Gordon Brown and Bigotgate

Ok, so the country has finally shown that it's dangerously close to insanity once again. Today, it's 'Bigotgate'! Gordon Brown called a woman he had just had an uncomfortable conversation with on the subject of immigration a 'bigot'. He was having a private conversation afterwards but didn't realise he was still mic'd up. 

I don't know whether Gillian Duffy is a bigot or whether Gordon Brown was justified in calling her one. Probably not on both counts. But I am heartened by the fact that we currently have a Prime Minister who cares whether someone is a bigot or not. 

I wonder how much longer that will be the case? 

Equality and all that (men have feelings too)

I am a fair and reasonable person. Don't believe me? Well, I'll prove it to you then. I did a couple of posts recently with a feminist flavour, now I'm going to stab the sisters in the back and big up the fellas - who may or may not deserve my support. We'll see.

What I want to talk about is emotions. No, don't run away men. There will be no tests on how well you were listening at the end, I won't bring this chat up in 17 years time and throw it back in your face and I certainly won't try and cuddle you and ask you what you're thinking. My gripe is with the way that women claim a monopoly on feelings. They have an infuriating tendency to use men's reticence to open up as an opportunity to reduce him to a nought. And then, having created this amazing stroke of luck, they grab the chance to write a whole, convenient story of neglect/total devotion/heartlessness/adoration/irresponsibility/utter shitbagness onto him. I should know, I've done it. Well... the shitbag one. 

Unfortunately, neat little trick though it is, it's a short term gain one. You've misrepresented the truth, not recreated it and it'll get you nowhere. Where it gets all of us (women) is tarred with the same brush. I  don't think of women as any less logical than men, any less capable of reason and presence of mind. But in the face of one of these hysterical rants, it's hard not to feel embarrassed. It's just so manipulative.

I understand the pain of heartbreak. I understand how emotions pick you up by the scruff of the neck and toss you around the room until you're dazed and helpless. But I also know that, thankfully, reason will tap you on the shoulder at some point and have a reassuring word in your ear. Providing you'll listen of course. 

A favourite of women who've been dumped is, "Oh, he must really hate me." No. He Doesn't. If he hated you he'd be phoning you up 2o times an hour and screaming about smearing dog shit all over your car windscreen. In short, he'd be acting like you. The reality is, he doesn't care - and that's really hard to take and therefore easier to project. 

I can understand where the confusion comes from. When you feel such misery, you imagine there must have been a purpose, a plan to get at you and reduce you to this state. But while it's a nice stab at reasoning, it falls way short. You may have been cheated on, lied to or treated appallingly. Whatever the case, people do bad things to you without caring to make it personal. In a funny way, that's more heartening isn't it?  

But that's an extreme version. More commonly women use their emotions to manipulate men because they know they don't know how to deal with it, and even better, rarely meet like with like. It's a license to hold full dominion. One minute women want to know how men feel, then they're not happy because he feels all the 'wrong' things, then he's refusing to admit to feeling anything - at which point she unleashes her full arsenal of weepy weaponry upon him. 

If I'm painting men as an innocent party here, I don't mean to. He may well have acted like an absolute twazzock. Maybe both parties have. The point that I'm trying to make is that, while winning points for grand emotional displays may seem clever, it's not. Fine, let someone know you're angry and that you're justified in being so. But trying to constantly trump men on the feelings front achieves nothing but making us all look foolish. Dare I mention having a little self-control here?

So, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned*. True enough. But hell hath no boredom like the company of a man during the World Cup so it all evens out in the end. 

*I am aware that this is not a Shakespeare quote but in fact by William Congreve. And I am also aware that this is not even the correct version of the quote. So please leave me alone. 

The sociably acceptable method of appearing insane

Today, on my glamourous trip to Tescos, I passed the usual thousand cyclists. Rarely do they reduce me to hysterical fits of giggling, but today one special, little soul broke that unwritten rule. I glanced up to see him bike pass and pull the most extraordinary expression that can only be described as " John Prescott sucking a lemon full of bees with liquid celery in their stings". 

And I was off. And walking on my own. 

I spent the next 5 minutes spluttering and gurning, pretending I had a cough, was sneezing, or had an itchy nose. All in order to not appear like a normal woman who'd seen something funny. Instead I favoured the, "christ, the meds are wearing off, but what a release!" air. 

Empowering pole of feminism? Shove it

Given that my last post had a distinctly feminist slant to it, I'm in the mood to comment on David Mitchell's latest column - Actually, you won't find female empowerment halfway up a pole. And he's quite right of course. Women being sold the idea that they will blossom and be ready to take over the world on account of their sexy gyrations is ludicrous. 

If anyone was to say to me, "Here's a pole, explore your sexuality" I would waste no time in telling them where to stick it. 

Sugar and spice and padded bikinis tops

A debate has been raging over on the Guardian CIF section on whether it's ok for young girls to wear the padded bras and bikinis that are being sold by Primark at the moment. Actually, I call it a debate but in fact Laurie Penny has written a piece that, while in the main discourages a narrow interpretation of womanhood, she also states that restricting a young girl's blossoming sexuality is puritanism - the lack of debate stems from the fact that the vast majority of people totally (and angrily) disagree with her. 

To be fair to Laurie, I think she had a point to make and got carried away with another one entirely and the two seemed to crash into one another. Yes she is right that girls should not be made to feel ashamed of their sexuality. But I think she is completely wrong to suggest that external indicators have anything to do with their inner sexuality in the first place. In fact, take the argument further and it goes full circle. When sexuality is stamped onto you, you lose control and self esteem inevitably suffers. 

Whatever the rights or wrongs of shops selling this tat, it saddens me that it is getting girls onto the treadmill of looking good that women labour on day after day. The ideal of the perfect woman has become so divorced from reality, just to look normal has become one of the most time consuming aspects of women's lives. 

And for what? Sure, beauty is appreciated but ultimately what does it get you? Respect? The world's most beautiful women certainly show that beauty sells and reap the financial rewards so it's obvious why teenage girls would look up to them. But these women are also portrayed as bimbos with nothing of worth to say, no real understanding of the world and their so called 'imperfections' get the Circle of Shame treatment in Heat Magazine. 

If a young girl or woman told me her ambition was to become a doctor I'd be delighted. Similarly, I would be if she said he wanted to be a mum. Both are productive and valuable and can provide a sense of purpose. But the pursuit of beauty for beauty's sake is essentially shallow and should be recognised as such. People often justify fashion as just a bit of fun but it doesn't quite wash when it seems more like an obsession that is running out of control and into little girls' clothes ranges. I actually like to look nice - I enjoy attention and a bit of therapeutic shopping as much as the next girl. But it loses its shine when it becomes a necessity and a chore on account of other people's expectations of you. And this is what I feel society is doing to girls and young women with its current mantras. 

Maybe girls and women are naturally more disposed to displaying their attractiveness as a part of their sexuality. It's certainly nice to be appreciated and boosts the confidence. But having your desire to be desirable repackaged, sleazed-up and sold back to you is as insulting and diminishing as the cheap price tag attached to it. And this goes for both girls and women alike. 

Did Stephen Fry pop your Twitter cherry?

I've been Twitter surfing (the new youtube for hoovering up my oh so precious time) and I have noticed an astonishing amount of people opt for Stephen Fry as their first to 'follow'. I confess I didn't but then he took a break at about the same time I joined. Nevertheless, I feel like I've committed a terrible faux pas. Am I, as ever, doing something terribly wrong?

Election 2010 - These guys are not for turning

All I, and everyone else, is hearing in the UK election agendas at the moment is that bloody word "change". And I, and everyone else, is sick of it. So despite them telling us that they're listening to our concerns, why will they not desist using it?