So, amazon are enabling LGBT and disability discrimination. It are all over the internet. Is there any reason why The Party is still supporting and promoting them via the affiliate scheme? All the ethical people are disabling theirs.

Oh yes, perhaps it's because all the Westminster-based Lib Dems are still banging on about the complete non-event of a bottom-feeding, muck-raking Tory blogger being holier-than-thou about a bottom-feeding, muck-raking Labour blogger bandying about some silly ideas in an email, and hasn't noticed that something important regarding actual oppression of actual people by a huge commercial giant is happening..

For fuck's sake.

The reason people pay attention to this bollocks is because we are all talking about it. You can't spend your life talking about Draper/Staines and then complain that people talk about them too much. Find another frigging topic. Preferably something that actually matters.

This entry is prompted by a discussion with a particular person, but I have been meaning to write it for ages, and the discussion this morning was merely a reminder.

If there's one excuse that's guaranteed to piss me off when you have upset someone it is It was just a joke! This phrase is generally trotted out by people in a position of power when they have upset someone who is in a less privileged position. I am bang alongside the right to free speech, but the right to free speech cuts in all directions. Yes, you absolutely have the right to say offensive things; but the corollary of that is that other people have the right to call you out on it, and to tell you that you are being offensive and why.

If you thoughtlessly (or even purposefully) say something sexist or racist or whateverist, and someone calls you out on it, and your instinctive response is to say but I was only joking!, think what you are saying by saying that. You are saying Not only do I reserve the right to be inconsiderate of your feelings, but when I hurt you, I will compound that by making out that you should expect to be an object of fun. How does that make things better? Why is it funny to pick on people who are weaker than you and then laugh about it? That's not humour, that's bullying. That's why Johnny Vegas sexually assaulting people on stage isn't funny, because he is the one in the position of power and he is abusing it. That's why racist "jokes" aren't funny, because white people are in a position of power, and they are abusing it.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and I am fully in favour of it being as extensive as possible. But if you use your freedom of speech, you have to accept that sometimes, you are going to upset people, and that is a perfectly valid reaction for them to have. Belittling people for being offended is missing an opportunity to learn why something is offensive. And this absolutely does not mean that you can't say the offensive thing again; but if you say something offensive with the knowledge that you are being offensive then that is you being a bit of an arsehole. That's cool if you are OK with being an arsehole, but it's a bit rich to pretend that you're not.

And do you know what makes it worse? If you then follow up a conversation about why picking on people is not funny with anti-racists/feminists are so HUMOURLESS!! and telling the person who has called you out that if they don't like it then they aren't your friend and you're taking your bat and ball and going home. I've said this before, and I'm saying it again: my definition of a friend is someone who cares enough about me to not be afraid to tell me when I am wrong, or if I am being thoughtless, or if I am being a bit of a twat. I might not always be totally receptive to criticism (quit it with that hollow laughter at the back there!) but I'll always at least try to hear someone's criticisms of me before dismissing them.

So next time you feel like saying but I was only joking!! when someone tells you you are being a twat, consider if that is the message you really want to send. If it is, then that's cool, you fill your boots. But if what you actually mean is I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was being hurtful, and I'll try to actually be funny next time I am attempting humour then why not say that instead? It'll cause a lot less strife.

Some wag came up with the idea of organising a protest about the lack of swearing on the BBC today. The thing is, I don't want to complain about the lack of swearing on Desert Island Discs; I want to complain about the lack of swearing on Poetry, Please. There's no excuse for them not to broadcast a bit of Larkin on a Sunday afternoon:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

Larkin was the head librarian at Hull uni when my dad attended, and it's thanks to him that it was such a magnificent and well-stocked building when I attended myself. Thanks, Phil.

Lay Scientist has done some interesting research into that nurse who got "suspended" for offering to pray for a patient. I'll just mention a couple of the things he has uncovered: she wasn't suspended, and her lawyers have links with Nadine Dorries.

---

Are you interested in photography? Photographs, eh? Nudge nudge grin grin snap snap wink wink end up in jail? Yup, that's right, you have less than eight days left to practise free photography. From February the 12th taking pictures of a member of the armed forces, intelligence services, or police without prior consent could land you in prison for up to ten years.

Anyone else see the immediate problems with this?

Consider a protest. It's in an inconvenient place for the government. The police wade in, with batons. Some shocked bystander takes pictures of the police brutality... And what about intelligence officers? How in the hell are we supposed to know whether or not we've taken a photo of one? The whole POINT of them is that you don't know who they are, FFS!

Still, if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear, right?

---

Dave Godfrey is awesome. Witness his awesome, as he skewers an idiot creationist, line by line.

---

And if Dave isn't enough awesome for you, consider this (via moviegrrl):



Bruce Campbell is making Old Spice cool. That shouldn't even be possible.

So, the IWF have backed down over Wikipedia (hat-tip gominokouhai). Quelle surprise. We can all get back to our lives now, right?

Well, no, actually.

There still remains the dishonesty of the ISPs in presenting 404s (or blank pages), rather than you have been linked to something which may be illegal, and we have therefore censored it for your own safety - only Demon even approached honesty here - and there still remains the fact that, as from January, the IWF will have a much bigger remit to block much more content, and much of it will be more contentious than child porn.

We are certainly living in interesting times...

I don't usually read the Fail, but someone else linked to this article, and I had to share:

A mother who bought a Scrabble game for her eight-year-old son's computer console to improve his vocabulary has told of her disgust after it produced a string of swearwords.

Tonya Carrington, 36, gave her son Ethan the Nintendo version of the much-loved word game, enabling him to pit his wits against 'virtual' characters, but she was horrified to discover that the computer-generated players were laying down words containing crude slang and abuse. Now she is urging other parents considering buying the popular package as a Christmas present to think again.

Mrs Carrington tried out the program for herself on Ethan's hand-held DS console and was taken aback when her 'opponent' laid down the word 't*ts'. The game also gives a definition of words it uses, on this occasion giving the meaning 'a garden bird' but also 'an informal word for female breasts'. Any doubt was removed when the next word the computer offered was 'f*ckers', which it defined as 'a slang word for chavs'.

As if that wasn't bad enough, it received a triple score and won the game for the character, whose name was Camilla.

'Ethan is doing really well with English at school, so I decided to get this to help boost his vocabulary - but obviously not like that,' she said.

It turns out that there is an option on the game to set it for junior players, and thus not have any naughty words, but the lady who has Christened her poor daughter Destiny didn't bother looking for it and now wants to blame the manufacturer.

I haven't laughed this much in ages.

Cos, you know, in this world where our every little pleasure is being legislated away, you have to take enjoyment where you can.

Via andrewducker:

Check the site here, which points out that all requests to Wikipedia from certain UK ISPs (like Virgin and Be) are being filtered through proxy servers - so that they can selectively filter it.

For instance, the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer doesn't work (fake 404), but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer does...

Now, I don't actually want to look at the album cover for that particular Scorpions album - not just because the Scorpions are RUBBISH, but because the album cover is... distasteful, to say the least. But I'd quite like to know about the controversy surrounding it, and the fact that the link to the Wikipedia page just comes up as a blank page for me is very annoying indeed. If it said "BLOCKED FOR POSSIBLE CHILD PORN" that would tell me why.

Censoring is one thing, and I can see an argument for censoring images like that one, even though I don't think an image that the model (who is now an adult - older than me by a long way), is happy with and which has the genitalia obscured is ZOMG CHILD PORN. But even so, censoring and trying to hide it, and pretend that you're not? That's a whole 'nother bag of worms, people. Every time I get a blank page now, I'm going to wonder... Is that REALLY a dodgy load, or is it Virgin censoring me? (and the irony of my ISP's name is by no means lost on me)

I also want to know who the Internet Watch Foundation are. Who appoints them? Are they accountable in any way? Who decides whether or not they have exceeded their remit in barring access to something for the whole damn country? Their remit is to block "potentially" illegal content. Not DEFINITELY illegal, but POTENTIALLY. Given our lovely new laws about BDSM, that covers a whole huge fucking swathe of stuff.

Is everyone else cool with this; is it just me? Or is this really as worrying as I think it is? ETA: apparently not just me.

Still not talking about Mumbai. It's too horrible to contemplate. Anton has a great post about it, and if you want a personal angle you should be reading mcgillianaire. In fact, you should be reading mcgillianaire anyway, he's great.

I AM reading a lot about the arrest of Damian Green, though. Lots and lots of people are shouting things like OUTRAGE!!! and STALINESQUE!!!... j_rentoul (why yes, that is THE John Rentoul; The Indy are using LJ for their blog platform now, didn't you know?) has the best entry about this subject AFAIC. Where were all these people saying Gordon must have known! and we're living in a police state! and similar things when it was government ministers being arrested? I mean, various Lib Dems were saying it, as they are saying it now, but where were all the outraged Tories then?

I agree that the police have too much power, and that arresting people for simply doing their job is pretty off, and certainly sending nine anti-terrorism officers to arrest one not-particularly-athletic guy is so over-the-top it's almost comical, but at the end of the day the police are only using the powers that the government has given them. The fault in this instance, as in the instance of Sally Murrer, lies squarely with the government, and if the only way to hold them to account over this flagrant erosion of our freedoms is to exercise the Tory party by arresting one of them then go for it, Met! If this brings Tories onside in the civil liberties debate now that one of their own has been caught up in it, then I believe it is a good thing.

As an aside, does anyone for ONE MOMENT think that if the Tories had been in power and a Labour shadow minister had been arrested all these Tories would be screaming OUTRAGE!!? I think there would be a very large smug coefficient in the Blue corner were the situation reversed. But maybe I'm too cynical.

I might be being a heartless bitch here, but the Tory Immigration Spokesman has had a little taste of the chokey he wants to subject immigrants to, and a bloody great hole has been blasted in the government's assurances that anti-terror stuff will only be used against terrorists - unless anyone is seriously suggesting that Mr Green is a terrorist? No, thought not - so what is there about this situation that is not win?

---

In comics news: WHAT? But... WHAT? NO! Oh well. It'll be publicity I guess.

You know how China censors the internet, and this is a bad thing, and everyone condemned Google for colluding with the Chinese government about it? How do we all feel about the Australian government doing the same?

If you're an Aussie, if you know any Aussies, let them know that their government is planning to implement mandatory censorship of the internet across the entire country. They might like to know.

---

Stuart Jeffries has done a profile of Vince in the Graun (big smooches for the very sexy alex_wilcock for sending me the link). At the bottom is a link to an audio file of the interview for those of an especially fangirly persuasion. The bit that everyone has picked up on is The erotics of Lib Dem economic debate is a topic insufficiently explored. You're not kidding, Stu. You're not kidding.

It appears I may have made a monumental error in voting for Ros. In a comment on Duncan Borrowman's blog, the terrible truth is revealed. Both her and her husband LIKE TEA and enjoy making it! Can anyone inform me of the beverage-making proficiencies of the other two candidates? As a caffeine-allergic person, I want someone who can supply me with a nice glass of brandy fruit juice!

(oh yes, Mr Graham, I think I have your Golden Dozen grabbing ploys beaten with THIS headline! And with nary a mention of the syntax-deprived one!)

Seriously, though, the number of bloggers posting that they have voted for Ros today makes me grin. I just hope that 1, they're not lying and 2, the armchair members plump for the same name I voted for after painstaking consideration.

---

Mr Quist has posted a FABULOUS post on Political Correctness GONE MAD!! and I urge you all to read it, and Dig it. Many thanks to the ever-lovely alex_wilcock for recommending the blog, also.

---

The Award-Winning Alix Mortimer has discovered that a financial crisis is the best time to bury bad news, if you're a government. Still, from a Liberal point of view, they have been burying some GOOD news too... Donald, where's yer troosers... ARGH, CURSE YOU stephmog!!!

---

What?! I am writing a press release! I totally am!

None of it stolen from Lee this time.

Y'all recall Steph's post on photography in public places that I linked to a bit back? rhythmaning had need of it recently, and has blogged about his experience. It makes for sobering reading. It also makes me want to take a camera with me everywhere I go, just to get stopped by the police. I suspect this will be Mark Thomas's next big thing...

Via missdiane, an excellent column on the News for Yahoos about the Olympics and the rank, foul, stinkin' hypocrisy of the IOC. What? I had to mention them ONCE, C'mon, I'm not Chicken Yoghurt...

Quote of the Day comes from a friends-locked post by ginasketch, in which discussion was circling around the kind of men who use the fact that they like to look at breasts as an excuse not to listen to what you are saying. Gina said (QWP, obvs):

one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard a guy say is "If there's a tit in the room I will look at it."

*buys him a mirror*

Another thing that made me laugh out lous today was James Graham's post about Our Glorious Leader's new proposed energy policies.

And finally: nag nag, whinge whinge. Anybody would think I wrote this post on how non-LJ folks can log in really easily for the good of my health. Honestly, non-LJ folks, it's so easy even Lee Griffin can do it [/intentional provocation]. Now go, log in, and vote in my damn blog of the year poll. Nag nag, whinge whinge.

Via lonemagpie comes this heartwarming tale in the Daily Fail of one prude with her head in the sand woman and her fight against sanity reality obscenity.

I'm not denying that words have power, and that some words OUGHT to have power, but is anyone seriously suggesting that a nine year old will not have heard the word twat before? Am I the only person in the world who thinks that the power of words ought to be explained to children? You can't wrap them up in cotton wool forever; surely it's better that they face the world equipped to deal with the words they will encounter in it?

What I find the most hilarious about this is that the woman who describes herself as not a prude, but... has kicked up all this fuss over one word in a Jacqueline Wilson book, while happily reading all the Enid Blyton books to the child in question. Books which promote every questionable attitude under the sun - misogyny, racism, heterocentrism, picking on people of non-standard appearance, and Uncle Quentin - are somehow less offensive than a single instance of the word twat?

Since they made a video response to the petition to make Clarkson prime minister:



... and using my icon, no less! Part of me is annoyed that my taxes went to pay for this. The rest of me is rather pleased that someone in Downing Street appears to actually be a human being.

---

The age banding of books row rumbles on. If you want to join Pterry and Gneil and many many others in signing the petition against it, the link is here.

---

Dear old Boris. Just when you think you've got him pegged, he goes and makes a good point.

---

Septicisle reviews the Book of Dave and finds it somewhat wanting.

Too tired to give you actual thoughts of my own; here are some that belong to other people.

Brilliant internet campaign strategy in Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.

Nick Cohen provides a hymnsheet for secularists to sing to.

In soviet Russia, harrassment sexes you. Note to self, don't EVER move to Russia. Meanwhile, in not-soviet USA, bloggers tax government!

Bwahahahahaha! (in case they put content up, The Green Top has capped it).

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear from a national DNA database, right?

Three from Sp!ked: The Privatisation of Politics, Don't Blame Parents for Cotton Wool Kids (I can't help adding a "because they're sheeple who must follow the crowd!" to that headline), and a nice article about online censorship.

And finally, the Orwell Diaries go live starting tomorrow. Don't forget to add orwelldiaries to your f-list.

- Ka has been named (but not yet christened). He is called Ka-ligula, because I wasn't having Ka-trina or Ulri-Ka and I figured with him being Imperial Purple the name of a Roman emperor would be good. Plus he's small and a bit mad. And he's only got one Horse(power), which he wants to make a senator. Any polls that you might see on Mat's blog intimating that this is not a done deal are sadly mistaken.

- Anti-choice people are trying to claim the credit for the SNP victory in Glasgow East. Oh, this could be fun. In the same way that root canal work is fun.

- According to this page, I am more of a man than andrewducker. It said Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 18%; likelihood of you being MALE is 82%. andrewducker only got 72% likely to be male and 28% likely to be female. Once more, my manliness is proven.

- Best post evar on swearing. Yes, even better than mine.

They've found the deleted scenes from Metropolis! Sci-fi geeks rejoice! And pray Cthulhu we get a showing of it at the FFW next year...

matgb has a highly amusing post about the hypocrisy of the guy who sued the BBC for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and upsetting his delicate religious sensibilities (related Facebook group).

Don't watch anything on YouTube which isn't allowed to be there, else you'll get got.

Creationism hits science classrooms in the UK. and we are funding it via the state school mechanism. *I* am paying for some poor kids to be taught complete bollocks as though it is fact. Amused Cynicism makes comment more eloquently than I ever could.

The Torygraph have picked their top ten ever Doctor Who episodes. No surprises that it's Ten-heavy, but perhaps surprising that it contains no Trout. And, obvs, Caves of Androzani should be #1.

James May is amazed that the BBC are upset with him for drinking a G&T, when really, they should be upset with him for putting slices of lemon in it. LIME, James, LIME!

Jeremy Thorpe says Robert Mugabe must die. I guess there's a limit to everyone's Liberalism, eh?

David Davies shows just how pro-liberty he really is. Hey ho. Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Chicky Yog imagines Gordon as a barman and finds him wanting.

The turkeys HAVE voted for Christmas: Mike at PB is right. Any PPC opposing any of the lot who voted for this is going to have a field day.

I spent last evening losing at Ludo with matgb and burlesque_bunny and her other half, and therefore didn't get around to backreading. Thus, today's linkspam of random things that caught my magpie eye is HUGE! Also, if I haven't hat-tipped you for the link, it's because I forgot who linked me to what. This is because I are a scatty old bint. For which, I apologise. A fair few of them came from m'colleague Douglas over at LC, though.

---

First up, Ros Scott is unsure that too much choice is a good thing. I certainly agree that in terms of schools and (particularly) hospitals, people don't want choice, they just want their local one to be good. If someone is bleeding to death, the last thing you want to have to do is to decide whether St Luke's or the BRI would suit your needs better.

However, it's not just about whether or not people have the ABILITY to make choices, it's about whether or not there aren't better uses of their time, IMHO. A lot of the time I don't want to choose between a set of things because I'd rather be doing something else. Choice of beer is great, choice of buses to get to the pub is not. I just want a bus that's frequent, prompt, and stops where I want it to, not a choice of three, none of which go at convenient times, or stop at the stop I want.

---

Via Neil Gaiman: No to age banding on books.

I agree, to an extent, with age restrictions (but emphatically not censorship for 18-rated films) for violence on films and computer games (less so for sex), because you don't need to put any actual effort into perceiving the violence of a film or computer game, and it could cause some serious trauma to some children. Books? No. I first read the bible cover to cover aged seven (after the Hobbit but before LotR), and you'll be hard pushed to find a book more stuffed with violence than that. I still think it was a worthy use of my time. Reading books that are "unsuitable for children" is an im;portant part of any child's intellectual development.

Similarly, I loved, and still love, books which are clearly aimed at much smaller people than me. Why should I be castigated for this by over-prescriptive publishers?

---

el_staplador makes a good point about feminism, inspired by this article on the BBC:

Feminism, the way I learnt it, isn't about voting for the woman because she's a woman; it's about voting for the best person for the job because of them being the best person for the job. Where the feminism comes in is that, should a woman be the best person for the job, there should be nothing more standing in her way than there is standing in an equivalent man's way. I must admit that I haven't been following the campaign terribly closely, so can't give a considered opinion on the question. (In any case, it's too late now and I have no influence upon it whatsoever.) But honestly, it should be simple: which of the two could do the job better? They're both human beings, no?

I'd go further than the sainted El S. I think that voting for a woman just because she's a woman and not because she's the best person for the job DAMAGES feminism, just as "positive" discrimination is a patronising pat on the head from the patriarchy. YMMV, of course.

---

Much hilarity abounds about Tony Blair's new plan to foster peace and stuff by not invading other nations getting people of different faiths to talk to each other. Like the author of jesus_and_mo, and I think the result of this is rather predictable:



OTOH, maybe cabalamat2 is right, and this will result in more questioning of the overweening power of religion in general. Which would possibly be a good thing. I don't mind religious folks doing whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes, but I don't want them present in my legislature, and I don't want them indoctrinating my child. Shame this still seems to be too much to ask.

---

I originally did the "wife" version of this, and, somewhat predictably, I was atrocious. However:

109 As a 1930s husband, I am Very Superior Take the test!

This contrasts nicely with my result for this test, I feel:

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Hedonism Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... ( percentages and stuff under here ) Big hurrahs for the really, REALLY old guy! I particularly like that the secret to his longevity is "cigarettes, whisky and wild women". An organ which definitely disapproves of wild women, especially in conjunction with whisky and fags is the Daily Hate. Here's a couple of links to stuff about their misogyny and how it negatively affects the whole of society. Via the incredibly talented ginasketch, today is Drawing Day. So get your pencils, or Wacom tablet, out. Via shishmish on the TGT, someone at the BBC has seen the woeful Brainiac: Science Abuse on Sky, and thought that's not a bad idea, but the execution is terrible... I bet we could do better! Am really looking forward to this, even though Hamster is my least favourite of the TG3. And finally, guaranteed way to get me to accept your Facebook, friends request? Unashamed fanboying of this humble blog! As a reciprocal measure, I'd like you all to go and have a nosey at ottenfeed, which is being added to lcreadinglist as we speak ;)

Johann Hari completely rejects the idea that Whitehouse was a cheery British eccentric, and I'm with him. I remember the dark days of her reign vividly, and while I'd never say I'm glad she's dead, I'm glad she's not influencing the powers that be any more.

The Perceptual Differences of Students - purple_pen is frustrated that students seem unable to remember she's a Doctor, when they are quite able to remember that her male colleagues are Doctors. Evidence that perceptions of what women should be are more deeply ingrained in us all than we realise?

---

Road Tax for Motorbikes - I've blogged about this before, but nobody seemed able to answer whether or not it was true, so this is a "just in case" measure. I don't think it's too much to ask that we simply get the same treatment as cagers car drivers. Via uk_bikers

---

The Outlawing of Extreme Porn - I can understand outlawing pictures of actual illegal things, even though I think it's counterproductive. But I can't understand outlawing pictures of people pretending to do illegal things. It smacks of I don't like it, and therefore it ought to be banned. It's at this point I'd remind everyone of John Stuart Mill: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. I don't like extreme porn. I don't find it titillating, and I don't want to look at it. But if other people do want to look at it, and nobody is hurt in the making of it, then I do not think it should be banned. I've heard enough tales of what goes on in the porn industry to think it ought to be better regulated to make sure that actresses and actors are consenting, and I also wish with all my heart that there was at least some porn that I didn't find dull and/or misogynistic and objectifying; but it seems to me that the solution to this is not to make porn even more shameful and restricted.

---

The Realities of a Non-Monogamous Relationship - many people seem to think that if a person is in a non-monogamous relationship of some kind that they must necessarily be shagging about like billy-oh. This is not necessarily the case, as is ably detailed in this article. What does happen though, is that a lot of the pressure and stress and panic of relationships is instantly dissolved. Those of you who can't get your heads around the idea of non-monogamous relationships might find that this helps. It might not, too, like, but it might. Via minnesattva

---

Happy Birthday sideshow_meg!

For those of you who have already read my previous post and therefore won't see the edit: I have turned off comment screening completely. I figure the benefits of the amusement of letting you guys loose on trolls outweigh the downside of having illiterate bollocks on my blog. And I do strongly believe in the old Voltaire, so bring it on, little anonymice!

Those of you who have a, class and b, digital radio will want to tune into BBC7 at eight tonight. A missive from the Weaververse comes that there is

a three-hour celebration of Andy Hamilton's career on BBC7. It includes the Pirates episode of THE MILLION POUND RADIO SHOW, two episodes of OLD HARRY'S GAME, some REVOLTING PEOPLE, and TREVOR'S WORLD OF SPORT.

The interesting bits, I think, are those between the archive shows, including Andy's exposition of the mythos behind the character of Satan.

Doubtless this will be of interest to both ginasketch and innerbrat.

Also of interest to those two, and many others, may be this multiple guess choice quiz about modern sexism (most of the stats referenced are from 2007. It's very very scary reading. There are debates about the veracity of the 77% (73% in the UK) wage disparity claim, but even if that is exaggerated, or even completely untrue, it doesn't throw into dispute any of the other worrying statistics.

* sigh *

Also, as of this month, Gordon has doubled my income tax. Bastard. Still, if anyone still believes that the Labour party supports the working person, this should help sink that canard.