Umm, yes.

Apple has been criticised by feminists for designing iPhones which are ‘too big’ for the average female hand.

Other than being able to pick the thing up – not a claim being made I think? – what actually is the hand size restriction? And, if one exists, doesn’t that mean that the previous set of models were too small for the average male hand?

So good to see that all the other problems facing women are solved though.

Reading the story further though, they’re actually taking the whine seriously. Whut?

How much do hashtags cost?

Just hours later, CBS announced that Moonves would depart as chairman, president and CEO “effective immediately,” and that he and the network would donate $20 million to supporting the #MeToo movement and equality for women in the workplace.

And who is the movement that gets the cash?

Idiot, ugly is socially determined

As a 115kg (18st) woman who refuses to diet, unapologetically wears short shorts and eats tiramisu, I have experienced and witnessed a lot of fatphobia. This is a form of bigotry that equates fatness with ugliness, inferiority and immorality. In my new book You Have the Right to Remain Fat, I talk a lot about how being fat has shaped my life, how fatphobia has multiple dimensions and how it does not just move outward – from us to others. It moves inward – from our culture to ourselves.

As with what is poverty, ugly is culturally determined. Modern Britain says that poverty is a better standard of living than he median in 1970 (certainly, 1960) an better than the top 10% in 1930. So too with ugly. What is considered so in the here and now is determined by us in aggregate, that culture.

Trivially so, as tans and freckles have moved around from Jane Austen’s time to today. Size? There are places (Mali? Mauritania perhaps, our own past certainly) when a good 3 to 5 inch coating of blubber is/was considered highly attractive. Even rumours that the internal pressure makes uglies tighter (would Rocco care to comment? Something more than just “With mine horses are”).

Of course ugly, as with beauty, is culturally determined. How the hell do you think it works if it isn’t that way?

Luckily she mentions this but fails to grasp the point.

So that’s $100,000 saved with a male Prime Minister

Jacinda Ardern has defended making an air force Boeing 757 take an extra trip to the Pacific island of Nauru so she can minimise time away from her .

The New Zealand prime minister has asked that the plane fly back from the Pacific Islands Forum to pick her up, one day after her deputy departed for the three-day meeting.

The cost to the taxpayer of the extra trip – estimated at between NZ$50,000 to NZ$100,000 (£25,000 to £50,000) – has been criticised.

Ardern is still breastfeeding her 11-week-old daughter, Neve, who is too young to have the immunisations required to visit Nauru. The prime minister decided that while she could not miss the meeting, she also could not leave Neve for the full three days.

Whether it’s $00,000 that should be saved is another matter of course…..that’s what, the bill for half a unit of social housing?

Not politically correct but true

Women should pay higher taxes and gain lower pensions:

Middle-aged women face a health timebomb and will need 5½ years more care than men after they hit 65, a study has warned.

Women now in their 50s will spend an average of 12½ years at the end of their lives depending on carers to support their daily needs, researchers predict, as growing numbers live with multiple illnesses.

If women, as a group, are going to take more out of that welfare state then they should pay more in, no? Today’s strong and independent women do wish to stand up for themselves after all.

Well, I guess Amanduh can be this dumb, yes

But if people want to talk about the link between demographic identity markers and violent crime — especially murders like this one — than they shouldn’t focus on ethnic identity or immigration status. There is one trait that Rivera has in common with the vast majority of people who commit crimes like this, and it’s not his skin color or the nation where he was born. It’s his gender.

The same conservatives who want to paint all Latino immigrants as dangerous because of this crime will no doubt cry that I’m a “man-hater” for pointing this out, but facts are facts. Maleness is far more strongly correlated with murder (and other violent crimes) than immigration status. Moreover, there are actual, well-researched reasons why this is so — and solutions that could change it. So instead of exploiting this situation to shore up a narrative about immigrants, people should be talking about how to change our social conceptions of gender so that men don’t resort to violence.

If gender, and conceptions of it, are merely a social construct then this might work. But if there’s something innate about gender – Ooooh, chromosomes, hormones even – then it might well not, eh?

It’s one of those blank spots in the standard lefty thought box isn’t it? Who we sexually desire is hard wired but a bit of social construction will alter all other differences in sex behaviour.

Who thinks we don’t talk about the menopause?

Male academics should say the word ‘menopause’ at least three times a day in solidarity with their female colleagues, according to a fellow scholar.

Staff at the University of Leicester are being encouraged to open up and talk about the taboo subject in a bid to normalise conversation on the topic.

Dr Andrea Davies, from the university’s School of Business, has argued that all staff should be able to talk about menopause openly and without embarrassment and that saying the word three times a day would help.

In a bid to open up the conversation she has organised the monthly Leicester Menopause Café, where male and female colleagues are encouraged to come together and chat about the middle-aged phenomena.

“We have been arguing to avoid any closeted words or acronyms and just say menopause – preferably three times a day to make it unremarkable”, she said.

“We set out that menopause should not be a women’s only issue.”

Given the age of much of the readership here most have observed the event. It’s not something either men nor women (!) tend to ignore.

The need to talk about it, no, that’s not really it. What this bint is insisting is that everyone should sit around and empathise about it. Which, you know, well there’s fishing to be done, bathrooms to be grouted…..

Well, there’s another way to read this

No idea whether this is the right way to read it but it’s possible all the same:

Russian women suffering domestic violence are being deterred from going to the police since its partial decriminalisation last year, campaigners have claimed after a dramatic fall in reported incidents.

The state statistics, released in July, reveal that the number of cases of domestic violence reported to the police in 2017 almost halved since physical abuse became punishable by a fine rather than time in prison.

Controversial amendments to Russian law decriminalised some forms of domestic violence in February 2017. The changes mean violence against a spouse or children that results in bruising or bleeding but not broken bones is punishable by 15 days in prison or a fine of 30,000 roubles (£380) if they do not happen more than once a year. Previously, these offences carried a maximum jail sentence of two years.

A substantial number of such reports were punishment of the male because he’d pissed her off. Now the sentence is much less there’s no point in falsely reporting to inflict said punishment.

No, don’t think even I agree with that but it is still a possible explanation of events.

Interesting question

To which I don’t know the answer.

Following these climbs, the men will head for the heights of the Mount Fuji loop and crest the spectacular Fuji Sanroku climb, before riding through the Fuji Speedway, ascending the gruelling Mount Mikuni and Mikuni Pass loop (which features lactic acid-churning gradients of over 20%). After yet more climbing on the Kagasaka Pass, they will ultimately reach the roads of the Fuji Speedway to contest the much-awaited finale.

Yet after their initial two climbs, the women will have to make do with a paltry one and a half laps of the speedway circuit before rolling over the finish line. Their route somehow completely bypasses the most spectacular and potentially race-defining elements that are present in the men’s course.

There are differences between male and female physiques. This is why we have male and female sporting events.

But how different is different? Are women not going to be able to complete a male road race course? Or is it just some outmoded paternalism?

I really don’t know the answer here – inform me.

Hmm, obviously, some women coul finish a male course. But would it be too taxing, so that it wouldn’t in fact be much of a race? That might be a better question.

Goose meet gander

A celebrated female professor at New York University has been found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate, prompting a host of leading feminists to spring to her defense.

Avital Ronell, a world-renowned professor of German and comparative literature, described by a colleague as “one of the very few philosopher-stars of this world,” was suspended by NYU in the spring, at the end of an 11-month investigation.

Her former student, Nimrod Reitman, now 34, accused the 66-year-old of physical and verbal harassment, detailing how she kissed and touched him repeatedly, slept in his bed with him, demanded he lie in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed and called him constantly, and refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate.

In emails, she referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.”

Mr Reitman is gay and is now married to a man; Ms Ronell is a lesbian.

Well, sexual harassment is sexual harassment isn’t it?

Or are we in this world where only men, given that power of the patriarchy, can harass?

The university suspended her for the next academic year, leading a group of scholars from around the world, including influential feminists such as Judith Butler, to send a letter to NYU in defence of Ms Ronell.

They described Mr Reitman as “the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her,” in a letter that has been compared to the support shown to prominent men accused of harassment and assault as part of the #MeToo movement.

“We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation,” they wrote.

Oh, I bet.

Maybe it is the men who create the art?

Are female artists worth collecting? Tate doesn’t seem to think so
Helen Gørrill
The museum preaches diversity, but its annual acquistions suggest that great art is mostly created by men

So, the progressive idea is that the technocrats run things. Those who know what they’re doing that is. Within that is the assumption that those running things know what they’re oing. The Tate buyers knowing what art is for example.

So, maybe it’s true that men create most of the art then?

The effects of token women on shortlists

Imagine a four-person shortlist that has three women and one man on it. With this shortlist, a woman will be hired only 67% of the time.

If you’ve got two women and two men on the shortlist, a woman will be hired 50% of the time – the odds you would expect if people were making hiring decisions purely based on merit.

What chance do you think a woman has of being hired when there’s one woman (against three men) on a four-candidate shortlist?

According to a recent study looking at academic hiring, there’s statistically no chance she’ll be hired.

Many employers are actively trying to recruit more women to senior positions, and are changing the composition of shortlists as a means of doing so. Some large corporates have recently announced that they’re scrapping all-male shortlists and are asking recruiters to find a more diverse range of candidates.

But as the study above suggests, adding just one woman to a shortlist to prevent it from being all-male may not do the trick. This is because the ratio is still sending the implicit message that a man is more appropriate for the job.

Or possible that people see through the inclusion of a token woman on a shortlist?

We might be able to answer this question

Why are there so few queer female coming-of-age movies?

Well, in the form of movies where they keep their clothes on it could just be that there’re not that many people interested. Lesbians are some 1% or so of the female population. So, we’re talking about something that resonates with (sure, of course we don’t have to be exactly the same as the characters. I’ve never fought anyone with a samurai sword but Kill Bill passed the time pleasantly enough) some -.5% of the adult population.

That’s something to spend tens of millions on, is it?

In the sort of movies where everyone doesn’t keep their clothes on I’m told that it’s a very popular subject.

How weird

A former head of human resources for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is under investigation after being accused of hiring women as possible sexual partners for male employees, the Washington Post reported Monday.

Very generous of him, wasn’t it? Not the popsie with the biggies as his own secretary but for the other blokes?

Or maybe he was being really generous and getting would be cat ladies into contact with those who could save them from that fate?

This is why we have those patriarchal rules about behaviour

When I was attacked, it began with a demand for a cigarette. It escalated to the point where I was on my back on the pavement, being strangled. Not even a decent man who takes rejection with good grace can tell me, or any other woman, that our fear of violence is unfounded. We know what rejected men can do – we have seen what can happen. And many of us have felt it.

OPK. Well, no, not OK that it happened, but OK to the story as told.

Good progress is being made on teaching consent in schools. But ultimately it comes down to men treating women with respect and regarding them as equals with agency over their bodies. Unfortunately this sort of sea change can take generations, especially when it is undermined by the surrounding visual culture.

Maybe.

We used to laugh at this, the idea that this somewhat feckless, harmless man could be perceived as so frightening. But having suffered some of the long-term health implications of being attacked, I don’t find it funny any more. When you combine the larger male physique with rejection and a bruised ego, the situation can become frightening and violent. There are men who take rejection with good grace, of course. But not enough of them. And so women learn to smile and look down, to defuse the situation with soothing words and platitudes, to make our bodies smaller, to comply. We undertake the emotional labour of minimising men’s feelings of pain and humiliation.

That’s why we had all those old rules of the patriarchy. Never strike a woman, no matter what, for example. Societally enforced by every other man around being ready to administer a thrashing to those who erred.

Sure, you don’t have to like that solution. But it was a solution to that very problem you’re complaining about.

Sport’s very dangerous for women, oh yes

Football could be more dangerous for women than men because their brains are more susceptible to damage from heading the ball, new research suggests.

In a new study which looked at nearly 100 amatuer players, females showed five times the amount of brain tissue damage than males on scans.

Seems the warming hasn’t changed,even if the reason for it has. Who knows, it might even be right this time. But people have been saying sport’s very bad for women for some time now. Wombs fall out or summat wasn’t it?

Jessica doesn’t seem to quite get this partnership thing

About one in four heterosexual couples that the census looked at had wives that earned more than their husbands. In those cases, though, husbands over-reported their income while their wives under-reported their own. (The census sorted all this out when it matched couple’s answers to their actual IRS filings.)

Now, we can’t know for sure why the exaggeration happens – perhaps couples want to present themselves as more traditional to the census, maybe husbands feel insecure about making less or wives are anxious that their salary difference will “emasculate” their spouse. Whatever the reason, though, it serves as a good reminder that it’s not just political equality we need to fight for – it’s equality in the culture, and our relationships.

If we don’t have parity in our homes, we won’t have it in our country. And if men and women aren’t even comfortable talking about equality, how can we expect anyone to fight for it?

Well, no, living with someone is a constant experiment in compromise. We could even mine Jessica’s past columns for the things that men really should do for the women in their lives. You know, be honest about bum look big in this, compliment the new haircut, have chocolate available one week in four. If in return fragile male egos need a little massaging about who is bringing the cash into the household well, why not? You know, swings and roundabouts?

Dear Lord this is annoying

I’d no more listen to a physicist’s advice on my fertility than I would let a mechanic cut my hair.

You mean you don’t? OK, random rudeness about Guardian columnist’s photos over. This is intensely annoying:

The backlash against birth control apps is growing. Yet, women do need more readily available information about their own fertility, as well as about the side-effects of the contraceptives they are prescribed. Technology appeals because the medical profession too often dismisses and fails women, and has ignored the concerns of many women disenchanted with the side-effects of hormonal contraception. No wonder Silicon Valley steps in, seemingly offering a natural and smart solution that looks – and is – too good to be true.

But doctors should ask why so many women would consider trusting an app over a medical professional, and researchers should look at why so many people are unhappy with the prescribed pills, injections and implants, and work to improve them. All of us emerged blinking into the light from a uterus: fertility should be taken more seriously, and women should be trusted when reporting symptoms and anxieties, rather than be treated as unreliable witnesses and hysterics.

The thing is, anyone who came up with a better form of contraception would make a fortune. In fact, all those people who did come up with marginal improvements on the previous methods did make a fortune. It’s all one of the things that capitalism has done the best that is possible given the current state of technology. It’s even one of the things, under that capitalist impulse to gain pelf and lucre, driving technology along.

Sheesh, we’re all doing the very best we can and yet still complaints?