notice more detail and be more aware of social tensions and relationships. Either way there are some great women out there telling jokes and here are a few I would recommend...

Julia Morris, Nina Conti, Jo Caulfield, Juliet Meyers, Debra-Jane Appleby and Danielle Ward.

Does the Pope smoke dope?

If not maybe he should consider taking it up! His latest book likens legal abortion to the holocaust. He says: "It was a legally elected parliament which allowed for the election of Hitler in Germany in the 1930s... We have to question the legal regulations that have been decided in the parliaments of present day democracies. The most direct association which comes to mind is the abortion laws... Parliaments which create and promulgate such laws must be aware that they are transgressing their powers and remain in open conflict with the law of God and the law of nature."

Now what strikes me (apart from some historical points about Germany in the 30s and some scientific points about the differences between an embryo or foetus and a post-birth baby, child or adult) is his view that parliaments "are transgressing their powers". So he is implying that countries should be run on religious lines first and the will of the people second. Doesn't seem very fair on people in those countries where the dominant religion is not catholicism. Frankly it doesn't seem very fair on people of other religions living in predominantly catholic countries.

Hitler's Germany (however "elected") forced civilians into committing atrocities. Laws legalising abortion do not force anyone to have an abortion against their wishes. The bible (which doesn't specifically mention abortion, and consistently describes the moment of birth as being the time when a person enters the world and begins to exist) preaches against lying and jealously. Should we be passing laws locking people up if they appear to have commited such sins?

Curiously when poor old beleaguered Ken Livingston drew parrallels between Nazi Germany and journalists he was heavily criticised for it. Should the Pope publically apologise to pro-choice campaigners and governments for his comments? I think so...

...I also think that as soon as we scratch the surface here we start to smell the familiar stench of any-old-law, any-old-story, any-old-theory, as long as it makes women's lives as miserable and arduous as possible. No thanks.

An alternative take on driving tests

Well us poor stupid women apparently need more lessons before we pass our driving tests, according to this article in the Guardian. Now we all know that women drivers have less accidents. That's why insurance premiums are lower for women. So maybe the people who give the tests are passing guys too quickly and failing too many women. Maybe - shock horror - they're discriminating, consciously or sub-consciously, against women. Maybe its articles like that one in the guardian, and comments by people like Roger Cummins, the DSA's chief driving examiner, that lead to this perception of women as bad drivers and thus to the discrimination.

Now they claim, and they may be right, that women are more cautious drivers. Women are often failed in driving tests for taking too long pulling out at junctions. Meanwhile men tend to be more rash and decisive, which results in them having more accidents. So should driving examiners stop failing people so quickly for being over-cautious and start failing more people for being over-confident? Might not be a bad plan. Should a responsible paper like the Guardian be printing articles entitled "Women 'need longer to learn to drive'" when we all know that women are better and safer drivers than men? Probably not.

Happy Valentine's Day all. xx

Aren't the 50s over yet?

Can't believe I didn't notice when it came out (I was overseas...) but anyway the Guardian has another piece of filler fluff out entitled "Why brainy women stay single". Well I'm sitting here, there's an old letter from MENSA in my drawer, that clearly says my IQ is 156, a bunch of flowers that I've had to stick into the caffetiere cos I'm out of vases on one side of my desk and a box of heart-shaped soft-centre choccies with an early Valentine's card on the other. So I guess it must be my job to say SOMETHING about the subject (or perhaps I'll just eat some more choccies first!).

Now firstly the article itself is by Margaret Cook - a woman famous purely for having been married to a little ugly bloke with an important job (Robin Cook), and having been ditched by him when he ran off with another woman. Surely the survey of views fielded by the paper should include some sample of women with successful relationships or women who prefer or enjoy being single too?

Secondly the "headline" statistic is that "each 16-point IQ increase relates to a 40% drop in marriage likelihood". statistically this cannot be true across the full IQ spectrum. If 100% of women with an IQ of 68 or less get married, then at IQ of 84, 60% get married, at IQ 100 it's 36%, IQ 116 it's 22%, IQ 132 it's 13%, IQ 148 it's 8%, IQ 164 it's 5%,... and if you're smart enough to work out the numbers this far presumably you are a confirmed spinster by now!

Now, here are some reasons why it might not be such a good idea to take the numbers at face value:

1) Maybe some of the smart women get married older. Perhaps because they're having careers first.
2) Maybe some smart women are more cautious about making marriage commitments. Maybe even smart men stupidly rush into promises they can't necessarily keep.
3) Maybe some smart women have renounced the out-of-date religious and social constructs of marriage and are having their own relationships on their own terms.
4) Maybe some smart women are able to earn their own money and survive financially without men, and maybe they want to do that.
5) Maybe some smart women are choosing not to have children, since they know how much this will damage their career.
6) Maybe some smart women are having relationships with not-so-smart men, but avoiding marriage to avoid losing half their savings, etc. in the divorce courts.
7) Maybe some smart women are lesbians.
8) Maybe some smart women are just happy single, or (shock horror) happy having short-term relationships and casual, debauched sex...!

Here are some "explanations" put forward by the various articles on the subject - and some comments on what's wrong with them:

1) "A chap with a high IQ is going to get a demanding job that is going to take up a lot of his energy and time. In many ways he wants a woman who is an old-fashioned wife and looks after the home". Is home-making and child-raising an easy job, well-suited to persons of low IQ?
2) "Women want independence but we are all hard-wired into wanting to be into relationships". Hard-wired by who? Despite the best efforts of the deeply sexist press and media industry, some of us like our independence.
3) "It is true that men do not want women more intelligent than themselves. It bolsters their position if their partner is not too challenging". Well it may be true of SOME men, others may not need their position bolstering and may even enjoy the company of intelligent women.
4) "They [men] retain their sexiness well into middle or even late life, because they do not rely simply on film-star good looks and a muscular physique". Hold on, this is a different arguement about attractiveness relative to age. If women are only attractive for about six months (tosh!) while men are attractive into their 80s then there must be loads more attractive guys around than girls. So even the unattractive girls should be able to bag one... go figure...
5) "in Love Actually, Hugh Grant's suave prime minister finds a soulmate in Martine McCutcheon's comely tea-lady, while Colin Firth plays a writer who falls for a Portuguese woman. Knowing no English she cannot answer back". That's a film! It's not true...
6) "No man likes his wife to earn more than he does". Says who? "Darling, I love you, lets get married", "I have to tell you something", "What is it darling?", "I'm rich", "Oh no, how awful",... pur-lease. Any guy who can't deal with women who earn more than them should seek therapy now, not to mention penis enlargement drugs.

And finally here are three sides to the story which the journalism on the subject hasn't really covered:

1) Less intelligent men also showed up as being less likely to marry. Maybe we should be worried about these men, since they have no partner to look after them and with their low intelligence levels may find it difficult to get a decent job.
2) If true, shouldn't we be addressing why men are so insecure that they have to seek out less intelligent women than themselves?
3) Given that statistically single women and married men are happier than than the other two groups, maybe the way things are shifting is great news for us girls and bad news for the boys!

Then again (pause to eat another choccie) maybe its just that in my case my cracking tits and arse make up for my vile and off-putting intellectual personality! We may never know....

We don't need no... freedom?

Can someone American please tell me why the rebellious teenage youth in the land of freedom and opportunity don't actually want their freedom? This article has left me thoroughly gob-smacked (and I usually have an answer to most things). Has the culture of fear now entirely replaced the culture of freedom?

Silly boys!

We've known for a while that girls do better in school than boys. Susan Lewis, the chief inspector of schools in Wales, has brought out her annual report which highlights the issue, an is written up in the BBC report.

But why do the BBC, and Susan Lewis herself, have to treat this news as being some sort of symptom of problems in the education system? When girls do worse academically, as we saw two weeks ago, its reported as being due to "innate differences".

For example Ms Lewis says "Boys particularly are more likely to under achieve, be excluded from school or break the law". Well historically boys have been committing more crimes than girls for a long long time. I'm not going to fall into the trap of suggesting whether that might be an innate or a socially-generated situation. Its been true however even in societies where girls don't go to school and where no children go to school. So why do we need to change our education system to make special allowances for them? Lets ask a different question - why are all these harder-working, smarter girls growing up to lower-paid jobs?

Whoops, he did it again...

Bush and co (I suspect mostly "co" cos Bush is probably too busy trying to figure out why he can't find his own a*se with both elbows...) have gone and "mis-placed" around about $9bn of the dosh from oil sales they had promised to "hold in trust" for the Iraqi people. The article is on the BBC, but doesn't seem to have caught the attention of any other national press so far. Now $9bn is a lot of money. Its the sort of money that could make a big difference to some of the issues being raised at Davos at the moment (Tony Blair has pledged £45m to fight malaria in Africa. They need £292m in total.). Cancelling debts from the world's 70 poorest countries would cost the UK £2bn. Of course the US has barely bothered to go to Davos, let alone offer any money or aid to those in need there.

I think a little bit more outrage about the lost $9bn might be appropriate...

Lets all try the "town square test"

Now if I had to offer a reading recommendation to Dubya, it would probably be "learn to". Dubya however has decided to offer us all a book recommendation of his own. He choose the "unbiased" world view of a former Soviet Jewish dissident, now working as an Israeli politician. Mmm...

One of the points in the book, which Dubya picks up on, it known as the "town square test" which states that "If a person can walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a free society, not a fear society. We cannot rest until every person living in a 'fear' society has finally won their freedom." In principle it seems a reasonable measure of freedom within a society. The obvious questions raised are:

1) What if your views are deeply offensive to parts of society. What if for example you believe in a philosophy which advocates killing innocent people, such as Nazi-ism?

2) Is this kind of freedom genuinely available in the US or the UK? See also this one and this one, these are just from the BBC, there are plenty more on Amnesty.

3) Is this kind of freedom genuinely available in other countries supported by Bush and certainly not listed on his "anti-fear" hit-list? Such as Saudi Arabia, India or France?

(ok, ok, I admit, France is probably not far off his "hit-list"...!)

In answer to the question...

...posed here in the Guardian's "gender" section, by Lucy Mangan: "Why is it so terrible to theorise that women might be naturally worse than men at maths and science?".

Well the trouble is that it encourages and justifies stereotyping and exclusionism Lucy. As does your article on the subject which starts off almost proud of the news that you can't calculate 10% of £1,960!

No-one is pretending that innate differences between the sexes don't exist. A cursory glance down the high street will confirm that men are, on average, taller than women, and so forth. Why should the average male and female brains be the same while the average bodies are different? But the point is here we're talking about averages. The information on your remarkable lack of mathematical skill tells us essentially nothing about the average level for women. Conversely, the average level for women tells us nothing about the level of any individual woman. Also we're talking about innate differences. So your example of yourself is further invalidated by the fact that we haven't dug back to cancel out the effects of the education you received, the expectations made of you and so forth.

If you are prepared to accept a single woman as a case study to base your article on then firstly this is further evidence of your lack of understanding of the basics of statistics and secondly I should be happy to post you a photocopy of my mathematics degree from Oxford for use in your next polemic.

Dr Summers in fact is not talking about a difference in average innate mathematical ability but a difference in distribution of that ability, suggesting men may exhibit more extreme highs and extreme lows of scientific intelligence. This he is putting forward as an explanation for the lack of women in university posts which, we are to assume, require the "extreme high" intelligence bracket. However by this same arguement we would expect professions requiring a medium to high level of intelligence to be dominated by women, since more of the above average men are off at universities, leaving more women in the medium-to-high bracket. Of course this is not the case, jobs in areas like finance, insurance and even, to come back to your example, tax, are just as male dominated as universities.

Dr Summers also claims, without recourse to any scientific paper or study, that the difference in distribution of scientific intelligence is "innate" rather than a result of socialising. To "prove" this he falls into the same trap you did - relying on a single example, that of his own daughter "Dr Summers told the conference about giving his daughter two trucks. She treated them like dolls, and named them mummy and daddy trucks, he said". Frankly for someone with a doctorate generalising on the basis of one case is pretty inexcuseable. I think your suggestion that people making such mistakes should have their GCSEs revoked holds some water in this instance. Even if we accept the case, we still have a problem: just because the child has called the trucks "mummy" and "daddy" doesn't actually demonstrate a lack of mathematical ability as far as I can see. The idea that an understanding of the concept of family cannot co-exist with an ability to understand mathematical concepts is blatantly untrue and frankly rather repulsive.

So Dr Summers's remarks are based solely on his own opinion and as such are speculation, rather than anything which has or, arguably, could be proved. No-one in the audience is going to learn anything, unless it is about the condition of the workings of the Harvard president's mind.

So why mention it?

Dr Summers is a documented woman-hater. Credit to your paper for providing the info we needed in the end, albeit in the very last paragraph of the article: "During Dr Summers's presidency, the number of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36% to 13%. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women.". He's trying to reverse-justify what appears to be a deliberately sexist employment policy which he himself is operating.

So why should we be angry about this? Why does it matter?

The media (run predominantly by men) can, it appears, be relied upon to pick up on these things and give them full loud coverage. The original article in the guardian mentions biological differences in both the title and the first paragraph. The other points of Dr Summers's speech (some of them equally repugnant, but given by him as more important factors than "innate ability") do not appear until paragraph four. It is not until paragraph nine that the fact that some of the audience strongly disagreed with Dr Summers gets a mention. Other news sources presented an even more one-sided case. Not everybody reads past the headline. Some people I know have quoted the story to me as if it were a recently-proved "fact".

The propensity for confusion between an overall average and an individual couldn't be more clear from your own article. The leap from believing that the average intelligence level is different to assuming that an individual is of higher or lesser intelligence is a very small one in our society. This makes it irresponsible, I think, to make generalisations like this along gender lines. If Dr Summers next article suggests, on the basis of no real evidence, that black people or gay people are less intelligent or less well equipped to take on senior jobs, would you be quite so ready to defend his remarks?

I, for one, believe there are those out there who would seek to exclude women from certain opportunities. Historically many professions were completely out of bounds for women. Mercifully few persist today in western culture (parts of the armed forces, parts of the clergy and a handful of others), although many more remain in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc. Within those where women now work regularly, there are still innumerable cases of discrimination and prejudice against them. Class action suits by women at investment banking firms are, I admit, but a single example, but at least one involving a large number of women. The recent feedback from women MPs about the attitudes they faced withing the government would be another. I could go on but I think very few people would be able to deny my point: Some people out there are prejudiced against women. Given that state of affairs it is surely irresponsible to provide quoteable comments from someone in a position of enormous power and respect which appear to justify yet more exclusionism. The comments will not only serve to reinforce prejudice but could even be directly quoted, in court for example, to "justify" the dismissal of a female from a role or the reluctance to employ a woman into a position of power.

The feminist movement (yes, the movement that got you the vote Lucy, and the right to work as a journalist if you wanted to as well) are sick and tired of hearing that 10% (sorry if you're still having trouble with percentages) of the top jobs is all we should be aiming for, that the battle is over and that we should all calm down now. Comments like those made by Dr Summer show us that prejudice is alive and well and we need, as women, to stand together in calling his behaviour irresponsible and offensive.

2005 will be the year of...

Well, hopefully of "Make Poverty History". There are really no excuses for not signing up for this one. No excuses for not writing to Tony Blair, making donations and wearing a white band. I've added one to the corner of my blog. Have a look at the website and sign up. Happy New Year folks!

Kicking like a girl

Good old FIFA are at it again - insisting that women shouldn't be allowed to play in men's football teams. Whatever next? No gay people in the straight olympics please! Seperate teams for for black people and white people? Oh please...!

Well I have written a nice email to Mr Blatter letting him know what I think of his rulings. He may remember me from the last time I wrote to tell him what I thought about his suggestion that the best way to raise the profile of women's football would be to insist on skimpier outfits for female players...

I do have some sympathy with those who fear that letting a few elite women in to the men's league would be harmful to the women's leagues. However I think the disadvantages there are more than outweighed by the thousands of women who would likely be inspired to take the sport up if they saw women competing in this way. And it would encourage girls to go down the park and join the local boy's team if that was the easiest way to learn to play.

Doing this at the highest level however sets a precedent for teams right the way through the league system to exclude women. Especially in rural areas this can mean the difference for women between having the chance to play and not having the chance to play.

Personally I used to play for a women's team until last season but there are far too few teams around central London and competition for places is desperately fought. I ended up registered with a team but very rarely getting a game. So now I play for a men's team, and its great fun. OK, so what I should have done is started my own women's team, but I don't have time anymore [I ran my own team for 3 years in Japan a few years back]. In the past I've played for a lot of different mens and womens teams and the variety of experience has unsurprisingly made me a better all-round player.

Anyway as its Christmas and since you're all so special I thought I'd risk the threat to my blogging anonymity (I've had a very different hair-do since then) and post up a picture of me lined up to play for the "Vagabonds" team. This was 2002 in a mini-world cup friendly tournament in Tokyo, despite being English I was playing for the USA (anything for a game!). Actually I was the only woman in the whole competition and ended up being interviewed on local TV.

Well that's the piccie there folks as promised. Have a good Christmas now!

The Kindness of Strangers

I'm glad I'm not the only one seriously wound up by the new advert warning women of the dangers of unlicensed minicabs. Why are we asked to accept that there "just are" nasty people out there and therefore it's really our own fault if we - or our female friends - get violently raped on the way home?

At the age of fifteen I used to walk the mile to the bus-stop and sometimes, if I missed it, the 3-4 miles into my local town to my Saturday job. Since I could hardly have been headed anywhere but the town centre, barely a week went by when someone did not stop and offer me a lift. And I always accepted, never thought twice about it. In fact last time I was back in that part of the world I bumped in to one of the guys who used to give me a lift and we had a drink and a chat. Nowadays no doubt I would be personally responsible for encouraging paedophiles. Crime rates have not increased in the intervening period.

I'm also seeing adverts on TV telling me that I need to fit burglar alarms, double-lock my door when I go out and not use my mobile phone in public in case mysterious evil-doers see it and steal it. The government is, it would seem, topping up the efforts it has already made to cultivate a climate of fear and mistrust just in time for bringing in 1984-style identity cards.

Statistically, as a woman, you are much more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger. I always think of that when some pushy guy I've met within the last few hours starts insisting on walking me to the bus stop.

Finally, ladies, let me remind you who you are most at risk of being physically hurt by: your own husband or boyfriend. Would your friends let you get into a car with him?

Sexism? What sexism?

What hope do women have of a fair and equal society when the government, whose job it is to legislate for a fair and equal society, behaves like this?

If you think you're smart...

...try this Geography Olympics, I was horrified to discover how many I didn't know or could only place in a rough area. Actually I'd like to see Bush and Blair playing this against other world leaders. Meanwhile it is a bit of fun and passed the time here.

Fathers 4 Injustice?

The other night I watch Fiona Bruce's "Real Story" about Fathers 4 Justice. She's not one to shy away from challenging issues and I was particulary interested in two statistics:

1) 99.2% of court applications for access are granted. Is it possible that the remaining less-than-one-percent of fathers who apply are actually not fit to be left in charge of children? Remember that if the mother grants access anyway there will be no need for a court order, only those where the mother is unhappy go to court. If the access order isn't observed, the father should have a good case for applying for full-time custody. ...but the pyjama-wearing protestors don't seem to want to take on the hard work part of child-raising.

2) Compare that to 25% of women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. Now of course it depends how many times we keep on letting these guys come out of prison (if we even send them there in the first place) and beat someone else up as to what percentage of men we have to assume are inclined to violence against women. Even a conservative estimate would suggest 2-3% however.

And F4J are claiming that Ms Bruce is biased because she knows someone who was a victim of domestic violence. ONE IN FOUR women are. Surely she would be more biased if she didn't know a victim of domestic violence, most people do. I do, I know several.

And, yeah, sure, so people can reform, and become fit fathers again. It's possible. But shouldn't the law assume that violent men aren't fit to be left alone with kids and then let them come to court to prove that they are? Rather than handing over the kids and seeing what happens in the meantime while their mothers are trying to build a case against them?

The guardian had this excellent article on the situation a month or so back.