Orang-Utans Vs Doves?!

Remember how much effort Dove beauty products have been going to to convince us to celebrate our "real" beauty? Here's one thing I think we can all agree is just naturally beautiful ... the Indonesian rainforest (pictured in case you were unsure). So what is Dove doing to celebrate this beauty? That would be it - systematically destroying it to provide palm oil for their "real beauty" products. Greenpeace are on the case and you can join their campaign here. I also suggest - stop buying Dove products (in general ethical beauty products are relatively easy to find, so why not?).

Women's Rights Under Attack Everywhere

Both sides of the Atlantic women's reproductive rights are under fire at the moment. In the Us I was horrified to read that women in Oklahoma who wish to have an abortion will be subjected to compulsory ultrasounds - in some cases vaginal ultrasound. Now I have a word for someone who puts something into a woman's vagina without her consent: RAPIST. And by my definition that state of Oklahoma right now fits that definition. Sadly I don't know what people can do to try to fight this new law aside fromt he usual letter-writing and generally making a fuss.

In the UK however we can see the next assault on women's reproductive rights coming and we can do something. It seems that the Human Cloning and Embryology Bill is likely to have an amendment proposed which would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks (the current limit is 24 weeks). And we can definitely do something to prevent this going through. Abortion Rights are organising a mass lobby of parliament. It's on May 7th and if you'd like to be involved you can. Here's what to do: Firstly check out the information here. Secondly drop your MP a line telling them you'll be at the mass lobby and asking for an appointment to speak to them. You could actually be speaking to your MP in parliament about this issue. That has to have an impact, so please join us if you can. I am currently volunteering some of my time to help the team out with preparation for this one. Do let me know if you know of people or groups who would like more info who might consider coming along, we want to make a really big impact.

Is America Ready For a Misogynist President?

This man could genuinely be the President of the US some time soon... How scary is that? If you have the opportunity to do anything to stop that happening, please do.

Hillary, Boris and Media Sexism

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

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

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

Polygamy and Abuse

I found this series of video clips on CNN very interesting. Interviews with escapees from polygamist cults and those still involved with the compound at the centre of the recent FLDS (a kind of Mormonism) raid. And some more, also from CNN. Personally I am horrified that people are allowed to mistreat children in this way and that nothings been done about it for so long.

What is strange for me about the coverage is how much of it focuses on the subject of polygamy. I am not all that horrified by polygamy. Obviously in this case it's been a marker for a number of other types of abuse, but in general taking more than one consenting wife or consenting husband (polyandry) is not something I care much about. Lots of people maintain several relationships at the same time and as long as all concerned parties know what is going on I don't see anything wrong with that. For me multiple marriage is no more or less of a crime than having multiple partners and multiple families, the relationships themselves are what is important, not their legal status.

And the focus on the "horror" of polygamy for me is a distraction from the obvious follow-up question: How many other insular communities are getting away with mistreatment of their women and children in this way too? What about those who abuse children and force young girls into early marriage but do not have multiple partners? Is that somehow ok?

Thud Thud Thud

Friend sent me this link to a helmet for children learning to walk - so they won't bump their heads... Now of course if your child has a medical condition such as severe epilepsy or something that causes the scull to be particularly prone to damage, fair enough. But really this is going too far otherwise. Kids bump their heads and then they figure out "ah jumping of the sofa head first is a bad idea" and then they don't do it again. I know some people say they wrap their kids in cotton wool - surely this is taking it a bit literally.

Blog-Roll Deletion

I like to keep my links and so on as open as I can - keep as wide a range of people as reasonably possible involved in the debate and I've always linked to Mind The Gap Cardiff, thought it was a great site. Recently I've noticed a few things:

1) Only one author (Zenobia) is still writing there. Fine if it's good interesting stuff but...

2) Harsh criticism of the other feminist blogs - claiming they don't pay enough attention to racism and classism, which is odd considering they're a feminist blog, you could argue that to focus on anything other than women's issues is beyond their remit. One particular recent post criticises the F-Word for saying they have been "losing sleep" over allegations of homophobia. Surely if they had responded saying that such allegations "didn't bother them at all", that would be a lot more worrying. And also criticism of myself in the comments section over at Brown Femi Power blog - the main criticism apparently being that I went on holiday to Africa in 2005... I have responded on there, rather than going through it all again here.

3) No comments sections any more. This is particularly an issue for me on posts where others are harshly criticised. To attack others for not being open enough to debate and others views while having no comments on your own blog is just downright hypocritical.

So adios MTGC. If anyone out there wants to be added to the blogroll then just let me know - more the merrier, I always like to highlight interesting stuff.

I'd Rather Go Naked Than Support Misogyny

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

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

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

Stephen King Fans Pay Attention

Two proper horror stories out of the recent news. Firstly (via the F-Word) in the UK a woman who (alleges she) was drugged and gang-raped by a group of teenagers. Now I've put the "alleges" bit in brackets because the evidence to support her case is fairly conclusive. The youths videoed themselves raping her and put it up on YouTube. The clip has, of course, been taken down now but the Wimbledon Guardian says in the footage she appears to be unconscious and that the youths grin and laugh into the camera. Now I know whenever we have a rape case come up there is someone around who will be in a hurry to dismiss it as "her word against his" or "impossible to prove", but this isn't such a case, the evidence is as good as it gets. Video footage of the incident. What more could you ask for. So are the police busy prosecuting the youths? No - they would be busy arresting the woman for having sex with a minor (while she was unconscious) and putting her on the Child Protection Register which means her kids could be taken away.

Secondly in Iraq (from Alternet), another defence contractor worker has been raped and then told to keep quiet. Nothing is being done to investigate, etc. Which just goes to show (a) what a bad idea contracting private companies to work in Iraq is and (b) what some guys whose minds have been warped by war will do given the chance. Worse still she has little choice but to go back to work - if she doesn't she's been told she'll have to pay for her own flights home, etc. Too disgusting to think about.

Busy Cru-blog Day

My article on the Human Embryology and Cloning Bill is up today on the Liberal Conspiracy site. Loads of comments mostly supportive but with a few saying I'm too harsh on religious people... And it's kindof a fair point. But here's the problem with religion - any other movement: feminism, liberalism, conservatism, whatever is likely to be led by someone from that group whose view represent an average of the members. Religions are led my the MOST religious person, i.e the biggest nutter who then gives the rest a bad name. Anyway do chip in on the debate if you care...

I went along today to the launch of the Fawcett Society Sexism and the City campaign. Very interesting to hear from the speakers they had. They had Polly Courtney, author of Golden Handcuffs, a woman who had worked as a cleaner on ridiculously low pay and a woman who had worked as a lap-dancer in a bar near the city. The lap-dancer was the most shocking to hear from. She described the "no touching" rule as "a joke" and explained how she paid to perform, often came home having lost money, she also talked about there being no-one in the bar she could trust or turn to if there was a problem and how the work had affected her self esteem.

The launch finished with a speech from Tessa Jowell. Odd considering she's Minister for the Olympics, Harriet Harman is Minister for Women. Ms Jowell attempted to shoe-horn in some nonsense about the Olympics providing opportunities for women to get into construction. What annoyed me was every time she spoke about discrimination against women she seemed to be focussed on maternity pay, GCSE choices, confidence, etc. Fortunately I got a chance to ask a question (ended up being the last question) so I asked what she and the government were doing or could do to address not the difficulties of women taking maternity leave or needing flexible hours or making bad choices but the problem of women without children of dependents who had made all the right choices and still weren't getting equal pay and promotions, i.e. the problem of straightforward original SEXISM! Well the question went down very well and got me a big round of applause. Sadly Ms Jowell didn't actually answer it. She suggested I form a network with other women so that I wouldn't feel isolated, which was kind of odd since I was sat in a room with a couple of hundred other women who also care about the issue, so I've really got that covered. Anyway women in the city wouldn't feel isolated if there were more of them, would they! And anyway who is campaigning to an end to feeling a bit isolated? I thought we were after equal pay, equal promotions and equal opportunities... Sadly the format of the event didn't allow for me to grab the minister by the lapels and shake her til she agreed gender pay audits were a good idea. Ho hum.

Finally tonight I was on BBC Radio Five Live's Phil Williams show (click here, scroll down to Phil Williams and click to listen again, then you'll want to scroll through to the second hour of the show) with Holly Combe from the F-Word and journalist Vince Graff talking about whether we'd rather be a man or a woman. And in spite of it all, as I said to the team, I wouldn't take a magic sex-change pill if someone offered me one. Obviously we talked about longer life expectancy and multiple orgasms (or failing that at least longer-lasting orgasms, twice as many sex organ nerve endings, etc), but also about how much "lad" culture hurts men. Guys who feel like they can't express their feelings, can't look after themselves properly, that homophobic, misogynist culture of you-have-to-drink-27-pints-of-lager-or-you're-gay-you-big-girl... Strangely enough pretty much everyone agreed that men have a great deal to gain from feminism too.

Observe This!

Article in today's Observer about sexism in the the UK workplace - features a quote from me. If you have the paper version (main section, page 24) you will see there is also a rather nice piccie of me in a suit - a close up actually of this serious and business-like shot of me that Steve Ullathorne took a couple of years ago, although it fits so well with the content of the article it looks as if it could have been shot specially. Steve called me today and said the Daily Mail had asked for permission to use the photo too so maybe I'll be in that at some point in the week. I'll also be on BBC News 24 talking about it around 7.20am tomorrow morning.

What is moderately interesting is how much too big for me the suit I have on is. It was a tailor-made bespoke suit I bought about six months before I left the world of finance. As soon as I left I had enough time to eat proper food (instead of fast food) and work out and take walks and so on, I didn't actually lose much weight but I lost fat and gained muscle and about a year later when the photos were taken it was way too big for me. Moral of the story: don't work stupid hours - it's bad for you.

Before I Forget

Before my granddad died, he suffered for around nine years with Alzheimer's. The worst thing wasn't the forgetting things, the not recognising people or the needing round-the-clock care. The worst symptom of Alzheimer's was the depression. He knew he was a burden to those who cared for him, he knew what was happening to him and it broke his heart every day.

Important research into potential treatments for Alzheimer's include research on the use of stem cells harvested from blastocysts - clusters of pre-embryonic cells. At present such research is slowed considerably by the limited supply of such blastocysts, which are made using donated human eggs. The egg donation process is non-trivial and involves a woman taking fertility drugs to cause the eggs to mature and then having them surgically extracted.

However brilliant scientists have come up with a way to create very similar blastocysts using eggs extracted from large mammals, like cows. Obviously this allows many more eggs to be harvested and thus many more blastocysts created and available to researchers. Here's the catch, since the blastocyst has 100% human cell DNA but with bovine mitocondrial DNA it's technically "a part human, part animal" hybrid, which scientists are legally not allowed to create.

So step in Gordon Brown with the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which includes a special clause to allow the creation of human-animal hybrid blastocysts so long as they are destroyed before they reach 14 days "old", i.e. long before they have developed into even an embryo. Problem solved.

Except finding cures and treatments for horrid debilitating diseases is something the Catholic Church really hates. Suddenly we're told MPs have been consulting their local churches about this (Which MPs? And have they also consulted the Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers in their local care homes and hospices? Also I had no idea how many Catholics there are in parliament, didn't Henry the Eighth get rid of them a few centuries back and replace them with the cub scouts?). And after much debate they're now being given a free vote on that clause...

Now a part of me thinks a free vote is the right choice because at least we'll all know which MPs not to vote for next time round.

But another part of me thinks this: I'm an atheist. I'll bet you good money most of the researching scientists are atheists. I don't want to suffer like Granddad did. So I propose that the atheist scientists get on with the research and if the Catholic Alzheimer's sufferers of the future prefer not to use the resulting treatments on principle - fine. You see the law isn't saying anyone would be forced to create hybrid blastocysts, only that they can if they want to. Those people who object to their creation are welcome to not create them.

And isn't this the trouble with religious-based laws? I mean if you're religious about it, don't get an abortion, don't get a gay marriage, don't adopt children into your lesbian family (another clause they are being allowed to opt out of) but don't try to pass laws telling me how to live my life.

If it doesn't go through, I might go offer to donate some eggs to researchers. Anyone know how to do this? Anyone else coming?

Hands Off Heather

Well apologies for the recent radio silence on here and on the podcast too - we were supposed to be going to the Glasgow Comedy Festival, then we weren't, then we were and between that and the Stop The Strip Pub campaign I've not had a minute to myself.

Back to "normal" now. Whatever that is. And I keep looking at the papers and thinking that now it's all over maybe people will leave Heather Mills alone. I really don't understand why she's so hated. What "crimes" is she supposed to have committed? Who has she murdered? As far as I can see what she's done is:

1) Said that Paul MacCartney drinks too much and takes drugs. Of course he does, he's a pop star. No-one complains when Amy Winehouse's Dad says she's on crack, people tut tut about her for taking drugs. Isn't it taking drugs that's against the law - not talking about it?

2) Said that Paul hit her. Is that so hard to believe? That a guy high on booze and drugs might hit his wife? Don't we know that that happens all the time?

3) Poured water on a lawyer. Since when did lawyers become the good guys? It's only water, not water-boarding.

4) Described their relationship differently to the way Paul described it. Because normally ex partners agree completely on these things... She's not employed half her own family on expenses while they trot round Eton on a polo pony!

5) Asked for money after her marriage broke down. Initially we were told she would ask for £100m or more. Later it turned out that she wasn't actually asking for that much. Plus - lest we forget - she has a child to raise. A child whose father is worth at least £400m. A child that needs protection growing up (especially after the way the media has covered the story) and a child that is already accustomed to good care, nannies and expensive schools. So when the news emerged that she had settled for £25.4m, why did the papers not cheer her accepting the much lower figure?

6) Appeared in a topless photo-shoot. You know like the ones The Sun publishes EVERY DAY.

But really, really, the very worst you could say she did was cynically married a pop star for money. So what? How many of us can honestly say we are 100% certain we wouldn't?

And remember there were days when I looked at the papers and found four of the first five pages dedicated to hate-journalism about her. Where is the sense of perspective? What about the murderers, rapists and violent attackers? Where are the victims of corporate-run third world sweat shops? The prisoners of conscience? The victims of NHS cut backs, knife crime and the lack of adequate drug rehabilitation facilities? The women of Darfur facing rape and starvation daily while newspapers in the UK whine about a disabled woman who had the nerve to marry someone famous and it didn't work out.

Calling All Womyn!

I am hosting an open mic freestyle show tomorrow at Womynspace. This is a women-only (trans-friendly) house-centre-castle in Hackney. It's open mic show for any women who want to perform in whatever format: comedy, music, poetry, spoken word, rant, dance, performance art, circus skills, yodeling... I think you get the picture. I'm told we have seven acts booked in already but I have no idea what kinds of acts they are yet. All will be revealed.

The venue, which sadly will only be around for a couple more months now, also hosts everything from welding classes to yoga and a cafe-bar for self-defined "womyn" in the East London area.

If you fancy coming tomorrow (Friday 28th March) it's doors at 7.30pm, show starts 8pm at 4 Corbridge Crescent, E2. See you there. More info here.

Stop The Strip Pub Blog

I have put together a very simple blog for the Stop The Strip Pub campaign. There is also a really nice quote from me in the Hackney Post article about Saturday's protest.

Stop Press: Stop The Strip Pub

Got into a bit of real grass roots activism today. Satchmo's - a bar just up the road from my house - has applied for a license to do strip shows. Now I don't really approve of strip clubs anywhere but seriously - it's in a residential area, just between a mosque and two primary schools. It's the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a very long time. So we went along to protest outside and there was a great turnout, 50-100 people just from the few streets around it, including ten from the Turkish Community Centre, six or so from the mosque and a bunch of school children from one of the local schools. Several journalists appeared and interviewed me and others and took photos so hopefully it will attract some attention. I'll keep you posted.

Off to Million Women Rise now - two protests, one day...

Good News, Badly Presented

Interesting report from the NY Times which has only just come to my attention. In short it turns out that young guys for the most part are pretty respectful of the women they date. Very few in the survey conducted by the Journal of Adolescence appeared to be obsessed with sex, the majority were interested in women because they liked them and wanted to get to know them better.

Now the NY Times seems surprised by this. I'm not, the vast majority of guys I know of all ages are nothing like the noxious stereotypes portrayed everywhere from the lad mags to "teen" films like American Pie. By the same token the number of young women I know who act like Clueless is, well, zero.

Now to start with they title the article "Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter", which plays straight into the idea that sex is some sort of predatory act perpetrated by evil men on innocent unsuspecting women. And then it goes on to say "The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships." Cultural beliefs from the 19th century maybe but I don't know anyone who really believes that.

There is also a fairly undisguised SEX IS WRONG message hidden between the lines. "Let’s give boys more credit,'’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship."

But there's really nothing wrong with "just wanting sex" as long as you are open and honest about what you are doing. There are plenty of young women out there interested to learn about sex through experience, who may be comfortable doing so outside the confines of a relationship. And that's ok, in fact it's pretty healthy to feel that way and have that desire to learn. Even if you're somebody's daughter.

The report concludes that parents should talk to their sons as much about relationship-forming as they do their daughters. Which is a bit like stating the obvious - although I have to say I never had any advice off my parents about relationships (well unless you count thinly veiled hints that I shouldn't expect too much...). Mr Cru by contrast did, but I think that had more to do with the families we came from than any gender issues.

Free Tomorrow?

Mr Cru and I are both appearing tomorrow at a comedy show in aid of a very worthwhile charity. Please come along if you're free - tickets and info here.

Also our political comedy night Comedy Manifesto continues Sunday at the Camden Head, Camden Passage, Angel, 8.30pm, only £5 when you mention the Cru-blog.

Me Looking Cool

Someone has taken some really nice piccies of me performing at the Porthole Comedy Club in Kilburn. Do have a look here, but bear in mind I'm not nearly this cool in real life. If you look this week I'll be near the front of the slide show, but if you find this page in the year 2012, you may have trouble spotting me. I'm playing there again in Sept (29th) though so I'll be sure to strike a few poses for the camera...

Why Does Jezebel Exist?

Obviously Jezebel and I have HISTORY. But I am not afraid to put my hand up when I agree with them on something.

This time however they've gone with really shocking story, followed by offensive coverage of that story. The story is some nasty people are selling a T-Shirt with the slogan "No Means No... well maybe if I'm drunk". Which is obviously a horrid thing to be saying and selling. And I understand that with pressure from Feministing, they have now stopped. Jezebel's response however features the following:

"You can probably blame a religious fetishization of virginity for the fact that a lot of girls say "no" to sex they actually want."

I'm not fan of religion, nor of virginity cults, but I'm pretty horrified by a supposedly pro-women site suggesting that when women say "no" they may "actually want" sex.

They are talking about women who find the guy in question attractive and are feeling aroused in some way and they're equating that with "wanting sex". Now I may not believe that Jesus needs me to stay pure for him but there are a ton of other perfectly valid reasons why women might not want to have sex with someone they fancy even though they are in the mood for sex. Like if they're committed to someone else, if they don't feel like they completely trust the person in question, if it's practically difficult to arrange (no condoms, early start in the morning, lives the other side of town), if they don't feel that it's right emotionally, if they don't want to affect a friendship or working relationship or if they're enjoying the idea of a little delayed gratification. Or a million other things. Or if they'd rather go for a slice of pizza and then watch late night rubbish on TV.

Which means when guys ask women out, even if they think they're really sexy, and even if they happen to be really horny, they often still say "no". And it's not OK to rape them then. Consent is about specific verbal permission, not best-guessing what a woman's hormones might be indicating. And no matter how much their hormones might be raging, if there's one thing women don't want - it's some guy forcing himself on them when they've already said "no".

It's like if you're feeling hungry but have decided to skip dessert because you want to lose weight, then some guy grabs you and physically forces you to eat cake. You don't enjoy the cake, do you? You feel violated and ill.

Virginity cults in any case don't seem to affect the amount of sex young people have - only the amount of access to advice and protection that they get. Members of virginity cults are perfectly capable of consenting, so if they don't that means they don't want sex

Did that all really need explaining? Here's what I'd like explained: Why does anyone read Jezebel?