We're not actually going to be able to STOP swine flu, are we? Surely it would be better to LET it spread, get it over with, and then we would have herd immunity? Why are we prolonging the agony? It's not like the world isn't over-populated anyway...

Why yes, I AM feeling particularly grumpy today. I suspect it is something to do with having woken up at half past five in the frigging morning. Still, at least I have heard News Briefing and Farming Today for the first time ever.

This entry was originally posted at http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/883162.html. Please comment there using OpenID, and add the feed of my DW posts to LJ at miss_sb_dw.

5th-Mar-2009 10:08 am - Darwin worship
bbc_scitech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7924423.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7924423.stm
Andrew Marr on why Darwin should not become a deity

Man, I'm glad I'm not allergic to straw.

I happen to think that Darwin was a pretty canny fellow, and admire a lot of his personal stances. But even if I didn't? Even if I thought he was a complete arsehole? That does not change the fact that he was right. nobody with sense deifies Darwin - they just acknowledge that he discovered some interesting facts, with help from previous and contemporary scientists, and refinements by scientists after him. If you don't LIKE those facts, for whatever reason, find some evidence in rebuttal, don't just play the man.

Darwin is not a link in a chain, and if you destroy him, the whole chain collapses. His discoveries are a pixel on a screen. If you obscure his findings the picture becomes less clear, but you can still see what the picture is.

Firstly, I urge you all to watch Being Human, and add beinghumanblog to your f-lists. The show certainly puts all my problems about being a bit of a weirdo into perspective, and if you use the iPlayer to catch up on previous episodes today, you'll only have a few hours to wait until the final episode of the series - it's on at 9 o'clock tomorrow night - and the horrible cliffhanger at the end of episode five won't be torturing you the way it has me.

I love this show because it shows Russell T Davies and the writers of Demons what a British Buffy would really look like - i.e. completely different from Buffy in tone and content, while somehow evoking the same vibe - and, specifically, knocks the bag of arse that is Crotchw00t into a cocked hat. Grumpy McSnugglebutt thinks George is a bit annoying, which I can kind of see, but I have grown to love him, and Mitchell is gorgeous, which always helps. But the best character? The best character is Annie, whose slightly stereotyped writing is overcome by the fantastic performance of the actress. I can't WAIT for tomorrow to see her ( SPOILER! ) and I will be cheering her on with gusto. Good on BBC3 for already commissioning the next series!

Secondly, witness Nemi's reaction to Cyan's boyfriend's sexism:



I ♥ Nemi. You can add her to your LJ f-list at daily_nemi

Thirdly, via Amused Cynicism (cabalamat2), a cartoon about the impending doom of the entertainment industry:



Bwahahahahahahahaha!

...

I blog about all this to distract myself from the incoherent rage that reading this made well up inside me (hat-tip Chicky Yog). David Milliband and Jacqui Smith? I detest you both, and the sooner you are both in the dole queue, the happier I will be, you venal, corrupt, evil, scumbags.

I can't put into words how disgusted and angry I am with this. Children are not going to be SCARED by Cerrie. They might be curious as to why she only has one arm, in which case their parents might have to have a little talk with them, but surely encouraging parents and children to talk about this sort of thing is GOOD? I don't think this is about children being scared at all, I think this is about parents being scared to discuss things with their children. And you know what? I'm scared to discuss some things with MY child too. But that's not a reason to not do it, or to lash out at the cause of the discussion, especially if that cause has done nothing wrong. That's a reason to talk to other parents, and get advice on how to broach subjects, and things like that.

Parenthood isn't easy, people. Grow a spine and deal with that, and your kids will be better for it. What are you going to do if your child runs into an amputee or similar in real life? You can tell the BBC to stop showing them real life, can you?

Idiots.

The other thing that has pissed me off today is the media storm around Gail Trimble on University Challenge. She's in The Graun, the Fail, The Bun... Isn't anyone else annoyed by the whole OMG AN INTELLIGENT WOMAN! WE'VE NEVER SEEN ONE OF THOSE BEFORE!!!eleventy!! tone of the coverage? There are SHITLOADS of intelligent women about, and not one of the papers would be screeching about this if Gail were a man; nor would they be "discussing" looks and sexiness if she were male, as she has just said herself on Woman's Hour.

All you ablist and misogynist folks? You can just sod off now, you're making my head hurt.

You spent a long time on the graphics for this, guys. Would it have killed you to get someone with a more than rudimentary grasp of English to spend 30 seconds proof-reading it? Because now you just look like rank amateurs. I don't want you to look like rank amateurs. I want you to look like you know what you are doing.

discreet adj 1 careful to prevent suspicion or embarrassment, especially by keeping a secret. 2 avoiding notice; inconspicuous.

discrete adj separate; distinct.

Yes, the vast majority of people don't care if you use the wrong word, so long as they get your meaning. But those of us who do care? We really care. It hurts your campaign to not spend that small amount of time asking your grammar geek friend to proof-read your ad. It really does.

---

I am fully aware that, given Sod's Law, I will have made some horrendous typo or error in this post. You have my full permission to let rip at me about it. But before you do, bear in mind that in moaning about this, I am, also, giving the campaign more publicity ;)

... or does anyone else think that the Liberal Democrats' classification of sexual orientation, abuse, maternity, Relationships, work/life balance, carers, family and body image as women's issues does more harm than good? I mean, the fact that the Women's Policy Group is examining these issues implies that the party thinks that they are nothing whatsoever to do with men. This has a number of effects.

1. It reinforces the idea that men don't need to worry about these issues, when in fact, they do


2. It makes sure that these issues are sidelined as unimportant in a party and a parliament which is still dominated by men, albeit mostly the kind of men who are quite open to women's issues


3. It gives the party's implicit approval to the classification of parenting and caring as women's work - especially in the use of the term maternity rather than parenting

Now, I'm not saying I don't want these issues to be examined, or that I don't think that they are important. I think that they are very important. I think that they should be front and centre of party policy, not shunted off into some gender-segregated sideline, so that the men can ignore them and get on with the important stuff like blowing people up and building railways. We're never going to achieve equality of opportunity when things which are perceived as women's issues (like domestic violence) are sidelined as things which don't affect humanity as a whole, when things which disproportionately affect men (muggings, for example) are considered general things which we ALL need to be concerned about.

There's no such thing as an issue which solely affects women, and I think that by separating ourselves out, all we do is perpetuate the perception of women as other, different, abnormal, lesser.

Issues which affect human beings affect us all. For every woman who is denied meaningful employment or equal pay, there is a man who must bear full financial responsibility for another human being, etc. The sooner we all realise that sexism hurts ALL of us, and that we need to act together as humans to end senseless discrimination, and not see each other as an enemy to be conquered, the better off we will all be.

I know you mean well. At least, I hope you mean well, but this? This is not workable. Cinema age ratings work because there is a person on the door of the cinema who can judge the age of the person trying to get in and demand ID if necessary. Video age ratings work less well, because although shop assistants can enforce them at the point of purchase, they cannot be enforced once the video has been bought. The only way proper enforcement of video age ratings would be possible would be to have some sort of age detection system on the box, or perhaps the player, which would not let you open the box until you were old enough. I'm sure you will agree that this would be an incredibly expensive solution, and would create untold inconvenience for all concerned, and would still be circumventable by anyone determined enough.

Internet age ratings? Would work like videos, not like the cinema. There is no possible way to create a system which stops children seeing things that you have decided they ought not to see, without preventing adults also from seeing things which they are perfectly entitled to see. You are not my nanny, and I object to you behaving as though I want or need one. And, to be quite frank, I am pig sick of your government justifying every illiberal, intrusive, arsehole-ish measure with either we have to do this or the turrists will get you or won't somebody please think of the childrun!!!!

Seriously, just fuck off now, OK?

Over the last week or so I have been having a conversation over email with the very lovely alex_wilcock. It's ranged over many topics, but as you would possibly expect between he and I, a lot of it has been about Doctor Who (Alex is, of course, the author of the much-vaunted "How Doctor Who Made Me a Liberal"). A lot of the discussion has ranged around liberalism and sex and money, as well, but mainly, it's been Who.

A large part of what we've talked about is which is our favourite incarnation of the Doctor and why, and which eras of the show we like best and why (at the risk of annoying the good folks at the Indy - scroll down to "middle-aged Doctor Who fans" - this is not always the same thing). Inevitably, this has involved discussion of which are our least favourites, too. And while I can agree that the first season of McCoy was rubbish, and that Pip and Jane Baker were mostly awful (not necessarily positions Alex has advanced, but ones that are prevalent in fandom), both of those had more redeeming features, in my eyes, than the era of Who which started with Christopher Eccleston declaring he was going to wipe every last stinking dalek out of the sky to save his girlfriend. The final Christopher Eccleston episode was the tipping point, for me.

Doctor Who is probably the nearest thing to a religion I have. It's shaped my mind from a very early age, and I believe in it's core values and worship regularly. My first memory of anything is of Tom Baker turning into Peter Davison. Alex says that Doctor Who fostered a free spirit, encouraged me to start reading, instilled a passionate internationalism, made me think about ecology, and give me a lasting hatred of prejudice; green scaly rubber people are people too. And, of course, it made me want to change the world, and believe that an individual can make a difference, and I couldn't agree with that more. It's always been a show with a moral message, and that message is an essentially Liberal one - even if the world IS a horrible scary place full of fascistic monsters, one person can change that by doggedly doing the right thing, and this is what the right thing is.

It's ironic, then, that my first major issue with this era of Who is the Lonely God schtick. The Doctor isn't, shouldn't be, can't be a God. He's a hero because of his fallibility and weakness, not in spite of it. He's a hero because throughout time and space he tries to do the right thing; not always succeeding, but always trying. Think Tom Baker's Have I the right? discussion with Sarah-Jane Smith in Genesis of the Daleks. Think Jon Pertwee patiently explaining to UNIT that actually, Silurians and Sea Devils have as much right to live on this planet as we do. Think Colin Baker's monologue in The Two Doctors about how Peri is too focussed on humanity, and that other species are important too. Think Christopher Eccleston trying to negotiate with the Nestene Consciousness. My Doctor would not have flushed the Racnoss down the plughole without a second glance. My Doctor would not have committed genocide against even the daleks, especially not when he had been shown a mere six episodes earlier that daleks can be redeemed (and yes, I am awake of Sylvester McCoy's actions with the Hand of Omega. I think that's an aberration too). You can't imagine Tennant asking if he has the right, can you? He is the no-second-chances Doctor. The Doctor who can't see shades of grey. The Doctor who doesn't allow for the possibility of rehabilitation - just look at his eternal punishment meted out at the end of Human Nature/Family of Blood. He has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner to the whole of the universe like The Inquisitor in Red Dwarf, even though he KNOWS that there are mechanisms in place to do this via the rule of law. He believes in his own Godhood, and takes on the mantle willingly. My Doctor might have been an arrogant son of a bitch, but he knew he was mortal.

My second major issue with Tennant-Era Who is the racism. Not skin colour racism. Species racism. All the of aliens are bad guys. All of them. Even in Eccleston era, we get Jabe the tree-lady (who, although her species originates on earth, is definitely not human). In Tennant Era, like a dyed-in-the-wool Dacre-ite, The Doctor believes that humanity is the only race worth bothering with; and even then, not all of them. The Ood were a ham-fisted attempt at a not-evil alien, but even they are counted as Other, as disposable, by the show, and by their second appearance has become monster-of-the-week. Contrast this with earlier incarnations of Who, even up to and including Eccleston.

My third major issue with Tennant Era Who is Rose. In Eccleston's time, I liked Rose. I could identify with her. She was a ballsy, confident young woman with an enquiring mind and an adventurous spirit. Sure, she wasn't well-educated, but that didn't mean she wasn't intelligent. Yes, Eccleston!Doctor was a bit clingy to her, but you could understand that. She was the first person he had allowed himself to care about since the Time War. When he turned into Tennant, though, it all became a bit more worrying. She lost her independence and her adventuring spirit. She fell in love with him, and he with her. This led to a series of things which were completely unforgiveable, in my eyes. He endangered the universe, just to say goodbye to her. Contrast this with how he has behaved to the departures of other companions, even his own granddaughter, and you realise that it's a dramatic change in the nature of the character. On top of this, even after Rose had gone, he showed favouritism, something he has never EVER done before. He treated Martha Jones abominably, because he was still hung up on Rose. You might say that this is simply realism; showing the Doctor's humanity. But he's NOT HUMAN. He's an ALIEN. He treated Donna pretty shabbily too, twice over. And why is it that every female (and gay/bi/omni male) character in the show now has to make goo-goo eyes at him? He's not Captain Kirk! He's not sexually irresistible. Hell, I fancy him a hell of a lot less now than I did when he was a snuggly bloke with a blonde afro and a technicolour dreamcoat. A LOT less.

My fourth issue is the actor himself. I realise that this is a personal foible that not many will agree with, but I don't think David Tennant is all that. I didn't think much of him in Blackpool, I detested his Casanova, and I wanted to beat his head against a wall when he was Daft Jamie in Medicinal Purposes. I find his gurning and shouting annoying, and his flared nostrils Rimmeresque. I'm shallow enough that I would forgive this if I thought he was sexy, but sadly, I don't. It's a shame, really, because when he's NOT acting, he's lovely. In interviews, he is intelligent, considered, and attentive to detail. He's also very clearly a Who fanboy. It's just his acting is not to my taste at all (in this sense, he is the anti-Christopher Lee, whom I adore as an actor, but detest as an arrogant cock in real life).

So yes, all in all, the most recent era of Who has been my least favourite, and the current incumbent is my least favourite Doctor. I haven't even watched all of the last series. I'd say that perhaps this is a sign that I am growing up, and putting aside childish things, if I thought that was any way to proceed. But I don't, and if I did, I wouldn't be as glued to SJA as I have been.

You see, in the the Sarah-Jane Adventures, I see a lot of the things I miss about Who. Sarah-Jane has the moral centre which the modern Doctor seems to lack. She has more than one person in the "companion" role, and although one of these is her adopted son, she doesn't play favourites. She makes mistakes, but she owns up to them and faces up to them. There's no sexual tension, and there doesn't need to be because (and you can laugh at hearing this from a randy bisexual in an open relationship if you must) not everything in life is about sex. And, I must confess, the feminist in me loves watching (and sharing with my daughter) a science fiction show in which the lead character is a strong, capable, yet emotionally centred woman, and in which every single episode passes the Bechdel test. Which makes it a double crying shame that when The Grand Moff Sexist takes over the showrunner role in Who next year, Sarah-Jane's future is in doubt. You see, despite the fact that the show is the highest rated show CBBC has ever produced, if there's nobody to take over Rusty's role, the show will be axed...

At which point, a very small but very determined spawn of mine will be leading the protests.

Did everyone see Prime Minister's Question Time today? I haven't read my f-list yet, but I suspect much merriment will have been made at the expense of dear old Gordon's Freudian slip today, in which he talked about saving the world when he meant to say saving the banks. This is example number one of the length of the very long string which connects Westminster to reality. Gordon Brown really does honestly think that his actions in the last couple of months have saved the world; he genuinely doesn't get that all he's done is keep his surfboard flat enough so that he personally has ridden on top of the vast wave of excrement that's engulfing the rest of us. Nor does he seem to grasp that he could fall off and be in the shit with the proles yet.

Example number two comes from later in the same set of PMQs. Nick Clegg mentions being visited by a constituent at his surgery who is a single mother. If you watch the clip here, it starts at about 14.30. The house erupts in uproarious laughter as soon as he mentions that he was visited by a single mother, and there are many catcalls - one of which sounds like a female MP shouting "shag me! shag ME!" - presumably in reference to Our Glorious Leader's reputed 30 lays.

The catcalls and laughter come from both Labour and the Tories. Even with a microphone, you can't hear what Cleggy is saying. Clearly there are insinuations that because Cleggy has shagged SO many people, the children of this single mother must be his. And it just goes to show how completely out of touch both Labour and the Tories are. They don't even know who this woman is, who is suffering at the hands of uncaring bureaucracy, but they'd rather make insinuations about her sex life than actually worry about the fact that the Revenoo are going to be dragging her to court over THEIR cock-up.

35 poor people A WEEK are being taken to court by the Revenoo because they miscalculate, and then, when the recipient has spent the Revenoo's cock-up, they decide they want it back. THIRTY-FIVE PEOPLE A WEEK. But is this important? No, what's important is scoring some cheap-ass point about Nick Clegg putting it about a bit.

That pisses me off slightly.

1. Thirty is not really that big a number. It's smaller than mine. It's smaller than a lot of other people I know. Nobody outside Westminster cares. Really, they don't.
2. Even if it was the biggest number in the world, it makes NO difference whatsoever to whether or not a politician can do their job. Or have Labour forgotten Robin Cook? And have the Tories forgotten Alan Clark?
3. Clegg was doing his damn job, representing his constituent.
4. The catcallers were impeding him in doing his job
5. That sort of shit is not big and it's not clever.

The thing is, I can quite easily put myself in this woman's shoes. Hell, you all know I have had my issues with the Revenoo. And before anyone suggests it, I haven't shagged Clegg (even if I wanted to, it's hardly likely the sentiment would be returned, given my public sentiments on the man). And, to give Brown due credit, he did make a reasonable fist of the answer, when the rabble had eventually calmed down. But this woman has a serious question, and she deserves a serious answer. She does not deserve to be used as an ad hominem points scoring exercise.

When it suits them, politicians are forever on about re-engaging people with politics. They talk about voter apathy and disenfranchisement. IS IT ANY FUCKING WONDER? This woman is at her wits' end, and she goes to see her MP, and he agrees to try to help her, and this is the reception he gets? This sort of behaviour shows that the catcallers don't take their obligations to their constituents seriously in the slightest, and if they don't take us seriously, why should we take them seriously?

Those of you who have been reading a while will know that I have had... shall we say "issues" with the Inland Revenue before. When Mat moved in I decided to stop claiming tax credits because I couldn't bear going through the whole sickening process again; and even though he's not currently earning anything, I'd rather try to survive on my barmaid's wage of less than ten grand a year for the whole family than go through the two years of hell and contradictory bollocks I went through to get them in the first place again. So I haven't claimed tax credits for over a year.

This morning I got a letter. Apparently they have overpaid me £200. They want it back. I don't know when the FUCK they think they overpaid me £200 when they haven't paid me a single penny since Mat moved in, but they're threatening me with legal action.

I haven't got £200.

Right at this moment in time, I haven't got £2.

And Gordon fucking magnanimous Brown thinks this is the solution to poverty? I'm glad I didn't know that skinflint bastard was in Halifax yesterday until after he'd left. Otherwise I might be in a rather small cell by now.

Do you think that gay people ought to be legally prevented from having sex, like 24% of Britons? Or that monogamy is natural and polyamory is unnatural like 70% of Britons? Do you think that men who sleep around are studs who deserve to be lauded, but women who do so are slags to be condemned?

The Graun/Observer's Sex Uncovered survey is by turns fascinating and terrifying.

I don't understand why people think that being judgemental about other people's relationships is acceptable. If the person across the street is celibate, or if they are having orgies every night, why does it matter to YOU? And yet, I think this will only be cured if we all start being honest with each other.

A few weeks ago, when I was drunk, my dad and I had a conversation. We were talking about a friend of ours who has several lady friends, but lives alone. He's quite open about the fact, and both he and his lady friends are happy with the situation. We were both talking in a good for him kind of way, and my dad said well, I don't believe that monogamy is natural anyway! Before I knew what I was saying I replied Well, nor do I, and nor does Mat, and that's why we both have extra-curricular activities. And then when I woke up sober hungover the following morning, I was horrified... I'm not so sure I should have been.

The condemnation of the gay, and the bi, and the poly, and the open, happens because we all collude in this illusion that heterosexual monogamy is not just statistically the largest group, but the most desirable group, and we all pretend we're in it even when we're not for fear of what other people will think.

Well, you know what? I am not normal. I am in an open relationship. I am bisexual. I have had 37 sexual partners in my lifetime, and I do not think that this is an excessive number. I'm not normal. I am HAPPY to be abnormal. Why do we all aspire to be normal anyway? It's an aspiration to boring mediocrity. Life is so much more interesting with diversity. The world would be a very dull place if we were all the same.

How dare you suggest that people should respect female politicians simply for being female, you patronising idiot? Do you just not get that what you are doing is the corollary of and the reinforcement of this kind of attitude?



I have no respect for Blears and Harperson and Smith and their ilk because they are the product of positive discrimination, and they illustrate my point that it is awful. They are clearly vastly out of their depth. They are clearly ill-suited to the positions they fill. They toe the party line with fanaticism because they are too fearful or too stupid to think for themselves. They are Stepford politicians, and they IN NO WAY ought to be respected just for being women when they give fodder to the sort of people who claim that women are ill-suited to politics.

I have HUGE respect for people like Lynne Featherstone, Diane Abbott, hell, even an arch-Tory like Teresa May, who have made it on their own damn merits and not been pushed forward by a statist party machine. But I have no respect whatsoever for people who are just there to fill quotas, because THEY are the ones making it harder for the rest of us by making it easier for sexist arseholes to believe that women are incompetent.

...

Sorry. Sometimes listening to Woman's Hour will do this to me. Carry on.

I have to admit, it's been ten years or so since I did criminal law, but I seem to recall that appeals to the Court of Appeal can result in increased sentences, as well as decreased ones. Anyone more up to date than me care to confirm or deny?

Because these bastards deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. They killed someone, and they gave someone else physical and mental scars that will NEVER HEAL, and they still thought it was funny right up until the guilty verdict came back. Their MOTHERS were laughing about it. Scumbags like that deserve the key throwing away.

I was, um, interested by thomas's response to Jo Crispy Strips' recent post. However, I realise that I might be too close to this issue to be objective. I therefore present a poll:

Poll #1273508 Sexism at Work
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

The best way to discourage sexism at work is to:

I mean, two of those options look completely ridiculous to me, but Thomas appeared to be seriously suggesting option one: no consequences for the harasser, the victim is blamed and made to make all the effort. I know that there are those who think that option three is sensible too - I guess they ignore the fact that if bullies can't bully someone because of their gender, they'll find another reason.

Option two is especially important for men, of course. Women can only do so much to end sexism and sexual harrassment in the workplace: at some point, men have to say hang on, maybe we ought to stop doing this, and challenge other men when THEY do it...

But maybe I'm wrong... Tell me, oh internets, what d'you reckon?

I got some interesting comments on the Facebook feed of this post. Apparently, the reason that equality isn't front and centre on the Lib Dem website is because it's not front and centre in policy development. So, you know, can't really blame the website folks: they just put up there what they are told to put up there.

The policy departments are:

# BETTER GOVERNMENT
# COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
# COMMUNITIES
# CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
# ECONOMY
# EDUCATION AND SKILLS
# ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL AFFAIRS
# HEALTH
# INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE
# JUSTICE AND CRIME
# PENSIONS AND BENEFITS
# TRANSPORT

The web monkey I was talking to said that he didn't know where equality was on the agenda, but it might be in "better government".

Fail, party. Epic fail. This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Equality is not just a matter for the Campaign For Gender Balance, or DELGA, or Ethnic Minority Lib Dems, or any of the other in-party pressure groups. It's not just a women's issue that nobody really wants to deal with. It's not just something that can be brushed under the carpet of better government as if government is the only area where equality is an issue. Equality is something that affects us all, in every walk of life and every workplace. We are all discriminated against to some extent for irrational reasons - for being female, or black, or bisexual, or in a wheelchair, or being a bloke with long hair, or dressing in non-standard clothing... I'm going to quote the preamble to the constitution of the party again, sorry, but it's important:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms.

Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world's peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources.

You CANNOT DO ANY OF THIS WITHOUT FOCUSSING ON EQUALITY. So why are we not doing so?

I think it's because, as members of the party, we have all signed up to that constitution, and we all believe it in our blood and our bones, and we are therefore prey to the fatal assumption that everyone else naturally thinks this way too. But you know what? They don't. After 18 months in my workplace, challenging every instance of racist behaviour, I still get expressions of surprise when people tell me a racist joke and I tell them that it's not funny. I still get treated like a piece of meat by various male customers. People still openly denigrate homosexuals.

Most people, and probably quite a lot of Lib Dems, have some innate, ingrained prejudices which need to be challenged and fought against. And Godsdammit, we should be at the forefront of the fight! Why aren't we?

Who do I need to rant at to get something done about this? Because right now, I am SPITTING RAGE. alex_wilcock, you're on FPC, can you do something about this?

Dear grinning old perverts,

I am a barmaid. I serve beer. I am NOT there for you to grope. My body is mine, not yours. Did nobody tell you that it's socially unacceptable to grope people without permission? Or do you think that because I'm a barmaid, it doesn't matter whether you have my permission or not?

It doesn't matter how many drinks you offer to buy me.
It doesn't matter how much you smile at me.
It doesn't matter how regular a customer you are.

I DO NOT WANT YOUR HANDS ON MY ARSE. The sooner Jo Crispy-Strips' Feminist Utopia comes into being, the better.

no love,

Jennie.

Today's Nemi is oddly fitting for the way my brain is going today:



Patronising blokes telling women not just what they are allowed to do, but what they are allowed to WANT to do don't half wind me up. For instance, via confusiontempst and dmatthewman comes the news that David Willets thinks that women ought to stop having aspirations to getting decent jobs and get back in the kitchen and make men some pie, preferably while giving birth...

Unlike David Willets, I actually LIKE the fact that women are allowed to use their intelligence these days. It makes for a more interesting world. Hell, it makes for more interesting drama, as anyone who watched yesterday's fab episode of Sarah-Jane Adventures could tell you. Also, radio Four was dull this morning so we put the CD of OHG series 6 on. Annette Crosbie is AWESOME. The character she plays is full of sharp wit, and gets one up on Satan quite regularly. Intelligent and pro-active women RULE.

Conservatives on the other side of the Atlantic seem to be having difficulty with this idea, too. OMG THE WOMAN MADE IT ALL GO WRONG!!

Hey, I have an idea! Instead of trying to push women as a whole back into the kitchen so that the poor mens can get back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, why don't we just let people make their own decisions about how they want to lead their lives, and point out to all humans that they aren't entitled to ANY sort of relationship without behaving like reasonable people and EARNING someone else's love? Oh yeah, sorry, that would be SENSIBLE, wouldn't it?

* headdesk *

stephashley_fd posted a link recently to an article on Comedy Central which jokily linked each incarnation of The Doctor with a presidential candidate. It is clear from Steph's post that she thought I would find it amusing, and I suspect that there are many Doctor Who fans who WOULD find it very amusing.

I suspect that they fall overwhelmingly into the 2005 and beyond intake, though. Those of us who are fans from the old days spent 16 years getting the piss taken, and (in the case of female fans) being told that we didn't, actually, exist. When the new series started, and was critically acclaimed, and people loved it, we naively thought that this would stop. Imagine our horror to find it, instead, perpetuated by the makers of the new series in order to make themselves look even cooler. They want everyone to believe the myths about Old Who and it's fans, because they want to be seen as the saviours of a fallen brand. This engenders something of a touchiness among (particularly female) Old Who fans when we are confronted with the stereotypes on offer in the above-linked article. I therefore present a top ten of common myths (and one fact) about Old Who fandom for the enlightenment of those who are not really embedded with fandom in general or Who fandom in particular.

Some of these myths are perpetuated by lazy journalists who never watched the show; some of them spring from fandom itself. All of them are going to get SOMEBODY hopping mad if you state them as fact.

Myths

1, Old Who fans were and are always male

My mum is an Old Who fan. My (female) boss is an Old Who fan. I am an Old Who fan. I would reckon that a good eighty percent of the Old Who fans I know are female, and certainly the ones who are most embedded and active in fandom are female. Now, I am aware of the problems of extrapolating from anecdotal evidence, but this is, none the less, proof that not all Old Who fans are male.

2, Only geeks watched Doctor Who before Rusty saved it.

If that was the case, the geek population of the UK is extraordinarily high. In it's heyday, Who was getting 16-17 MILLION viewers (that's almost double the most popular of Rusty's episodes). Whole families would sit and watch Doctor Who together (mine included). Even in the dark days of the late eighties it was getting four and five million. And yes, I know there were less channels and no iPlayer then, but we DID have videos, and that's still a hell of a lot of geeks.

3, Old Who fans are sad, sexless losers, who live with their mums

I am living proof that geeks have sex. My little girl has a schoolmate called Tegan. I would also submit that given the above-average intelligence of the average Who-fan, they are actually LESS likely to be living with their mums and jobless than the kind of Jock (as I believe the American term is) who would espouse this kind of noxious view.

4, Old Who never had strong, intelligent female characters. Rose was the first proper one of those.

Barbara Wright. Dodo Chaplet. Zoe the computer genius. DOCTOR Liz Shaw. Sarah-Jane Smith. Romana. Nyssa of Traken. Leela, the warrior. Peri Brown, the botanist (yes, I know most of the boys were too distracted by her cleavage to listen to what she was saying, but...). For fuck's sake, ACE. And that's just the companions. If we go down the route of all female characters, there are literally hundreds of strong women, both protagonistic (Brigadier Bambera) and antagonistic (The Rani).

5, We all like cosplay, and particularly every last one of us has a huge long scarf and an ever-present bag of jelly babies

Some people do like cosplay. Some don't. Of those that do, not everyone likes dressing up as Four. Not every old who fan even LIKES Four.

6, Tom Baker was the only one of the old ones worth watching. And CERTAINLY nobody EVER liked Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy

Every one of the old Doctors has his fans and his detractors. Sylvester McCoy, though, won the best Doctor Ever poll in Doctor Who magazine at least once, and Colin Baker had more newspaper coverage in his day than Tennant does now. Tom Baker was merely the longest serving Doctor. Some might say that this was because he was the best. Others might contend that (unlike Troughton and Davison) he just didn't know when to quit, and he has manifestly regretted it ever since, as is obvious by his refusal to have anything to do with the show at almost any time since he left.

7, Daleks flew for the first time in 2005

Depending on how you define it, it was either in Revelation of the Daleks (Colin Baker, 1986) or Remembrance of the Daleks (Sylverster McCoy, 1989). It was not Rusty's genius that made daleks fly.

8, The sets were wobbly, and the acting was rubbish, in Old Who

In this matter, I bow to the superior knowledge of Toby Hadoke. He has watched every single episode of Doctor Who, and he has spotted eight second of scenery wobble - that's eight seconds in hundreds of hours of programming. I suspect that the Six O'Clock News can't claim that level of success. As for the acting... well, yes, Alexei Sayle. But on the other hand, the roster of high-class, Shakespearean actors who were queueing up for cameos, and the number of acclaimed actors who had their first big break in Who, is astounding.

9, The special effects were always rubbish

By modern standards, the special effects look rubbish now. At the time, and especially given the budget constraints Who had to work within, they were state of the frigging art.

10, Doctor Who fans are shy and retiring creatures who are easily bullied and easily cowed

For which, see the one fact, below.

One Fact

Doctor Who fans, particularly female Doctor Who fans, have spent many, MANY years being forged in the fires of conflict and pisstake. If you take their writings without permission and publish it for your own profit, and then try to tell them they should be grateful you are paying them attention? They WILL hand you your arse on a plate, and tell all their friends to boycott your poxy little book as well.

Seriously, it's not about "nettiquette", and it's not about academic texts, Mr Walker: it's about you being a thieving little douchebag and trying to profit by presenting the views of others as if they were your own. If the Daily Fail can't get away with it with Beau Bo, what makes you think you can with Who fans?

((X-posted theyorkshergob and dw_academy))

I do so love it when a man tries to frame the terms of reference of feminism...

Anyway, I have been inspired by Lee Griffin, and now, as a white person, I am going to try and define the terms of racism. Let's have a thought experiment, shall we? I promise it won't be offensive and triggery AT ALL to those of you who have suffered at the hands of racists in the past! Are we ready?

Peter is a Guardian-reading, Lib Dem, white British guy who is an anti-racist, and campaigns for the relaxation of immigration laws. Paul is a white British guy who is a member of the BNP, reads the Daily Mail, and wears union jack boxer shorts. Paul also claims to be anti-racist, but believes that immigration should be completely stopped. He posits that one is not a racist if one objects to immigration, because objecting to immigration is nothing to do with race, it's to do with nationality. As long as you are British, Paul doesn't care what colour your skin is, and therefore thinks he can't be racist... What's that you say? He's talking complete bollocks? Well, yes, he is. He's a far-right nut job who is trying to appropriate someone else's labels in order to make himself more palatable to the public at large, but is actually the very opposite of what he claims to be...

Now, OK, I admit, Paul is an extreme example, but even if he was a Guardian-reading Lib Dem who believed that only British people should be allowed on British soil, he would still be racist no matter how much he tried to squeal that he wasn't. There are some parts of an ideology which are arguable, and there are some parts which are essential to the meaning of the term.

Supporting a woman's right to choose is one of those things in feminism. Saying you can be an anti-choice feminist is like saying you can be a pro-big government Libertarian, or an atheist who believes in God. It just DOESN'T FIT THE FUCKING DEFINITION. I don't get what's so difficult to understand about this, but I am FUCKING SICK TO DEATH of MEN trying to tell me what feminism entails. Grow a womb, Lee.

The Downing Street website that we all thought was great because it was a Wordpress install, and must therefore have been veryveryvery cheap? Cost £100,000. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS. For fuck's sake! I could do it at home for nothing and all I would need is a computer, and internet connection, and a small aubergine...! Now, yes, that IS cheaper than other government websites, but it's also fucking ridiculous for something on free software with a ripped-off theme.

When is this government going to get even a tiny clue about how the intertubes work? There must be at least one of them who could say hang on a minute....

---

And speaking of WRONG in the government, here is a brilliant dissection of them being WRONG in respect of the citizen's equality before the law.

---

They're talking about choice in schools on the radio again. Is it me, or is this the perfect example of how most politicians are trapped in the Westminster bubble? Yes, in London, it's meaningful to have a choice of schools/hospitals/post offices, etc., because there's so bloody many of them in such a relatively small space. In normal, not London places, there is ONE of each of these things, if you're lucky. You can't choose between one. You just want that one to be good.

When the government shuts things down in the name of choice and streamlining, IT IS REMOVING ESSENTIAL SERVICES FROM PEOPLE.

Bastards.

---

Good news? Mitch Benn is releasing his new single on the first of September, and it has Rock Wankman on it and everything! YAY? Nay. It's frigging iTunes only. AGAIN.

* stabs Steve Jobs *

Just because you aren't Microsoft, doesn't mean that restrictive monopolisation of a market sector is GOOD, you know.

---

Hmm. I appear to be rather grumpy today. Sorry 'bout that.