How NOT To Write An Article About Women's Lifestyles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is more psychological than sociological."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone else smell bullshit around here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did he steal that line from the Scientologists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Called botulism-in-the-face. Lovely.

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

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

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

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

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

Action To Take Now

If you're one of these free-thinking leftie, tree-hugging radical types who thinks stoning women to death for adultery comes under the heading of "a bit harsh", you may wish to follow some of the recommendations here to stop just that happening to Kobra Najjar (pictured) in Iran.

When Will This Rubbish Stop?

I know I shouldn't read the Daily Mail but someone sent me the link and I got curious. This article is disgusting. The story is about W.I. members (women's institute, a big organisation of women in the UK, and I should point out it is a very small group of them who are involved with this piece, the vast majority want nothing to do with it, although this is not mentioned at all in the article) launching a "campaign" to legalise brothels in the wake of the Ipswich murders.

Firstly they have done a tour of brothels around the world as a fact-finding mission, but of course have only visited the ones that welcome inquisitive visitors, and then only by pre-arranged appointment. I don't think you can expect to get a real understanding of what goes on in these places unless you went undercover. Even on their tour they apparently saw "a room where up to 80 men could join in sex with about four prostitutes for eight euros" - which implies some of these women are expected to have sex with 20 men at once... And assuming they get half the money the men pay - for about EUR80 or £60...? That sounds pretty awful. And that's the sanitized version! Plus as always when legalisation comes up as an issue one of the key messages is "health checks for the girls". If you are admitting the women need health checks, you are simultaneously admitting that in some instances unsafe sexual practices take place, aren't you?

Secondly they haven't really explained the leap from "Ipswich murders" to "legalise prostitution". As far as I remember the horrible murderer in the Ipswich case was not a prostitute, but a man who regularly used prostitutes. I find it quite a big jump to imagine that if he had been using legal prostitutes he would somehow not have wanted to murder them. And while legalising prostitution might mean some of the women had safer places to work from, you can't create a world in which no woman ever gets into a car with a man she doesn't know all that well. I see a much stronger logic in concluding from the Ipswich murders that we should legally and safely provide drugs to addicts, which it appears all of the murdered women were. What do we really want for these women? Are men so entitled to access women's bodies that we would prefer to tidy up the sex trade and make sure they pay tax? Or do we want these women to have genuine choice about the direction their lives take, and the freedom to leave the streets and fulfill their own ambitions?

But also listening to what the W.I. leaders have to say, it sounds inordinately classist. Here's a quote: "Everybody looks on these girls as being from the lowest stratum of society and that’s not true. One of those girls [murdered in Ipswich] was into horseriding, the whole works." WHEN EXACTLY did it become somehow ok to murder a woman who wasn't in to horseriding? And women from the "lowest stratum" are less worthy of our protection why?

25th Carnival of Socialism

Welcome one and all to the 25th Carnival of Socialism. There's no special theme to the carnival other than "political stuff from the last two weeks that I'm interested in and hopefully you are too". If there's are posts or subject matters you'd like to have seen but didn't by the end please add it to the comments or submit it to the next carnival.

In a spirit of equality and fraternity (which if there was any real equality would of course be called "fraterni-sorority" or "non gender-specific sibling-hood") there is no particular order to the stories, just the things that grabbed me on the way round.

Starting locally we have the Glasgow Bye-Election. The SNP won following a massive swing away from Labour. But what of it? Certainly many, such as Liberal Burblings, and Lenin's Tomb have concluded this is a death knell for Gordon Brown's Labour. Others such as David Osler at Dave's Part see an even more bleak future. Now personally I am a little confused as to why David Cameron (who as Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads points out is a moron for getting his bike stolen!) is so happy about this? Maybe someone should tell him - the Tories DIDN'T win - if anything the Glasgow East result tells us that the swing towards the Tories in other areas recently has been more of a swing away from Labour's inability to deal with poverty (although Stan at Radio Free Stan thinks that might not be as bad as we fear, I am less convinced) and declining standards of healthcare and education and towards ANYONE else. This is downright stupid in my opinion, it's like saying "This cream isn't sweet enough, I think I'll have sprouts for dessert". There are other parties out there. On which note William Ewart Gladstone - still blogging 150 years on - looks at who did win - the Scottish Nationalists, and calls for big ideas south of the border. Sadly Nick Clegg's big ideas seem to be drifting further to the right, Peter Cranie reports, but at least Socialist Unity actually have some big left wing ideas.

Moving along to more international political goings-on we have Barack Obama's Visit To Germany. Here we start with Radical Blue's view that we should enjoy the euphoria around Obama while it lasts, because it won't last long. A point oddly enough backed-up by Senator Obama himself when he told Gordon Brown only today that "You're always more popular before you're actually in charge". As he also said "Once you're responsible you're going to make some people unhappy" and, as Wufnik at BazzFazz explains, there are quite a lot of unhappy Americans already. Meanwhile Jesse Taylor at Pandagon keeps an eye on the coverage of Obama's trip on the right hand side of the media.

And those seemed to be the two stories that got the most coverage in the last couple of weeks (unless of course Amy Winehouse has had a haircut or anything REALLY amazing like that, and if you're craving light-hearted reality-based entertainment why not join in with Feministe's search for the Next Top Troll and spare a thought for the sort of offensive crap us women bloggers have to put up with much of the time). Which brings us to the things the papers seem to have mostly glossed over. We start with the government's plans for the welfare state, you know, that thing that means that people struggling in society, often through no fault of their own, are not allowed to simply disappear and die in helpless poverty? Remember that? Yes well it's being "reformed". And when I say "reformed" I mean that in the way that "reformed ham" is "reformed" - i.e. all the valuable substance taken out and a load of rubbish added. David Osler at Liberal Conspiracy has the story. And it appears that Anji at Shut Up, Sit Down has noticed what's going on too, and responded in her usual verbose manner! Meanwhile Russell Eagling at Freethink wants more honesty in the debate about what is happening as well as having concerns about changes lined up in education and Gill George at Defend the NHS tackles the government's latest assault on the NHS.

And we're not the only ones with problems. Things are sliding surreptitiously to the right in Canada, DJN at If there is hope... has a thorough round-up. On the subject of Omar Khadr, the Canadian Guantanamo inmate, mirabile dictu has more in-depth coverage.

And sometimes when the media does cover a story we still don't get the full picture. For instance that whole thing about crime-gangs of illegal immigrants, as dissected by Charlie at RandomPottins. And we shouldn't forget some quality distorted media in New Zealand where, as Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty points out, some serious victim-blaming has been going on.

And if all that has left you too depressed to read on take a little heart from someone who appears to be a genuinely good leader for once! Step forward Evo Morales Ayma, President of Bolivia, on the negotiations at the WTO, in completely his own words...!

Everybody loves a party. That's one of those truisms that just doesn't hold in politics and bloggers have been highlighting the worst of leadership from around the world. Phelim gets the ball rolling, pointing out how homophobic elements of the DUP can be. Splintered Surise is no fan either on account of their entrenched Catholic position on abortion. And there's another Catholicism-related issue - the leadership in New South Wales who have failed at last in their bid to prevent people "annoying" pilgrims visiting the Pope, from Stroppy Blog. Can you imagine the kind of misogynist leadership that would consider offering a male veto on abortion - seriously on the cards in Ohio, from Feminist Philosophers, or is so paranoid about immigration that it allows arresting women in such a way that leaves their young children unattended by a busy motorway overnight, as discussed on Echidne of the Snakes. Shudder. Oh hold on, no, stop press THIS, from Shakesville, is the has got to be the worst political leader the world could have right?

And speaking of really, really bad ideas - here's one. Private defense contractors working in war zones. Bad news for women as discussed on The F-Word, bad news via Iraq-for-Sale for water-drinkers, bad news for the servicemen and families whose lives have been destroyed by faulty electrics wiring in showers built by KBR (from me) and bad news via Spot-On for anyone coming in to contact with KBR (including the US taxpayers who fund it but excluding senior management and shareholders of course who are just debating how to divide up the £40bn without allocating too much to actually doing anything more than the cursory minimum they think they can get away with). Or (daily) maybe, the worst idea ever would be to throw our stretched resources into supporting another corrupt oil dictatorship...

Of course there were a few things that didn't fit neatly into any particular paragraph so here's a run down of the other things you should definitely read right now, yes - stop working at once and read more bloggage!

Short sharp shocking statistics on abortion from Natalie at Philobiblon.
Normalisation of cosmetic surgery watch part one from M LeBlanc at Bitch PhD and part two from Jess at Feministing
And an accidental admission of the failings of capitalism from Stuart Jeffrey at Stuart's Big Green Spot.

And finally a reminder of how to be involved next time around. Nominate a post of your own or that you love for the next Carnival of Socialism to be held at A Very Public Sociologist.

Cheerio and thanks for reading! Please stick around and read some of my other stuff, if you like it you can load me in to your Facebook/Technorati/Google/etc favourites or just bookmark me and swing by again sometime.

Calling All Socialist Bloggers!

I have been asked to host the next Carnival of Socialism right here on the Cru-blog. It'll be out on 25th July. So you've got til then to post a link in comments here highlighting posts you've read or written yourself that you'd like to see included.

Whose Side Are They On?

Saw this on Alternet. Yet another reason (completely ignored rape would be the first one) why letting privately contracted companies run military operations in war zones just doesn't work. Apparently KBR's excuse for electrocuting several US soldiers in faulty shower installations is "It's a war zone, what do you expect?". Well in a war zone I would expect the enemy to want to electrocute me, but not a private company supposedly paid to help me.

Help!

Eeeek - what is wrong with my blog!!! Lost a ton of stuff transferring over to "new" blogger thinking that would solve it. And now I can't go back, despite what they said... Sooo frustrating! If anyone knows how to fix it please give me a shout, will be much appreciated. Cru

Are You Woman Enough?

No-one, I assume, labours under the illusion that military institutions are a bastion of gender equality and opportunity for women. It's taken women a very long time to get even so far as to be allowed into most branches of the military. Some are still out of reach - like anything involving fighting on the front lines. Those who do join up meet a culture of sexism and misogyny, sky-high rates of rape and sexual abuse and bullying. Not to mention the culture of rape WITHIN war that is just sickening, and of course would be rapidly undermined if much larger numbers of women were involved in combat.

You would think it was obvious that something needed to be done at the highest level to make it clear that women are valued in the military and misogyny fought firmly against - especially when they seem to be having so much trouble recruiting anyone at the moment. Instead the Royal Marine Commandos are sponsoring an assault course challenge through soft-porn "lad" mag Zoo under the heading Are You Man Enough? Man enough to read soft porn and play on an assault course? Pass the bucket!

Tesco-Town?

I did a really fun show last night at the Shelford Feast - a fund-raising festival just outside Cambridge. While I was there I noticed posters all over the place saying "Stop Hanley Grange" and I learnt that Hanley Grange was a planned "eco-town". As an environmentally concerned individual my knee-jerk reaction was to assume it was NIMBY*-ist reactionism. But then I got chatting to a local resident who told me the main reason people object to the eco-town is because the main investorr behind it is ... Tesco.
...yes Tesco, one of the least socially responsible companies in the country. A company that spends a fortune every year avoiding paying tax - for schools and hospitals and services which they and their employees use - through dodgy overseas trading. A company that still sells intensively farmed chicken and eggs despite many major retailers switching to free-range on the back of consumer campaigns. A company that is notorious for forcing smaller family-run businesses off the high streets. Surely it's more than a little obvious that Tesco cannot be trusted with this sort of project. When I hear that environmental groups are being given the chance to manage the development of eco-towns I will be right behind the idea, but for now I agree with the people of Shelford!

*Not In My Back Yard

Dying For Attention

I've just seen this post over at a My Private Casbah, about a woman left to die on the floor of a psychiatric hospital and Bint Alshamsa, the blog author's, own experiences in similar circumstances. It's just horrible to see the medical staff and the others in the waiting room sitting around doing nothing while this women evidently is suffering horribly.

I'm glad to say the one time I was in a similar situation I didn't do nothing, or at least not in the end. Around 1998 or 1999 I broke a finger playing basketball and went to Guy's Hospital emergency room to get it x-rayed and treated. When I got there I was sent to the waiting room and asked to fill out a questionnaire by the triage nurse who was sitting in a little booth off the waiting room. While I was doing that the only other patient in the waiting room, a small, very thin blonde woman of about 30 was sat in the corner curled up on the floor twitching slightly. Two nurses were watching and I assumed they had the situation under control. After a while the twitching got worse and the woman was rocking so much she was banging her head repeatedly on the floor. Her face was streaming with snot and tears. The nurses were just watching. I figured they must know best. I'm sure I've read somewhere about how you shouldn't restrain someone having a fit, but I was wondering whether moving metal chairs away from them and putting a cushion under her head would have been a bad move. She was looking at me imploringly and I gave her a tissue to dry her face and kept looking at the nurses who weren't even watching.

Then another nurse came in and called my name to go through to see the doctor. Then I did say something. I said I really think you should see this woman first. My broken finger can wait, this woman is really suffering. They told me she hadn't filled her form in and I think as they said it they realised how totally ridiculous they sounded and then they had a quick conference and ushered the twitching woman through to the doctor.

Of course in retrospect I am horrified with myself for sitting there for the first twenty minutes filling in the form rather than screaming at the nurses to help this woman. It's so easy to see someone in an "official" uniform and assume that whatever they are doing is the right thing. Years later I read Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority - an amazing book that everyone should read (link in my Amazon favourites box, right) - in which he convinces members of the public to administer lethal electrical shocks to others (actually actors, not being shocked) because a scientist in a lab coat has told them to.

And then only the other week we had the spectacle of several hundred people watching comedian Johnny Vegas sexually assault a woman from the audience. Why didn't anybody get up and shout "Oi! What the hell are you doing?" - because they had accepted the authority of the guy onstage with the mic.

So I guess my point is - if you see something that isn't right happening, say something. And my other point is - we need better attention paid to the services we provide for those patients least able to stand up for themselves - the elderly, those with mental health problems and those too incapacitated to communicate effectively.

What Kind Of Tart Are You?

I've just seen Gordon Ramsay on his "Kitchen Nightmare's" show - promoting a vegetarian restaurant in France, putting a sticker on a girl of about three that read "I'm a vegetarian tart". Now admittedly I don't think that "tart" has the same double meaning in French that it does in English, but in case the implication wasn't clear - he was surrounded by women dressed as can-can dancers (similar to the image shown here). He also previewed the promotional exercise by taking the owner of the restaurant to a topless burlesque show and harping on about how "Paris is sexy". Still eh? If it gets people to buy his over-priced food I guess sexualising infants is just fine...

A Good Article In The Daily Mail!

"Good Article" and "Daily Mail" don't appear in the same sentence on the Cru-blog very often however... I met Jenni Murray once, the first time I was a guest on Women's Hour, not that that makes me some sort of expert, (I'm just showing off that I've been on Women's Hour more than once! The following week I said hello to her in Euston station and she smiled back in a way that said do-I-actually-know-you-or-are-you-a-weirdo? And I didn't have time to explain and had to run off to catch my train.) Regardless she's really a sort of national treasure. And you can see why by reading her very frank account of her experience of breast cancer.

More Misogyny Vicar?

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

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

Hobbies Include Swimming, Reading and Wife Beating

It's late and I should be working but I'm procrastinating, ambling around the Guardian website and there's a pop-up for the Guardian's "Soulmates" dating site, and I'm wondering what sort of stuff people put on there so I click it. Guess what comes up? This guy. I don't know how long before the Guardian take his profile down (I did write to them immediately) but here's the bit I'm a little unsure of: "If you gonna tell me your deepest darkest secret.. and look for a shoulder to cry on, you'll get a smack." Is that how ingrained into our culture domestic violence is? Puke! And apparently he's the third most popular guy on the site. Mmm, hate to meet the rest.

Wrongly Addressed

So I'm buying some props for my Edinburgh show. (Gratuitous plug: If you've coming to the festival and still don't have tickets for Apes Like Me please buy some here) and the website says it charges more if you order by phone so I use the online form and I get a choice of "Mr", "Mrs", "Master" or "Miss". What century is this? How can the internet age have come upon us and yet "Master" is a more likely form of address than "Ms"? They may in fact have stabbed themselves in the foot because my credit card is in the name "Ms" and I'm quietly hoping it'll be declined. It's rude to expect to define women based on their marital status. Whose business is it but mine what my family set-up is? And I don't care if "Ms" doesn't stand for anything or if it isn't clear to you how you should pronounce it, just use it, it's about respect. Grrrr. (I'm cross and so is my elephant!!).

Stick A Sock In It Tim!

Having just read this and spat half my tea over my computer screen, let me count to ten, breathe deeply and say the following:

1) I don't know how the women in work commission get their theory that only 5% of the pay gap is a result of direct discrimination (the link he provides leads only to a front page but most of the links there are broken) but speaking as a women who worked 8 years in the financial services sector - a woman with no particular propensity to get sick and who during that time never had a baby or so much as a dependent goldfish -the pay gap is alive and well and all about direct and indirect discrimination. Neither kind of discrimination is acceptable.

Now I will accept that deliberate, conscious under-paying, under-promoting and under-recruiting of women is rare. But there are lots of other ways women miss out. To list but a few:

- Not having our ideas taken seriously at meetings.
- Women being recruited for looks rather than abilities and then being unable to keep up with male colleagues.
- Missing out on networking opportunities that take place in strip clubs, etc.
- Being criticised over our appearance, while male colleagues are not.
- Being unable to take part in business trips to places like Saudi Arabia where women have restricted movement.
- Being mistaken for administrative staff and given paperwork instead of proper work to do.
- Having unpleasant sexual remarks made about you within earshot.
- Being criticised for being too pushy while male colleagues are congratulated for sticking to their guns.
- Being told how lucky we are to have got the job in the first place.
- Being excluded from team banter.
(I could go on all week)

Even if this mystical 5% number had any truth in it - what is so wrong with wanting to close a gap that by your own admission is directly caused by outright prejudice?

2) Discrimination against women because they take maternity leave and have more domestic responsibilities is still not acceptable. If we are to insist that it's ok to underpay women because they have wombs and (shock horror) might use them then would infertile women be afforded a pay rise on bringing in a certificate of hysterectomy? Or indeed, for dramatic effect, their removed womb in a freezer bag?

And do we actually want to live in a society where people with children are deliberately underpaid in case it affects their work? How will that affect the next generation?

3) As to the notion that part-time workers deserve mistreatment because they are less useful and require more training: most part-time workers I know are women who have gone back part time after having a child. They therefore needed no additional training, they all work more hours than they are paid for and they all afford their employers flexibility because they can adjust their schedule to accommodate busy periods (e.g. working an extra day at month-end).

In short, Tim, when you say in your title "Not All Discrimination Is Bad" - remember the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination: (n) treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Yes all discrimination is bad. People deserve to be judged on their individual skills and merits - not on prejudice about how they might behave because they happen to have a cunt.

I Woz Ere Too

By the way - since every other blogger seems to have mentioned it: yes I was at the Guardian-sponsored liberal bloggers conference on Tuesday. I didn't take a camera so I've had to poach this image from Tory Troll (thanks!).

I am not sure I can identify all the people pictured but top row: Boriswatch, Cath Elliot & Georgina from The Guardian & Dave Cole, Me & The F-Word.
Middle row: Me & Tory Troll, Conference, Scribo Ergo Sum.
Bottom row: Holly Combe & me & ??, panel, ?? & Sadie Smith.

I generally enjoyed the chance to meet other bloggers. I wasn't so impressed with the insistence on having a second half dedicated to essentially "Why aren't women and feminist bloggers getting more recognition?". Speaking as someone who was featured on the Stephen Nolan show on BBC Five Live AGAIN this evening, is often on BBC radio and TV, has been asked to write articles for the BBC online, featured on Liberal Conspiracy, The F-Word and mentioned in the Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Independent and The Sunday Times I worry that if feminists feel they aren't getting enough attention it may be because I'm hogging the limelight - sorry!

Of course there is always more that can be done and I'd certainly love it if more people linked to me and promoted my stuff. It just seemed that we set out saying "Why are women failing in this arena?" and I don't think we are. I think the blog-o-sphere has done wonders for the women's movement - it's encouraging people to speak out and get involved even where they live within entrenched misogynist communities. And it's giving people a voice who otherwise wouldn't get the chance to express themselves. And I meet loads of brilliant women bloggers online, and often later in person. I think it's the best thing to happen to feminism in a long time.

But instead because of the way the question had been posed I had guys barely old enough to grow facial hair coming up to me afterwards saying "You know one thing you could do to promote your blog is try to cover more non-women-specific topics, that might help. Also you could try asking bigger blogs to link to you and..." And I was thinking "Dude where's your blog with it's huge numbers of visitors? I'm actually pretty happy with the way my blog's doing. I'll cover the stories I damn well want to and if I want your advice I'll ask for it, now shove off and let me get to the free food."

Hell, I'll Take It!

Harriet Harman is putting together a new equality bill which seems to me to have been specifically designed to have as little actual impact as possible while winding up the anti-equality lobby as much as she can. The plans are for a new equality bill which would mean that employers in the public (but not private) sector must publish data on their gender pay gap and will allow employers to hire a woman or ethnic minority candidate in a circumstance where two candidates are equally qualified. Of course I don't really understand the term "equally qualified". Surely no two candidates are equally qualified - there is always a difference.

And unfortunately by putting that clause in it has given the tabloids the chance to have a field day. The Daily Express ran with "White Men Face Jobs Ban" which is just literally a lie.

What it's going to do for the most part is (a) stir up hate (although honestly I think the haters are quite capable of hating us whatever we do!) and (b) create a new industry of specialist consultants available to massage gender pay data and make your public sector organisation look like they're not as discriminatory as they really are. What would work much better is to bring in compulsory internal pay, recruitment and promotion audits with feedback and recommendation followed by fines for companies and public bodies (above a threshold size) who fail to make changes fast enough. And an independent board set up to seek out and punish discriminatory practices throughout public and private sectors where employees do not wish to run a full court case but where distinct improvements can be made.

Essentially the existing law should provide all the protection from discrimination that women need - but sadly efforts to enforce it are minimal. What we need is not so much new laws, but the existing ones actually adhered to.

But hell, at least it's something, a step in the right direction. It certainly won't do any harm and there are bound to be cases where it does some good. And when I hear the Daily Express quoting her opponents saying Ms Harman "must be the most politically correct MP" I think she must be doing something right.

Consumer Products With Padding

Attention food manufacturers and supermarkets. Just so you know - I've noticed when you pad out your products with cheap ingredients. I know when I pick up a carton of pomegranate 100% juice drink and it turns out to be 50% grape juice that I'm being ripped off. I know grape juice is the cheapest juice on the market. If it wasn't why would there be a never-ending run of clearly press release-driven "news" stories about how good for you grape juice is (note however that that's all purple grape juice, while I'm pretty sure the pomegranate juice is cut with white grape juice)?

I know when I look at a supposedly chicken-based soup and it contains more carrots, potatoes, rice, onions and peas than it does chicken that somebody somewhere thinks I'm stupid enough to base my choice of food on the picture on the front of the tin, rather than the information on the back. And even those ingredients are second only to water. What is the point of selling uncondensed soup?

And on that subject there are adverts on TV at the moment for a fabric softener "now condensed". Surely what they mean is "by the way, that stuff we've been selling you for the last 50 years was mostly water!!".

Isn't it time companies realised that we're not fooled by this stuff any more. Isn't it time these guys cut their advertising budgets and instead spent the money on an internal CSR (corporate responsibility) audit to see how they could be better benefiting consumers, the environment, their employees and the communities they operate in. Then when you've started using better ingredients in a better way, send out a press release about that!

Last (Male) Comic Standing

There's a new series of Last Comic Standing being shown on Paramount Comedy. Now I'm not a big fan of reality TV but I quite like the show and as a stand-up myself I'm all in favour of anything that promotes the industry and helps people get good audiences and the attention they deserve. What I don't understand is why this season it's being presented by Fearne Cotton (pictured from her own website). She's not a stand-up. They would never have a male presenter who wasn't a comedian. And in the trailer she is in a tiny mini-skirt and does a little "twirl" in the middle. Unlike in the actual series, all the comics shown in the trailer are male. Why not just put a big sign up saying "GUYS: MAKE 'EM LAUGH, GIRLS: JUST TRY AND LOOK PRETTY". Can't we have a female stand-up present the show? Jo Brand, Jo Caulfield, Jenny Eclair, ... or better still - me?

Coming To The Edinburgh Festival?

Tickets for my solo Edinburgh show Apes Like Me are now available online. Just click here. It's about evolution and our relatives the Orang-Utans, Gorillas, Chimps and Bonobos and about how much I hate creationists! I am also in several other shows but this is (a) my main show and (b) the only one you can book in advance for. Hence why I'm mentioning it now. It's not suitable for small kids but smart teenagers would be most welcome.

If you've never been to the Edinburgh Festival I can only say it's amazing, you should definitely go once in your lifetime. My show is just one of around 6,000 comedy, theatre, music, arts, literature and all kinds of other shows. For pretty much the whole month of August the streets will be packed with performers and festival-goers. Book now for this year though especially for accommodation. And see you there!

Someone Is Fucking Our Children!!

The Daily Mail along with most of the other papers, even the supposedly liberal ones, reports this week that the number of abortions performed on girls under the age of 16 has risen. I can't find where these numbers have actually been released, the breakdown doesn't fit with how these numbers are usually released so already I am suspicious. More to the point though I have no idea why the number of underage abortions is an issue. I would like to live in a country where we kept as much of a lid on underage pregnancy as possible - but once these young girls are pregnant I think making sure that they have access to abortion if that's what they want is VITAL.

The Mail wraps up it's totally one-sided coverage of the issue with a case study of a woman who had an abortion when she was 14. She says of her termination "I took the next day off school and tried to forget it ever happened." - but no mention is made of the fact that had she had the baby she might never have gone back to school at all because she would have had the responsibility of raising a child.

But why is it that every article is full of horror at what underage girls are doing but no-one has bothered to notice that it takes two people to start a pregnancy. We have no way of knowing what proportion of these underage pregnancies and abortions occur as a result of sexual abuse at home, as a result of rape by boyfriends or strangers and what proportion result from consensual sex. What we do know is this - the law says that under-16s CANNOT consent to sex. 16 is called the age of consent because below that age a child is not considered mature enough to have the weight of making that decision put upon them.

So the headlines should instead surely read SOMEONE IS FUCKING OUR CHILDREN!!

I HATE Jeremy Clarkson

There are some things that just need saying. I HATE Jeremy Clarkson. Phew, now I’ve said it. Maybe it seems harsh of me to single him out from a number of car show presenters and general public personalities. I feel he merits it though and I’ll tell you why:

Clarkson is not just a car show presenter, he’s the car show presenter. He defines the genre. For many years he’s been the driving force behind the way the television-shows-about-cars industry works. When he first worked on Top Gear in 1988 it was a show that mostly reviewed different cars and advised would-be buyers on the advantages and disadvantages of different models. When it was re-modelled in 2002 he was the main presenter.

Now even when the show first started it had a mixture of male and female presenters. The new version has always been 100% male - and for that matter 100% white and British. And the standard of the banter went with it. Cars that Clarkson doesn’t like are referred to as “gay” or “girly” - as though those were insults. Women are standardly referred to as “birds”. The focus of the show shifted from reviewing cars to frivolously taking pointless journeys, racing sports cars against military vehicles and aircraft and sometimes even destroying perfectly roadworthy vehicles.

As the environmental movement raised awareness of the impact carbon emissions had on the climate, the show could have incorporated advice on reducing emissions, on lower emission vehicles and emphasised that high-speed low-efficiency sports cars were the sort of things to be driven occasionally as a treat if you enjoyed that sort of thing. But with Clarkson at the helm of course that didn’t happen. We can only imagine that after all those years of being given privileged access to fancy cars and events he was so far in the pockets of the motor lobby that he couldn’t see the wood for the burnt stumps where once there were trees. Instead he started making insulting remarks about environmentalists. He bragged about breaking speed limits and complained at length about fuel and congestion taxation, which aims to cut emissions.

Now that in itself would be enough reason for some people to hate the man. I am not so quick to use such strong terms. I can sympathise that there is a market for that sort of misogynist, homophobic* planet-murdering prattle and someone was always going to step up to the plate.

The trouble is he isn’t just a (or the) car show presenter any more. He’s gone to great lengths to present himself as a spokesman for the white middle-class male adrift in a sea of political correctness. His website (and I know, I know, it’s a joke…) says “Jeremy Clarkson - Clarkson information, books, DVDs, forum, and news from Britains next prime minister?”. And if that’s just a joke, why have nearly 50,000 people have signed an online petition asking for him to become prime minister? He writes newspaper columns - and they appear in the political pages, not the motoring pages. His books include collections of poltical essays. The style may be “fun” and chatty to read but he’s covering topics like Basque separatism and war in Iraq.

The first article on the Top Gear website is clearly a 100% political piece written by him and titled “CLARKSON: Soon the annual tax bill for a commuter will be £10k”

Firstly that is a straightforward lie. Road tax on even the most polluting vehicles is £400 a year. If your commute goes in to central London (and if so why the hell are you driving!) you’ll pay £8 a day congestion charge (5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1960) and if your commute is 50 miles each way (then get the train! or at 8 miles per litre, 65p tax per litre, 5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1991) then that’s £4351 a year - less than half the number he is suggesting.

Secondly the whole point of increasing tax on higher emissions vehicles on unnecessary routes is to encourage drivers to switch to other means of travel and lower emission cars. He grumbles the cost of a tax disc on a Lamborghini Gallardo could rise to nearly a thousand pounds. But given the car itself costs £133,000, I think owners can afford it. And given it emits at least 325g of CO2 per kilometer (more than twice that of, for example, a Renault Megane or a Vauxhall Astra) my feeling is great, lets put the tax up even higher. No-one needs to drive a car like that.

Thirdly - and for the sake of my mental health I’m trying to limit myself to only looking at one of his horrible articles - the thing is littered with offensive remarks. The first sentence refers to a woman as “some bird”. He refers to a female politician as “some orange-haired old bat”.

Then he gets on with denying climate change. Now of course he never says it’s not happening, because it is. Instead he says certain events may not be a direct result of it. Sure, sometimes a freak wave gives you wet feet when the tide isn’t actually coming in - but when it’s up to your knees, best to fold up the deck-chairs just in case. People are already dying around the world as a direct result of climate change. There’s no probability about whether or not it’s happening, it is already happening, the uncertainty is how much worse is it going to get.

His conclusion on the cost of taxing so-called “super-cars” is this: “That’s not taxation. That’s rape.”. I won’t even say anything, I think it’s pretty obvious that’s not an appropriate thing to say.

And that’s on his car show website. So it’s not that he’s been “spotted” on his car show and asked to branch out in to politics - he’s actively choosing to use his car show as a platform for his political opinions. And here’s the real rub: It’s working! He’s kind-of accepted on TV as some sort of lovable right-wing not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind pundit. He’s on Have I Got News…, QI, even Who Do You Think You Are? as though he’s an institution that we’re all comfortable with in the UK.

But are we really all comfortable with vicious anti-environmentalism on the basis of lies? With misogyny and homophobia* from someone who is genuinely trying to influence policy-making in the UK? Personally I’d like to present the alternative point of view in a one-off BBC TV special called “Jeremy Clarkson: Who The F*** Does He Think He Is?”

* Actually he’s been pretty racist too, I’ll leave that for now, I think we’ve got enough to be getting on with!

Is Anyone Else Uncomfortable About This?

This post starts with a massive disclaimer. My show at the Brighton Fringe Festival ran 6 days in a dusty (but charming) 40-seater theatre at £7 a ticket. This group are doing two shows a day for a full month in a much bigger purpose-built venue and charging around £20 a ticket. So there is a definite risk you are reading the bitter ramblings of a jaded performer.

That said, lets press on. Is anyone else uncomfortable about the runaway success of The Lady Boys of Bangkok? The only conversation I have heard about them all week is straight guys asking each other “Yeah but would you though? Would you?” and telling the uninitiated “They are so convincing, I have to be honest, I was nearly getting a stiffy there at one point”. The show is as far as I can make out, an old-fashioned freakshow where the “exhibits” are 16 transexual women. I really refuse to believe that the dancing (and lip-syncing to pre-recorded music) is any part of the draw.

Further I have concerns about the well-being of the performers. Two shows a day, each close to two hours long is a lot of stage-time, especially in uncomfortable clothing (high heels, heavy make-up, etc). Add to that the economic imbalance between Thailand and the UK and you’ve got to wonder whether at least some of the performers aren’t working - and potentially having medication and surgery - under some sort of financial duress.

I am sure that promoters would assure us that they are well looked after and willing and enthusiastic about performing. However the Lady Boys themselves don’t seem to ever give interviews - to the point where I can only assume they are contractually forbidden to do so - or appear away from the rest of the group either at functions or just out and about at festivals (and I have been to a lot of festivals). To me those are some of the signs that abuse may be going on.

And yet the reaction of festival organisers is not to question the spirit in which the shows are staged or the working conditions for performers in the show, but to put up street signs (pictured) around Brighton to advise motorists how to find the show. And evidently the public are traveling in from around the area to see the show.

Am I the only one who doesn’t quite feel comfortable about it?

Reposted from the F-Word.

End of the Road for Strip Pub

If you are wondering how the Stop The Strip Pub campaign ended I have given the full and unedited version on BBC London here. Yeah!

Hey Barack, Sweetie...

I guess it won’t have passed you all by that US presidential hopeful Barack Obama took the unwise PR decision to fob off a female reporter with the phrase “Hold on one second, sweetie”. The reaction has been unsurprising - he has apologised and described it as a “bad habit”, insisting he “meant no disrespect”, she responded saying she “had been called worse”.

I’m the last person who wants a big fuss made about one teeny little unscripted word. And a part of my head is warning me not to say anything on the subject in case I hear myself being quoted on Fox News in a special “International Reaction To Obama’s Career-Ending Insult”. First of all remember Mr Obama is likely to be standing for election against John McCain - a man whose election would undoubtedly see US gender equality sent packing back to the dark ages. This is a man who voted AGAINST the equal pay act. This is a man who has openly said he thinks Roe vs Wade should be overturned. Obama is undoubtedly the more woman-friendly candidate.

However it does really annoy me when guys I’m dealing with professionally call me sweetie or darling or love or pet or other patronising terms of endearment? Of course I don’t mind, in fact I quite like some cute nick-names from my boyfriend or really close friends. But I often stop people and ask them not to use the term.

Of course I only make a fuss when it’s not going to affect my career - it would be professional suicide not to be a bit thick-skinned from time to time. But I do object to it regularly from shop-keepers, tradesmen, taxi drivers, those kinds of people. And the reaction varies - of course every individual is different:

1) Some (very few, mostly shop-keepers while the money is still in my hand!) apologise. One even said “sorry darling”!?

2) Some try to engage with me in a discussion about feminism, usually with an opening gambit like “oh, so you’re one of them are you”. And usually end up going on about Heather Mills and women receiving large divorce payouts resulting in giving the rest of us “a bad name”, and things having “gone too far”, or potentially about how there’s a “girl in our office who doesn’t mind it at all”.

3) Some argue it. I’ve been told - less politely than this - that I should put up with it because it’s either (a) a traditional local term, (b) a traditional working class term. To which I can only respond that if we insisted on sticking to traditions at the expense of all else we’d have to bring back witch-dunking and burning heathens at the stake.

4) Some really make a fuss. I’ve been spat at, called “lesbian” and “dyke” (not of course insults in my world, but clearly intended as such) and “bitch”, etc. One guy went out in to the street and loudly told his colleague that I was “one of those uptight cows”.

On the other hand I was on a train the other day and they guy in front of me called the woman behind the buffet car counter “sweetheart” - she asked him not to to which he responded that women like being called sweetheart. So I unexpectedly chipped in and said “No they don’t” and he skulked off looking miserable and she and I had a good laugh about it.

I consider correcting people who address women with these patronising terms a cumulative act of feminism. Each individual time makes very little difference but if we all do it whenever we reasonably can, we will make a difference. Please add a comment if you’ve corrected someone recently and let me know what happened!

(Reposted from the F-Word)

Women's Rights Under Fire

Sorry for not posting for a while - I've been applying myself a little more practically to some of the issues which I am normally discussing here. In particular the abortion law in the UK which despite being forty years old and in desperate need of updating* are in fact in danger of being rolled back. A cross-party group of MPs including of course all the devoutly religious ones and all the devoutly anti-women ones (there is a big overlap) are proposing amendments to the HFE Bill currently making it's way through parliament. At a debate next Tuesday evening (20th May) MPs will have the chance to vote on amendments which would lower the abortion time limit to 22 weeks, 20 weeks, 18 weeks, 16 weeks, 14 weeks or even 12 weeks.

I find it very difficult to understand what is really going on in the minds of those signing and voting on these amendments. Here are my best ideas:

1) They are deeply religious and have been fooled into believing that the anti-choice movement represents God's will on the subject. If so then firstly it's a real shame God didn't bother writing clearly in the bible that He opposed abortion - because it just doesn't say that anywhere. Meanwhile it does say that God doesn't want His followers to tell lies or be jealous of their neighbours, sleep in their husband's bed during their period, eat bacon or shellfish, etc. And there's that great line in Leviticus where it says "Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed.". Yet I see no amendments tabled that would bring back capital punishment for those caught playing "yo momma" in the schoolyard. Why should religious laws be applied to those of us who are not religious? If you don't believe God wants you to have an abortion - don't have one - don't try to stop me from having one.

2) They think women should have abortions earlier not later. Which is all well and good if women know they're pregnant and have access to abortion on demand when they want it. Instead women who are too young to have started their periods, post-menopausal, using contraception or who have irregular periods may not know. Or they may have been messed about by the NHS and other service providers causing needless delays. The two doctors requirement obviously delays the average UK abortion time by a certain amount. And don't forget those women who get pregnant happily but then whose life changes. Pregnancy is one of the most likely times for a partner to turn violent or walk out and there is also the situation that an existing child develops problems which the mother feels could not be properly dealt with whilst tending a new-born.

3) They think feotuses feel pain in the womb. They don't. Women on the other hand do.

4) They believe there has been an increase in viability of foetuses born before 24 weeks. There hasn't (not according to British Association of Prenatal Medicine, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association and The Royal College of Nursing). Furthermore so what if there was. Advances in medical science may well at some point in the super-distant future mean that an ovum can gestate to full term in a lab rather than a womb. At that point will we make it illegal for women to have periods?

5) They just hate women. That would be it. Amazingly some anti-choice campaigners suggest that there are reasons for banning abortion for the sake of the woman's physical and mental health. Which is unbelievable because in terms of physical health a pregnancy is much more dangerous than an abortion and in terms of mental health - what do you think forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus to full term is going to do for her mental health?

But you can do something. Just do it NOW cos the vote is really soon. There is lots of info on the Abortion Rights website. But to summarize: contact your MP. Ring 020 7219 3000 and ask for them by name. If you don't know your MP you can look them up on They Work For You or just ask the House of Commons switchboard (number above) to check for you who is the MP for where you live. When you get through you may get to speak to your MP or if they are not available a researcher or sometimes and answering machine - just let them know you are a constituent and you support 24 weeks. Ask them to vote against the reductions in the time limit being proposed. Alternatively you can email them again through They Work For You. Do it soon though - the vote is Tuesday night.

And on Tuesday from 5.30pm there will be a protest outside the House of Commons. Please come along if you can. Details again on the Abortion Rights website.

* Abortion is currently the only medical procedure in the UK which requires two doctors signatures, there are also many GPs who react to requests for abortion by berating women, refusing to refer and delaying tactics. Typically women who seek terminations on the NHS have to wait several weeks. Even those able to pay privately are often delayed.

For Your Listening Peasure

Blogstress Cru (that's me) will be appearing as part of a panel to discuss the week's news tomorrow on the institution that is Women's Hour on BBC Radio 4. Please tune in at 11am, or failing that try the "listen again" option any time in the following seven days.

Victory!

Last night a number of F-Word writers and readers were in attendance to see Hackney Council refuse to give Satchmo’s a license to become a Sex Encounters Establishment (strip club).

Thank you and well done to everyone who wrote letters of objection and showed up for the hearing - it worked! More info on the website.

Photo by adman_as, reposted from the F-Word.

Schools and Relationships

The NSPCC, and I'm sure not going to make myself popular arguing with a group as respected as them, are saying that schools should teach more about relationships in sex education. This comes in response to data from Childline suggesting 50 children a day ring up saying they feel pressured to have sex. And in that light the NSPCC suggestion sounds wildly sane but I have to admit it actually made me flinch a little.

At the moment schools are only obliged to teach the facts of human reproduction. The first thing that frightens me is that if the syllabus is expanded out to include relationships, what is the risk that the facts of biology will be lost? I think children have a right to understand how their bodies work in factual scientific terms. Many especially faith schools are reluctant to teach these facts and given the chance to hide them discreetly behind a barrage of warnings about the unholy nature of any kind of relationship not fully approved by religious leaders, the message could be watered down beyond recognition.

It's also difficult to understand how children will react to hearing the facts of biology lined up next to what can be nothing more than advice about relationships. I think a clear line needs to be drawn between the facts of how the human body works and advice about how to deal with the stresses and strains of relationships.

And finally who exactly is going to set the relationship agenda? I'm sure religious leaders would love to. And so would some of the virginity cults that we seem to be importing from the US at the moment. The uproar from religious parents if their children were taught that anything other than chastity and fidelity was acceptable and enjoyable means that the education is always going to be skewed. Who is going to let kids know that promiscuity, safely practiced, can be a lot of fun? And we all know the fuss that ensues if you teach children that it's ok to be gay.

All that said, I'm not totally against raising in school the subject of dealing with pressure to have sex. I think children should be taught that they have human rights, and that one of those is the right to make their own decisions about sex (or this could be covered under the women's studies addition to the national curriculum that I've been talking about forever). But I'd like to see that taught separately from the biological facts of sex.

(Reposted from the F-Word, photo by Reading is Fun)

Beached Whale

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light Relief In Our Hour Of Darkness

I guess many of you are feeling as miserable as I am about the prospect of four years of Boris Johnson running London. Very few of you though have the privilege of a Facebook account stacked with friends from the world of stand-up comedy. Seems like everyone I know has a “status update” with something to say about their mood today. So I thought I would share my top ten. If they make you laugh - why not have a flick through Time Out and see when they’re on near you and check them out!

10) Jamie Goodwin urges the last person to leave London today to turn the lights off. RIP London.

9) Chuquai Billy says: See? I told you so!

8) Mark Watson can only hope that now, London doesn’t become an overpopulated, expensive, dirty, unfriendly dystopia or anything like that. (Sarcasm.)

7) Brian Damage is ruing the day I thought it would be quite funny if Boris actually became Mayor.

6) Sam Stone says chill. None of it is real. We are all in the matrix including the mayor.

5) Stuart Goldsmith hopes that Boris ruining London will remind the rest of the country that Tories are cocks, JUST IN TIME.

4) Chris Mayo is *insert negative Boris Johnson comment here*.

3) Josie Long is pissed off you didn’t listen to her. She goes away for three little months and you fools let the Tories in.

2) (OK, a journalist not a comedian, but a very witty one…) Johann Hari is going to hang himself about Boris. Have I Got Noose For You.

1) (pictured) Broderick Chow is clawing at the bathroom mirror trying desperately to get back through it.

Letting The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good

Might I start by advising any readers who “couldn’t be bothered to vote”, "voted for Boris as a protest/joke" or "voted for Boris because they genuinely thought that was a good idea" that they would do well to avoid me for the next few days… But what makes me the angriest (I think, it’s so hard to chose) is that if all the Lib Dem and Green Party voters had put Ken Livingstone second choice - we wouldn’t have a sexist, racist, homophobic idiot running our nation’s capital. Brian Paddick has apparently said that he put Linsdey German as his second choice candidate.

Now Lindsey German is a great candidate with some great policies. However if voters didn’t want THIS to happen then whether they voted Paddick, Berry or German, they had to put Livingstone as second choice. German was never going to make the head-to-head so a second choice vote for her was a total waste. That’s really the point of a first and second choice system: you can vote idealistically first and tactically second. Not idealistically, twice. THIS did not have to happen.

Trouble in Comedy-Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now here are my points:

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

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

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

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