Seriously absurd whining

Athletics chiefs accused of sexism after refusing to allow men and women to run equal distances

So why aren’t they arguing that they should be running in the same race?

Ah, but that’s different, reasons.

No, there are gender differences here which are important. The only question is, how important?

That’s just how it works love

I recently found out that a man sitting next to me in the office, who reports to me directly, is being paid £20,000 more than I earn annually. It might sound crass, but my reaction to this news has materialised as the five stages of grief. Grief, quite possibly, for my withering sense of self-worth.

At first comes denial. Surely this is a misunderstanding. Though we have our differences, my media mogul managers and I share a fundamental passion for progressiveness and – do I even have to say it? – an aversion to blatant discrimination. The organisation is meant to be famous for it.

Then anger strikes. It’s raw and blinding. I’d heard stories about such cases – reported them to death, in fact – but never had I felt so ridiculed. I’ve just had a baby. I’ve been negotiating my return to work. My desk neighbour is undeniably excellent at his job. He’s an ambitious and diligent employee with admittedly a few more years of experience than me. He’s a leader in his field, but when hired, I was deemed senior enough – amply mature, responsible and talented – to commission him, edit him and perform all the other far more mundane tasks of management.

Perhaps on account of his stellar reputation within the industry, a pay gap is justified, but the sheer size of this particular chasm has burned my ego to a crisp.

If you’re in the business of managing talent then it’s common enough for real talent to be paid more than the management. Those who commission and subedit Polly, Simon Jenkins, Boris, Michael Gove even, are going to be paid less than they are. That’s just the way it works. Football managers are often paid less than their star players.

That’s just the way it works in talent businesses, those with it get more. Nowt to do with gender. Although this crisis this lack of knowledge on your part seems to have pushed you into might have something to do with gender.

Bird getting old insists we must listen to the old

Baby boomers led the cult of youth. Now we should heed the wisdom of age
Yvonne Roberts

Intolerance towards the old is deeply embedded in our society. The potential of an ageing population must be unlocked

When she was young her articles were about how this brave new world must listen to the young. Now she’s old it’s the wisdom of the old which must be heard. Presumably, when she was having hot flushes it was those with hot flushes who must be obeyed.

That is, an entire lifetime of shrieking “Listen To Me!”

Not quite what I thought

British Film Institute celebrates ‘unapologetically bad leading ladies’

Kitsch can be fun and the truly awful acting can be joyous. In a sarcastic, kitsch, manner. Take any pair of tits that is on screen just because tits for example, some gorgeously bad examples of acting there. There’ve been many a pair of youthful cheekbones featured because youth, beauty, and not much else – or perhaps plus skills on the casting couch. Anything with whatshername in it for example.

As Bette Davis once said: “When a man gives his opinion, he’s a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she’s a b****.”

Now that theory is to be put to the test in a season of films at the British Film Institute (BFI) that celebrates “unapologetically bad leading ladies”.

From Vivien Leigh in Gone With The Wind to Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, the month-long series of films in June will look at screen anti-heroines and ask if their traits would be regarded in the same way if they were male characters.

Ah, don’t bother, it’s woke not realist.

The alternative would actually be much more interesting. Who got rich just because looks? And how does this map over the group whining about how older women don’t get good parts?

It’s not really wrong until Julie Bindel supports it, is it?

The latest census on femicide – women killed by men – has shown that during 2017, a staggering 139 women in the UK died as a result of male violence. But nobody joined the dots between these cases except for feminists campaigning against male violence towards women. Despite there being an obvious link between the misogynistic culture under which brutal – and often fatal – male violence occurs, the UK government has never made the connection that these women die because men’s violence towards women and girls is a global pandemic.

The resistance to legally making misogyny a hate crime (currently under review) is partly down to the fact that it is such a huge everyday reality that it seems impossible to enforce. If the police did their job and treated every domestic violence incident as a potential fatality, we might prevent some deaths of vulnerable women and children. But to end the deaths of women relating to domestic violence, there needs to be a robust criminal justice response that intervenes at the earliest stages.

Well, yes, yes and no.

Bayesian probabilities- among those murdered women are more likely to be snuffed by someone they know, among those who might be murdered men more so. Odd that only the one is a scandal leading to the invention of that new campaign about femicide, isn’t it? Almost as if there’s a certain bias on show. We’d never, never, suggest that one gender is only happy when complaining as a result now, would we?

Hmm, well,

A former TalkTalk manager is suing the telecoms giant after allegedly learning she earned 40 per cent less than male colleagues doing the same job.

Rebecca Burke, 42, was paid a basic salary of £110,000 as she helped lead the company’s cyber security programme in the wake of a high-profile data breach.

The 42-year-old, who was made redundant in May 2017, claims three other programme directors had salaries an average of 40 per cent higher and were awarded at least 50 per cent more in bonuses.

A tribunal claim has been brought against TalkTalk on the grounds it breached equal pay law and dismissed her unfairly.

The three male comparators weren’t made redundant.

Which makes it slightly difficult, no? We might argue that the worst of the four was fired, the worst of the four got the least pay before the firing. The discrimination here is?

Consider this

Political theorist Nancy Fraser has shown that with the rise of financialised capitalism, responsibility for care work has devolved almost completely onto families and communities.

When was, under which socieoeconmoic system ever, the responsibility for care work not centered upon the family and community?


Anyone know the correct answer here?

So, why lower pensions ages for women? My assumption – and please do correct if this is wrong – is that in Britain men have tended to marry women a few years younger than themselves. 3 to 5 years is about the historical average. Thus, when pensions were instituted, have different pension ages so that the average couple would retire roughly together.


The ‘battle of the sexes’ has pitched men against women for thousands of years, usually with the connotation that women provide the brains and men the brawn.

Sensational contests include Billie Jean King defeating Bobby Riggs in three sets, Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in one election and Girls Aloud beating One True voice with ‘sound of the underground’ to clinch the top spot in the Christmas chart of 2002.

But a new study suggests that the notion that females aren’t physically as capable is outdated, and that with the right training, women are in fact just as tough as men.

After testing a group of six British female soldiers who trekked across Antarctica, researchers found that they showed no more negative health effects than would be expected in men.

Physicality is expressed along different axes.

We’ve long known that men are stronger, faster – sprints – and so on. And that women’s stamina can be as good as. It’s long been mooted that women might in fact beat men at ultra-marathon distances.

It’s the spin here that’s new not the finding.

To float an alternative explanation here

What is wrong with white women? Why do half of them so consistently vote for Republicans, even as the Republican party morphs into a monstrously ugly organization that is increasingly indistinguishable from a hate group? The most likely answer seems to be that white women vote for Republicans for the same reason that white men do: because they are racist. Trump, with his raucous rallies and his bloviating, combative style, has offered his supporters an opportunity to savor the pleasures of being cruel. It is likely that the white women who voted for him in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020, find this racist sadism gratifying. It is fun for them.

But there is something else at play, something more complicated, in white women’s relationship to white patriarchy. White women’s identity places them in a curious position at the intersection of two vectors of privilege and oppression: they are granted structural power by their race, but excluded from it by their sex. In a political system where racism and sexism are both so deeply ingrained, white women must choose to be loyal to either the more powerful aspect of their identity, their race, or to the less powerful, their sex. Some Republican white women might lean into racism not only for racism’s sake, but also as a means of avoiding or denying the realities of how sexist oppression makes them vulnerable.

In her book Right Wing Women, the feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote that conservative women often conform to the dominant ideologies of the men around them as part of a subconscious survival strategy, hoping that their conservatism will spare them from male hatred and violence. It doesn’t work, she says. They suffer sexist oppression anyway. But the strategy continues. “Most women cannot afford, either materially or psychologically, to recognize that whatever burnt offerings of obedience they bring to beg protection will not appease the angry little gods around them.” Participating in racism does not exempt white women from sexism, as much as they might hope that it will. It merely corrodes their souls in the process.

Would it be mansplaining to suggest that the half of white women who are above average intelligence manage to recognise the above diagnosis as complete bullshit? And thus don’t vote or those spouting it?

Power, profit, moves to the thing in short supply. Always

Men have the power in ballet:

Boal knows other women with stories to tell, but they are too afraid that speaking up will negatively affect their careers. The risk of making waves feels especially great for female dancers because though the ballet world is populated mainly by women, it is dominated by men.

“We women are a dime a dozen, and there are a bunch of 14-year-olds coming up,” Boal said.

Boys in ballet hold the power from a young age. Studios are eager to recruit them, teachers are excited to train them, and female classmates know they need to get close to them.

Yes, that’s what happens.

Equally, when there’s lots of capital and not much labour then wages rise. Returns to capital are high in places with little of it. This is just how things work. Diamonds are rare therefore they’re expensive, seawater, you often enough pay to have it taken away there’s so much of it.


And the grievance industry sails on

Talk about missing the point:

Swim England has apologised over advice published on its website for budding swimmers, which advised women to hide their “flabby stomachs” and “boyish figures.”

On a page promoting swimming as exercise, the UK’s official swimming body said women should “draw attention towards [their] more appealing characteristics” when choosing a swimsuit.

The article suggested how women could “accentuate curves” or hide a“boyish body”.

It also said that women with “flabby stomachs” should choose a “loose tankini instead of a bikini or 1-piece” and warned that bikinis “totally expose a jiggly belly, and trying to squeeze into a one-piece will not slim your stomach, only emphasise it”.

The article suggested that overweight women wear dark colours to “minimise” their shape.

The organisation’s stated aim is to “help people learn how to swim, enjoy the water safely, and compete in all our sports” and to “inspire everyone to enjoy the water in the way that suits them”.

However, many complained that their advice about swimwear could put women off swimming.

PhD student Simone Webb found the page when researching how to get back into swimming again, and complained to the organisation about the “sexism”.

Do – some – women worry about exposing their bodies to public view? Those who say no are a little short in the meeting actual human beings department.

Advice on how to best present is thus likely to increase the number who swim, not decrease.

But, you know, sexism and grievances.

Perhaps the PhD is already gained, assuming it is in grievance studies?

Oh, but we’re the good people!

Officials who have been paid off since Corbyn’s allies seized control of party headquarters have signed clauses that stop them going public on the scale and severity of sexual harassment, bullying and anti-semitism cases against members. The party made extensive use of non-disclosure agreements despite Labour’s outrage at such contracts being used to conceal the identity of a leading businessman accused of sexual harassment and racism. He was named in the House of Lords as Sir Philip Green, the billionaire boss of Topshop. He has denied the claims.

Perhaps he wasn’t?

There are two great lessons. One is the depth of misogyny – some conscious but a great deal unconscious – that exists in too many workplaces. Green would resist the idea that he is endemically sexist; assertive aggression, he would say, is his style to men and women alike. The womenswear buyer and the male director who he humiliated got the same treatment. But the evidence of sexism is too overwhelming. The male director Shah quotes him bullying was not called fat.

Equalising pensions

Mr Justice Morgan found that the payment of guaranteed minimum pensions on an unequal basis is contrary to a legal principle that was established in a case handed down in 1990. The Barber case determined that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.

Super, so, given that women are likely to be paid a pension for more years than men they’ll righteously get less per year, yes?

The actual allegations against Philip Green

The source alleged Green’s behaviour included:

walking into meetings and giving women present a lingering hug
asking women in meetings if they were “naughty girls”, and if they “needed their bottoms slapped”
creeping up behind women in corridors to make them jump, before caressing their shoulders to “reassure” them
calling women “sweetheart”, “darling” or “love”, rather than by their names
telling women they were overweight and should go on a diet
flying into expletive-ridden rages abusing male and female staff in front of colleagues

My word, that is terrible behaviour, isn’t it? And the thing is we seem to have so feminised the workplace – of snowflaked perhaps – that is is seen as terrible behaviour.

Goose, gander

As every single person knows, navigating through the minefield that is dating in the 21st century is no easy feat. Whether you like it or not, apps that are meant to make dating easier, such as Tinder and Bumble, sadly also carry the risk of unwelcome and distressing interactions.

Random and unsolicited sending of sexual images or videos from men to young women, notoriously referred to as “dick pics”, is all too common. Even if you haven’t unwillingly received a picture of a man’s genitalia, then you most probably know someone who has. In fact, with technology infiltrating every aspect of our private lives, this unwelcome input from male strangers has become so normal that – just like wolf-whistling on the street – it is frequently ignored and brushed off and, in some cases, even laughed about. But sending unsolicited sexual images is not a joke. It is violating behaviour that cannot be tolerated and should never be normalised.

Tits are also sexual objects. So, tit pics should be banned by law? And how much cleavage is it that should be banned?

I’m mature enough to recall the previous generation of rhetoric

Last month I had to leave work in the middle of the day. I was in a great deal of pain from my period, a problem I have had for several years. Sometimes I can manage it with painkillers, but not always. Even when I can cope with the pain, my periods affect my sleep, and make me slower and less productive. When my (female) boss saw how unwell I was, she kindly suggested I go home. I told her the next day I must be coming down with a cold. I’ve been thinking, why didn’t I just say “I have bad period pains”? I know it’s because I don’t want to be seen as weak and I don’t want to play into stereotypes that women can’t work or have important jobs because of their periods. That said, I worry about using a sick day or two every month. What are my rights in this area regarding sick leave? Should I speak up next time? Am I letting the side down by not coming out and being honest about my period?

Anon. The answer from Poppy Noor:

Something happens to you once a month that is painful and out of your control. You are not alone. Last year, YouGov asked 538 menstruators about their experiences of period pain in the workplace; 57% said it had affected their work. And yet, you feel you will be seen as weak or unreliable if you tell someone about it. Your fears aren’t unfounded: a number of studies show that women’s pain is routinely dismissed by health professionals, especially when it comes to gynaecological issues. And other women seem to share your fear. YouGov found that only 27% of women affected by period pains told their boss and many of them (33%) pretended, as you did, that it was something else affecting their work.

The question about your rights is a tricky one. You are entitled to statutory sick leave, and you could get a note from your doctor explaining that you are affected by serious pain for a day or two each month. But just because you are entitled to something doesn’t mean your boss won’t judge you: if people were given what they were entitled to without sexist ramifications, I suspect more women would be paid equally to men; wouldn’t get sacked for having children; and would be paid the same as their partners after returning to work.

It is not your responsibility to rectify a world in which women can’t freely talk about periods for fear of shame or retribution. Don’t fall into the trap of believing you are being unreasonable, either. As Mandu Reid, CEO of the Cup Effect, an organisation trying to combat period shame, says: “Having to go home for your period isn’t really any different to having to go home because of a headache – we shouldn’t have to fetishise it.”

Of course, you’ll have to get your employer, whose job it is to look after you, to see that first. Could you push for that to become a reality, for example by pushing for a responsible period policy at your place of work?

The fight is not yours alone, says Reid: “A dialogue is needed to create a future where fewer people encounter this dilemma. Those of us who don’t have period pains [or periods at all] should carry the burden as well.”

Given my richness in years that earlier rhetoric was that of course periods wouldn’t be a problem while working. What, you think women are fragile snowflakes? That women haven’t been dealing with this for millennia? Of course women won’t need any special treatment at work over periods!

One way of looking at this

Pornography should be treated as a public health issue like smoking and ministers should launch an advertising campaign to stop people from watching it, a new report states.

Men should be warned of the impact porn has on wider society and the dangers it poses, the Women and Equalities committee said, and viewing it should also be banned on public transport.

MPs made the recommendations in a new cross-party report because of growing concerns about the way pornography influences male attitudes towards women amid a rise in sexual harassment.

The report, published today, details the many different ways in which women are sexually harassed or abused in society, from school and university to public…

One way is that women have power over men because they control access to nookie. The Robert Heinlein point, that only on Earth could there be a shortage of what every woman has an infinite supply of. Thus the condemnation of those girls who are no better than they should be.

That’s all getting a little Jordan Peterson of course.

Another is that if the blokes are getting their rocks off watching the screen then what energy will they have left to attack women? We are asbsolutely certain that pornography and sexual assault are substitutes, not complements, after all.

But that’s being scientific.

But quite how we say that porn is a public health issue akin to smallpox is unknown.