Follow Me!

Photographer Travis Hodges took some photos of me a few weeks ago as part of a project photographing popular Twitter users who nominate one another.  Here's the shot he took (I LOVE IT!)

And the whole project can be viewed here. If you're on Twitter and don't follow me already my tag is @Cruella1.

Religion, sexuality, the Daily Mail and me

The Daily Fail is celebrating the jubilee by giving me an excuse to air a little rage.  Even for them this is funny.  It's called "'Promiscuity, divorce and separation are at epidemic proportions,’ warns bishop in Jubilee address".  So here's a little line-by-line for y'all:


"Promiscuity, separation and divorce are at 'epidemic' proportions, a senior Church of England bishop has warned as he called for Britain to use the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as an opportunity to reflect and reassess values."

Yeah people woke up and smelt the secular coffee! Turns out there is no God, and therefore no reason to regard sex for pleasure as a bad thing, nor to persist with relationships after it has become apparent they're not working.

"The Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, writing in a Bible Society pamphlet about the origins of the word jubilee, said Britain was now an 'enormously different' society compared to 1952 - the year of the Queen’s accession to the throne - and in 'so many ways' a better place to live."

Yeah a much better place, for example all the jobs which used to be men-only are now open to women too, except the marine commandos and, what's that other one, oh yeah - being a fucking bishop like he is.

"But he said inequality had grown and material progress had been at the expense of communal life with relationships within families, communities and society 'more strained, more fragile' and more broken than people cared to recognise."

Monetary inequality may well have grown but equality for gay and lesbian people is now a legal standard across our society except, oh what's that one thing, oh marriage. And who is is who keeps fighting against gay and lesbian marriage?  Oh yeah - the homophobic churches. Bastards.

"'Literally millions of children grow up without knowing a stable, loving, secure family life - and that is not to count the hundreds of thousands more who don’t even make it out of the womb each year,' he said."

Yes your evil God does cause a lot of miscarriages doesn't he?  Perhaps it's time you stopped praying to him and started paying to have folic acid capsules and other scientifically-proven ways of reducing miscarriages provided to pregnant women?

"'Promiscuity, separation and divorce have reached epidemic proportions in our society.
'Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be surprised that depression and the prescription of anti-depressants has reached a similarly epidemic level.'"

Yeah we're definitely not as happy a society as we were when we made small children climb chimneys to clean them and half the population had plague.  Or maybe we're a bit more open about mental health problems now that people who admit to them don't get burnt as witches quite so much by, oh who is it, your stupid fucking church!


"In his pamphlet, Dr Chartres said the Diamond Jubilee was not only a time to reflect on the Queen’s 'extraordinary' reign but also a chance to 'rebalance the scales' in society and focus on how we can 'reset' the situation."


Reset the situation?  Do you mean "roll back decades of progress" or do you mean "go back to the good old days when people actually believed in God and your job wasn't a pointless waste of time"?

"Dr Chartres said the Biblical meaning of the word jubilee was a reminder of the need to take the 'long view' and to take into account the environment for future generations. It should also mean an end to the 'crippling debt economy' and a move to living within our means, he added."

Seriously?  The bible is telling us to reduce our national debt?  Which verse is that?  I wonder what his view is on dropping the top rate of tax?  Is our holy mythical overlord a believer in the long discredited Laffer curve?

"Dr Chartres also called for action to tackle 'depressingly high' youth unemployment in Britain.
'The extent of youth unemployment is appalling. The waste of human talent is unsustainable morally and economically,' he said."

Yes I hate to see human beings whose time and effort is wasted in unproductive activity that contributes nothing to society.  I'm going to pray about that.


"We should not simply look to government for a solution but look to our communities for role models and mentors to encourage, challenge and enthuse those who are in danger of losing hope.'"

Yeah we need role models.  How about a guy who deliberately chooses to believe irrational unscientific lies and is rewarded for this with access to our political leadership?  That doesn't really fill me with hope.

"Dr Chartres praised the 'quiet dignity' of the Queen and the way she and her family had reached out to include newly established British communities."

Well yes the Queen has expressed her "quiet dignity" by not biting the hand that feeds her and nodding along with what "her" government does even when it's leaving people in crippling poverty.

"'We have changed profoundly as a country in the 60 years of the Queen’s reign. We have bade farewell to Empire abroad and moved into a new multicultural reality at home,' he said."

Also we invented the vajazzle.  I'm getting the crown jewels vajazzled onto my crown jewels.  What is the point here?


"'The demise of the old world and the arrival of the new has involved sometimes painful adjustments."

Sure thing.  Also quite a lot of really nice holidays though.

"'The quiet dignity of the Queen and the way in which she and her family have reached out to include newly established British communities has provided a focus for continuing but expanding national self-respect and so has assisted the peaceful transformation of our national identity.'"

No the identity of the nation has changed all on it's own, thanks to modern British people.  The Queen has never been at the vanguard of that, she's always been running along behind, trying to keep up with her overtly racist husband.

He added: 'Her Majesty enjoys widespread and profound popularity across the British people, and beyond.

Considering the massive PR machine she is promoted by, she's remarkably unpopular.

"'Not only is she quite simply the most famous public figure on earth but she is also the most respected.'"

Really? More respected than Nelson Mandela? The woman who was queen of South Africa as apartheid was brought in?  How ridiculous.

The truth is while Mandela spoke out about injustice and was prepared to suffer the gruelling consequences, the queen's "quiet dignity" is exactly what has allowed her to keep living a life of outlandish luxury and continues to allow pointless people like this idiot to leap on the bandwagon and use her to promote their own political agenda.  Like dishing out celestial advice on economic policy and criticising people who have and enjoy the healthy and joyous experience that is sex for pleasure!

Article by me on Independent website

I wrote a piece about women in the UK asylum system.  Already the nasty comments have started. Do the trolls never sleep?

My appearance on BBC Radio 4, Four Thought

Was broadcast today.  You can hear it in full here, please give it a listen!

Independent blog fail on religion

Well I must say this piece on the Independent blog really made my blood boil. It's called "Islam and Christianity must renovate religion: Atheists have to stop trashing it." Ugh. So here's my line-by-line:

"In Religion for Atheists, published earlier this year, Alain de Botton suggests that religion has a lot to teach atheists. It is far too important to be regarded as completely redundant, he argues, because it promotes “morality” and “teaches us to become polite, honour one another, to be faithful and sober”. This is all true. Denying the wealth of knowledge and benefit that can be found in religion is hubristic."

"Morality"? How thoughtful of you to put the word in quotation marks. Is that what you call two millennia of rampant misogyny? I agree. Strange choice.


"But religion is also the cause of many of the world’s problems: it’s dangerous. Religious people often accept exoteric, literal interpretations of religious texts, without using their rational faculties. Religion without reason is blind, ruthless and leads to discrimination."

Religion is also the sworn enemy of reason, teaching as a basic tenet from day one in even the most moderate forms that blind faith is a virtue.


"But 21st Century secularists are also guilty; they have dismissed and lost the ethics taught by religion. Contemporary media focus is too heavily weighed on the out-of-date issues which religion appears to have a regressive and pejorative understanding of." 

Yeah you fuck a few thousand children and suddenly everyone forgets how much fun your special ceremony in which wine ACTUALLY changes into human blood can be. Also Hitler was a vegetarian, but the media refuses to focus on it and just goes on and on about the holocaust, eh?


"In an article he wrote in February for the New Statesman, Journalist Bryan Appleyard described how a “neo-atheism” – by which he means “the conviction that science provides the only road to truth and that all religions are deluded, irrational and destructive” – has emerged over the past two decades." 

Science does provide the only road to truth. It also provides the definition of truth. Doh.

"de Botton echoes this view when he writes that when an atheist says ‘I think religions are not all bad’, he or she is subjected to “savage messages” calling them a “fascist, an idiot or a fool”."

I got a lot more hassle from atheists when I implied religious people were idiots than I do if I say something concilatory. But either way, yes, this is the internet, there be trolls.

"One religion, however, is widely understood for its moral benefits. Buddhism – which, by its nature is a much less proselytising faith than the Abrahamic religions – stresses disengagement from worldly affairs and meditation, while it insists on maintaining a healthy relationship with the world."

It's also not really a religion, it doesn't claim a deity.

"It is this kind of emphasis on moral and spiritual benefits that the other faiths need to tap into; dogma, perfunctory rituals and overzealously propagating one’s religion are often a hindrance to their progression. There is nothing wrong with propagating faith, but how about doing it through acts of kindness, smiling and helping one’s neighbours, not through shouting on a pedestal or condemning others."

Well if your faith is one of those "moral" ones that doesn't approve of telling lies then we'd have to agree there is something wrong with propagating faith.

"Two things are clear: many religious teachings are beneficial to humans – and there are a great many atheists who deny this truth. While religion has been in steady decline since the early 20th century, particularly in the West, it still plays a prominent part in many countries and will do so for a long time. So instead of completely rejecting it, we need to work with it and, more importantly, redefine it."

Could you define "clear" and "truth" here? I'm not getting it. Seems you're saying instead of admitting there is no magic sky fairy we should pretend there is one but insist he's mostly interested in peace and love (but not sexual love which is still icky) and no longer wants you to cut girls clitorises off. Good plan.


"The Bible is still interpreted literally by many Christians and, consequently, we have seen the “issue” of homosexuality – which is condemned in the Old Testament – creep back into the headlines in the past few months. Religious leaders, basing their opinions on pre-modern scriptures, often speak insensitively about homosexuality. Why some Christians – even intelligent ones – still hold the Bible as a text that should be interpreted literally is a mystery, and potentially perilous. According to leading New Testament scholar Bart Ehram in his New York Times bestseller Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, the Bible is far from a divine revelation and has been altered, intentionally and unintentionally, on numerous occasions." 

Yes your magic sky fairy made people and then told them to write a book and told the, what to put in the book and created every single person ever involved in the translation and transcription process, but it does contain a number of trivial typographic errors. Like the bit where it tells you to throw your daughters to marauding rapists to protect your male lodgers. Oops!

"What is needed, however, is the quintessential message of love which suffuses much of the New Testament to override all other hostile attitudes to other people. There also need to be more progressives like Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who although firm in their faith, are not afraid to challenge scripture."

So progressive he supports sexist Sharia Law?

"Islam, like Christianity, is also failing in the field of hermeneutics; modern exegetes are unable or unwilling to interpret the texts to conform with our current world. This is partly because sects like the strictly orthodox Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, who are intent on not allowing innovation (which is a grave sin in Islam) into the religion, have a huge say on the Islamic literature disseminated throughout the world."

Yeah the problem with religion is it needs to re-invent itself so it agrees with our modern secular values. And us modern secularists should listen to it more. Once it agrees with us. How I love to sit back and hear my own opinions quoted back at me as if your magic sky fairy invented them.


"Then again, there are Muslims calling for change; in a blog called Contemporary Muslims are in need of spirituality, the Oxford academic Tariq Ramadan claims “Sufi movements have re-emerged” within Islam. Sufism is the inner, mystical version of Islam which places greater importance on asceticism and God’s love; the adherents, Sufis, are generally more liberal. The Sufi movements, Ramadan says, contrast with the “ritualistic traditionalism [and] Islamist activism”."

The mystical version of Islam? Of course, that'd be more in line with the modern world.

"Muslims, according to Ramadan, have lost the essence of their religion which is the quest for meaning and the peace of heart. “The time has come,” Ramdan argues, “for a spiritual and religious emancipation.”"

Remember innovation is a grave sin. Still good luck with the quest for meaning and peace.

"Many Muslims have neglected the inward dimensions of faith and have placed more importance on the outward. In a time when many Muslims’ faith has been shaken to the core, particularly since the bombardment of anti-Islamic sentiment following 9/11, the spiritual teachings of Islam are needed to restore a sense of equanimity more than ever. And none more so than for many intellectuals who see little import in “mainstream Islam”, an anthropomorphised God and other metaphysical concepts which seem farfetched." 

Yes I will always remember 9/11 as being about the bombardment of anti-Islamic sentiment. Not about the bombardment of two buildings full of innocent people with large fuel-laden aircraft. Hijack a plane, then hijack the reaction to it? I felt the reaction to 9/11 was wrong, but wrong because it involved attacking more innocent people, not wrong because it led to questioning of the religion driving the ideology behind it.

"The Muslim discourse on what traditionalism really is has been hijacked by literalists and has been exacerbated by 9/11: instead of Muslims saying what they are, they have become too preoccupied in saying what they are not."

So the way to combat extremist religion is through moderate religion which should not waste it's time criticising extremist religion but should focus on extolling the virtues of religion in general?

"A Facebook page dedicated to the 13th century Sufi poet Rumi who, according to Time Magazine, is one of the all-time best selling poets in the USA – reached 300,000 ‘likes’ last week. Rumi’s vision for Islam is one that is refreshingly inclusive compared to the doctrinal fundamentalist forms which are so often the focus of news media."

 I thought not enough people were talking about moderate Islam, now there are 300,000? Why that's nearly 1% as many as have watched Shakira singing "Waka Waka" on YouTube... Oh hang on, no it's not, it's more like half a percent! "


“Come, come again, whoever you are, come! Heathen, fire worshipper or idolatrous, come! Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times, ours is the portal of hope, come as you are,” he writes, encouraging people to the positive messages of the faith. While his writings may not conform with everyone’s particular interpretation of Islam, his candid understanding represents the depth and openness with which religion can understood and practised."

What positive message of faith? That even nasty heathens are welcome to believe for no reason in your imaginary friend? That's the best "positive" message of faith you could find? I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail his noodly appendage) may have said "don't worry, be happy". 

"It is not just inclusivity that is needed but rather a more open and discerning mind that Muslims need to embrace. Debates around homosexuality and evolution as well as the effect that our increasingly sexualised world is having on young Muslims is, to a large extent, brushed under the carpet . It’s as if scholars and exegetes hope that by brushing these issues aside they will not resurface in the minds and daily lives of the Muslim community who are in need of answers."

The idea of a debate around homosexuality is offensive.  It pre-supposes a legitimacy to the "anti-gay" viewpoint. There is none. A debate about evolution has been had, in the 1800s, it's over. And how is our modern world "increasingly sexualised"? The ancient Greeks (and Japanese) built giant phalluses for public display and probably worship.


"But conversely, we cannot underestimate what the four horsemen of New Atheism – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens – have done to widen the divide between religious believers and non-religious believers. Their articulate presentation of their views and deeply convincing writings shouldn’t blind us to the essence of religion and our need to reinterpret and redefine religious texts. If these leading atheists are really in search for cosmic or absolute truth, instead of incessantly thumping religion, they should encourage religious erudition, contextualisation and reasoning, as some of the answers they may be looking for may be buried deep in these ancient texts."

The essence of religion is that there's a mystic being who created us (in about a week) and now watches and judges us for every minutiae of our behaviour and punishes us if we don't stick to his (always seems to be his) stupid, self-serving and contradictory rules. This is not what Dawkins and co are looking for.  They're looking for the opposite of this, the truth.

"We often condemn religion as something simple and backward but we treat philosophy and science as pursuits of rigorous and profound study. Perhaps the reason why Dawkins et al. fail to see the profundity in religion is because, as Plato said, an individual can only master one art. The four horsemen are all leading experts in their respective fields, and indeed know more about religion than the masses – but, ultimately, they are pseudo-experts on religious texts. Sam Harris, for example, loves to talk about Jihad as if the term is linguistically synonymous with fighting and war; it’s not: Jihad means ‘struggle’, and the highest form is to struggle against one’s innate, evil tendencies. What’s so wrong with that?"

Yes that's the real problem, Sam Harris's understanding of linguistics.  I remember the victims of the twin towers tragedy screaming "use a dictionary!". There's nothing wrong with struggle, so if you mean struggle, say "struggle". End of.

"Islam, according to American convert and intellectual Hamza Yusuf, is suffering from a crisis of authority, as he elucidated in a debate at Oxford University with Tariq Ramadan, entitled “Rethinking Islamic reform”, in 2010. Christian Catholics have a leader, the Pope, Tibetan Buddhists have the Dalai Lama, but many Muslims are demanding a leadership of their own, the caliphate."

The Pope, yes, the world needs more people like him, out announcing that condoms don't work and that their use is immoral, and Jihadding (it means "struggling", right?) to keep women from clerical office and bodily autonomy and gay people from marriage and child adoption.  And how very handy that suddenly Buddhism gets mentioned again in an article about Christianity and Islam. Buddhism is a bad example and actually the Dalai Lama is not the super-hero he's sometimes made out to be.


"So who are the right people to lead their respective religious communities? Many of the religious leaders and old establishments that are in place today clearly aren’t fit for the purpose: child abuse has been found to be widespread among Christian leaders and too many Muslim leaders in this country can’t connect with the young – indeed, 97% of Imams in Britain are foreign, mainly Urdu-speaking Pakistanis."

Love religion, hate foreigners? Grrr... I feel your pain. And before we find new, appropriate leaders shouldn't we get rid of the child abusers and their defenders? Cos the Pope is still there and he thinks its a job for life.

"Christianity, Islam and the other world faiths shouldn’t be completely disregarded. Many of the ethics they teach – and the faith, and in turn, the security which they offer believers – are far too valuable to ignore; what needs to change is our understanding. It is up to the intellectual religious leaders, who have the ability to engage with the intelligent as well as the uneducated, to renovate religion."

The benefits of having blind faith are a nonsense. And if people need security, we should provide it through adequate housing, healthcare, welfare and peace.  In fact you know this because you're calling for people to pick and choose which bits of religion we keep "many of the ethics". Sadly blind faith would keep ALL of the ethics including stoning adultresses and throwing your daughters to marauding rapists.  If intelligent religious people can pick and choose the good ethics of religion, intelligent atheists can do better. All we need is for Islam and Christianity to give up and get out of the way.

Daily Mega-Fail

Yesterday's Daily Mail: Brave woman speaks out about child sex abuse.

Today's Daily Mail: Wa-hey, look at this sexy fifteen-year-old!

Seriously.  How do they sleep at night?

Heavyweight Smurthwaite

I LOVE this cartoon made about me by Lucas Black.  Thank you!! Do go and read more on his blog here.

Ultimate gig

Just a very quick blog post for the benefit of those who don't follow/use Facebook or Twitter. Tonight and tomorrow I'm hosting two of the most awesome comedy shows of the year in central London. If you've been thinking about coming to a show for a while or wondering when is a good time to come to a show - this is it!

If you're a leftie, atheist, awesome comedy fan this is the time to grab a ticket and come along. Lee Camp is an American political comic (look up his online "Moment of Clarity" vlogs) who only visits the UK a couple of times a year. He's on both nights, as is Jason Rouse, a Canadian act who is notoriously dark and twisted and outrageous and also a really talented skilful comedian with it, not just a generic shock-jock. Fans of free speech, don't miss out! Tonight the opening act is Paul Sinha who like me spends most of his life on the BBC arguing with idiots from Jim Davidson (not very far to) the BNP. Tomorrow the opener is Hal Cruttenden, another must-see act with political leanings and a tendency to outrage.

Oh and I'm MCing too. It's all at the Empire Casino in Leicester Square, doors half seven show at 8pm. Tickets are (unbelievably) only £10 and that even includes a free glass of bubbly after the show. You can get them online at the Soho Comedy Club website. Hope to see you there!

Career Girls. This really needs a line-by-line.

I don't know which to feel sorry for the most - my head or my office wall, for there is no doubt that the two will be making repeated thumping contact over the next half hour or so. The Daily Mail has decided in it's infinite wisdom to explain why women only want careers because they're unable to get themselves a man. Yes, really. So here goes:

"Do girls only want a career because they can't attract a man? Provocative study casts high fliers in a new light
By FIONA MACRAE"

Well lets see shall we? Are there any women who are ALREADY IN A RELATIONSHIP who still want careers? Yes, loads. But what a horrific insultory headline! Implying any woman who works hard at her job is desperate. Fuck off!!

"Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree."

I do whenever I see a pair of uncomfortable shoes...

"A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married."

Hang on - lets test this hypothesis further: do you know any unattractive married people? Yes, lots right? And are there any attractive people who are unmarried? Again loads. So even the notion that you have to be attractive to get married is absolute crap.

"The research team, made up of three women and two men,"

Well why are we reading this research then? We know the female researchers are only doing it for the chance to date a lab technician.

"said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'."

Personally, I prefer my men both thin and on the ground. But that's another matter. Are we really surprised that women who aren't raising families are more likely to decide to have a serious career? You're not choosing career over family if the option of "family" isn't really there. You're choosing career over daytime TV and having no money.

"And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace."

They will have measured this on the official SCIENTIFIC plain-ness scale right? The only possible way to rate attractiveness is to ask others to judge. Everyone will judge differently. Are you asking straight guys to judge? Or other women? And then we will also have to adjust for whether she's trying to make herself look professional for the office or whether she has loads of free time to get her hair and nails done, right?

"Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers."

Yes the parallels between hunting buffalo and being an accountant are overwhelming. Similarly those between building a fire pit and ordering groceries online. And lets look at our nearest relatives the chimps and bonobos. They DON'T HAVE homes!! They just build a new (individual, usually) nest each night. So we're left wondering what evolutionary principles we're working from here.

"They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career."

That's not evolution. That's fact - if you haven't got another source of income - you have to get a job. In other news - hungry people tend to congregate around supermarkets and restaurants.

"The researchers carried out several experiments to come up with their startling argument."

Clearly none of these experiments involved looking up the word "startling" in a dictionary.

"The first looked at the number of eligible men in an area, which they called the 'operational sex ratio'."

How exactly are you defining "eligible"? I hope you had a group of sexy young women in the street shouting "Phoar, look at the operational sex ratio on that!"

"After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose."

So with less men around, women had better jobs. Ooops! I think you just discovered workplace gender discrimination.

"In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children."

So with less men around, less women got pregnant? Quick ring the press!! Oh, you already did. Seriously?!

"To prove that a lack of men was behind the trend, the researchers then carried out practical experiments."

Removing the men from a series of small towns? Or maybe just rendering them "ineligible"!! Sounds like the sort of thing I used to do in my late teens...

"These involved showing women newspaper articles"

Hmm, well lets hope they weren't Daily Mail articles, since all you guys publish is a load of sexist dross.

"or photos that gave different impressions of the sex ratio in an area"

Photos? Of the queues for local speed-dating events? Stranger and stranger.

"and then quizzing them about which was more important – work or family."

Stand AMAZED at the magic of SCIENCE! Really? Aren't there people working on a cure for cancer out there?

"When they were led to believe that men were scarce, they were more likely to prioritise career over family."

Wow amazing. Of course there's no way guys would be less interested in their work when there was a sexy woman around. No way.

"However, when questioned, the women didn't believe the shortage of men would lead to more job openings for women. Instead they thought there would be more competition to find a husband."

Was there a tick box for "both"?

"The final experiment tested the researchers' suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner."

So they had a suspicion about a correlation AND they had already pre-decided what the causality between the two would be? When is this research up for peer review exactly?

"The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career."

87 young women? No room for statistical error here then? And remember statistically we would expect 8-9 of these women to be lesbians. So that might slightly skew the husband-seeking activity spectrum?

"They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men."

Oh THAT totally objective measure. Was Samantha Brick surveyed?

"Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated."

So women tended not to say "I'm great at work and totally gorgeous", almost as if they didn't want to come across like Samantha Brick. Or maybe smart women don't see such big advantages in beauty and prefer to play it down? And maybe less educated women lacking job prospects are more likely to feel their looks are important and have built their self esteem on them?

"Researcher Kristina Durante, from the University of Texas at San Antonio, said: 'Does the ratio of men to women in a local population influence women's career aspirations? Real-world archival data and a series of laboratory experiments suggest that the answer is yes.'"

Yes of course it does. More shagging equals less working. I hardly think this is a gender issue.

"In Britain, there are slightly more younger men than women. However, females aged 36 or older are in the majority. And at universities, female undergraduates now outnumber males."

Is this one of those fake newspaper articles intended to trick me into wanting a family? What impact can we expect this "slight" imbalance to have? Maybe a "sight" one. One not worth ringing the papers about. Call me when there's an international man shortage, I have heard the Daily Male suggest this a million times and yet somehow despite it all, I am still getting laid. Who knew?

"Economist Ruth Lea said that on a basic level it made sense that women would have to support themselves if the odds of being supported were low."

Yes on a basic level, it does. I can't help thinking that men will have to support themselves if others don't do it too. That's rather the cruel nature of our free market economy, no? Unless this is a sneaky trick to show Daily Fail readers how important it is to a generous welfare state in place.

"However, she said many factors, from aptitude to ambition, played a much larger part in a woman's career path."

So a better, less misleading, headline would have been: Availability of hot men doesn't have much impact on women's career choices.

"And agony aunt Pam Spurr said:"

Oooh here comes the next bit of science - an anecdote from an "agony aunt". Dear Pam, I've got these strange pimples on my frou-frou and I'm worried I caught them from sleeping with my teddy between my legs after he fell down the loo. Also I can't find anything else to write in my stupid misogynist article and it's only half a page long so far. Love Fiona xxx

"'I often find that women who were getting on well in the workplace will in private conversations with me, express wanting to settle down.'"

Women who have one thing also want another? It's like they're HUMAN! Alert! Alert! Conclusion of article contravenes Daily Mail's official editorial policy! Alert! Alert!

"The study, which was carried out by U.S. and Dutch researchers, is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."

I must subscribe. It sounds great. In next months issue: People with ear wax problems buy more of those sticky cotton buds things that you're really not supposed to stick in your ears but it feels really fucking good when you do EXCLUSIVE.

There is honestly not a single iota of newsworthiness in this whole article. It is just the Daily Mail randomly deciding to attack women by suggesting that successful, ambitious ones are ugly. Well Fiona MacRae - you wrote it and lookie lookie, your name is up there in big letters in a big national newspaper. Don't go getting too near any mirrors huh?

BNP irony overload

You may have noticed that BNP's candidate for mayor of London is, erm, how do I put this...? Well, the guy, he's, erm, he's foreign. Seriously, born in Uruguay to Spanish and Italian parents. Of course I think foreigners should be allowed to naturalise in this country and should be allowed to run for office. It's just the BNP who don't. He's their former head of policy.

He and I have a little history. He doesn't like me very much after I completely trashed him in a debate on a Russian TV station.

And so he wrote a piece on his blog about me called "Kate Smurthwaite and the Third Reich", in which he accuses me of basically being a Nazi. Argh! The irony! I can't take any more! His "point" (in the loosest sense) is that I support the work of Marie Stopes who a very long time ago were involved with eugenics. Of course I don't actually support eugenics (surprise Melanie Phillips and interesting how you and the BNP can only come up with the same transparent arguments eh?). I don't make the assumption that anyone who eats Kellogg's cereal is an anti-masturbation campaigner, though again there is a historic link. A strong one actually.

There is however a serious point here. We are widely aware of the BNP's very very unpleasant attitude towards anyone who isn't white-British. We can forget sometimes that they're also horribly horribly sexist. And yes they have female members and candidates but as we've seen they also have members and candidates who aren't white-British. One of their stated policies last time I looked (their website is down today, sorry fascism fans - try the Conservatives site instead) is that any single mother who wears a short skirt should have her children taken away.

Footnote: When I agreed to do the interview Russia Today did NOT tell me I would be up against a BNP guy. They said it would be a religious anti-choice person. I don't particularly have a strong view on when one should and shouldn't "no platform" an organisation like the BNP, I was live on air when I found out who I was debating with and made the snap decision to carry on. Love to hear views on whether that was the right choice or what you-all would advise if it happened again another time...?

Why thank you Daily Mail, so THAT'S how my body works?

The Daily Fail really has outdone itself today. First grab a handkerchief or something you can ram into your mouth if you don't want to annoy the neighbours with uproarious laughter. Now let me tell you : A MAN has written an article explaining about female orgasms. I know, I know, but don't worry, he knows exactly what he's talking about because he's checked with "science".

Perhaps most worryingly since most people only read the headline, it is titled:

"Put away the road map, lads: Scientists present new proof that women can climax through intercourse alone"

Gee I would have guessed (straight, male) Daily Mail readers were crap enough in bed already, PLEASE don't encourage them to not even bother working at it! And here's the first few lines:

"For decades it has been thought that the clitoris was the only key to a woman's sexual satisfaction."

Only men have ever thought this, and the kind of men who don't speak to women about these things. In other words strange men who are shit in bed.

"That meant men who wanted to satisfy their partners believed they must spend hours getting to know the little button-like organ, its location - and the kind of treatment which excited it."

Finding out what pleases your partner - what a chore, eh? Who are these people, and more importantly - who the hell is sleeping with them?

"But now research shows..."

Oh "research", great, that's going to save me hours of boring boring masturbation.

"...that not only can women climax through sexual intercourse alone,"

Really - sexual intercourse ALONE? No kissing, no petting, no getting in the mood. Just three, two, one, penetrate? Even if that were true, who would want to do it?

"but the resulting orgasm is wildly different to those reached by clitoral stimulation."

A "wildly different" orgasm, so why is it still called an "orgasm"? Sounds suspiciously like they might be talking about "a really nice feeling that isn't really an orgasm" or even "a feeling so unpleasant it's worth faking an orgasm just to get it to stop"?

"The new conclusions will chime with many who have found that there is more than one way to satisfy a woman in bed."

Yeah but will they chime with WOMEN? You know, cos it is sort of us having the orgasms here. I mean how weird to try and confirm your scientific research about female orgasm by corroborating it with a bunch of straight men.

Anyway I'm not going to line-by-line the whole thing cos it's infuriating.I was performing at a comedy night the other day though and one of the other acts, a guy, was talking about sex and said one thing he hates is talking during sex. I think thats pretty sad really. I mean I understand that a lot of us are a bit inhibited and it can be awkward, but really if you're not communicating what you want, it is pretty unlikely you'll be getting it.

And the attitude promoted by the Daily Mail that (1) all women want the same thing, (2) men are supposed to magically know what that is based on "science" and get on with it and (3) good news, that magical thing is actually just a quick bit of penetration and then some snoring is not really helping anyone.

Worse still half way through the article it reveals "female orgasm happens in the brain" as if a dismembered penis could have an orgasm on it's own. And then insists women can have them just by thinking about them. "Darling, I'm sorry, this really isn't doing it for me", "Maybe you're thinking about it wrong?". Sounds a bit like a manifesto for guys who are rubbish in bed.

To be honest I hate expressions like "G-spot" and the notion of different kinds of orgasms. It gives the impression that women's bodies are made of mystic magic buttons and zones. But in fact the definition of a "G-spot" is just an area thats more sensitive than other areas. No-one ever refers to the back of the leg as a magical "knee-spot". There might be some broad generalisations to be made but every woman, and indeed every person is different. And far from being a tick-box list of different types of orgasm to be achieved, finding out what the other person likes IS the fun bit.

Tough pro-choice rally

I'm briefly seen (but not heard) shouting through a megaphone in this interesting video.

What was horrible about the anti-choice protest was that 40 days for life is an aggressive extremist group who use really nasty tactics - intruding on the privacy of women seeking medical treatment, waving pictures of bloody foetuses (for the record most medical procedures look gross, not just that one), approaching women and handing out false "information" about risks and side effects that don't exist. Really sickening. But that's what crazy extremists are like right? Only this time they were being joined by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Westminster (Alan Hopes) - who is a part of the "mainstream" Catholic church in the UK. A guy who claims to speak for thousands and thousands of people across the UK, including many who would call themselves pro-choice and many who will have had an abortion in their lives. I mean if he wants to write to MPs that's one thing, but joining this extremist group? That's scary, that's a sign of how this issue is going to be in the future.

Also note fascists lined up among the anti-choicers. Well spotted stavvers, but unsurprising.

I went there thinking it would be fun but when I saw all those people praying it really made me angry. How dare they film women and intimidate women and then act as though some invisible cloud fairy was telling them to. If you're going to hate women - don't pretend it's cos your imaginary friend told you to. Bleuch!

On the upside since I had megaphone to hand when they all knelt down I was able to lead in a big chorus of "kneel down if you hate women!". Which I enjoyed.

Me on BBC Woman's Hour again today!

So yes I'll be on BBC Radio Four Woman's Hour today again - do tune in, right now. It was pre-recorded so I know what I say, though I don't know what parts of the interview they'll play. Basically Cristina Odone (my opponent) says gay people can have civil partnerships so they are equal. And I say that since marriage and civil partnership aren't the same thing so no, that's not equality. That's like saying black people and white people can both ride the bus, black people just have to sit at the back. It's not equality, equality is when you're equal!

As usual (I've been up against Odone a few times on The Big Questions) she's so short on valid points that she rapidly resorts to criticising how I'm arguing, saying I'm being rude o that I'm ill-educated. At one point the presenter (Jane) asks if I'm married and I say I'm separated. Then a few minutes later I interrupt her point (cos it's bigoted!) and she complains I'm talking over her and starts to say she can see why my relationship has ended, but slightly stops herself just in time! Ha ha ha.

In fairness I criticise her marriage too. She's Catholic and married to a divorced guy. The Catholic church doesn't approve of that marriage but she's chosen to do it anyway. Now she wants to stop other people, gay people, who the church also disapproves of, from enjoying what she has.

You can tune in, or listen again later here.

What is the Latin for hernia?

OK, so it's not hernu, which is a shame cos students across the country could memorise it easily just by thinking about the notion of a major pain in the arse.

Tomorrow morning 7am on LBC I shall be laying into one nasty piece of work called Piers Hernu*. It will feel earlier than it is, party because of the clocks going forward, but mostly because of his grating sexist opinions I expect.

Tune in if by any miracle you are up. LBC does have "listen again" functionality but you have to pay money for it usually.

*Unless of course he turns out to have perfectly reasonable opinions about women in the media. Last time we were on air together he had such intelligent salient things to say that he resorted to calling me a "harriden" and a "battleaxe". Worse still when we got off air he then tried to be matey with me, seeking my reassurance, going "it's a bit of a laugh isn't it?", "it's just a bit of fun", "I just play along" and expecting me to agree with him. I was like "No, I'm actually a feminist in real life too. I don't just play one on the radio!"

Bishop admits to me that the bible is lies!

Found this lovely clip someone has cut and put up on the internet from The Big Questions. It's more recent than "the bitchslap" but I think it's interesting, not least because this rude pompous guy admits that the bible he believes in contains outright lies. Mmm. Also I made some points that needed making about religion and the environment. Later that same day over lunch I asked him if he wanted to say grace and he blanked me! Anyway - enjoy:

And to those people who've been asking when I'll be back on TBQ the answer is I don't know - I have been on twice this series already - first and second episodes - so they're undoubtedly doing their best to avoid rebooking me for a bit for variety. Maybe I/they should record a "Smurthwaite's edit" version so you can watch the show with my commentary over the top...!

Daily Mail celebrates Intl Women's Day with massive irony overload!

The Daily Fail's editors really must be laughing their socks off today after publishing this delightful piece criticising an Oxford University student for making a joke about her breasts on a statement nominating herself for election to a position in the debating society. The horror and disgust expressed is totally out of proportion... They quote at length "a student" as though their view represents some sort of consensus:

"It is disappointing to see female members of committee campaigning on the back of gender at all, let alone in a way which promotes the use of sexuality"

Yes deeply disappointing, I am personally horrified by any woman who openly admits to having breasts. Whatever next? Those dreadful beasts will decide they've got vaginas! I wonder where this evil woman got the idea to (make a joke pretending to) use her sexuality for gain?

A few paragraphs later:

"Last year Katie Price, the topless model turned self-made businesswoman, followed in the footsteps of prime ministers, world leaders and international notables to address to the union."

And on the same web page - linked down the side of the page:

"Strictly stunning: Ola Jordan sizzles as she ditches her catsuit for lingerie campaign"

and then:

"Miaow! Coco shows off her incredible curves in a barely-there animal-print bikini in latest episode of her reality show"

By their own standards, you'd have to agree, this is deeply disappointing.

Happy International Women's Day everyone!

Join me on the bridge!!

Regular readers will know that I teach English to a group of predominantly Congolese asylum seeking women and that I did a run last year in aid of Women for Congo Women which is a part of Women for Women International. It's an awesome charity which helps women around the world rebuilding their lives in some of the most desperate places on earth. Well I'm delighted to say that the charity has asked me to join them on the Millennium Bridge on International Women's Day this Thursday and then speak at the rally afterwards at the Royal Festival Hall. There are loads of other cool speakers too - watch their website for details! And you can come too! All the info is here - hope to see you there!

Abortion, Dorries, Phillips and me.

AKA (as suggested on Twitter) Bodily Autonomy Deathmatch I and II

Last Thursday a story appeared on the front page of the Telegraph claiming some abortion providers in the UK were providing abortions on the grounds of gender (gender of the foetus that is, the mother is usually female).

Now there's a few things wrong with this.

Firstly they're investigative journalists who sent pregnant actresses in with hidden cameras to pose as abortion-seekers. This piece is not (as has been widely assumed) about real women actually doing this. While there are some countries in the world (India, China) where this is an issue, there's no real evidence to suggest it happens with any frequency in the UK. Where it does happen it should be tackled of course by tackling the inherent sexism in those cultures - not by forcing women to continue with a pregnancy against their will.

Secondly referring a woman for an abortion because of the foetus' gender in the UK is not actually illegal. It is only illegal if that is the ONLY reason given. In fact the only acceptable reason for referring for a termination in the UK is that it would cause greater harm to the woman's physical or mental health to continue with the pregnancy than to terminate it. So you can't grant one because a woman was raped, or is eleven years old or anything else. This at some level makes sense - the only reason to have an abortion is because it is better for the woman to have one than not to.

Thirdly if any law has been broken - it's only because the journalists set out to trap doctors (and for some reason counsellors, they don't seem to have managed to distinguish between the two very well!). Real women seeking a termination would be very unlikely to give only one clear reason in that way. In fact when I watched the clips I thought if I was the doctor hearing this strange blunt request I'd probably assume the woman was a victim of rape or violence and was giving a fake reason because she didn't want to talk about the underlying problem.

Fourthly what a stupid way to operate. Any law, or interpretation of it, that actively encourages patients to be dishonest with their doctors is a stupid one. The procedure is legal, lets just leave it to women and their doctors to decide between them what to do.

Finally how VERY handy. Remember a few months back Tory MP and well-known misogynist Nadine Dorries was trying to make it compulsory for doctors to offer "independent" counselling from unregulated idiologically-driven groups like Life to women asking about abortion? And there was a vote in the Commons. And she lost. Badly. In fact even Frank Fields who launched the motion with her ended up not voting for it. Well they're now "starting a consultation" (by which I mean preparing to ignore what people actually want) on bringing that same piece of DEFEATED legislation in by the back door - through a change to Department of Health guidance which can be done without a parliamentary vote. Yes - democracy in action. Bill gets blocked in a landslide vote by democratically elected politicians and now they're still planning to bring the policy in! So it's a great time for someone to kick up a fuss about abortion being "too easy" (go tell that to women in Northern Ireland, or indeed women in the rest of this country who've actually needed one) and implying women are asking for it for "the wrong" reasons.

So needless to say my phone starts ringing. I did (I think) 16 TV and Radio interviews in one day. And clips of them were played on many other stations too. Here's a list with links to the website where you can see/hear it where I can find one (do send me more if I'm missing any you've found!)

BBC London breakfast

BBC 5 Live Nicky Campbell (from 1h30 in)

BBC Newcastle Jonathan Miles

BBC Essex Etilie George

BBC Manchester Heather Stott

BBC Foyle Joe Doran

BBC Sheffield Rony Robinson

BBC Three Counties Gareth Lloyd

BBC West Midlands Joanne Mailin

BBC Northampton Stuart Linnell

BBC Tees Mike Parr

BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine (from 30m in)

Sky News Boulton and Co

Sky News outdoor interview with health correspondent

BBC Merseyside

And clips of my appearance on these were reportedly heard on everything from BBC Radio One and BBC Six Music to Magic FM!

I also did two more interviews the next day on BBC Somerset and BBC West Midlands again (where they seemed to cut me off and let the anti-choice guy talk at length but without letting me hear what he said or respond).

For the most part I was just chatting on my own to the various presenters. Some may have had callers who disagreed with me or other guests who expressed other views later on but felt like for the most part I was given plenty of opportunity to make my points. On BBC Merseyside I was "up against" Anthony Ozimic from SPUC who is just rubbish in debate. Apart from anything else why nominate someone without a womb to be your organisation's representative for telling people with a womb what they should and shouldn't do with it? As I may have said several months ago on ITV Daybreak "If you're against abortion Anthony, I strongly recommend you DON'T have one". He also accused me and/or Abortion Rights UK of being "in bed" with this government, which considering I was speaking against what the Department of Health is proposing, is very strange. Mind you having met the guy I'd be highly surprised if he knew the phrase "in bed with" didn't refer to spiderman pyjamas and a hot water bottle so ho hum (slam!).

More excitingly, after previously taking to Twitter to declare herself officially "not scared" of me, Nadine Dorries MP herself deigned to face up to me on both the Jeremy Vine show and the Boulton & Co Sky News show. The Jeremy Vine show (incidentally the only show ever to have arranged a face-off between us before, over the abstinence-only-for-girls debacle!) went well. Dorries made her points and then I explained why she was wrong and why she was behaving undemocratically over the counselling issue.

Somehow while I was in a car heading over to Sky News offices Dorries had a bit of a funny turn. I guess maybe she (accurately) felt she lost the Jeremy Vine debate and it got to her. Thing is she put up a good fight, it's just that I had truth and justice on my side. Anyway on Boulton and Co she was dreadful. Flustered and unclear, she was on video link-up from what I guess is outside her constituency home and the wind was making her eyes water, I briefly felt bad that I'd actually made her cry. She barely made any points. Which was a shame really cos I'd rather have seen her best arguments and had a chance to deal with them (as I did on the Jeremy Vine show).

Afterwards she was on Twitter gloating (? odd) thus:

Nadine Dorries MP ‏ @NadineDorriesMP

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite
• · Open

Following appearance of @Cruella1 on @SkyNews 74% of participants in #boultonandco poll say abortion too easy.#more@cruella1onTVplease

But she was wrong because:

Saul Fowler ‏ @SydenhamDragon

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite
• · Open

@NadineDorriesMP @cruella1 never let the facts get in the way of a good sideswipe, eh? Poll results flashed up at start of your debate.

In reply to Nadine Dorries MP

So I asked her to apologise and retract what she'd said:

Kate Smurthwaite ‏ @Cruella1

• Reply
• Delete
• Favorite
• · Open

@NadineDorriesMP @SkyNews Nadine will you correct your tweet, poll on #boultonandco was BEFORE our discussion? #Dorrieslies #assumethatsatag

Later on I asked again

Kate Smurthwaite ‏ @Cruella1

• Reply
• Delete
• Favorite
• · Open

@teresaholm1 @NadineDorriesMP @SkyNews PS Nadine - still no apology/retraction of your overt lie from yesterday. #Dorrieslies

And the next morning again

Kate Smurthwaite ‏ @Cruella1

• Reply
• Delete
• Favorite
• · Open

@NadineDorriesMP @teresaholm1 @SkyNews So no apology? No correction? Just abuse? Wow #gotnovalidargumentsleft?

And she (after a long delay) responded thus:

Nadine Dorries MP ‏ @NadineDorriesMP

@Cruella1 @teresaholm1 @SkyNews Took my info from a Sky Tweet I wasn't in studio.Blocking you now. Your ranting and screeching is tedious.

Yeah!! Blocked by the Nads! File this under "You know you've made it when...".

And to be honest I thought that was as exciting as it was gonna get until today. BBC Radio Four's show The Moral Maze rang me up and asked me to go on air and have a little chatty-poos about abortion with none other than Daily Fail columnist Melanie Phillips. And you can listen to that one here (the whole show is about gender-selective abortion, I'm the third "witness" but do listen to the first witness Ann Furedi too who is great). Phillips tries (oh irony) to accuse me of advocating eugenics! Ha ha ha.

Sadly I only get 7-8 minutes to deal with Phillips and a guy called Matthew Taylor who was also on. Here's the full version:

Seriously Melanie for a suposed journalist you really don't have much grasp of language do you? Eugenics is where the government decides what characteristics it considers desirable in the next generation and then forces some women to have children (often with men they don't want to have children with) and others not to. What I'm advocating is the opposite of that, where the government butts the hell out and lets women choose for themselves. Of course individuals selecting for themselves what genetic traits they'd like their kids to have is as old as the hills. That's exactly what is going on (subconsciously or consciously) when a woman looks across a crowded bar at a guy and thinks "nice eyes". She's picking traits that she thinks might help her offspring. But of course then she also gets to know the guy and is highly likely to change her mind if she finds him stupid or unimaginative. Of course he's doing the same to her, checking out her genes.

And great news - science is getting much much better at helping us do this. Increasingly we can actively allow wannabe parents to select embryos to be implanted during IVF to avoid hereditary diseases where it may not be obvious in the bar whether the object of your desires is a carrier of the gene. In a few generations, at least in the west, this is likely to mean much lower incidence of things like sickle cell anaemia and Huntingdon's disease. It would be unspeakably cruel not to allow that sort of progress to be used to prevent suffering. And if it became possible to select embryos for hair and eye colour too then firstly - that would be pre-implantation IVF embryo selection - not abortion. And secondly - so what? So a woman was raped by a red haired guy and says she can't keep the baby if it's going to have red hair and remind her of that trauma. It's her body, it's her life, why should the state compel her to become a brood mare for the foetus they deem appropriate? That WOULD be eugenics Melanie. And that's what you advocate. Stop it.