...But Is It "Art"?

Camden Council has decided that burlesque shows where there is stripping and nudity should require adult entertainment licenses, like strip shows and lap-dancing venues do. And I know I sound like the oldest prude in the book but they're right.

And I do feel mean about this because I have a number of good friends who perform burlesque, and for the most part what they do is genuinely alternative and intended at least in a positive way. The thing is that already I've seen amateur burlesque nights springing up around London and they are really using that term to mean "stripping but we can't be bothered to get a license". I fail to see how the line can be drawn. The council will still have authority to grant licenses if they want to.

On top of that I am still not totally comfortable with burlesque as an art form. A number of comedy clubs have sprung up recently offering a "cabaret" of comedy and burlesque. I am not, and am never going to be, comfortable going on stage when the last performer has just stripped off. And it is tangibly restricting my career, just as it used to when I worked in finance and wouldn't socialise in strip clubs.

To give a concrete example of why I feel that way: I was asked a couple of years ago to do warm-up at a highly prestigious burlesque show happening in Edinburgh at the festival. I said I thought I'd feel uncomfortable surrounded by glamourous dancers, to which I was told "no-one will be looking at your face". Confused I asked what they'd expect me to wear and was told "Don't worry, we'll lend you a basque". To be honest that's what I was most worried about so I declined the job and it was given to a male act who performed in jeans and no doubt got his own BBC series on the back of it or some such.

Some venues will still apply for and be granted licenses and for the rest of the burlesque world I can only suggest doing something wildly alternative and positive - keeping your kit on! No-one is suggesting demanding licenses for venues where nudity doesn't happen.

Oh Look...

...me having a good old moan in The Observer!

Dear The Independent Sports Section

I wonder if you remember on March 23rd this year you carried an opinion piece by the then Sports Minister Andy Burnham bewailing the limited coverage of women's sport in national media in the wake of England Women's victory at the the cricket world cup? I wonder in the light of that whether you shouldn't rename your current supplement Great Male Sporting Moments since aside from a brief appearance by Jane Torville all fourteen of the moments commemorated celebrate men's sport. Should your younger female readers conclude that the only physical excellence to which they should bother aspiring is to have a man swing them round an ice rink in a leotard and miniskirt*? Or will you be bringing out a second series next week of Great Female Sporting Moments with classic scenes of Paula Radcliffe, Dame Kelly Holmes, Dame Ellen MacArthur, Laila Ali, Mia Hamm, Martina Navratilova, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Dame Mary Peters, Rachel Heyhoe-Flint and of course the 2009 England Women's Cricket Team? If so I look forward to reading it.

*Not that this isn't a very difficult thing to train for and do - just that it doesn't really represent the breadth and depth of female sporting ability.

What Not To Wear

This, for starters, is revolting. Women in Sudan being given lashes (not the mascara kind) for wearing trousers in public. Now the issue is that the lashes were given under Sharia law which is only supposed to apply to Muslims - the women were mostly Christian or animist.

Of course the notion that non-followers of a religion should adhere to it's laws is stupid - but still one I hear a great deal in the UK on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But more importantly:

1) Who exactly gets to decide whether a woman in Muslim or not? Is she herself genuinely entitled to a free choice on the matter? I strongly doubt it.

2) Where is the righteousness in following the laws of your religion out of fear of being flogged rather than out of personal piety?

3) Assuming the Muslim community wishes others to follow Islam - how exactly do they think this is going to attract new converts?

Wimbledon Women

A report yesterday in the Daily Male says Wimbledon officials actually admit they put more attractive female players on centre court and leave the most talented, less attractive female players on outer courts.

Today I was watching the tennis from the sofa largely because I'm something of a fan of the Williams sisters who are much more likely to use the phrase "I'll play any bloke who's brave enough"* than "I'm hoping to move into glamour modeling" and at one point Serena Williams graciously pointed out to the umpire that her opponent had won the point. The (male) BBC commentator (whose name I do not know) commented "One thing that Richard's done - he's made them very good on court. There's no bitching about line calls".

Argh! Excuse me while I bang my head against this handy wall. Firstly Richard Williams did not build his daughters in some sort of lab. Their successes and their graciousness is their own - no one sees Murray win a point and congratulates his coach or his Mum. Secondly if Murray complains about a line call would a commentator say "Oh dear, Murray's bitching about the line call"? One standard for men and a totally different one for women.

*They did this once and lost to a guy ranked about 200th, but not without winning some games on the way there.

"Hilarious" Prostitution Story

This story is hilarious as long as you block out in your mind the notion that women trapped in the sex industry are actually people. I see this happen so often - the idea that a story about unusual behaviour related to prostitution is funny. Who on earth released the story to the press? Police? How sick is that? Shouldn't they be asking what can be done to help this woman? Puke.

Chilling Read

Computer problems here which mean myself and Mr Cru are currently sharing a computer - hence why I've hardly blogged for ages. Anyway to keep you radicalised until it gets sorted out try this piece from The Curvature for size...

Rape and the Police

This story from yesterday's London Paper is shocking and horrifying. One element of it that I am still spitting about is the time line. Police were "today" (i.e. yesterday) hunting for a rapist who attacked a woman on 3rd July last year.

This guy hid in a roof above a toilet and leaped down to rape a teenage. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who should be left to roam the streets for a year before being apprehended. How many other women have been attacked while the police did nothing? And how hard would it have been for the rapist to leave the country in the space of a year thus ensuring he never faces charges for his crimes.

Only a few months ago we were horrified to discover John Worboys had been left by police to roam the streets searching for new victims while outstanding cases against him were left to fester. When are police going to start taking rape seriously?

But of course The London Paper doesn't bother asking questions to chase up that angle (like when was the crime reported and why has it taken so long to chase up on it?), instead it focuses on the fact that Bono and Prince Harry sometimes went to the nightclub in question. Well whoopee - I wonder what they usually have to drink and what they think of the music... oh hold on didn't someone mention rape a minute ago? So question two: When is The London Paper - and other media - going to take rape seriously?

F****** Sexism

I was on Five Live on Tuesday night as Richard Bacon's "presenter's friend" which is a really fun job where you get to chat about all the subjects that come up. We interviewed Pete Waterman and met an amazing duo called Nathan Flutebox Lee and Beardyman (whose act you may have seen on YouTube and is really quite amazing). In between the subject of Gordon Ramsay was up for discussion.

In case you have missed the story in question Ramsay is over in Australia at the moment promoting a new restaurant and took the time to appear on a TV chat show hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. While on air he said a few rather rude things to her about her appearance, making fun of a mole on her lip. She took it as a joke and laughed it off. Then at his live show he held up a really horrible picture of a woman on all fours with six breasts and a pig's head and said "This is Tracy Grimshaw". Some sources claim he also suggested she was a lesbian (cos that's an insult right?).

And brilliantly something happened. Grimshaw herself responded to the situation saying she had been very upset by it. She also said - and I love this quote - "Obviously Gordon thinks that any woman who doesn't find him attractive must be gay. For the record, I don't. And I'm not.". The Women's Forum Australia made a statement saying "Why should he get paid for depicting a woman as an animal and publicly deriding her looks? He shouldn't make money through the verbal abuse of women." and even the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd joined in saying Ramsay was "a new form of low life". After initially dismissing it as a joke Ramsay has now been forced to make a very public apology.

Well you know me readers - the last thing I would want to be considered is smug but I do think us feminists can smell a misogynist coming at 200 yards and I've known from day one that Ramsay has a bad attitude towards women. Firstly I remember in one of his early TV shows he had a special section in which he campaigned to "Get women back in the kitchen". The concept behind it was of course a perfectly reasonable one - to encourage people to make more home-cooked food - but he had to make it about women and about reviving antiquated Victorian ideals that have destroyed women's lives for centuries.

Secondly remember when he had three-year-olds going round in badges that said "I'm a vegetarian tart"? I even blogged about it.

So lashing of "Well Done Australia" served up with a sprinkling of "I Told You So".

Abortion Debate

I wrote a piece for Reuters yesterday about the murder of Dr George Tiller and the implications for current abortion issues here. My piece here or the "balanced"* debate here.

*"Balanced" is very much a matter of opinion I think.

Food, Gloriously Gendered Food!

Re-posted from The F-Word, as discussed elsewhere.

I was asked earlier today (as were other writers on The F-Word) if I was interested in commenting on gendering of food through advertising. And I thought it was quite an interesting subject. Here are my thoughts:

I have a real problem with "gendering" food at all. From the "women like chocolate more than sex" stereotype to the notion that certain products will sell better to men if you describe them as "not for girls". At best it's unnecessary and at worst it's directly promoting gender prejudice.

In particular what is a problem is that as soon as food is deemed suitable for women, it will almost certainly be a lower-calorie version of the original food. The inference that women are or should be dieting all the time is noxious in a world where eating disorders affect a huge proportion of teenage girls and adult women and are on the rise. At the same time the "real men don't diet" message makes it harder for men to choose to eat healthily and is certainly a contributory factor in the sky-high (relative to what it could be) levels of heart disease, stroke, etc seen among men in the UK. This imbalance also plays into the notion that men do or should do tougher physical jobs (fire-fighting, military roles, etc) and play sport in their free time while women are seen as weak and in need of a "strong" man to look after them. These are all notions which do nothing for our society except to act as drivers for sexism, stereotyping and discrimination.

If food manufacturers want to sell me their food - they should make better quality food. Organic, traditionally and locally farmed, free from additives and excessive packaging and without those kind of bulking-out products that have become so commonplace on the modern food shelf - "exotic" fruit juice that's mostly grape, "meat" pies that are mostly onion. Real food, real value, and real concern for the environment will appeal to me - not patronising out-dated gender stereotypes.

Twittering Twits

Re-posted from the F-Word, as explained elsewhere.

Difficult to know how much to read into a few (hundred) posts on twitter. First I should briefly explain a concept to unfamiliar readers:

Members of Twitter (and there are loads) post up short messages about themselves or general stuff which appear next to their name. My name on the system is "Cruella1" so for instance I might "tweet" about what I'm doing:

(1) Cruella1 has just finished her lunch and is thinking about going to the park.

or about something I'm trying to draw attention to

(2) Cruella1 has just written a blog post http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/ #feminism

or I might reply to someone else's Tweet

(3) Cruella1 @jester thanks for the advice!

or I might join in a discussion already happening on Twitter

(4) Cruella1 #cornypickuplines do you work in subway? cos you've got me a foot long...

Now I need to explain a bit of etiquette - the @jester in (3) means I'm talking to someone (jester - that's Jess McCabe who edits The F-Word), and the #feminism in (2) and #cornypickuplines (4) are basically search terms. So I know people will go on Twitter looking for info about feminism and I want to direct them to my blog via (2). Also I notice other people I know are having a general chat about corny pick-up lines and I want to join in (4). You can click on these #-terms to see all "tweets" that mention them.

Anyway right now there is very popular #-search term with hundreds of "tweets" including it called #liesgirlstell. And I guess I should warn you that some of these comments might be triggering for some people. I won't name and shame who made these "tweets" but I was quite shocked at the level of disdain and hatred for women revealed...

#liesgirlstell: I'm not a slut, I juss like sex
#liesgirlstell "I don't f*ck on the first date"
#liesgirlstell im a virgin
#liesgirlstell I am low maintenance
#liesgirlstell I didn't get pregnant so you would marry me
#liesgirlstell "I'm strippin to pay for college" (b!tch you are 49!! Your turn is OVER!)
#liesgirlstell "i'm on my period"
#liesgirlstell i am capable of having an intellegent conversation with another human being
#liesgirlstell "i dont want your money"
#liesgirlstell I'm not a hoe
#liesgirlstell IVE NEVER DONE IT TRU THE ASS
#liesgirlstell Kobe raped me.

I don't know what I'm more horrified by - is it:

1) The fact that there are thousands of people happily joining in this debate as though it's normal and funny to make jokes about women being prone to dishonesty (look at all the politicians, most men, lying about everything from war to duck islands!),
2) The repeated suggestion that women who have and enjoy sex are bad/evil/disgusting
3) That bizarre comment in the middle about women not being able to hold intelligent conversations where the author himself can't even spell "intelligent"...!
or
4) The disgusting rape denier at the end.

But suffice as to say sadly that is the world we all live in. And to think some people think we don't need feminism!

Satire of the Day

The Truth About Antenatal Classes

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

A report out from Sweden says that attending classes teaching breathing techniques and relaxation methods has exactly no effect on your likelihood of needing an epidural. And no impact on your likelihood of needing a C-Section. And no impact on your overall satisfaction with the birth.

Now that's not to say that there aren't some worthwhile things to be taught to expecting parents. To get the low-down I spoke to my sister (Lynda) who had a baby almost a year ago and attended both NHS and NCT (National Childbirth Trust) classes before the birth. She said neither even mentioned breathing techniques or relaxation as discussed in the Swedish report. But she did have some good points about several aspects of them. Here is what she had to say:

1) NHS classes: free but a total waste of time. Around 40 individuals and couples in a theatre-style auditorium. During question and answer sessions she couldn't really hear what other participants were saying and they ran out of handouts. Pain relief methods were discussed briefly as more or less a list of options.

2) NCT classes: £140 for 2 days and one evening, much more useful. Eight individuals and couples with practical opportunities to try things, etc. The most useful thing was the focus on the emotions around birth and new babies, for instance talking about how the mother's partner might feel coming home to find the house a mess and the mother exhausted and desperate to hand the baby over. Provided lots of useful advice for the birth itself - such as bringing along glucose sweets for energy and a kneeling cushion if you wanted to try a kneeling position. Probably much of this is available in books on maternity but also in this class friends were made and a support network accumulated.

As far as pain relief was concerned she was expecting there to be real pressure on women to reject pain relief. In the event there was a run-through of different options with participants asked to make a list of the pros and cons of each type. This might sound even-handed but in fact the "cons" is a long list of unlikely medical complications while the "pros" is one single item "reduces pain" which applies in most cases. Drawing the list like this gives the impression that one pro equals one con when in reality cons like "baby may be sleepy for first hour after birth" may well be pretty trivial against the pain thing.

Worryingly they were told that using the pain-reliever pethidine gives your child a greater risk of becoming a drug addict later in life. Both Lynda and I doubt this statement - though there may be a correlation between hospitals in underprivileged areas who dish out pethidine when they don't really have enough midwives around to cope with all the women in labour and the hospitals where kids turn up eighteen years later with a drug problem. In any case the information is nothing more than a scare tactic unless it says how much the risk increases and where the data is from.

3) Pain. No class can prepare you for the pain. To quote Lynda directly "The only way they could explain to you in a class what the pain is like is if they made you stand barefoot on upturned drawing pins while they loaded you with heavy sandbag after heavy sandbag to weight you down and the only way to make it stop was to shout 'EPIDURAL'!". ...and I am supposed to be the comedienne in the family!

4) Reality. The one thing no class really told despite asking repeatedly at the NHS one was what the most likely outcome was - what percentage of women manage without pain relief, etc and what percentage of pain relief interventions lead to problems, and what type of problems. In the end of five women Lynda is still in touch with, including herself, there were two without epidural and three with epidural. In all three of the latter cases there were complications associated with the epidural (one didn't work - the pain continued, one the needle kept coming out and having to be refitted and one woman was left on crutches for several months with a small baby to look after!). Of course without access to the relevant data we just can't know how much of that is to be expected from an epidural and how much is down to bad luck or overworked staff, etc.

5) Birth plans. Apparently the NCT went on and on about how important it was for women to write a "birth plan" to take with them to hospital. Now it's understandable that women would want to have a document in hand to tell nurses what they want in different scenarios, to avoid having procedures they didn't want forced upon them when they are in too much pain to discuss things. However of those in the group who made a "birth plan" (Lynda refused despite repeated demands by class instructors) 100% ended up not sticking to it and then feeling they had somehow "failed" to have the birth they wanted. In any case who would write a birth plan that says "experience extreme pain, demand an epidural, discover it's too late, baby's heart rate slows, rushed in for emergency cesarean". Everyone writes "no pain relief, baby slips out in 2 minutes, I look stunning", and then nobody lives up to it. So sure take in some notes about particular things you're worried about seems to be good advice, but stay open minded about what happens - don't make too many plans!

6) What they don't mention. There were a few things that didn't seem to get mentioned. Particularly some of the graphic details. Like for instance "you will definitely sh!t yourself at some point". Not to freak women out but so that when it happens they know not to be surprised or embarrassed. Maybe just reading out a few accounts from women who have had babies recently would help.

So in conclusion, there seem to be some real positives from a supportive class covering what to expect throughout maternity, birth and the first year or so of a child's life, although clearly such classes should be available freely (although the NCT does offer discounted classes if mothers have financial difficulties). Information on pain relief doesn't seem to be getting through so well. What is needed in this area is accurate information about all the options and how likely the various outcomes are both nationally and by hospital and clinic so that women can make a considered choice. What is not needed is a load of piffle about trying to relax while you're in excruciating pain.

Footnote: The moment I put this up someone messaged me on Facebook to say they read it. This friend of mine said she had a planned cesarean because of problems identified earlier in the pregnancy. When they told her this she felt ... relieved. What a shame that a woman can't just decide she wants a planned cesarean and discuss that with her antenatal teacher. What's so bad about not wanting to go through a lot of pain? Give women all the information and let them choose what they want for themselves.

(By the way there is a response to this post by another feminist here).

More Free Tampons

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

Lil-Lets have out-done themselves now. After last week's "Free Tampons" offer, they are now offering a free box of tampons with some free sample packs to give to your friends. But this offer breaks new ground in also offering a do-it-yourself "dip test" - their brand and a rival brand of tampons with two test tubes and some suspicious-looking blue liquid for you to recreate the thrills and spills of being in a sanitary product advert! Really! I suggest take the freebee and use the test tubes as shot glasses!

Try Not To Enjoy This Too Much...

...oh ok, go on then!! At the risk of shocking some readers I think I would have to admit that I enjoyed this story so much I may have to go change into clean underwear!

Tesco and Me

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.

Somehow or another I have failed to tick a box somewhere online and I have been added to a mailing list run by Tesco. Today their marketing director Kendra Banks has written me with some recommendations. Her first pick for me is Eminem's new album "Relapse".

This album's title track includes some interesting lyrics, like this one:

"he stuck the bitch with the pitchfork with the long prongs"

I wonder how this fits with Tesco's fancily worded policy on diversity and inclusion: gender?

But maybe lyrics about killing women pale into insignificance next to some of the other things he says in the very same song. Such as these:

"Slice you up and cook you after you`re murdered by strangulation
That`s bacon souffle you makin`, ain`t you? well, thank you jason
There goes one more coma
Due to blunt force trauma"

"The medication is making my hands a little shakier
Hand me the 18 month old baby, come shake `em up
It`ll only take me a second to choke his trachea
Breakin` his neck in eightysome places"

Maybe someone could print out the above stanza and put it in Tesco stores next to the nappies and baby food? Or maybe Kendra Banks should double check what is being sent out to Tesco customers with her name on the bottom!

Free Tampons

Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest blogging.

It hardly needs saying that I am a big advocate of alternative menstrual hygiene products* - moon cup, sea sponge tampons, washable pads, etc but of course these don't suit everybody all of the time. So I thought I would mention for the benefit of those interested that Lil-Lets are currently giving away free samples of their new applicator (yes, I know, the waste!) tampons. You have to register but you can opt for not joining the mailing list (or join and then barrage them with messages demanding they switch to recyclable products) to get the free sample here.

*What a stupid term - I mean period products!

The Trouble With Cruella

Re-posted from The F-Word, where I am currently guest-blogging.

As some readers will have noticed, I was interviewed for a BBC Two documentary about working women called "The Trouble With Working Women" which was shown this evening. You can see the whole thing here on the BBC iPlayer. And if you just want to see my bit - it starts at 37 minutes in, so you can scroll it along.

I've just finished watching the whole thing and I thought it was quite interesting, they do speak to a range of people on the subject. I had a few notes though.

They talk a lot about the extent to which having children holds women back but they never stop to ask whether that in itself is a result of sexism. I mean if having children made you a bad employee we would assume that the small number of women who do get to the top would all be women without children. Surprise - not true! Margaret Thatcher has two children, Segolene Royal four children, Hillary Clinton one child. And the most successful women in business: Dame Marjorie Scardino has three children, Dorothy Thompson two children, Linda Cook three children. There is no evidence to suggest mothers make less valuable employees. What we do know is that female bosses, regardless of the number of children they have, work an average three hours more per week than their male counterparts.

Later they gravely warn that one in four women with a degree is "childless at forty" - something they should probably mention to the noxious woman complaining she wouldn't hire a woman of child-bearing age. Note to any female readers currently navigating the credit crunch job market - why not consider a career-enhancing hysterectomy... oh that's right because it's totally screwed up and sickening.

Even so the one in four figure is useless information without telling us what percentage of men with degrees are childless at the same age - among my college friends most of the women have children but almost none of the guys. And anyway one in five women overall do not have children in their lifetimes so it seems like the degree might not be the main factor. Plus what percentage of these women wanted children in the first place? Maybe getting a degree opened them up to other things that they enjoy more. Maybe they're thrilled to be without children and able to focus their free time on travel and artistic pursuits (as a friend said to me the other day "Oh God Kate I wouldn't have had children if I'd know I was creative!"). Maybe they would prefer to be described with the term "child free".

They then say that 30% of mothers stay at home full time but that two-thirds of working mothers said they did so out of necessity. For me there's a gap there where they should be asking what can be done to support mothers who want to spend more time with kids and why the benefit system forces women back to work so quickly after they have children. There is a lot of talk about women making tough choices but the reality for many women is clearly that it's not a choice at all.

But also I'd like to know what percentage of stay at home mothers do so at least partly because their job prospects are so hampered by sexism - certainly true of all the stay-at-home mums I know.

As so often with these things they seem to get totally sidelined into the motherhood thing and away from the real issue - sexism. Amazing when you consider they actually interview guys who say "women shouldn't be allowed to work", "women aren't put on this earth to work". And then you're telling me it's my choices that are holding my career back? No - it's these assholes!

So where is the documentary asking how so many men manage to "juggle" a career with playing golf and downloading internet porn? Whoops, forgot to make that one!

The notion that women having children explains everything from the pay gap to sexual harassment is totally sexist because only women can be "women having children"! I honestly believe if women rather than men grew the vast majority of beards the government would announce they were unhygienic and we wouldn't be allowed to work in the food industry which would overnight become the best paid industry in the country. And if men had the children they'd be automatically promoted every time they squeezed one out because they were demonstrating an ability to shoulder more responsibility...

We're not victims of biology - we're victims of misogyny.

Boris's Big Plans

Re-posted from The F-Word, where I am currently resident guest blogger!

Well I figured it was about time I went online and filled in the survey on the Mayor of London's "consultation" on his violence against women strategy. I was just trundling through, ticking boxes and adding comments when I realised I was experiencing a growing sense of unease over the whole thing.

I mean for instance I'm ticking a box to say that I agree that a priority should be to:

"4. Respond to the needs of at risk and marginalised women."

or

"3.Respond to the needs of children and young people experiencing violence."

or

"2. Clamping down on traffickers"

They are seriously asking me whether or not these issues should be a priority. Did anyone log on and tick "no - don't bother to help children", "no - leave the traffickers alone"?

And here's the thing - no-one would ever EVER do a survey asking Londoners what types of terrorism the Metropolitan police should be focusing on. Tick this box if you think we should try to prevent bombs on the tube, and this box if you're opposed to terrorists spreading anthrax. The strategy has always quite rightly been to do everything possible to prevent all types of terrorism.

Domestic violence kills two women in the UK every week. Rape is so poorly dealt with by police and in courts that it might as well be legal most of the time. What Boris Johnson's violence against women strategy should do is every single thing in its power to end violence against women. Obviously and immediately. A three month long "consultation" consisting of an online survey to find out whether or not Londoners think "at risk and marginalised women" should be protected is a waste of time and an insult to both the intelligence of people of London and more importantly the women suffering rape, violence, intimidation and harassment.