Friday, May 20, 2011

In defence of Tracey Emin

There is an article in the Evening Standard today (well yesterday now) by art critic Brian Sewell slating Tracey Emin's new retrospective. I haven't read such a great big pile of sexist nonsense in a long time. You can read it here but be sure to bandage your hands up first because you will want to hit something. I've written to them as follows:

I'm wondering whether to save column inches in future Brian Sewells comments on Tracey Emin could be replaced with the words "I'M A GREAT BIG MISOGYNIST"?

Nobody has to like Tracey Emin, her very open and very populist style of art will always attract it's critics. Sewell sets the scene early on however when he accuses her of "playing the drunken slut" apparently unaware that any woman who dares drink in public or admit to a sexual past is at risk of labelling in that insulting gendered way. For the record - it's ok for women to drink alcohol and have sex. Men do it all the time.

Apparently Sewell feels alienated by Emin's frank discussion of the abuse she suffered as a child and issues which have affected her personally like abortion and menopause. For comparison he says "I do not feel excluded from the distress of Madame Bovary or Madame Butterfly", failing to mention that both of those characters were created by men. The female characters in them are defined wholly, rather boringly, by the relationships they have with the men around them. Speaking as a woman I can say I never identified much with either of them.

He further claims that Gilbert and George beat Ms Emin to the mark in using the word "cunt" prominently in art, forgetting that neither Gilbert nor George has a cunt. Does the word "n****r" mean the same thing whether a black or a white person uses it? No, of course not. And so Emin's use of "cunt" has a significance quite different from Gilbert and George's work.

In arguing that being open about her female experience Emin is alienating her male audience seems to forget that the history of art for hundreds of years has been the history of art created by men and consumed by men. Women have at best been allowed to sit still, silent and naked while it is produced. We should be delighted that that era appears at last to be reaching it's end. If one percent of the art world is now by women and for women, the word for that is "progress".

And anyway she doesn't - Emin's work invites men and women to examine modern womanhood close up. A third of British women have had abortions and at least one in twenty been raped. Menopause affects us all. If Sewell isn't prepared to face up to that and discuss maturely the way that Emin and others discuss these realities through art, I can only suggest replacing him with an art critic who isn't a cunt.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

My Twenty Minutes with Nadine Dorries

I discover to my delight that the argument I had about abstinence only sex education with Nadine Dorries on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio Two is available as a special extract/highlight. I must warn you if you have an expensive computer monitor though, definitely don't take a big mouthful of coffee just as Ms Dorries is about to speak! Listen to it all here.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Rod Liddle and rape

Had a chat with one Rod Liddle this morning on BBC Ulster about rape and (joy of joy) it IS available on listen again here. Starting 1h 16m in.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Godparents and other animals

I don't always get round to blogging my radio appearances (sorry!) but I did a little spot on BBC 5 Live Breakfast show today about godparents. You can "listen again" here for the next seven days. My contribution starts just after 1h 55 mins into the show.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

New Pseudo-Scientist

Terrible article in this week's New Scientist about the royal wedding. The link is here but sadly you have to register which is a bit of a pain. Here, anyway, is my letter to them complaining about it:

I was intrigued when I saw [P36, Issue 2809] your coverage of the royal wedding and hoped to read something that explained the public and media excitement about a relationship between two people who most of us don't know at all. Sadly the article seemed to be distinctly lacking in science. Firstly author Geoffrey Miller claims "male brains will be sparked by Will's military titles", without offering any evidence of this. I happen to be married to a former military journalist but when I asked him what William's titles were he said "I dunno, something over the top that he doesn't deserve". He didn't even seem interested in finding out.

Then we are given the classic outdated theories about sex appeal. Will likes Kate because she's attractive (obviously) but also because of her sense of humour which indicates fertility. Speaking as a professional comedienne I can assure you than men who find my jokes funny are rarely overwhelmed by a pressing need to impregnate me. You might well argue however that it is pretty logical when committing to spending large amounts of time with someone to pick someone whose company you enjoy. Perhaps it's not evolutionary prerogative at work here but conscious common sense?

Then we hear about Kate's cunning in convincing William to marry her because of the benefits to her potential children. We seem to have forgotten that William's genes also stand to benefit from his commitment to the wellbeing of their children. The notion that men only make good fathers because women have lured and tricked them into doing so is an insult to the many great caring dads in Britain.

Of course the true agenda of the piece emerges about half way through. Apparently the media fail to give Kate the credit she deserves for bagging herself a future king. We are (allegedly) tripping over ourselves to praise Oprah, Meryl, Hillary and Nigella but not Kate. Has Miller bothered to open up a single page of the national press in the last three months? Articles praising Kate for every outfit she chooses, every comment she makes, every smile she throws at a waiting paparazzo take up page after page of coverage that could have been dedicated to a tsunami or human rights crisis. And the only coverage I can find of Nigella recently is a nasty article in the Daily Mail calling her fat (which surely ought to be a compliment for a chef, but clearly isn't intended as such).

And whose fault is this mythical lack of coverage of the royal bride-to-be's evolutionary man-bagging prowess? According to Miller - feminism. Yes those pesky equal rights campaigners. Can Miller give a single example of a feminist who has criticised Ms Middleton? Evidently not. I'll explain why: the pay gap in this country is wide and not closing, the latest round of government cuts are set to hurt women on an unprecedented scale, rape has a 6% conviction rate against reporting and two women a week are murdered in Britain by their male partners or ex-partners. We feminists have bigger fish to fry than attacking a (probably) lovely posh girl about to marry a (probably) lovely posh boy she met at college.

[I hope they publish it though probably they'll edit it down to the line "...feminism. Yes those pesky equal rights campaigners." and leave it at that!]

Friday, April 22, 2011

Late-term abortion privacy debate

I had a very serious piece published today on The Guardian's CiF website. It's about the Information Tribunal's decision to release detailed breakdowns on late term abortions for medical reasons to the Pro-Life Alliance. [Yes, I can see the flaw in this plan too!] And extra extra special thanks to the women who were kind enough to let me interview them yesterday about their own experiences and feelings.

I'd advise NOT reading the comments if you want a calm stress-free afternoon. And if you want to comment on it here where I get to moderate the comments and won't be publishing* lies, derailments or other general hate mail, go ahead!

*Unsure about my comment policy? Think my refusal to publish your comment "probably a lesbian, has fat arms" might be infringing on your freedom of speech? Do read this.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Dear Cru - How Should I Vote on AV?

A fan* writes: Does anyone else (like me) just not get how AV is supposed to be better than FPTP??? I have had it explained about the 50% of the votes bit, but how does ending up with someone who may have been many peoples 2nd or 3rd choice getting elected, become better? also it's hard enough with todays lot to even find a credible 1st choice! how the hell are we supposed to find another two???

OK listen carefully. The problem with politics is (I agree) that there are never any good candidates you really want to vote for. Why not? Well here's the trouble: imagine you have brilliant ideas and want to be a politician. You have two choices right? You could spend 20 years sucking up to one of the major parties even though you disagree with most of their policies and think their leaders are a bunch of corrupt dickheads. OR you could run as an independent or part of a smaller party (maybe your own, new, party) with a list of policies you actually want.

But here's the problem. Option one won't get your brilliant ideas into politics. It will just waste your life working for stuff you don't believe in.

But option two is worse. If you stand for election under the current system (FPTP or first past the post) you will simply split the vote for the party who is nearest to you. So lets say you're against student top-up fees. People now have to choose between you (no top-up fees), a "reduce the top-up fees" candidate, a "keep the fees the same" candidate" and an "increase the fees" candidate. So every vote you get is one less person voting "reduce the fees" or "keep the fees the same" and good news for the "increase the fees" candidate. In fact running as a candidate yourself significantly increases the likelihood that the ultimate winner will be someone who you completely disagree with.

However with AV your supporters can vote for you #1 and maybe that's enough to win and they can put "reduce the fees" #2, and "keep the fees the same" at #3. What they're saying is "if I can't have exactly what I want, I'd like the nearest thing available". Which should surely go without saying.

And importantly it means that new and independent candidates are encouraged to stand. Bringing more ideas into the system and giving us all more choice and more likelihood of finding a candidate we do believe in! And you can vote for them without "wasting" your vote. So you don't have to resort to "tactical voting" to keep hated parties out! You can actually vote for who you want to win and put your tactical choices as #2, #3,...

It's loads better than the current system. You should support it.

*not necessarily a fan of mine.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Some Snippets

(1) The Whistleblower by Kathryn Bolkovac with Cari Lynn. You should buy and read this book. I was very kindly sent a review copy ages ago and read it in more or less a single sitting. Been meaning to write a proper review for ages but there isn't much to say apart from "HOLY CRAP, that's terrible, everyone should know about this, something should be done.". I hear there's a film coming. You should go see that too.

(2) I had a rather interesting, if somewhat after the event, email about the debate I did on Islam on The Big Questions the other month. The author (who claimed to be an Algerian muslim woman, but this being email I can't verify) says I am wrong to criticise Islam's treatment of women. In fact, I am assured, in 95% of life Islam treats men and women the same. And even if that's true that's still the problem isn't it? Cos 95% isn't the same as 100%. I do't want to be rated as the equal of a man in 95% of situations, I want full equality. I want to be regarded as as much of a human being as everybody else, men and women. Doh!

(3) Comedians - don't ever gig for a Daniel Lewis/Lasserman. Everyone else - don't ever go to a gig run by this rogue. In over 7 years in this industry I've only walked out of a gig once* - and it was last Friday at the Marble Hill Pub in Richmond at a "gig" organised by this Daniel Lewis/Lasserman**. It seemed dodgy from the outset - no contract, not much info, etc, but having said "yes" I figured I didn't want to let anyone down. I arrived to discover no separate comedy room, no mic, no lights and no other acts booked - all of which my manager had been assured there would be. Instead I was expected to perform in the corner of the pub within a few metres of family meals - children, dogs, etc. Not wanting to let people down I approached the "audience members" and explained this was going to be a weird gig but if they were happy to be friendly and have it as a "chatty" gig I would do my best for them. They responded by shouting abuse at me. So I left. As I was leaving one of them even grabbed me (yes, physically, while the landlord stood by and did nothing, luckily I was able to shove him off and shout at him til he backed off) and urged me to come back and "fight harder"! Ha ha ha, even the audience thought it was a "fight" rather than a "performance". I didn't think it needed saying but if you plan on running a comedy night, first you should probably go to a few and make some notes on how they work (and how they don't work)!! Now I have a lengthy angry phone message about how it was my job to "control" the audience*** and about how he's going to be running comedy nights in 200 pubs and he knows lots of top acts who will want to perform at them. But trust me top act or total newcomer - you definitely don't want to work for this douchebag. If by some freaky chance you were one of the audience members who wasn't shouting abuse (and I would recognise you, there were only about four such people) drop me a line and I'll be more than happy to guest list you for a real comedy show I'm performing at some time, plus you can enjoy the rare thrills of a mic, lights, other acts, no dogs, etc!

*I did once walk offstage many years ago at the Live Bar in Deptford after being physically threatened (with a lit cigarette, back when you could smoke indoors) by an audience member but the promoter and landlord swiftly removed this man from the premises and I agreed to go back on and finish my set.

**You can always trust a guy who needs to change his name from time to time!

***Presumably including the dogs, children and the drunk abuse-shouters.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

But Daily Mail - who should I blame?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Man Opposes Government Action, Eats Lunch

The second largest protest ever to hit the streets of London took place last Saturday. Around half a million people opposed to the government's planned assault on benefits and public sector jobs made their feelings known. The Daily Fail of course has the behind-the-scenes scoop. Cos y'know the infront-of-the-scenes scoop - the half a million people against the cuts - wouldn't be interesting enough would it? So lets have ourselves a little line-by-line shall we...


Riots? What riots? I mean I know there was some spray painting but I'm not sure I'd call it a riot.

"To the descendant of a baronet, who grew up in a castle, the splendour of Fortnum & Mason must have seemed like a home from home."

No-one's home looks like Fortnum and Mason's. If it does, you've ordered too many jars of marinated olives.

"But unfortunately for Adam Ramsay, the police did not see it that way and arrested him for aggravated trespass and criminal damage."

Yes and a video on the Guardian website clearly shows that was a terrible miscarriage of justice. The sort of thing any self-respecting newspaper would cover.

"Yesterday, the young aristocrat was ruminating on his night in a police cell alongside other protesters who had stormed the luxury Piccadilly grocer."

Based on what I've seen he would have been ruminating on the unreasonable police behaviour.

"However, unlike most of his fellow activists campaigning against the cuts to public services, Ramsay, 25, hails from a remarkably privileged background."

Is this the Daily Mail asking me to hate the rich? I mean we can talk but I'm just checking this is your new editorial policy. You might want to mention it to Melanie Phillips and Dick Littlejohn.

"He comes from a long line of Ramsay baronets starting in 1666 and ending with the 12th baronet who died in 1986."

Confusingly if the 12th baronet died and there wasn't another one, that would seem to imply that line has run out of descendants. But does this affect his opinions about the government? If not it seems oddly irrelevant.

"The family seat is Bamff House – described by them as a ‘small castle’ – set in a stunning 1,300-acre estate in East Perthshire, Scotland."

So I've got a great game you can play with all your family. Imagine you're a penniless working class riot-loving protestor furious at the way the rich are ripping you off. Now, look at these two "castles" and decide which one you should trust the owner of:

(a)
(b)
Well castle (a) is owned by some member of Adam Ramsay's family, allegedly. And castle (b) is owned by Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail. Seriously the alleged Ramsay "castle" would make a really disappointing National Trust day out.

"The magnificent pile boasts more than 15 rooms and an ancient tower, with views stretching over hills, fields and woods that have been owned by the Ramsay family since 1232."

Yes, they're talking about castle (a), and yes they use exactly that same photo, and yes they haven't put any quote marks round the word "magnificent". And the extravagance of fifteen rooms rather depends how many people are there.

"Wild boars roam the estate and, in the pheasant season, the Ramsays offer guests the chance to go shooting."

They have guests? So some of the 15 rooms are rented out to guests? How do they find room for the stable-master and all the scullery maids?

"But despite their aristocratic lineage, they may have more reason than some to oppose government cuts – for they recently received a £40,000 gift from the taxpayer to fund a new boiler at the castle."

Meanwhile Viscount Rothermere despite living at the actual castle, is registered as non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. But lets hear more about an overpriced boiler shall we?

"Yesterday, Ramsay came under fire from other activists who mocked him over the grant, which was paid by an arm of the Scottish government."

I can find no evidence of this. Not a scratch. Most people were sending him messages of support and concern about his treatment by the police.

"He responded on social networking website Twitter, claiming the public money had been a ‘renewable energy grant for the farm’."

No he didn't - really I've been through every post he made on Twitter yesterday and he didn't say any such thing. He says the Daily Mail have been round his parent's house and openly admits he is a bit posh.

"Ramsay – whose family motto is ‘Ora et Labora’, which means ‘Pray and Work’ – also wrote a long internet post describing how he was arrested following the occupation of Fortnum & Mason."

Dang! My best latin translation was "ears and labia"... How does this affect my opinion of him? Does his coat of arms include an image of a guy with a megaphone shouting "David Cameron's a fucking idiot"? Perhaps one day it will...

"Ramsay spent the night in a cell at Ilford police station before being charged the next morning with aggravated trespass. He said the criminal damage allegation was dropped."

So he WAS charged but he only SAID the criminal damage allegation was dropped. Shame we can't ring the police station and check. But hey, we're not a national newspaper or anything.

"Since leaving Edinburgh University, he has worked for a student campaigning network called People & Planet, based in Oxford, as its activism, volunteering and events manager."

Is this a typo? Did you mean horsed about in a Barbour jacket taking pot shots at clay pigeons?

"Last night, several messages were posted under Ramsay’s blog by readers mocking his background."

Yes I think the Daily Mail should be reporting on comments made under a blog post. And if you can't find any, why not add some comments yourself?

"One of them pretended to be his mother, writing: ‘Adam darling, We’ve got no caviar left and the staff have taken the day orf... please be a dear and pick some beluga up when you and your Uni chums pop into Fortnums... Mwah, mwah, Mumsy.’"

Wow, thanks Daily Mail. Let me be the first to break the latest news: someone else has added "I’m not clever enough to discus politics here, so il just call you a moron and hope you suffer instead Moron!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!". Why has this not been reported by the BBC?!

"Ramsay was released on police bail and is due to face Westminster magistrates in May."

Yeah due to face magistrates charged with "aggravated trespass" for sitting on the floor of a public shop and not causing any damage. Perhaps they'll find him a cell next to Ronnie and Reggie? I suspect more than £40,000 of taxpayers money is now being wasted attempting to prosecute a man for singing in a tea shop.

"Responding to a request for comment, last night he sent the Mail a message saying: ‘I think people with all kinds of backgrounds are starting to see that these cuts threaten to undermine our economy and ruin people’s lives.’"

Exactly. And your response to that is? No, no, don't strain yourself. Just change the subject, no-one will notice!

"Meanwhile, it emerged last night that the founder of UK Uncut – the protest group that arranged the invasion of Fortnum & Mason – makes taxpayer-funded films for the BBC."

Yes everyone who works for the BBC is taxpayer-funded. I did a BBC Radio Five Live interview this evening about whether men should pay for dinner on a first date. This was taxpayer-funded. Since your chairman doesn't pay any tax, I, who do pay tax, will be the authority on how to spend it, thanks.

"Thom Costello, a 22-year-old Oxford graduate, works as an assistant producer for CTVC, a television production company that has worked for the BBC’s One Show and Newsnight."

So he works FOR a company that has worked FOR the BBC. Are you trying to smear his character cos you're really not doing all that well here? You should probably go on about the other guy and the fancy Bed and Breakfast his parents run. Knock yourselves out - see if you can interview a labrador.

"Yesterday Mr Costello said: ‘I was not involved in organising the occupation of Fortnum & Mason’s and I was neither inside nor outside Fortnum & Mason on Saturday."

On other pages: Geri Haliwell also not at protest! This is looking like a quiet news day.

"‘In fact, I was in a pub having a drink with a friend whilst the sit-in at the shop took place.’"

Man not at protest, it's a great story, lets run with it, look for an interview... Hang on, stop press, stop press, I think we've got one...

"His father Martin, 53, who runs a theatre in Catford, South London, said: ‘He would not organise anything like that."

Breaking news: man's father corroborates "not at protest" story.

"‘To say he is the mastermind is inaccurate. It’s ridiculous.’"

Is there any chance we can ask Martin to take a few minutes a week off from running his Catford theatre and get him to edit the Daily Mail, cos I think he'd have had the sense to scratch this one before it got this out of hand...?

Because the whole piece is just stupid. If the rich cannot speak up for the poor, the able-bodied for the disabled, if white people in power cannot speak up for black people denied it, men speak up for women's rights or straight people speak up for marginalised gay communities, then where the hell are we? The people who will be worst affected by the cuts Cameron and Osborne are planning were not in Fortnum and Masons on Saturday, and not on the streets protesting, they were stuck working overtime in dead end jobs, trapped in their homes by disability, financial deprivation and responsibility for the care of those the Big Society has long since left behind. We need every body we can get behind this movement, latin family motto or not.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Dream On

Dear Jamie Oliver,

So while attempting to have a night off tonight I decided to watch your "Dream School" show. I thought the idea of using big names to try to inspire and educate kids who had been failed by the education system was interesting. I liked the notion of finding out how much difference a good school and great teachers could make.

However one thing on tonights show made me really angry. One of the students, a young mum, arrived at school with her child - the kid had chicken pox and so couldn't attend a normal daycare centre. The student was sent home and left the program in floods of tears saying that having a child had ruined all her chances in life.

Can't we even DREAM of a future where a really good school would be able to help a woman in that situation? Is a school hardship fund to cover emergency childcare something we can't even DREAM of? Or what about the possibility of one of the teachers (perhaps someone who has had chickenpox as a child so isn't at risk) going round to visit her later and providing one-to-one catch-up.

To be quite frank - call me - I will gladly do either or both of those tasks. And yes I've had chickenpox!

Add to that that earlier in the same show when other students were bullying her over her status as a young mum the response was to encourage her to toughen up rather than to educate the other pupils to think more carefully about what they were saying. Frankly I can't help thinking your school needs a really good sex education teacher - not of the Anne Widdicombe "it's immoral!!" school of education but, frankly, again, me.

If we as a nation are to accept the message you claim to spread about improving our society and giving our young people the opportunities they deserve we have to include young parents in that. Not least because they are the ones raising the next generation of young people.

And what message are you sending to the wider world if your response to the issues of time management which affect parents is to chuck them out immediately without even sitting down to try and figure out a way of working around the problem? It is deeply irresponsible.

But my guess is it's just inconvenient for you to change your filming schedule or give up a little bit of your free time to actually help someone else. Once the cameras are off the enthusiasm for helping others is off too.

Well some of us don't take that attitude. As I've said above I'd be happy to help. And I mean that whether the cameras are on or off. Seriously contact me, your school could use a head of feminism I expect.

Yours Kate

Monday, March 21, 2011

Comedy Fundraiser for Platform 51

Hi all

So tickets are now on sale for my latest comedy fundraiser. We're doing a night for Platform 51 (which is what used to be YWCA but has changed it's name cos it's not a religious organisation anymore, but runs drop-in centres for women across the country), I've been doing some work with them lately and can't enthuse hard enough about what they're doing. Working with single mums, women with drug problems and training women and giving them practical help to get back into the workplace, you can see it all on their website.

AND you can support this work while having a great time. We've got Isy Suttie (who plays Dobbie in Peep Show) coming down plus Liz Carr from BBC Ouch and Abnormally Funny People, and Tiff Stevenson who's been in everything from Balls of Steel to Footballers Wives. Plus a little bit of comedy theatre from Kiki Kendrick and, well, me of course!

It's happening on Weds 30th Mar and lots more info and tickets are available on the Soho Comedy Club website here. (footnotes: venue is over-18s, and in theory not really accessible but Liz Carr is going to get her wheelchair up the stairs to perform so if we can do something to help your accessibility needs - we will).

Hope to see you there! Please book quickly I think it'll sell out.

xx Kate

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Women and the Internet

In 1970 Germaine Greer wrote "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them". Well on behalf of women everywhere I'd like to say a big thank you to the internet for making it abundantly clear.

A couple of days ago the popular and deeply talented comedienne Shappi Khorsandi tweeted "I never understand why people get so cross if they don't like a comedian. I never lose sleep over bands I'm not in to.". It doesn't take much research to figure out she's referring to the reaction she gets on the internet. And I should know because my work gets exactly the same reaction. Flicking through our videos on YouTube, or those of any female act, there are stacks of nasty comments and repeated evidence of comments which have been removed. I know at least once a week I take such remarks down from the videos I have posted myself, footage others have taken of me I just have to leave. Some are just straight attacks on our work, some criticise our appearance and some attack all women in comedy.

In some ways it makes no sense that people who purport to hate my work have taken the time to watch so much of it. If I see internet videos that aren't to my liking, I don't even finish watching them, I look up something else. And even the notion of making negative comments about comedy is odd. Clearly comedy is subjective, what makes you laugh varies from person to person. Because something doesn't make me laugh doesn't mean it's "not funny", it means it's not the sort of comedy I want to watch. So I don't.

But of course what's going on is not odd at all - it's just the joy of internet anonymity letting these men express the hatred Greer knew all about 40 years ago. Why should Shappi's, or my appearance even be relevant? Only if you think that as women it is somehow our job to be sexually attractive to all men at all times. Plus the comments so often come down to an issue of overt misogyny. "Women aren't funny", which makes as much sense as "men can't sing" or "gay people make bad dentists".

And I would add - before anyone suggests that it's just a random internet abuse issue - that my husband (a less experienced comic than me) gets no abuse whatsoever. He has never had a nasty comment added to a video or online review of him.

Most of these sites are moderated in some way but no-one seems to take down overtly misogynist remarks. And they appear on the same review sites that promoters check before deciding who to book for their shows. And below the video links I want to send out as showreels to people looking for acts. I'd like to imagine good promoters can see past this sort of thing but at a subconscious level all that negativity has to seep in.

And much as I'd like to claim it doesn't - it affects me too. It erodes my confidence. And it eats up my time dealing with it, deleting comments and getting myself back into a frame of mind where I can work.

Of course all those negative effects work the other way too, so if you've got a few minutes to yourself here's an idea for a random act of feminism - look up half a dozen female acts on YouTube or Chortle and say something nice! You might even enjoy the videos...

Thursday, March 10, 2011

You Have Been Reading...

...The seventh most important feminist blog in the UK. Apparently. No-one tell Cath Elliot I'm two whole places ahead of her, I'm sure that's a typo!

Thursday, February 24, 2011

What's Happening, Why Am I Suddenly So Angry?

I think it might be because I've been reading this article in the Daily Fail about wristbands potentially (not) being developed to "let men know" when a woman is suffering PMT. Either that or I better pop out and buy some more tampons.*

Well obviously these items are deeply offensive to women.

Firstly - if women are experiencing depression or mood disorders for whatever reason and want those around them to know - they can tell them (y'know what with us being sentient adult beings and all that...). One would hope they would be treated with sympathy and support.

On a larger scale though - for centuries women have been told that their femininity renders them inferior. We've been assigned everything from "the vapors" and "consumption" to the insistence that we have "feeble minds" and claims that periods render us everything from "unclean" to "incapable of making sushi"(seriously - this is why in Japan sushi chefs are almost all male!).

All of these theories have emerged to be completely false and the notion that women are less capable of managing their emotions during certain times of the month seem likely to hold just as little water. Note that these wristbands have not actually been invented - because a wristband absolutely 100% could never tell what stage a woman's menstrual cycle is at. The suggestion by the company that has raised the idea is that it would respond to subtle temperature changes but fertility testing kits which work based on body temperature take that temperature orally or rectally so you would literally have to stuff your wristband up your arse!!

Instead this story just serves to continue to promote the idea that women's menstrual cycles are the source of some problem and that men need "warning" about the stage of the cycle a woman is in (not mentioning that she may be pre-pubescent, post-menopausal, pregnant, suffering amenorrhea, trans-gendered or for any number of medical reasons, not having periods). Two women a week are murdered in this country by their male partners. Perhaps men should wear wristbands that read "I'm a man, I might attack you"...**

*Yeah, like fuck, we all know I have a Mooncup right?

**Hey trolls - why not quote this sentence out of context and then claim I hate men? Wouldn't that be fun? Try to spend all week doing it so you'll not be bothering me!

Sunday, February 20, 2011

The Trouble With TV

Here's an article from Chortle about a new TV show that's searching for new comedy talent. And a quote: Freddie Foss-Smith from producers Big Talk ... said: ‘I’m looking for unknown and relatively new comedians that might not necessarily have even done a gig before but might just have what it takes.'

Right, let me stop you there. Cos I happen to be of the opinion that one of the things that "it takes" to be a successful comedian is "to have done a gig before". The idea that comedy is innate and that people "just have" it or "just don't" is ridiculous. Not that some people don't have more or less natural talent than others, but if you look at the really really brilliant comedians of the last few decades: Billy Connolly, Eddie Izzard, Victoria Wood, etc, one thing they all have in common is they have put the hours in learning the trade the hard way*.

On the good news side meanwhile a TV pilot show I wrote has been commissioned to be turned in to a 13-episode series. It's a satirical news show called Network. It'll be broadcast by Press TV (Iranian) but all Sky customers worldwide will be able to watch it if they dig far enough through the channel listings. I'm not in it (Mr Cru is) because will funding coming out of Iran it's an all-male cast. Still I am listed as chief writer and actually I'm the only writer aside from a bit of input from the cast themselves and the director. Hopefully it'll lead to more work for me.

* And by the way "the hard way" is also "the only way that works".

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Mini-Mail line-by-line

Have you eaten something with sugar in in the last 48 hours? Fear not, the Daily Fail's "femail" section is here to judge you in a classic piece of woman-bashing called "Chocolate bars for breakfast, HobNobs at work... Keeping a diary of treats will help you stop calorific snacking". Here's the first three lines:

"Diets are doomed to fail because British women snack so much, experts claimed earlier this month."

Of course it's only women who are on diets. And no, before you read on, no information is supplied about the academic track record of these "experts"...

"More than half of us admit to eating at least two unhealthy treats a day, with an alarming one in seven confessing to five episodes of naughtiness."

Naughtiness? As far as I know the word "naughtiness" is generally reserved for the under-fives and people who like to incorporate some light spanking into their foreplay.

"But does the average British women really gorge on more than 1,000 treats a year?"

No she doesn't gorge on 1,000 treats. She EATS 1,000 treats. How many treats a year do men aggressively binge on? And by the way - lager counts.

Then there's a very boring passage where a woman (Lorraine) makes a list of the "naughty" treats she's had this week. Its not clear to me whether she doesn't count desserts (maybe you get 1 hour from starting to eat to count it as part of the meal) or doesn't eat them (cos, you know, she's a woman...). And in between our "expert" Zoe criticises these food choices without sympathy. And apparently the main advantage of not eating snacks is "not feeling guilty". Hmm... No-one seems to care that the disadvantages of eating less treats are (1) being fucking hungry and (2) not getting to eat nice things that you like.

And then there's a conclusion:

"I've eaten an extra 3,690 calories in just a week through snacking — that’s nearly two days worth of extra food and would result in a weight gain of a pound if eaten on top of the 2,000 calories the average woman needs a day."

Yeah but half of the snacks were instead of a meal. And they included things like nuts and cheese. Things you could quite legitimately include in a meal.

"I’m staggered and feel distressed not just by the number of calories, but by what I’ve discovered about myself. "

You discovered you like sweets and crisps? And that's distressing? HEy could be worse - could turn out you like crack...

"I genuinely thought this diary might be a bit thin on the ground because, until I wrote everything down, I was convinced I didn’t snack that much. But I just haven’t noticed that I do."

Thank God for the Daily Male - handing you a big stick to beat yourself up with...

"So how do I stop? I call Sian Porter of the British Dietetic Association for advice."

I sure hope she's on emergency speed-dial.

"‘It’s quite hard to refuse a friend, so if they’re cutting a cake, ask for a small slice and eat half,’ she says. "

Really? My friends actually like me so they tend not to force cake on me if I politely say no thank you.

"‘If they reach for a packet of biscuits, say: “Don’t open them on my account.” "

Or - stop press - no thank you.

"‘It may seem strange, but use the same tricks as people with eating disorders — tell others you ate before you came out or that you’re going out for dinner and don’t want to spoil it."

Yes use the same tricks as people with eating disorders ... survive on 500 calories a day until your bones become brittle and damaged, your internal organs start to digest themselves and you, erm, die as one in five eating disorder sufferers do. If an expert from the British Dietetic Association advised women to act like they have an eating disorder, I think that expert should be struck off. Obviously.

"‘And if you know you’re going to miss a meal, plan ahead. If it’s dinner, eat a larger portion at lunchtime or have a healthy snack such as a bowl of soup or cereal at 5pm. That will tide you over until you get home."

So I can have Cocoa Pops at 5pm and that's healthy? Bonza...

"‘Be prepared so when you get hungry you have something appropriate — buy single servings of dried fruit or nuts. And have a rule that you eat only when sitting down at a table — most snacking is done standing up or on the run.’"

Now first up early on you were telling her that nuts were "naughty", make your mind up. And of course most snacking is done standing up or on the run - that's the definition, and the point, of snacking isn't it?

"It’s advice I plan to take to heart. And before you start criticising my snacking, why not jot down everything you eat. You may be surprised . . ."

I wasn't going to criticise your snacking. I was going to tell you you clearly have a busy life, maybe you should focus on your achievements and not bother with a pointless diet.

Friday, January 28, 2011

What is WRONG with Giles Coren?!!

I can only presume the Daily Male were advertising for a columnist and Giles Coren thought - fuck it, there's a recession on, I'll just put my sense of decency in this handy dustbin, I could sure use the money. Here's the line-by-line on a little piece called So why is it all right for women to be sexist about MEN?

"The two Sky Sports presenters who were caught on tape making disparaging remarks about women earlier this week are a pair of daft old duffers, and no mistake. It is important for me to say that first, before I get to the business in hand."

Well before I start let me say on behalf of women everywhere: thank you. Good to have you on our side for once.

"Andy Gray and Richard Keys are a couple of dull, flabby, middle-aged football bores and are just the sort of doddering old clowns you would expect to relax off camera by swapping ancient prejudices and poking fun at women — in this case a female linesman — for not understanding the offside rule."

I wasn't personally in favour of sacking them because of their age and weight. I'd call that ageism and sizeism. For me the problem was the whole sexism thing.

"You shouldn’t pass unflattering remarks about women behind their backs because it is not a well brought-up thing to do, and they needed to be told. I would never do it myself. Not because I am a feminist, but because I am a gentleman."

Oh so now it's classism? You don't believe women deserve equal rights and opportunities (that would be feminism), you believe working class people shouldn't have good jobs.

"But while Gray has now been sacked, I don’t expect that will be the end of the matter."

Lets hope not. Let's hope that the public consciousness on the matter has been raised far enough to wonder just briefly if we're really all ok with a 5.1% rape conviction rate or a pay gap the size of the rift valley.

"We will hear an endless shrieking to ‘kick sexism out of football’; a PE teacher will be fired for telling his goalkeeper to ‘stop crying like a girl’; and a hapless League One manager will be deported for describing a fight between players as ‘handbags at dawn’."

Wow - sexism in football getting the same treatment racism has had in the past. Yes that would really be going too far wouldn't it? And PE teachers (who by the way are all male) and League One managers should be allowed to be sexist if they like too.

"There will be the endless apologies, public soul-searching and self-flagellation. And as usual the rest of us men will be expected to atone as a sex for a couple of remarks by two fat, superannuated fools on the telly, and to grovel for forgiveness with every snivel and cringe of our waking lives."

How many times have you grovelled and snivelled about this one so far Giles? I've counted none. Nor have I so far asked any men I know ever to apologise for remarks made by other men. On the contrary the world of "other men" will be distinctly enhanced by the recent events in one obvious way: two of them are about to get jobs as commentators on Sky Sports...

"Not that that’s anything new. To be a man in this country is constantly to have to apologise for oneself and to be ever so very careful about every sentence we speak or write which contains any reference at all to members of the opposite sex."

If you have to be "ever so very careful" to avoid making overt sexist remarks Giles, then please go right ahead and be "ever so very careful". You would think you wouldn't need to worry though what with how frightfully well brought up you are and all that...

"While at the same time, and this is the shame of it, we ourselves are fair game for women. While sexism from men is the outstanding social crime of the modern world, women can say absolutely whatever they like about us."

Really? I said a few times on air this week that I thought it was right that Andy Gray was sacked (an opinion it appears you agree with though for odd and different reasons). Since then I've had the usual string of abusive messages on my blog, facebook and email. My work has been attacked on public forums by people who've clearly never seen it. And just for raising the issue I've been accused of "moaning" and told in no uncertain terms to get over it. I dread to imagine what would happen if I made an actual sexist remark against men.

"For make no mistake: sexism is alive and well in this country and applauded in all quarters — as long as it is practised by women. And they are allowed to say the most terrible, terrible things."

Hold on these are two very different things. Women are paid less, lack power, property and respect in every level of our society. Women (the oppressed group) are very much entitled to highlight their situation with humour and make comment on how to escape it. Men (the oppressing group) are not welcome to use humour to reinforce and perpetuate those negative attitudes and stereotypes.

"Only last week, for example, Jo Brand, the newly crowned Best Female TV Comic at the British Comedy Awards, was on Have I Got News For You and replied to the question ‘What’s your favourite kind of man, Jo?’ by saying: ‘A dead one.’ Oh, how the audience fell about. And the other contestants, all male, chortled away too."

On Tuesday night I watched a male comic say he had sex with his wife while she was asleep. Luckily, he remarked, she sleeps with her mouth open. Your go Giles.

"I’m not saying it wasn’t funny. I’m just saying we live in a world where the thorough-going awfulness, uselessness and superfluity of the male sex is such a given, that a frontline television comic can get big laughs by saying she’d prefer it if we were all dead."

We also live in a country where due to the violence experienced by women at the hands of their male partners and ex-partners two of us every week actually do end up dead. Hence why the other way round the joke doesn't really work.

"And I’m trying to imagine a world in which I am on that show and they say, ‘What kind of women do you like, Giles?’ and I reply: ‘Dead ones.’ I just don’t think it would get the same laughs, do you?"

Ah well let me explain the nature of humour Giles. Humour arises from the unexpected. There's nothing unexpected about a man killing or wanting to kill a woman. I get death threats fairly regularly from men who find an opinionated outspoken woman who believes in actual equality an unbearable possibility. Do you?

"Here’s another of Jo Brand’s (excellent) gags. ‘What’s the way to a man’s heart? Straight through the chest with a kitchen knife!’ Again, not unfunny. But predicated on the idea that killing men is hilarious. Whereas killing women, as we all know, is a very serious affair and not to be joked about."

Actually killing women, as I explained above, is a fact of life in the UK. And a fact of life that neither the government nor the police seem all that bothered about.

"It’s not just Brand, it’s all women. ‘What do you call the useless flap of skin attached to a penis?’ they joke. ‘A man!’ they all reply, and clink their chardonnay glasses and chortle till dawn. How on earth did this get to be OK?"

Well two things: (1) Earlier on you complained you and all other men were expected to take the blame for Andy Gray. Now you are blaming me and all women for remarks made by Jo Brand. Fuck off. (2) What parties do you go too?! Chardonnay? Did your parents spend all that money on your upbringing only for you to spend your evenings in Yate's wine lodge? I last heard that "joke" when I was about 16 and I don't remember it being funny or interesting then.

"I’ll tell you how. It is because pretty much from birth women are schooled by their mothers to deride men. They are sugar and spice, we are slugs and snails."

If only women were all well brought up like you eh? Shame your expensive prep school probably doesn't even take girls. What's the word for that? Oh that's it - discrimination!!

"They are reflective and sensitive, while we run around kicking balls and shouting. And then as girls push towards puberty their mothers take them aside and tell them: ‘Boys are only after one thing!’"

Firstly I'm not sure that is what parents do to girls any more. I think they're just a touch more nuanced than that though since you grew up in a Victorian novel perhaps you had it differently. But secondly if we "warn" girls that boys only want sex, we seem to be simultaneously warning girls that they don't (or shouldn't) want sex, that they won't (or shouldn't) like it and certainly shouldn't have it. All lies. We (if we do, I think a lot of modern parents are past this though) are effectively telling our girls that regardless of their personality, their academic achievements and physical strength, their true value lies in their virginity. That's a horrible hateful message that values women purely in their desirability to men.

"The great lie. All men want is sex. Not so. If anything, it is women who think only of having it off. Girls on average lose their virginity much younger than boys and have more sexual partners in youth."

Girls on average go through puberty earlier than men. And excluding the gay community men and women have to be having, overall, the same number of partners, if girls have more sexual partners in their youth (and you would think he would lay on some statistics here cos I'm not familiar with this "fact") men must be having more when they're older. Dirty fuckers...

"As a teenager, I was terribly shy about sex and yet girls were trying to do it with me all the time. I used to run, literally run, from their bedrooms when they tried it on. And yet women are allowed endlessly to harangue us with our supposed lechery."

As a teenager I never ever, not once, got as far as a boy's bedroom seeking sex and then had him run away. Not that there aren't sexually forward women and sexually inactive men, but I don't see any evidence to suggest your experience was typical Giles. And lechery is actually very different from wanting to have sex. If you want to have sex with someone, you can ask them out. There's no need to be lecherous. Lechery is stuff like overtly gawping at someone's body, making repeated sexual remarks, etc. The vast majority of lecherous people would jump out of their skin if the object of their attention turned round and said "ok, lets have sex".

"And the prejudice festers. Harriet Harman says that men caused the banking crisis, and the harridan legions nod their heads. ‘If women ruled the world,’ they cry, ‘there would be no wars.’ "

So name the women behind the banking crisis? Is Fred the Shred short for Frederica? And a minute ago you were saying you had to watch every word you said - now you are calling women harridans. Maybe you should add that word to your special dictionary of words to watch out for...

"What nonsense. Women are far meaner, more brutal, aggressive, small-minded, jealous, petty and venal than any man.
"

If women are so much more brutal, why do we commit so much less of the domestic violence, the street violence and the crime in this country?

"If women ruled the world countries would be invaded because ‘she’s always been jealous of my feet’ and because ‘she looks down on me for going out to work’."

Which women are these? Not the ones in my life. I've never known anyone look down on another person (male or female) for "going out to work". You really have to be super-super rich to fail to appreciate the necessity of earning a living in this world. You might as well look down on people for eating yogurt with a soup spoon. Peasants!!

"Millions would die, torture would increase. If women ruled the world there would be carnage."

Yes women who right now commit a tiny tiny fraction of the violence in the world would definitely get into power and decide to kick things off with a big old round of torture. Is your article based on anything but hate?

"And what sort of an insult is it anyway to suggest that most women don’t understand the offside rule? It’s true, for a start. Most women don’t. And most of them declare it proudly."

Erm, how badly are you not getting this. Andy Gray and Richard Keys were saying a female linesman - with a professional refereeing qualification - didn't understand the offside rule. That's like saying a dentist can't fix teeth because of her gender. It's rude and way out of line (pun intended).

"Most of them use football as an example of one of their favourite gags, the one about how men never grow up, about how we’re all just children — most often manifested in the one where a mother-of-two says ‘I’ve got three children’, you raise an eyebrow, and she nods towards her husband. Hilarious."

How awful it must be for these men to be looked after like a child - to have their food made for them, be exempted from housework and their clothes laid out every morning. If you don't want to be called a child - act like an adult.

"And nor are men, in this female narrative, merely puerile, aggressive and underdeveloped. They are hypochondriacs, too."

Amazing that in the face of all these inadequacies we've let so many into the cabinet isn't it? Not to mention the management of all the big companies...

"‘He’s got a touch of man flu,’ say the womenfolk and titter. But what nonsense is that? It is women who make a big fuss about mild discomfort, not men."

I even saw this one on Mythbusters and it was proved the other way - women had a much higher pain threshold than men. Also by the way "titter" is misogynist for "laugh".

"I have never had so much as a cold in my life, nor claimed to. I even suspect sometimes that the whole palaver about the pain of childbirth is a conspiracy to ride roughshod over men."

Seriously? We're making it up about childbirth? You deliver a watermelon through your penis and call me back on this one ok?

"My own mother, a consultant anaesthetist herself, has always claimed that giving birth was a breeze but that she pretended it had been painful to build bargaining chips with my father."

Yeah things that can help ease the pain of childbirth part one: being a consultant anaesthetist. And why the hell did she need to build up bargaining chips? Couldn't she just do what she wanted or did your father have to issue permission first?

"You look at shows like Loose Women and you wonder how on earth they get away with the terrible things they say about men. I went on once and it was horrific. I wanted to die."

Well you had a bad experience. You would hope you would come away from it with a sympathy for women who go through something similar every time they go to work. Imagine being a camerawoman on Top Gear. Or a female co-presenter with Andy Gray. He'd probably make lecherous remarks asking you to help him adjust his microphone cable in his trousers...

"No male-hosted show could treat women the way those outsized harpies treat men."

(1) As we've seen, they can, and do. (2) What has size got to do with it? (3) Another word for your "watch every word" dictionary: harpie, noun, derogatory term for women.

"I don’t especially want to throw my hat in with Dominic Raab, the slightly bonkers Tory MP who has called for an end to legislative discrimination against men, but there is no question that women today have it all."

Oh yes we sure do - last I heard there were almost as many women in the cabinet as there are Magdalen College Oxford graduates. We've clearly made it. Release the party poppers...

"They retire younger and live longer to such an extent that minor inequalities in pay levels are obliterated when you consider whose money pays for those 25 years of retirement. And it just isn’t fair that they are allowed to be so vile about us."

Of course female poverty in old age is another area of inequality we haven't even talked about. Also bear in mind that the gender life expectancy gap is actually mostly down to lifestyle - to the fact that men drink and smoke more and eat less healthy diets.

"I suppose, in a way, British men are like white people were in Nineties South Africa or young Germans after the Second World War."

That seems unfair - white South Africans and younger German people seemed on the whole at least willing to admit and learn from the mistakes of the past.

"We are expected to go through a period of atonement for the sins of our fathers. To be treated worse than we merit because of crimes previously committed in our name: in this case the crime of feeding, protecting, loving and nurturing women in accordance with our biological imperative."

Who knew that "feeding" would involve so little cooking, "protecting" so very much murder, "loving" so much rape and "nurturing" so much direct discriminatory behaviour? And biological imperative? Don't make me laugh. Go and read Cordelia Fine, and come back when your top notch education has actually taught you something worth knowing.

"They don’t want that any more. They want to be linesmen. And so we have to let them tell us endlessly how they wish we were all dead."

Oh whoops ladies - apparently we now have to choose whether we want to be loved and nurtured or whether we want to be linesmen. And I know, I know, earlier on he said we could have it all but of course he didn't actually mean IT ALL, he meant, y'know either a partner or a career. Or neither if you like!

"If that’s not off-side, I don’t know what is."

Oh well let me explain. Offside is when there are less than two members of the defending team between yourself and the goal line at the time that the ball is passed. It doesn't apply to free kicks, corners and goal kicks or when you're in your own half or not interfering with play. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. For instance looking for that sense of decency...

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Problems in the Drunk Tank

This BBC report is about a centre in London that deals with people who've drunk too much in an attempt to ease the burden on hospitals. It's not entirely clear whether the point is that since symptoms are similar there's an efficiency improvement or whether it's just accepted these days that if you somehow "brought your illness on yourself"* you deserve substandard treatment. Looking at the "beds" - thin mattresses on the floor in mixed sex overcrowded rooms, I'd guess the latter.

In the video a male medic says that the women are "leaving themselves vulnerable to sexual or physical attack" and that such attacks "needn't have happened". He fails to use the phrase "men should stop attacking women who are drunk" or the phrase "we take all reports of sexual assault seriously regardless of how much the woman has drunk". Then a female medic says "they say 'I've been spiked' and I say - no, it's the alcohol". Surely what she should say is "we'll perform a full set of tests and store the results in case they're needed in a criminal prosecution"?

This is on Newsbeat by the way - aimed at young people. Hey kids! If you drink too much alcohol and get raped, it's your fault and if you don't drink too much (or even any) alcohol and get spiked and raped, we'll assume you drank too much alcohol and blame you anyway.

Talk about irresponsible journalism. Oh and irresponsible behaviour on the part of medical professionals too... Ugh.

*Footnote: not withstanding that alcohol addiction is an illness so it's not actually reasonable to blame people for suffering from it.