Do the courts have any idea?

This one was in the Metro this morning which isn't online but I've found the story on this site here. It's another case of a woman being raped (allegedly) while she was drunk. The case has been thrown out because the woman's memories are incomplete. The court seems to have forgotten that these days UK law says it's up to the accused to prove consent was given, rather than the other way around.

Also frighteningly the judge said to the jury that a conviction could not be procured unless they could prove "he [the alleged rapist] did not reasonably believe that she had consented". Hold on now - surely the question is whether consent was given, not whether or not the attacker THOUGHT consent was given... If he thought consent was given when it wasn't then he's guilty, that's how the law works. You can't get away with theft because you thought the goods you took were yours to take or being given away for free. You can't get away with speeding because your speedometer is broken and you thought you weren't speeding. You did it or you didn't.

Cartoons for atheists

Last night's event at Oxford Brookes Uni was a lot of fun. Super Sandra, Dianne Dingo and Marina Messerschmidt all put in an appearance shortly before I took a dip in the chocolate fountain. After the show I got chatting to one of the punters who had helped me out reading out one of my intros while I was frantically getting changed (for those who've never seen me performing an extended multi-character set this will make no sense!). Anyway his name is Clive Goddard and he's a very witty cartoonist so here's a link to his site, head over for a bit of a Friday luagh.

Upcoming gigs

Here's your chance to see me over the next few weeks...
(Key: KS=regular set as myself, C=compering, SS=as Super Sandra, DD=as Dianne Dingo, the number shows how many minutes I'm doing. Obviously when compering it's as many as I need or want to, usually 20-25 over the whole night).

Sunday 19th February 99 Club Soho, Red Lion Pub, Great Windmill Street (KS10, £3-£6, 8pm)
Monday 20th February Anda De Bridge, Shoreditch High Street (SS10, free I think, 8:30pm)
Tuesday 21st February Bath University, Student Union (KS20, £3, NUS only, 9pm)
Thursday 23rd February Oxford Brookes University (private function)
Sunday 26th February King's Head, Crouch End (KS10, £7/5, 7.45pm)
Wednesday 1st March 99 Club Angel, Camden Head Pub, Camden Passage, Angel (KS10, £3-6, 8.30pm)
Thursday 2nd March Cheese 'n' Crackers talent show, Battersea Barge (DD5-7, £8, 8pm)
Monday 6th March Comedy Scramble, Red Lion Pub, Great Windmill Street (C, free, 8:30pm)
Tuesday 7th March as-yet-unnamed sketch show, The Enterprise, details tbc, sketches though rather than stand-up.
Wednesday 8th March Speed-dating event in central London somewhere...
Thursday 9th March as guest customer at Leonard's comedy hairdressers, The Enterprise Chalk Farm Station. It's like a comedy and chat-show, he cuts hair and interviews people as he does it.
Friday 10th March Amused Moose LaughOff '06, The Enterprise, Chalk Farm Station (DD5-6, £5 if you say you know me, 8.15pm)
Monday 13th March Pleasance Islington, details tbc

...then off on holiday! When I get back I'll be starting preview for my Edinburgh show, which will feature all of me, Super Sandra and Dianne Dingo and other characters too.

Work work work

This frightening report out of the US says that by the year 2050 life expectancy will have risen so much that the retirement age should be moved to 85. All very well but if we have the technology to make people live to 120 or whatever, then I figure we should also have the technology to allow people to retire after about four years of work and have futuristic robots in all the manual-labour-intensive jobs, while we sit around watching the holographic smell-o-vision entertainment provided on our luxury moon-base. No?

Local Papers

I'm really enjoying keeping up with news from my childhood home town Bury St Edmunds over on Ruby's lovely blog (link in the panel, right). This week I had a particular belly laugh over this post listing some of the classified adverts from the town's local paper. If anyone would like to pledge money towards getting me the "Medieval wench costume" let me know!

Restaurant anti-recommendation

Last night on my way from the gym (5k, 22m51s, which I was quite pleased with) to compering at the Scabby Tabby (Gareth Berliner particularly on fire, Yianni, Phil Klein and Lloyd Langford, generally a great night) I dropped in to grab some food at a revolving sushi place called Gili Gulu. Now I can be a bit fussy about Japanese food, having lived there four years. But this place really is taking the mick!

Firstly the food isn't Japanese (as it claims to be). Half the dishes on the belt were spare ribs and Chinese things. They had Edamame (soya beans) served IN sushi rolls. They brought me very poor Miso soup (eventually) in a Chinese soup bowl with a spoon in (it's supposed to be drunk from the bowl, which is a lot easier if you have a Japanese-style bowl).

Secondly the food is awful. I asked for six plates and couldn't even eat them. The tiny shred of salmon was so flavourless in my roll I actually stopped to peek and see if it wasn't limp carrot or something. Very little fish was coming round on the belt at all, mostly just crab sticks and cheapo stuff. They do a 75-minute buffet option during which time you'd probably see about half a dozen pieces of fish come past if you were lucky.

Thirdly the staff were rude and unhelpful. At one point my waitress grabbed a dish (which I had taken off the belt myself) out from in front of me and wandered off with it, I have no idea why. Now I'm pretty used to staff in Japanese restaurants not speaking Japanese, but these guys didn't speak English. I had to go and ask twice for my soup before it arrived.

I had a look at other reviews on the web and looks like I'm not the only one who had a bad day there. Here are some of my favourite comments from London-Eating (link above on restaurant name): "The buffet, for what it was, wasn’t cheap- the food wasn’t fresh & the choice small.","Poor food that didn't taste fresh and the worst service I've experienced in London, ranging from curt to downright rude.", and my personal favourite... "The bathroom are just unacceptable, worth than Caffe Nero and McDonalds put together! It made a member of staff laugh when I did ask for soap!!"

If you want a reasonably-priced Japanese meal in the Soho area, with an all-you-can-eat option try Hi Sushi on Frith Street. Went there last week and it's great, although the dishes they bring are very generous, be careful not to over-order!

And who says Americans don't understand irony?

Dick Cheney has described the day he accidentally shot his friend Harry Whittington in the heart as "The worst day of his life". And the days when he willingly and deliberately murdered thousands of Iraqi civilians and simultaneously sent hundreds of American and allied soldiers to their deaths or to serious injury and a lifetime of trauma...? They were good days I guess.

Small change

Compulsory reading from Joseph E. Stiglitz on the cost (financial) of the war in Iraq. He puts the figure at anything up to $2 trillion and concludes "One cannot help but wonder: were there alternative ways of spending a fraction of the war's $1-2 trillion in costs that would have better strengthened security, boosted prosperity, and promoted democracy?". Of course while the rest of the economy and the US (and UK) population suffer the consequences of the over-spend, where has the money been spent? And which group of investors are most heavily involved in the "winners" from the big war spend? Defence? The Carlyle Group? Halliburton?

Radio days

Well Saturday night went very well. I really enjoyed it. Some guy rang in (Graham, thanks Graham!) and agreed at length that with a 1 in 500 risk of dying from surgery it really wasn't worth it. Sadly I was not in the same studio as the pro-surgery woman, who's apparently had £12,000 of surgery herself before which she claims "she was sometimes mistaken for a man*", so I can't comment on what she looked like. Listen again is available as usual here.

And this morning I'm up bright and early to get started on Radio Jackie. Won't be doing anything more exciting than travel news. Should be doing more and more over the next few weeks though. In south west London and north Surrey it's 107.8 Fm or anywhere in the world you can listen on the web here.

*So what? I have been told more than once that I resemble a young and glamourous Boy George, and it's never bothered me...

Cru-blog on BBC Radio Five Live

...again, tonight. The Stephen Nolan show, 10pm London time. Talking about plastic surgery, mmm, one of my favourite topics. Apparently the other guests have been warned that I am quite "feisty"! Too right I am...

Headline stuff

This made me laugh. BBC article titled "Tories gay stance was wrong". I just can't help thinking they should have had their left hands a little more pertly on their hips and their heads thrown back a little more indignantly, etc. Make your own Tory gay stance gag here... Of course the Lib Dems would be the ones to advise!

Really sickening

Latest reports out of Guantanamo Bay from the BBC. They are using what they euphamistically refer to as "a restraint system to aid detainee feeding", i.e. strapped to a chair with a tube down their throat. They're also restrained after feeding to stop them vomitting and held in solitary confinement for extended periods.

Now you've got to ask really if conditions are as humane as the US insists they are, why up to 100 guantanamo inmates at a time have been on hunger strike for the last 9 months. You've also got to ask when they're going to start trials. We were originally told that they were just being held there while they got the evidence together to try them. And since that hasn't happened it begs the question: what about the innocent ones? Interestingly the report estimates that 55% of inmates are basically innocent. If they had the data available to figure that out, then surely they can use the same info to try the other 45% and then sentence them. Not that that would necessarily help much, since the military trials they are supposedly being prepared for fall way short of international standards.

Add to that the fact that these guys have been in there for four years. They can't let them out in case one of them writes an autobiography... The interviews which Moazzam Begg gave after he came out were damning enough. Amnesty has suggested they should close the whole thing down, but they do appear to be cornered in terms of public opinion. As soon as they do anything it attracts attention so it's easier to just do nothing. Of course what's needed is public outcry against the status quo.

It's a real shame we've seen all this fuss about a couple of irrelevant cartoons published by non-Muslims for the benefit of non-Muslims. There are much more important things to be angry about.

Cruella on air!

Cru-blog fans in South West London and North Surrey can catch me doing traffic and travel news next week on Radio Jackie every weekday between 10am and noon. The plan is for me to gradually move into doing some chatting and co-presenting with Steve Mowbray, the regular morning show presenter, the following week, if it all goes to plan. If you do tune in please give the station a call (020 8288 1078) and tell us you've heard me! You can also listen live on their website from anywhere in the world. I'll keep you all posted when I'm doing more fun stuff. It's basically music and local news and chat, nothing too shocking!

You do not see...

...atheists killing people over cartoons.

Although to be fair it isn't all that clear whether protestors were killing people or whether heavy-handed police and security forces were popping off protestors. Nasty and pointless business either way.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Jackie Ashley's latest piece in the Guardian paints a grim picture of modern relationships. She claims, without reference to any statistics whatsoever, that "Most divorcing men are treating their wife as they do their car, trading her in for a younger model." Luckily for her the Guardian itself has done the research for her last July when this article highlighted the fact that women are, on average, much happier than men after a divorce, and much happier than they were before the divorce. 7% of divorced men claim to feel "suicidal" (as do 3% of divorced women). I guess that 7% are not running around with Ms Ashley's "younger model". Also 46% of divorced women reported feeling "liberated" (as did 37% of divorced men).

Ms Ashley goes on to explain that this unevidenced behaviour from men has had an impact on women: "Hence the sad desperation of so many women to use the knife, the needle and the hormone tablets in order to stay as young-looking as possible". I'm no expert but I really don't think it's men who are driving women to the operating table. Surely everyone in their right mind is aware that relationships stop being about appearances after about the first fortnight. Meanwhile the media with its barrage of positive-angled stories about surgery, all the reality TV shows focussed on normalising plastic surgery and it's insistance on portraying only women in their twenties with tiny waists and perfect teeth, could only be said to be doing everything it can to encourage women to believe they need or want to undergo dangerous operations. Articles like Ms Ashley's only bolster that message.

Why does a supposedly high-brow paper persist in publishing this sort of nonsense?

Raynaud's Awareness Month

As a sufferer myself I feel duty-bound to point out that it is Raynaud's Awareness month. More information on the condition is here on the BBC website. Personally I find every cold winter month is Raynaud's Awareness month!

I'm not sure I personally need a whole month though to spread the news about the situation. The website refers to it as a "devastating condition" but I don't have it badly enough to make such a claim. Since I quit smoking and with the amount of exercise I take, it's largely under control for me. I even ski (badly)!

I do take Seredrin for it, which I would recommend to any other sufferers. I did at one time try electronically heated gloves and socks but they were useless - the socks too bulky to wear with insulated boots and the gloves, well only the palms were heated, not the fingers - and I would recommend them to no-one. Just get ski-gloves and proper arctic boots.

I was once advised by a doctor to manage the condition by avoiding contact with vibrating objects...hmm, no comment!

Hit Parade

Also I've put a hit-counter on the blog. It started today so if you've just logged on then don't worry you're not the third person ever to discover the Cru-blog. I'm just curious to see how many people actually do log on. I quite often hear from people that they know the blog despite the fact that they've never posted a comment.

Essex (and Suffolk) Girls

Ms Greer has put together a defence of (not to say eulogy to) Essex Girls here. Makes some great and entertaining points. Personally I was born one side (in Wembley) and grew up the other (in Bury St Edmunds) so can claim no real connection, though I did lose my virginity in Pitsea, Essex, a very long time ago indeed...

Speaking of Bury St Edmunds though (as we weren't really) I've recently been alerted to a blog devoted entirely to Bury St Edmunds, which apart from being deeply witty and well-written gives a crackin' (do your own Anglian accent for this bit) insight into rural town life in the UK. And for those of us who recognise the places and even some of the people featured, it's even more interesting. I might put up a permanent link.

Depressing stuff

A survey detailed on the BBC reveals that only 48% of people in this country believe that evolution is the best explanation for the existance of the universe. I don't know if the Gideons are still sticking bibles in hotel rooms around the country (always handy if there's no loo paper left) but I'm seriously thinking of starting a fund to buy copies of works by everyone from Darwin to Dawkins and put them in hotels, schools, churches, village halls, etc. I find it embarrassing to imagine I live in such an ill-educated country.

Before it becomes illegal...

... I should like to point out that I think religions, all of them, are a pack of lies. A very stupid and dangerous pack of lies, which for centuries have resulted in the oppression of women, of the poor and of homosexuals, and continue to do so. It is outrageous that subscribers to a set of illogical unscientific supernatural beliefs should be protected in this way while misogyny and homophobia go largely unchecked in society.

I think the bill should be changed. I'd accept the whole thing with just one little adjustment. The definition of "religion" should be changed to include only a set of beliefs which include the idea that followers should give their money and wealth to the poor and live frugally. Most major religions include this admirable ideal. Only persons who adhere to this component of their religious beliefs would be protected.

Save the Date

Sunday 5th March. I'll be compering a genuinely huge show at Her Majesty'sTheatre in aid of Interact Worldwide. They're an international HIV and AIDS charity doing loads of cool stuff. The details of the line-up are under wraps at the moment, ready for the big announcement. Prepare to be impressed though. And pencil it in your diaries now!

Oh please!

Here we go again. Yes poor unfortunate men just can't get a job in accountancy any more. Despite the fact that once they do get the job, guess what? They get paid a whole load more. Maybe employers would rather hire women because they know they can get away with paying them less. Maybe it's because they know women put in longer hours and work harder because they feel that they have to over-achieve in order to garner any recognition.

Also I love the way they say "the pay gap between men and women is partly down to the career choices that women make ", and the other part of the pay gap is down to what? Blatent outright unbridled misogyny? Seems like the report is only half finished...

Change in Africa

Africa's first female leader, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has started her campaign by announcing an assault on public enemy number one for women in socially-devastated Liberia: rape. I really hope she's successful, it's so badly needed.

Cru-blog live

Well last night's interview was delayed considerably after the Mark Oaten announcement. It was also cut rather shorter than expected due to all the other news stuff going on. Still the subject was covered in the end for about ten minutes around midnight. You can "listen again" here. The discussion was about whether parents should let older teenagers (sixteen to nineteen year-olds) have their boyfriends and girlfriends stay over (in their rooms).

Now my parents would never let me do this with the resultant effects that (a) various members of the Suffolk Ramblers association were treated to the sight of my naked bum (b) I never talked to my parents about sex ever again and, I guess (c) the idea that sex was wrong/dirty was re-inforced. My point was that if they can't do it in the house they'll do it at the bus stop where there is a lot less chance of sensible safe and enjoyable practice being adhered to. The guy arguing with me reckoned that it was "all very well in theory but when you actually have kids you want to protect them". One of those great arguements that means absolutely nothing. Like "I've had kids so I'm allowed to behave irrationally", and how exactly he meant to protect them by forcing them to fuck on the streets is beyond me. He also had his 15-year-old son on hand to nervously stutter out that he agreed with his Dad (he didn't sound to me like he had much choice!).

He also said if you started with sex, next you would be allowing them to take drugs in the house. The implication being that sex is as bad and wrong as, presumably, he believes drugs are. Difficult to know where to start on that one and sadly we ran out of time.

He also hilariously pointed out that he was much more protective of his daughter than his son. He insisted that one of the main reasons he couldn't let his son have girlfriends over was because he had a responsibility to the girl's parents. So increasingly I was developing the impression that he regards sex as something nasty that men do to women. Again sadly I didn't have time to ask him which public school he went to...

Jobs and gender

Yet another gynaecologist is in the news for repeatedly making an almighty mess of things. If your gynaecologist looks like this, uh oh.

I do not understand why any woman in this country would visit a male gynaecologist out of choice. I had a horrid experience with one myself who I was only visiting cos no-one had a female one on the health insurance I was on. It's a pretty unpleasant experience at the best of times, without having to worry about what sort of cheap thrills the specialist is getting out of the situation. I'm sure there are some great ones out there but I think it would make great sense to say that new doctors entering the specialisation should be female. Of course there is no doubt somewhere a letcherous old lesbian with an extra-cold speculum (female gynaecologists always warm them and male ones never do in my experience...) just waiting for me to step through her door. I'll take my chances though.

Isn't it just a little bit ridiculous that women aren't allowed to become bishops in churches and men are allowed to professionally poke women's genitals about in the name of medical science?

Cruella FM

Mistress of the Cru-blog Kate Smurthwaite (that's me!) is back on BBC Radio Five Live tomorrow night. It's the Steve Nolan show 10:30pm. Discussing teenagers and sexuality. Please tune in.

Message to my innumerable critics...

Seem to have been a number of people on my blog and via e-mail lately saying things along the lines of "great blog but you should be more open-minded"... I wanted to make the following points:

The blog represents my opinions. Otherwise no-one would read it, it would just be a forum for public comments. My views on here are far from set in stone, but they're thought out, I've done my research. I welcome posting from people who disagree with me.

The arguement "you should be more open minded" won't ever change my opinion on anything. If you want to change my mind, include links to trustworthy data on the subject, think your arguements through and make your point.

That said there are also some super-knowledgeable people whose input to the blog is much appreciated, thanks for dropping by, please keep coming.

Observation

Was watching the news today about the woman who was raped and mudered in Thailand and whose attackers have been caught and tried and are now facing the death penalty. The judge said "The woman would never have been able to identify you, you could have run away after the rape, but you chose to drown her. This shows that you are cruel." Wasn't the bit where they raped her pretty cruel too? Its yet another part of the world where yet another judicial system is propagating the message that rape isn't a real crime...

Big rise in casual sex

There has been a big rise in the number of people opting for casual sex, figures suggest.

The British Association of the Rampantly Horny recorded 22,041 one night stands carried out by its members last year - up 34.6% from 2004.

The figures show that the majority of casual sex continues to be carried out on by heterosexual - 19,601 procedures in 2005.

However, homosexual men and women now make up 11% of the total - up from just 8% in 2004.

This was recently illustrated by figures showing casual sex has enjoyed a surge in popularity among office workers in the City of London.

MOST POPULAR POSITIONS
Missionary: 5,655 (up 51.4%)
Her on top: 3,415 (up 50.2%)
“Doggy” style: 2,700 (up 9.3%)
Up against the wall: 2,279 (up 42.1%)
Her on top, facing away: 2,268 (up 34.7%)
Sitting up: 1,869 (up 24.4%)
Wheelbarrow: 1,436 (up 24.9%)
Flattened “doggy”: 1,176 (up 28.1%)
Spoons: 663 (up 9.6%)
Scissors: 580 (up 34.8%)

The top position for heterosexuals was missionary, with 5,646 carried out - a 51% rise since 2004.

"Doggy" style - continues to be the top position for homosexuals.

Less conventional positions, such as wheelbarrow, spoons and scissors, also showed a considerable rise in popularity in the last year.

Ms Lucky Streeter (not her real porn name), a consultant sex therapist and BARH president, said: "These figures appear to represent a growing acceptance of casual sex, particularly in diversifying positions and the number of homosexuals choosing to engage in one night stands."

Qualified advice

However, Ms Streeter stressed it was important that her members promoted responsible practices.

Concern has been growing about the number of people who opt for casual sex without using effective barrier methods of contraception.

...ok I wrote that article. It's is a spoof of an article on the BBC website about cosmetic surgery. Read the original here. Now bear in mind that you're much more likely to die from cosmetic surgery than from casual sex. Plus casual sex is much more likely to sort out your self esteem problem in my opinion! And yet my article sounds so irresponsible. Well I think it's totally irresponsible for the BBC not to mention the risks of surgery. One in 476 patients die. Yes DIE! And that's at reputable hospitals and clinics, it's loads worse at dodgy, overseas and unregulated places.

And that is my real "porn name" for those who play that game (it's the name of your first pet, then your mother/grandmother's maiden name!). Any yes, those are all genuine sexual positions, I guess I'll do what I have to in the name of research!

One more for us

Well assuming we haven't lost any in the mean time. Chile have elected their first female president. That makes ten around the world I think. Unless we've lost one in the mean time. Here's my latest list:

Ireland President Mary McAleese elected 1997
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark elected 1999
Latvia President Vaira Vike-Freiberga elected 1999
Finland President Tarja Halonen elected 2000
The Philippines Presidnet Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded 2001, elected 2004
Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia elected 2001
Mozambique Prime Minister Luisa Diogo appointed 2004
São Tomé and Príncipe Maria do Carmo Silveira appointed 2004
Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel elected 2005

and new entry Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile (2006- )

Sounds like she has some sensible plans for reform too, though we'll have to wait and see if she really means it.

Our mother who art in heaven...

The good old Church of England has "no theological objections to women bishops" but is going to keep them out until 2012 just to be on the safe side and even then offer alternatives for parishes who don't fancy the idea. Still I suppose that since the church has been oppressing women for centuries we should be grateful for the scraps offered from the table eh? I also find it amusing that the church, like most religions, has no consistent ideology whatsoever. Their rules are a mish-mash compromise of what most people seem to want...and they expect people to unquestioningly accept their nonsensical rules?

If your gynaecologist looks like this...

...get a new one!

Better than ID cards...

A town in Colombia is proposing a new law which would make it compulsory for teenagers to carry condoms at all times. Sounds like a great idea, since it would totally solve the problems of being embarrassed about buying them and carrying them around. Plus it would be the last time anyone said they didn't have one when they meant they didn't want to use one. The impact on teenage pregnancies and spread of STDs would have to be positive.

Needless to say the local church isn't so keen. Why anyone asked their opinion though is beyond me. The country has laws which are supposed to guarantee freedom of religion. And while the Roman Catholic church may preach against using condoms, so far as I know no religious edicts are infringed by carrying one around... The local priest is quoted as saying the move is "like selling guns on the street". Hmmm, yes, with the notable exceptions that guns kill people while condoms save lives.

Anyway it struck me that the impact on British society of the same law would be a whole lot more positive than forcing people to carry round over-priced ID cards.

Female celebrities and eating disorders

Seem to be all the rage now. The latest I hear is that Lindsey Lohan (huh? apparently she's in some low-quality film) hasn't got bulimia after all. Well there are a few confusing things here:

Firstly she says she was making herself sick to loose weight, but she wasn't bulimic... that's the definition of bulimia! That's like saying she's covered in thick furry hair, but she's not hirsute.

Secondly she says she's "appalled" at the story. Well that implies that she think eating disorders are something to be ashamed of. They're illnesses, and the message that those who suffer should be able to admit to suffering and seek help should be spread around as far as possible.

Thirdly what's with the journalists, and she's not the first one to be "outed" as having an eating disorder. Magazines like Heat do little else. And of course the focus is almost always on female celebrities, reinforcing the idea that we're only valued for our appearances (note how I cunningly passed myself off as a celebrity there!).

Something like 15% of women suffer some sort of eating disorder in their lives. And some men suffer too. A very small number have been open about it and brought the heavily under-reported subject into the media (notable exceptions: Princess Diana, Jane Fonda, Paula Abdul and Joan Rivers). And all of these cited the media glare as one of the contributory factors that caused their condition. So the more critical "accusatory" reporting on the subject, the worse the problem.

I suffered anorexia (nervosa, not bulimia) for about two years when I was 16-18. It's really horrible. I was down to about 7 stone at one point, thin enough to have had no periods for 18 month. Thin enough to take showers rather than baths since the latter resulted in my hips bruising against the ceramic sides of the bath.

Support in this country for those trying to overcome the condition is pitiful. A friend of mine's sister, Roz Dunham, committed suicide a few years ago while on the receiving end of totally unhelpful support for anorexia. There was a radio program made about it, with her Mum and sister interviewed. You can read the transcript here.

I think the issue should be a key component of NHS and government thinking and new policy, not a matter for snide, backstabbing press speculation.

Gigs

I'm not really making any new year resolutions. Trouble is I always keep them and it's such hard work... If I were to though, one of them would be to keep all my gig dates posted up, last night after a great Entertaining Tales I discovered a friend downstairs who was keen to know where he could see me, to which the correct answer was, two hours ago right here...

So here's what's coming up:

Tonight - Red Lion Great Windmill Street (compering 8pm, free)
Wednesday - Red Lion Great Windmill Street (probably as Super Sandra, 8pm, free)
Thursday - Amused Moose, The Enterprise, Chalk Farm (as Super Sandra, 8pm £5)
Monday 16th Jan - Pear-Shaped at Turnmills, Clerkenwell (as Super Sandra, 8pm, £5)
Wednesday 18th Jan - She-haa, Sahara Nights, King's Cross (as Super Sandra, 8pm £5)
Monday 23rd Jan - Famous Puffin, Tufnell Park (not as SS for once! 8pm, £3)
Thursday 26th Jan - Tiemo Entertainments Finance Debate... details to follow
Friday 27th Jan - Bromley CIU, London Road, Bromley (as me, 8.30pm, £8)
Monday 30th Jan - Anda De Bridge, Shoreditch (as Super Sandra, 8:30pm, free)
Wednesday 1st Feb - Singles Comedy Night, Context, Triton Court, Finsbury Square (as me, with speed dating, this is a £22 event only open to people aged 23-37, etc)
Thursday 2nd Feb - 99 Club, Red Lion, Great Windmill Street (8:30pm, £3)
Monday 6th Fed - Entertaining Tales, The Enterprise, Chalk Farm (Compering, brilliant story-telling show, 8:15pm, £5)

See y'all soon.

Turning veggie

I've turned vegetarian for the month of January. Mostly just to try to get myself to eat more fruit and vegetables, which is working, although I have lost about half a stone which I didn't really want to. Anyway it really amused me to see that there's been a big fuss made about a couple of TV chefs showing animals being killed on their shows. Really strange when you think how many people are shown getting killed on our TV screens every day. Do some people empathise more with turkeys than humans?

Isn't it time for a change?

They've named the 10 worst Britons of the last 1,000 years and guess what... they're all men! What a big surprise. Seems that us feeble little girls just aren't very handy when it comes to murdering, genocide, etc. Or maybe we're just a fair bit more moral.

Well I think there's an arguement for putting Maggie Thatcher in there but then she really wasn't making much of an effort compared to this lot:
1900 to 2000: Oswald Mosley(1896-1980)
1800 to 1900: Jack the Ripper
1700 to 1800: Duke of Cumberland (1721-1765)
1600 to 1700: Titus Oates(1649-1705)
1500 to 1600: Sir Richard Rich (Lord Rich of Leighs)(1496/7-1567)
1400 to 1500: Thomas Arundel (1353-1414)
1300 to 1400: Hugh Despenser (The Younger)(died 1326)
1200 to 1300: King John(1167-1216)
1100 to 1200: Thomas BecketArchbishop of Canterbury(c.1120-1170)
1000 to 1100: Eadric Streona

And before anyone complains - there were two women in the top ten Greatest Britons: Diana and Elizabeth 1st (and yes I know the votes were done a bit differently, hey I don't run the BBC, more's the pity). Not bad going in spite of all the oppression we've had to put up with over the years. Might have been more if Victoria had had a better press, also you've got to imagine Mary Seacole is splitting the Florence Nightingale vote (and arguably deserves a mention more than Flo).

Merry Anti-Christmas

That's pronounced "anti-christ" "mass" by the way. Since presumably the Christ and the anti-Christ share the same birthday...? I'm not sure on the details anyway I'll be mostly spending it at home with the cat, the telly guide and a bottle of red wine. Have a good one!

Worse than we thought

Latest numbers out suggest women in the private sector are paid 45% less than men. And people say the battle for equality is over!!

The wrong message

Just a couple of weeks after the Aberystwyth rape case was thrown out because the victim was too incapacitated to remember the incident, the great British judiciary is again giving rapists a clear signal to carry on as normal. Apparently "I was sleepwalking" is an acceptable defence. This is a disgusting outrage, it doesn't even matter whether the perpetrator was asleep or not. Non-consensual sex took place and that's rape. If anyone ever has the misfortune to meet the perpetrator I suggest you "sleepwalk" into the garage and get a nice big axe then "sleepwalk" in and show him the sharp end of it.

Memoirs of a Bloke

I am so fed up with all the fuss about the new Memoirs of a Geisha film. I lived four years in Japan and have seen Geisha working in Kyoto and read a fair bit about the culture. Now the trouble with the whole thing is that it's a hugely romanticised concept based on the idea that men have "ordinary" wives and then go out to indulge their fantasy for "extra-ordinary women" with Geisha girls. Well that doesn't seem very fair does it? Firstly where are the "extra-ordinary men" for the women to hang out with and what about those women who are extra-ordinary wives to start with?

The basic historical context is that since women in ancient Japan were barred from holding down proper jobs they were faced with two options: become a full time house-wife, entirely dependent on hubby for everything with no hope of escape and entirely at his mercy or remain single and work in one of the few professions that allowed women. Geisha was one of those few professions.

Housewives typically had a very tough life in Japan, and to some extent still do, excluded from everyday culture they were effectively slaves in the home. Geisha endured a gruelling beauty regime and continuous training and then worked in an industry in which their job was to pander to the needs of the men who payed their wages. It was devil or the deep blue sea...

They may have a startlingly iconic image that photographs well and reminds us of Japanese historic culture. There may also have been aspects of the life of Geisha which were enjoyable. Ultimately though we're talking about a book - Memoirs of a Geisha - written by a white man. And much as he may have interviewed ex-Geisha as part of his research, he presents the romantic parts of it, not for example the harshness of the other lifestyle options these women faced.

Plus the film uses almost all Chinese actresses! For those of us who know more about the far east than special fried rice, it is really obvious that those actresses aren't Japanese. Look at the shape of their faces! And how rude to trample across centuries of Japanese culture, picking out the bits that suit our westernised tastes and not even invite Japanese actresses to play the parts. Has anyone noticed that on the posters the Geisha girl has blue eyes? Not very realistic lads.

For those who would like to understand Geisha culture, I can recommend Geisha, a book by anthropologist Liza Dalby who spent several years living in Japan and working as a modern day Geisha.

The trouble with trouble with L-O-V-E

The second debate was on Tuesday night, sorry I didn't write it up earlier, key surprise was that Gareth Sibson "women shouldn't drink pints or play sport" from debate one didn't make it. Something about being too scared... The rest of the debate went ahead and was quite fun. One big issues that seems to keep on and on coming up though is this "men and women are different, we have to accept that". Well I think people, as individuals, are all different from one another and deserve respect for their differences. Seems like a lot of people out there really subscribe to the Men are from Mars, ... theory.

I'm not saying there aren't differences in the average man versus the average woman. Like guys are taller than girls ON AVERAGE. But as soon as we say "guys are taller than girls so girls shouldn't be in the fire brigade" we're missing a big point. Some girls are taller than some boys! Similarly there were people claiming on Tuesday night that women are more nurturing and men more ambitious. Well maybe on average. But I know some really ambitious girls and some really nurturing guys. We need to take people as people, give them the freedom to choose their own path and support them doing it.

I think this is the last one for now. I will be doing a new one in January about financial fitness and how best to manage your finances. Not sure what the format will be or who the other speakers are yet though.

Misguided giving

I had the evangelists from Samaritan's Purse round my house this morning to wish me Christmas Greetings (I insisted on calling it Yuletide and pointing out to them that it's a pagan festival... why do pagans never come round evangelising? I would be so much more interested...) and asking me to donate gifts and money for them to send off to poor children around the world with Christian tracts in!! I did explain that each one of those tracts could be replaced with a nice hot soup mix and that this would save lives but they seemed to have other priorities.

Please watch out for these people, they present themselves as a straightforward charity, personally I don't think they should be allowed to operate as such. Here are some much better non-religious places to offer support to the third world this Yule: Wateraid, Merlin (I did the London marathon, ugh, for these dudes a couple of years ago and was really impressed with their projects), Children International (for child sponsorship).

If you haven't read this...

...you should. Susan Faludi's Backlash. I have no idea why the Guardian are reviewing it now, nearly 15 years after it was first published. Still it is a seminal piece. And just as relevant today as it was then. I don't think Ms Faludi would think much of Lad Mags...

Should they re-name these things?

The Sports Personality of the Year Awards. Should we call them the Male Sports Personality of the Year Awards? All of the awards this year have gone to men. The mens cricket team and Andrew Flintoff, Shane Warne. Have we forgotten that England's women also won the ashes this year? The best coach, of course, is a male football coach, Jose Mourinho. The lifetime award has gone to a male football star, Pele. There are some great female footballers in this country who deserve recognition too, especially since they have to do it with a fraction of the funding and a fraction of the support.

Lord Coe, Geoff Thomas, don't get me wrong, they've all achieved great things. None the less if I was Ellen McArthur I'd be really annoyed.

Changes to UK law?

Apparently it's now ok to murder disabled kids. I find this totally shocking. Euthanasia is illegal in this country. It's considered murder. It sends out a really nasty message about the value of disabled people's lives.

Still on Lad Mags

The BBC Radio Five Live debate went very well last night, thanks to those who listened in and got in touch afterwards. On every single point I pretty much came out on top. And I got the guy who was defending them to agree that we should pass a law making it illegal to sell them to under-18s!! Go Cru! You can listen to it on BBC listen again on the web here. Just click on Sunday's show.

Cretin of the week

Some little toe-rag has responded to my article on the BBC with a defence of Lad Mags. The article is here, and it seems, as usual, to fall to me to respond to it.

His first point I had already addressed in my article. He claims that these magazines are not meant to be read by women, or people who might be offended by them. My point was that they are very widely available and that it is impossible to avoid them in modern life. That they have effected the "normalisation" of porn.

His second arguement seems to be "Lads just ARE like that", as though men aged as young as 12 - the readership of these magazines, are somehow immune to media influence. As counter-point to that I offer Diane Russel's work "Pornography as a cause of Rape". This proves thoroughly and conclusively that reading pornography increases the likelihood that men will commit rape.

He goes on to define "the Lad" (his capital letter, not mine) as being like a "six-year old alcoholic child with a sex drive", sending round tasteless jokes, and as a "tattooed 20-somethings wearing football shirts and swilling lager in the town centre while whistling at anything wearing a skirt". OK I see that demographic, what of it? Well apparently the world NEEDS lads. Yes. And here's why: "the world needs Lads, for young women to puzzle over and be frustrated by, for older men to look back on with fondness, and for mothers to pamper and tell off. Even if the pleasure you get from Lads is that you glory in not being one, at least they give you that joy"

I mean that arguement is just a huge pile of stinking b*ll*cks! It makes as much sense as the following:

The world needs Pedophiles, for police officers to puzzle over and be frustrated by, for children to learn the importance of not taking sweeties from strangers, and for therapists, to keep them in business. Even if the pleasure you get from Pedophiles is that you glory in not being one, at least they give you that joy.

Or has someone really missed the point?

Cru-blog live!

I'm being interviewed tonight on BBC Radio Five Live. About my views on Lad Mags. It'll take the form of a debate with a lad mag "reader". We'll see. Please listen in, you can do so on the web here. 11pm UK time.

If anyone hasn't seen it:

Here is the BBC link to Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. You can click "watch the video" and see the whole thing. It's quite quite brilliant. He talks a lot about US military interventions and the way in which they are ignored in the media. Those interested in a bit of further reading on the subject should try Killing Hope by William Blum. The link there offers the chance to read the index page which is frightening enough in itself. The book is out of date insofar as it doesn't cover the last ten years, but I think there's enough there to spot a sickening pattern forming...

Silly, silly, silly

In this BBC article teachers are worried that the government's new "trust schools" plan could lead to religious fundamentalists taking over state schools. Of course the irony is that our schools policy at the highest level is decided by Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly. Two people who I can only describe as... erm... religious fundamentalists!

And the Lord spake unto them...

...saying beat the living cr*p out of anyone who disagrees with you. Compassionate Christianity at work again here. A professor who had been instructed to teach "intelligent design" and rather sensibly thought he should teach it under the heading "mythology" has been introduced to God's love through a beating which left him hospitalised.

Start early with sexism...

Turns out parents typically spend almost twice as much on boys as girls for Christmas presents. They claim this is because girls don't want so much... Rubbish! I've spent time with a bunch of kids over the last few days and I can tell you exclusively that they all want everything. They will keep asking for stuff until they are told they can't have anything else (and beyond that too).

Cru-blog on the BBC

A version of my the-trouble-with-lad-mags article was published today on the BBC website. Quite prominently actually! Here's the link. And here's the full, original version (with the c-word!).

Today's reading...

Is from The Nation. It's a slightly longer piece about Dr David Hager, stalwart of the US evangelical God-bothering right-wing nutters. He's one of the main people trying, against the majority opinion to prevent the morning after pill being made available over the counter. Of course remember the MAP needs to be taken within 72 hours to have a chance of working and sooner than that if possible. So if you need a prescription to get it, and lets say for example you ripped a condom on Friday night and it's a bank holiday weekend...whoops!

Anyway I never understand how the key FDA people responsible for women's health are men. What the hell do they know about it? Personally I always ask for a woman doctor even if I have ear-ache. I once had a male gynaecologist and mid-smear-test he flippantly told me that he thought women who felt taking the pill affected their state of mind were imagining things...! To which I replied "you take it then!". Then I left, loudly told everyone else in the waiting room what I thought of his services, refused to pay, threatened to sue for trauma and never used that surgery ever again...

Anyway later on in the article Dr Hager turns out to be one of those nice wholesome Godly family men who thinks nothing of repeatedly anally raping his own wife... Amen brother.

Abortion in the US

The BBC has a lengthy article about the latest state of affairs. Some shocking things have emerged. Did you know that in Mississippi if a woman under the age of 18 is impregnated by her own father she still needs her mother's permission to get an abortion?! I'd like to see her given the option to have a free abortion and follow-up health-care, move into a foster home immediately, have several months off work or education with extensive counselling and full legal aid to have her father sent to prison. Am I weird?

They also legally have to tell people seeking an abortion that it will increase their risks of breast cancer. Despite the fact that that's a LIE!

Now don't click this link if you're sqeamish. But here's what happens if you make abortion illegal. This one's a FACT.

Roundup of problems facing women

The Guardian has spontaneously decided to put one together. And for once I think it makes some decent points. Have a read.

How rubbish are the police?!

Just been reading this rather unpleasant story on the BBC. About women trafficked against their will from Eastern Europe into the UK to work under duress as prostitutes. The brothel they worked in was advertising using cards in phone boxes. Mmmm. Have the police never thought of going through those cards, which appear in most phone boxes around London and just checking whether the services offered are legitimate? Seems like an obvious thing to check up on. Probably too busy standing around in tube stations looking for people with bulky or "warm" coats and rucksacks...

Outing God-botherers!

They're everywhere you know! Sneaking into public life, taking over our government with their "faith-based" policies... Spotted this one on the BBC: Nadine Dorries. Who is your hero? Jesus. Mmm. Interesting. And how do you feel Jesus' teachings on the importance of giving all your money to the poor would reconcile with Tory policy of reducing overseas aid? And how does it reconcile with the amount you've spent personally on fake tan? Could have saved a couple of lives with that money... And "thou shalt not kill", this was a bible "biggie". Stone tablets, burning bushes, God was pretty sure about this one, wanted to make it pretty clear. How would that fit in with your party line on bringing back the death penalty for certain offences? Or does your version of the Word of God feature a sub-clause 47 "* unless they've been really naughty". She even spells faith with a capital "F"!

Ultimately what this spells is yet another MP who hasn't really thought through the things they believe in and subscibe to and are attempting to foist onto the rest of us. Tut tut tut.

The normalisation of cosmetic surgery

Seems these days cosmetic surgery is a normal part of life. More worryingly it's referred to repeatedly without the risks being highlighted. The latest strange move is that the NHS is offering staff a 10% discount on cosmetic treatments.

Now - just to try something really dramatic - compare and contrast having plastic surgery and having unprotected sex...

Plastic Surgery has a 0.21% (one in 476) mortality rate. That's based on data from St George's hospital, you can see it here.

The mortality rate from unprotected sex is basically related to the risk of catching HIV, since other STDs are generally considered to be manageable or curable. Unlike plastic surgery you might get another 20 years or more of life with HIV, but lets treat it as instantly fatal. The risk of catching HIV from unprotected heterosexual sex in the UK? 0.0006% (one in 1.7 million). The numbers I've worked on are below, with links to justify all my working...

So you're three and a half thousand times more likely to die during plastic surgery than to die from having unprotected sex. And actually thats a pretty conservative estimate as you can see from all the allowances I've made.

Now of course I'm not encouraging unprotected sex, of course not. But I don't think the NHS would want to encourage their staff to engage in it, do you? Why is it that cosmetic surgery can be talked about freely without mentioning the risks, while much less dangerous activities carry innumerable warnings?

What we need to address is why so many women (and it is almost always women) feel that they need plastic surgery. What is society doing to continually reinforce critical focus on their appearances? And isn't it irresponsible to do so without talking about less dangerous ways to improve self image? Such as ignoring media messages about idealised feminine forms?

And here are the HIV infection risk calculations:

There are approximately 58,300 people who are HIV positive in the UK. Here's the link. That's out of an overall population of 60,400,000. Of course we have to take into account the way in which HIV affects the population. So lets assume that it only affects people in the age range 20-49, there are 48,800,000 of them. Data here. And lets assume that 40% of them are, for religious or personal reasons, entirely celebate or at least monogamous throughout their lifetimes with one partner. So we'll exclude them from our numbers. Now on the other hand I think its fair to assume that two-thirds of HIV-positive people know their status and are careful to insist on precautions to avoid infecting others. So we have 19,400 HIV positive people who are at risk of passing it on, from a sexually active population of 29,300,000. Now of course one incident of unprotected sex with an infected person does not guarantee transmission of HIV. In fact it's estimated that the likelihood of transmission from one incident is 0.0009, or 0.09%. Data here. I'm ignoring the skew towards gay communities and intravenous drug-users in HIV infection, which would reduce the risk for women and those not involved with intravenous drug-use communities. Anyway we end up with a risk of 0.00006% per incident of unprotected heterosexual sex in the UK. (One in 1.7 million).

A lot in the news about rape prosecutions

Seem to be a real plethora of stories about at the moment, most of them depressingly predictable and likely to encourage women up and down the country to not bother reporting the disgusting crimes perpetrated against them.

Firstly the judge has thrown out a case involving two students in Aberystwyth. The situation is a little complicated insofaras the victim was so drunk she can't remember exactly what happened. The judge has thrown the case out claiming that since she can't remember she may have consented and that despite being drunk to the point of total incapacity, that alleged consent should hold. They're missing a key point - the law now requires that the burden of proof fall to the defence to prove that she did consent. They of course have not one scrap of evidence to support this case. Still, if she was drunk she probably deserved it eh?...

The evidence that she is unlikely to have consented is strong: the sex took place in a corridor, few women's location of choice, the victim asked the defendent to walk her home specifically because she was afraid of being attacked and concerned that she was too drunk to look after herself, the victim has subsequently said there is no way she would have consented. Furthermore it's fairly obvious to me that she wasn't in a condition to provide consent. Having sex with an unconscious woman IS rape. Even if she wasn't fully unconscious, it's obvious from the fact that she asked for help getting home that she felt unable to take care of herself.

A second case is at least a little more promising. A woman in Sheffield who was raped (allegedly...) on her way home in a minicab has won the first round of the battle to have him prosecuted. The case here couldn't be clearer. She called the police the minute she got home, there was no delay in reporting the incident. The police told her they wouldn't be able to prosecute because (1) she didn't have enough physical signs of trauma, (2) there were no witnesses and (3) she had a previous conviction for a violent crime. Outrageous in itself. Once again the very least that should happen is that a court should be allowed to decide whose evidence seems the more reliable. Now it emerges that the woman doesn't have any previous convictions and they just made a data error.

Thirdly in case we were in any doubt as to the police's attitude to rape... a particularly violent and unpleasant case of a woman raped (allegedly...) at the hands of two policemen! They deny the charges, she's aborted a child she wanted because she was afraid it might be one of theirs. One of them denies another count of rape against another woman...

The BBC have also got an interview with a rape victim who didn't prosecute explaining why she decided not to. Her reasons are frighteningly predictable: wouldn't be believed, knew about the low conviction rate, etc. Every time this happens, or a case is thrown out or the CPS refuse to prosecute, that's one more rapist on the loose in our society AND a clear message being sent out to other potential rapists that they will get away with it.

And there's been a fair amount of discussion on here on the subject too.

I've been there...

No-one tell my mum... Actually our guide even pointed out the spot where the abductions happened! The full blurb about the rather less eventful, but still thrilling, trip I made is here.

Asking for it?

More data out on the appaling way that rape is still viewed and treated in this country. We are supposed to be enjoying the liberties of the 21st century and the first world. Still 25% of people believe women are at least partly responsible for their own rapes. I think if I meet someone with that kind of attitude it is partly their own fault when I hit them really hard in the face...

Made me laugh

A letter to the National Secular Society, published in their newsletter this week really amused me. It's from someone called Bruce Pitt, don't know who you are Bruce, but very funny indeed, cheers...

"I do get the 2 Rowans confused. As I understand it one of them is comedian who dresses up in period costume and talks nonsense, and the other is opposed to a new law that that says I can’t say what I just said about the first one. Have I got it right?"

Ok, ok, ok

The usual scores of people have been bugging me for a gig list. So here's a gig list for the next few weeks:

Tonight: She Ha at Sahara Nights, King's Cross
and Grafton Arms, Warren Street

Thurs 17th 99 Club Soho, Red Lion Pub, Great Windmill Street
Mon 21st Pearshaped, Turnmills, Clerkenwell, this is a kind of freakshow so I'll probably be doing something deeply under-rehearsed in character!
Tues 22nd Amused Moose Camden
Weds 23rd Mirth Control West Hampstead, I'm compering
Sun 27th Hogwash at the Hogshead, Lisle Street
Mon 28th Famous Puffin, Progress Bar, Tufnell Park
Weds 30th Scabby Tabby, Red Lion Pub, Great Windmill Street
Mon 5th Dec Err something in Kingston, think it's going to be good, watch this space...
Weds 7th Dec 99 Club Angel, Camden Head Pub, Camden Passage
Fri 9th December - my 30th birthday!
Sat 10th December - birthday related party, mail me for an invite if you think you deserve one!
Sun 11th Dec 99 Club Soho, Red Lion Pub, Great Windmill Street
Mon 12th Dec Entertaining Tales (brill storytelling) The Enterprise, Chalk Farm
Tues 13th Dec, Relationship Debate, as discussed below

Then after that I've got a little spell of compering "residency" Mon-Tues-Weds at the Scabby Tabby, Red Lion, Great Windmill Street. Sometimes I feel like I live there...

See you soon.

Carnival of Feminists

Cruella-blog was featured in the latest edition of Carnival of Feminists over at Sour Duck, for my article about the trouble with Lad Mags. Hurray! Head on over to revel in my reflected glory or have a browse through some of the other great articles that have been recognised. And next time someone tries to tell you no-one's really bothered about feminism these days, you'll be all ready to correct them.

The Trouble with Love

Well I participated in a debate about L-O-V-E last night. Other panellists included Elaine Sihera, author of "Money, Sex and Compromise" and Gareth Sibson author of "Single White Failure". A couple of points came up that I wanted to re-iterate/bang on about/whatever...

1) This whole idea that the second a woman likes having a door opened for her she's no longer entitled to equality. There was a lot of moaning about women who liked a guy to pay for dinner on a first date. Personally I'm not too fussed who pays for dinner, but I have absolute respect for women who like that and I think they're still entitled to equal pay too!

Women don't have it easy, discrimination, inequality, societal pressure to be super-woman, domestic goddess, etc. We don't have equality. We'd love it, but we're miles away from it. At the current rate of shrinkage it will take 80 years to close the pay gap between men and women. So many women do have less money than men and may well be specifically looking for affluence, financial security and generosity in a guy. If that's what you want, fair enough, and a great way to tell if these things apply is to let him pay for dinner. Good plan.

In asking for the benefits of "men's world" to be shared with us, women aren't obliged to give up every tiny little upside of womanhood. Did you ever hear anybody suggest that black people, if they want equal rights will have to stop having carnival? No of course not. Instead white people just started going to carnival too. I've been going for years and it's great. Men now enjoy the possibility of dating a woman who can afford to take him somewhere out of his normal price range. Lucky you lads, enjoy it, in the same way that we traditionally have.

2) We talked a lot about the impact of women getting stronger. My problem with this is so huge I couldn't really get into it properly last night.

I don't believe women are "getting stronger". I'm from London, as are my parents and most of my grandparents. I'm not aristocracy, I'm social riff-raff so the likelihood is that a couple of hundred years ago a fair few of my female ancestors were prostitutes. The rural ones may have been farm hands. Even the ones who were housewives would have lived in the days before contraception so would have been raising six, eight, maybe more kids, without washing machines, without even washing powder, making their own clothes, no fridge, etc. Whatever life they had they had to be really tough.

Most of the audience last night was black. Some of those people will have had female ancestors who were tribespeople, gatherer-hunters, living in primitive accommodation, in the company of dangerous animals, warring tribes and no real healthcare. I reckon they were pretty strong. Others will have ancestors who were slaves in the Carribean, British colonies, America, etc. ...which is accepted as the most gruellingly awful way of life ever to befall humanity. Any woman who was weak in that environment wasn't going to make it.

We're not getting stronger. We've been strong all along. In the past men appreciated our strength. In my experience a lot of them still do. Not Gareth Sibson though...tut tut tut. You can go whine at him on his website here! He even said he thought women shouldn't drink pints (guess what a whole bunch of us ordered in the interval!).

There is a part two coming up, 13th December, details on here when they come through: Tiemo Ents

Latest numbers on the pay gap

Women are now paid 17.2% less than men for work of the same value. "Unless radical new action is taken, another generation of women can expect to suffer the injustice of unequal pay" says the Equal Opportunities Commission. Chances of radical new action being taken? Very low.

The biggest income gap

Women in the UK take home less money than men. There are a number of "reasons". 72% of the money for work of the same value is one. The fact that more women take on part time or short-term work, and that conditions and pay for such work dramatically lag those for full-time work is another. We could talk about the ways in which society and manipulative and sometimes violent men push women into becoming primary carers for the dependents of the family. We could talk about the 94% of pregnant women who are victims of discrimination in the workplace. We could talk about glass ceilings and glass waterfalls, harrassment and prejudice. There are a lot of issues here.

The biggest discrepancy however is among older women, the pensions gap. Because women's work at home and as carers and home-makers is not recognised by the Department of Work and Pensions, only 16% are entitled to a full state pension. The result: extreme poverty among that section of the community least able to overcome it, preventable deaths from illness, hypothermia and poor nutrition and women cut of from society, unable to afford to leave their homes farther than they can walk, and resultant risk of mental illness and breakdown. I think addressing this should be a lot higher up the governments agenda.

Disgrace

This is a total disgrace. Even the investigation into the investigation into the investigation isn't being done properly. It's one thing when the initial investigation goes wrong. Then we have to stop, take a step back, and send in an independent team. But seems like we've sent in about six teams and no-one's done a decent job of sorting it out. The parents of one of the victims have managed to find vital information that's been overlooked on their own!

The levels of corruption that must be present in all three police forces and the army itself at Deepcut make it blindingly obvious why these four youngsters were not offered the support they needed when the problems started. Probably the whole place should be closed off until it's been sorted out properly.

Memorial Service

The service for the victims of the July 7th London bombings was a few days ago and I watched most of it on TV. The blatantly Christian service in which representatives of other faiths (but not none) were invited to light candles etc really annoyed me. Seems like once you're dead, as with Robin Cook, the church is there in seconds to start claiming you as one of theirs. Inevitably greiving relatives, traumatised and eager to cling to a little hope are not stopping them. The thing is though that we now know the Iraq invasion kicked off because "God" spoke to George Bush. And it's obvious that our participation in the illegal invasion has led to us becoming a target for so-called terrorism.

So here for the record, in public, are my requests (orders!) on what happens if I die (and this includes if I'm captured personally by Osama Bin Laden and held as a hostage for six years first, no excuses for changing them to suit your purposes anybody...)

1) Body if retrieved to be cremated in secular service.

2) Figures to be invited to the funeral and memorial service (assuming I die in such a conspicuous way that people want to come): George Galloway, representatives of Liberal Democrats and stop-the-war movement, Mark Thomas and Rob Newman, Germaine Greer and representatives of the National Secular Society.

3) That's it. No Tony Blair, no-one from the Labour party or Tories, no royals.

4) No biblical readings, no hymns (not even Jerusalem), no crosses.

5) No flowers, no expensive stuff. Donations to third world development charities (even if I've died of a disease which has a big charity prescence in the UK). Not including Christian Aid or anyone who's ever handed out bibles instead of food.

Err that's it. Pick some decent music too please. No tuneless singing.

Testing of Britishness

The BBC is doing a have-your-say thing about the new testing of Britishness thing. My comments are too long for their dinky little box so here's the full version:

I'd like to feel that Britain had a set of values that were worth promoting. What concept of Britishness could we genuinely claim to be upholding though?

Freedom of speech? Not with the new religious hatred laws, no.

Personal freedom from persecution? Not with the prospect of being held without charge under the anti-terror laws. Nor with the random application of ASBOs meaning you can now go to prison for swearing or sitting about in a car park.

Equal rights for men and women? Not with the current pensions imbalance. Nor in a climate where 94% of pregnant women believe they are discriminated against. And where women receive 72% of the pay men do for the same work. And where one in four women is a victim of domestic violence. And where less than 2% of rapes lead to conviction.

Racial and religious integration? Not while we're increasing our quota of religious schools effectively ghetto-ising those who don't wish to have their children raised religiously.
Protection from torture? Not while we're accepting "evidence" from overseas which has been collected through torture.

Acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles? We still have people getting murdered for their sexuality.

The right to a good education? Not while there's a massive shortage of places at schools around the country. And the rise of "parent power" means only those kids whose parents kick up a stink can expect a decent education.

Healthcare? Not while we're continuing to cut funding across the board. Not while women are having to sell their own homes to pay for treatment for breast cancer. Not while waiting lists are growning.

Until our own house is in order we have no right to expect anybody else to live by our standards.

Definition of "moral"

Well my dictionary says "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary." Now of course goodness is a matter of individual viewpoint in a lot of cases. However I find it very difficult to relate the actions of the pharmacists of Arizona to the term "moral" in this article.

Have a read and see what you think. Now I know some pro-life people are going to turn round and say that they thing the morning-after pill should be allowed in cases of sexual assault, just not in other circumstances. However, I would raise the point that only one in five rape cases is reported to the police in the UK*. If we only offered the M.A.P. to women who had been sexually assaulted we would have to ask them to prove it and we'd exclude 80% of the victims of rape.

If it was available over the counter it would save a lot of worry and a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

The other half of the story is more complex. The contraceptive injection is being promoted by the NHS as the miracle answer to teenage pregnancy. Now the usual suspects are on their high horses shouting about how it'll lead to a collapse in the moral fibre of our youth! Seems like they have all forgotten that people have minds of their own and the right to use them. If the only reason they're not having more sex is fear of pregnancy then perhaps we should take that fear away and let them have more sex. So at one level I think we should just offer it to anybody who wants it, end of story.

On the other hand I speak as somebody who's tried a number of different contraceptive pills and hated every one. Pumping hormones into your body every day isn't a very natural or healthy way to live and I've never managed to stick with one for any length of time. The injections last three months but there's no way of stopping them if you don't like them. I think it's not a very good idea to push them in the way that the NHS seems to be doing. It also promotes the idea that womendeal with contraception and men don't have to think about it. I think these things need to be a two-person thought process, just like the rest of the relationship and having kids, etc.

And the miracle solution to teenage pregnancy... actually I do know what it is. Of course I do! The number one factor which will predict a high rate of teenage pregnancy...? Poverty. So more money going into education and better benefits for those on low incomes. Obvious really.

*The remaining 80% may have rightly figured out that it is a total waste of time to do so when only 6% of reported cases result in conviction. Good news for rapists - only 1% of rapes result in convictions in the UK.

What's wrong with Lad Mags?

The Guardian Weekend (Saturday's paper version, sorry no link) boldly claims that feminists aren't really bothered by the proliferation of so-called Lad Mags. They haven't actually interviewed any feminists, nor have they cited any sources of this conclusion. Strangely only the other week they were quoting feminist statements from the Cru-bog on their very pages so they are clearly aware of the existance of my blog and it's slant. You would think it would be a straightforward exercise for them to take a peek and see that I've published several articles complaining about different aspects of such magazines. I've never written anything specifically about them as a genre though - I thought it was obvious we all abhorred them. So to set the record straight here are my views:

1) Porn degrades women. I covered the backbone of my reasons for believing this here.

2) Lads Mags often claim that what they show is merely "titilating" and not actually "porn". Wrong! Women in a state of undress deliberately photographed and displayed for the purpose of sexually exciting readers IS porn. The average lad's mag has around seventy SEVENTY topless photos per issue. That's actually more than Playboy, etc.

3) Furthermore many magazines claim to be "soft core" porn. By which they mean they don't actually show cunts*, just tits. Well I don't think we should measure "soft" versus "hard" in purely anatomical terms. The images shown often allude to violence - women tied up, etc and often allude to sodomy. Articles such as "How to talk your girlfriend into having anal sex" and "How to hypnotise women into bed" re-inforce the allusions. In any case I think soft porn degrades women too.

4) The articles and text that come along with the photos are generally very heavily drenched in terminology which objectifies and belittles women. Articles routinely refer to women as though they were animals or non-human. For example in the context of "how to train your girlfriend" and refering to breast augmentation surgery as "a refit", breasts as "air-bags", etc, etc. The notorious "Win a boob job for your girlfriend" feature I have covered in greater length here. Articles standardly refer to women as poor drivers, incapable of performing simple DIY tasks, indecisive, irrational, excessively talkative and obsessed with their appearances and shopping.

5) These magazines go to great lengths to give the impression that a large majority of women are little short of desperate to appear in them. Articles such as "Street Strip Challenge" where women are recruited as topless models on the street and photos sent in by women. The message being sent out is that if you don't wish to participate in the degrading circus you're in some way abnormal, prudish, etc.

6) The celebrity women interviewed are never offered a platform of any sort for their achievements beyond the superficial and titilating. Their views on politics/business/culture/etc are glossed over in favour of innumerable questions about whether they've ever had a threesome/lesbian experience/etc.

7) These magazines are not "top shelf", they're not available only in brown paper bags from shops with dark shutters, they're available in ordinary newsagents, on flights and trains and doctor's waiting room tables. The arguement that if you want to you can ignore them is invalid. Every woman who leaves her home to work or socialise runs the risk of seeing these magazines every day. They have single-handedly (in every sense) legitamised porn for public consumption. Their readership extends to boys as young as 10 to 12 years old. Of course amidst all the sexual imagery there is little or no mention of (1) contraception (2) STDs, (3) unwanted pregnancy or, heaven forbid, (4) responsibility for other's feelings int he context of relationships.

So yes, on balance I would say that, as a feminist, I am VERY bothered by the latest generation of so-called "Lad Mags"...

* In case anyone is thinking of proposing that I'm being sexist/offensive/unconstructive using this word, it's my term of choice for three reasons (1) It comes from the old English for "triangle" while vagina comes from the Latin for sword-holder, I don't like to think of mine as having a primary purpose as a recepticle for a weapon, (2) I think the vagina is a small part of a full on triangle (or as I call it "cunt") of key anatomical-parts: clitoris, labia, etc and (3) certain people get really pissed off when I say it, usually the kind of people I really want to piss off, i.e. misogynists.

Not got time for the whole story but...

...article in today's Guardian Weekend section (paper edition) interviewing the editors of the "major" lads mags - Nuts, Loaded, etc. Anyway the article dismissively claims that "feminists" don't seem very bothered by the proliferation of degrading images of women and sexist jargon that fills the pages of these nasty magazines. As usual no feminists were interviewed in the making of this article. I'm very bothered by the situation and so are all my feminist friends. I'd be very happy to be interviewed and indeed to write an extensive article about the issues, many of which I have addressed in previous posts on this blog. Most notably:

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/how-other-half-lives.html#comments

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/porn-post.html#comments

Totally circular arguement

Following on from the announcement earlier this week that the first state-funded Hindu school in the UK has been approved to open (see Cru-blog below), Margaret Hodge has said she wants faith schoools to open up to children of other faiths... She doesn't mention what atheist children should do. Her comments included the remark "cultural practices such as forced marriages that are unacceptable within Britain must be banned".

Now I don't want to make any direct connection between Hindu-ism and forced marriage, because I think that arranged marriages (which are considered socially acceptible as long as you've thoroughly brain-washed your kids in advance into believing they shouldn't make a fuss) are more of a cultural than a religious thing. However I would be prepared to bet pretty good money that kids sent to secular schools with a mixture of religions, including Atheists and Humanists, etc, Pagans, Animists and Jedi knights, are a lot more likely to stand up against their parents on these kinds of issues than kids sent to a specialist Hindu school where I'm guessing 100% of the students will be from the same cultural background.

Two major rip-offs

Firstly I went to Birmingham last night (to perform at the fantastic Glee Club, which is not a rip off at all but a really lovely comedy club...). However due to not checking out times and prices in advance I had to go with Virgin trains. Return from London Euston to Birmingham... £100! Seriously, and that's standard class, not business or first or whatever! Surely government watchdog people checking train fares shouldn't be allowing that sort of thing? Then on the (two and a half hour last train) journey back the intercom system was broken and every 30 seconds there was a deafening "PING-PONG" noise as if an emergency announcement was about to be made. So no chance of sleeping or concentration on my paper. Just made me really irritable, grrr...

The other incident which I was able to laugh at was that the drinks trolley came round and I asked for a cup of tea to which the woman replied "I haven't got any stirrers so if you want sugar I won't be able to stir it". Fair enough but she said this deadly seriously while the train was rocking about from side to side like a rollercoaster. "I don't think stirring is going to be a problem", I replied clinging for dear life to the arm rest. She looked at me blankly and poured me a tea.

Rip-off number two though is the new identity cards... £30 for the basic card and £93 for the accompanying passport. Even the lower £30 is a lot of money for people like elderly women receiving a fraction of the already pathetic standard pension. And without the card they won't even be entitled to healthcare... There are a lot of more worthwhile causes I can think of who would really be able to put this money to good use.

On top of this no-one seems to be quite sure what the point of the cards is. Clearly they'll do little to combat terrorism since all the London bombers were British citizens. And they open up carte blanche for would-be identity thieves to simply steal the card and not need to bother with learning the signature and figuring out the pin numbers, proof of address, etc. I don't want to pay £30 (or more likely £93 if I ever want to travel) for the right to be arrested and randomly locked up if I mis-place my card. I don't much want my irises scanned or fingerprints taken either thanks. It's totally intrusive.

Pointless out-of-context science "fact" of the day

According to the Guardian "Girls less likely to use condoms than boys " - that's the shocking headline. The implication is clearly that contrary to what "we" would all expect, actually girls are the irresponsible ones, tut tut tut. I'd like to see how exactly a girl is supposed to use a condom without a boy present!?

They then offer a breakdown of the 3,300 students interviewed... "...aged between 12 and 17 in the Midlands and the north-east England. One in four was said to be sexually active with half the active girls having sex without condoms, compared with 42% of the boys. " Thats all the numbers we get.

We really don't have enough information here though to form any actual conclusions. We need to know (1) what % of teenage girls versus boys are sexually active, (2) the age ranges of their partners, (3) the breakdown of heterosexual and homosexual relationships within these brackets and (4) the nature of the relationships they're in - marriage, casual sex, etc. I fail to be shocked that lesbians get through less condoms than gay men, which in theory could fully explain the discrepancy. Some of the girls may be married to men in their late twenties and thirties, we just don't know. All we know is that yet again we've got sensationalist headlines along the same-old, same-old "women should be locked up" lines from jounalists and sub-editors who don't appear to have actually understood the research in question.

To add insult to injury the remaining paragraph does exactly the same thing for racial breakdowns of the students: "The study also revealed that black boys were more likely to suffer from sexual health problems than their Asian or white classmates because they lose their virginity at an earlier age.". No data, no explanation. I guess black boys must be almost as awful as girls, eh...?

Our Father who art in the classroom

Isn't it obvious that the state-funded proliferation of single-faith schools is going to do absolutely nothing for race and inter-religion relations in the UK? Today the first state-funded Hindu school was approved. This will, in the long-term, take 240 students out of mixed-faith and secular schools and segregate them from the rest of the community. The remaining schools in the area will be deprived of some of their cultural diversity. Who is this good for? Well it's good for the religious leaders who want the chance to really drill their religious doctrine down the throats of young people...

Welcome to the increasingly famous Cruella-blog!

Thanks to a few people for pointing out to me and getting me copies. The Cru-blog was featured in the paper edition of the Guardian on Saturday 1st October for my comments on the Elizabeth Lloyd article they'd published a few days earlier.

Possible typos in the word of God...

Fantastic article in the Times, highlighted to me by fellow blogger Stephen Newton. The church has decided to let people know that it thinks there are a few minor errors in the text of the bible. You know the bible? Yeah the book their whole religion is supposed to be based on. So don't read the book, just listen to us and we'll tell you which bits we think apply. The word of God is all very well but you'd be better off listening to the word of a bunch of self-appointed "holy" men.

Anyway here are some of the key points:

1) Good news for women, we are no longer to be "ruled over" by our husbands. Bad news for generations of women before us who were taking that bit literally when God really wanted them to be liberated. Of course we're still not ready to be ordained, but progress is progress eh?

2) Creationism, that's not true any more. Neither version. All that un-scientific nonsense is to be scrapped. Good news all round.

3) The virgin birth and the physical resurrection from the dead of Jesus. These are apparently true still. So some un-scientific nonsense is being kept. The earth isn't flat any more and it wasn't made in 7 days but God can still raise the dead and impregnate virgins.

4) The ten commandments. We're keeping those, in spite of their inadequacies. For starters they're totally contradictory. "No other Gods but me" and "Honour thy father and thy mother". What if your parents are Muslim/Hindu/Shinto and want you to worship their God(s). Or indeed "Respect the sabbath and keep it holy". What if they're atheists who run a Post Office and want you to man the till on a Sunday? Also the fact that God never bothered to include one about not playing noisily with your Game-Boy on public transport...

5) Sermon on the mount. That's still true. The meek are still getting the earth. Go the meek! I'm not sure the meek want the earth.

6) Revelations. All false. The whole thing's rubbish apparently. Lakes of sulphur, horsemen of the apocalypse, all that fun stuff is going. Wonder why we ever had that book in the first place. They must have had some real good hallucinogens back in those days.

Speaking of Revelations. I was at a pub quiz a few month back and one of the questions was "Who are Pestilence, War, Famine and Death?" and my mate suggested "The Queen's corgis?". Hahaha.

Modern art

I know a lot of people like to loudly claim that they "don't get" modern art, as though stupidity were a virtue. Could they make it more obvious though than these religious zealots in Russia. I haven't even seen the piece but I can't help thinking that a sculpture of the Virgin Mary in caviar is probably going to be intended to make people think about the contradictions between extravagant lifestyles and religious belief. Probably, if anything, the correct response from religious people is to campaign against those who dine on caviar while outside on the streets people are starving to death. No, no, no though, down with art. Yeah I guess pointing out the ridiculous contradictions between what people profess to believe and what they practice in real life could be construed as inciting religious hatred...

...and the good news is that it'll be illegal here in the UK too soon. Artists, musicians, performers, comedians, secular activists and free-thinkers watch your backs!

Busy weekend and bit of fun

Well I spent last night in Wells, compering at the Long Paws Comedy Club. Britain's youngest comedy promoter, Ben Williams (16!!) had put together a really brilliant line-up (Simon Evans, Will Hodgson and Chris McCausland) for me to introduce. Made my job very easy indeed. Got back about 3am though, dzzzz.... You can read all about it on the club's website.

And that came right on the heels of compering at Amused Moose Soho on Saturday night with another fabulous line-up: Addy Van Der Borgh, Hal Cruttenden and Topping and Butch. Recently I have spent a lot of time compering new act nights so it feels like a bit of a luxury to be introducing acts who I just know are all going to be great. Long may this trend last...

And next Saturday (Oct 7th) I'm compering a music show at the Rhythm Factory. All the info is on the website. Looks like that'll be another late night, and I may have to dust off my old 60s black-and-white dress too! There's no guest list but please come along and have a boogie if it sounds like it's your bag.

Meanwhile if you're really bored you can express your views on the Tory party and have a bit of a laugh at the Pimp My Party website (note: not MY party, THEIR STUPID party...).

Sorry guys but word verification is now on...

Seems like every time I log on now there are 300 messages saying "interesting blog, why not come and have a look at my blog about penis enlargement drugs". While Cru-blog has the deepest sympathy for those less well endowed in the trouser department, we suspect that there are plenty of internet resourses available to those who wish to buy the new v!agra or to consolidate all their existing loans into one "easy" payment... So if you wouldn't all mind just doing the copy the word into the box thing that would be cool, I love comments whether you agree or disagree with me or want to ask question or have a laugh but I can't be doing with spam spam spam all day. It will make the blog easier to read for you all anyway. Ta.

How much are we really doing to help?

A few days ago we read that a brothel in Birmingham had been raided and a number of victims of human trafficking found working under duress as prostitutes. They had been brought to the UK on the false expectation of legitimate work. They had had their passports stolen, had been forced to remain under the supervisoin of brothel owners 24 hours a day. There was even an electric fence out the back of the building. On top of this of course, they were forced to have sex against their will repeatedly.

Amnesty International commented at the time that "there [is] no protection in law for victims of trafficking, who are usually classed as illegal immigrants and deported. Most are deported without any care or support or assessment of the risks they face if sent back. Communities might not want these women back if they know what has happened to them and there is evidence of people being re-trafficked." The police responded by saying that these women would "be treated as victims".

Todays new shows a slight shift in story. This report says that "six of the women removed from the premises have been handed over to immigration officials". So just shipped straight back to communities where they will likely be unable to reintegrate. There clearly hasn't been time for them to have received proper medical attention since they have been released from the brothel. At best they return to the same situation which led to them being trafficked in the first place. At worst they might well be excluded from their families and communities.

What sort of country do we live in? Surely in the circumstances the women should be given proper medical care, a few weeks/months in safe houses to recover from their extended ordeal with appropriate counselling and rehabilitation, the opportunity to engage in training or education to improve their employment prospects and reduce the risk of repeated trafficking, the right to choose for themselves which country they wish to stay in and support to enable them to do so. Surely we owe these women that much.

Also I would like to see a proper police search for the men who were using the brothel. The sex trade exists because people pay money for it. It is illegal to visit a brothel in the UK. We should seek out people who do and prosecute them in the normal way. This might reduce the number of people who go to these places and in turn make it less financially profitable to run such places. Isn't this obvious?