Inside the controversial ‘no men allowed’ office space set to launch in the UK – featuring a breastfeeding room, a bar and a beauty parlour (and its founders insist it PROMOTES equality)

I was called a couple of days ago by a Daily Mail journalist in connected with this piece, published in yesterday’s paper, in which I’m quoted at the end. I think the lady missed a nuance. I bemoaned the fact that men-only organizations and spaces are constantly acceding to demands by women to be admitted, while women steadfastly refuse to allow men to enter their spaces (as the bishop said to the actress).

Despite the reasons given by women for setting up women-only spaces, the motivation that’s never mentioned is female anxiety (but let’s never forget, women are strong, women are amazing.) Some women are anxious around men, and will welcome such spaces. The other side of the coin is that when they’re not in women-only spaces, that anxiety will return, and possibly be increased, because they haven’t built up their emotional resilience around men.

Camilla Long: “It’s funny how women won’t own up to being wary of taking on Paul Merton”

Paul Merton sits alongside a Mulberry handbag, which producers preferred to Camilla Long as a guest on Have I Got News For You

Sunday Times caption: Paul Merton sits alongside a Mulberry handbag, which producers preferred to Camilla Long as a guest on Have I Got News For You

A tip of the hat to Camilla Long for her piece in today’s Sunday Times. The headline in the print edition is:

It’s funny how women won’t own up to being wary of taking on Paul Merton

It’s softened in the online edition, with the removal of the implication of women being fearful of a man, to:

It’s funny how women won’t own up to being wary of Have I Got News For You

The article:

You can tell there’s a new series of Have I Got News For You on the box because Ian Hislop and Paul Merton have been wheeled out for the traditional incendiary interview in which it is yet again suggested that women are, shall we say, differently abled when it comes to tossing off endless dinner party jokes about novichok poisonings or Paul Hollywood’s love handles.

Yes, yes, women are always asked on the show, sighed Hislop, but are “too reticent”, to appear. But what does that mean? Too modest, too sensible, too wise? Or too cowardly, too stupid, or, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, just not funny enough? “The producers always ask more women than men,” said Merton. “More women say no.” The only female politician to have hosted, of course, isn’t even a woman: Ann Widdecombe.

It is a measure of exactly how mad this pointless woman funny/not funny non-debate has got that there have since been approximately 4,000 opinion pieces screeching that women shouldn’t have to offer themselves up to the cameras for Hislop’s preening delectation and that comedy panel shows are chuntering boys’ clubs and they’re outdated anyway and who wants to be professionally funny anyway and why can’t everything be like a slightly less lesbian version of Woman’s Hour?

Nadine Dorries, a woman I’d pay not to see on my television set ever, went as far as to claim she has not appeared on the show since 2012 because she found it “too vicious”.

Only I think Dorries is being a bit disingenuous here. I looked up the footage of her appearance and, my God, let’s just say that the real reason is probably something a bit more to do with the fact no one ever wants to be made to look like that much of a droning pillock by Hislop. Awkward, sniffy, defensive — she clearly thought he shouldn’t have dared pick her up on a single one of her ludicrous statements. And obviously, he should have done. That’s his job. It was her mistake to appear on the show, not theirs.

Therein lies the issue: isn’t the fact women don’t want to go on comedy panel shows a bit more their problem than it is the men’s? As Hislop shrugs: “It’s not compulsory.” They’re not going to cancel it, not after 54 series, because a few women, who are basically too frightened to appear but are also too frightened to admit it, are complaining that a show that takes the piss, takes the piss. This is not how life works.

For what it is worth, my own experience of the show has always been almost disappointingly courteous and gentlemanly. It isn’t a honking satirical version of the Presidents Club, however much women who have failed to shine on the show would like to believe it is.

I’ve never appeared in an episode where everyone involved isn’t willing everyone else, of whatever sex, to say something funny. Probably the only really “male” moment of my five appearances came during an episode with Jeremy Clarkson, when there was anxiety that no one would actually bring up “the punch”. I thought, he’s unlikely to punch me, so why don’t I mention it? So I did. Ironically, I felt I could because I was a woman.

Television’s tough. It’s gladiatorial, it’s merciless, whether you’re appearing on a cosy morning sofa or a prime-time jousting match. It’s a string of tiny humiliations: at one point I was asked on the show, only to be stood down for a £995 Mulberry handbag — not even another human being! The owner of the bag, Nicky Morgan, had been due to go on but changed her mind after a row at Downing Street over Theresa May’s trousers. I was put on standby, but then someone emailed to say, cryptically, they’d decided to go with “something else”.

Later, I found out they literally thought a handbag would entertain the people of Britain better than I would. If you wanted to characterise that sort of thing as “vicious”, I suppose you could. But it isn’t.

I think one of the reasons women find the show difficult is that they are worried about maintaining dignity. This is a curiously female problem instilled at birth. You are bestowed a constantly exhausting interior monologue saying, don’t show your knickers, don’t appear drunk, don’t laugh too much, why have I been replaced by a Mulberry bag?

You could see it in Dorries’s eyes: a woman worn down by a thousand tiny concerns. But there’s no point in trying to maintain one’s dignity at any moment in life. It is a virtue invented by women to keep other women in tears and longer skirts.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Sunday Times: “Mother calls for ban on circumcision”

Campaigners say circumcision raises the question of whether children have human rights

Sunday Times caption:  Campaigners say circumcision raises the question of whether children have human rights

A piece by Nicholas Hellen in today’s edition of The Sunday Times. I’ve posted a lengthy comment pointing out the illegality of MGM, and linking to materials on MGM, including four blog pieces by William Collins. I urge supporters to add their own comments. The piece:

A mother whose baby son was in such pain after he was circumcised that he could not wear a nappy said boys should be given the same protection as girls get from female genital mutilation (FGM).

The mother, who is taking legal action to prosecute the doctor who carried out the surgery without her consent, said: “For FGM they can stop people taking daughters out of this country but they won’t protect boys in this country.”

Her lawyer, Saimo Chahal QC, a partner at the London law firm Bindmans, is seeking to challenge a Crown Prosecution Service decision taken last November not to prosecute.

The case has attracted the support of pressure groups that want to capitalise on moves by Iceland to become the first European country to ban the procedure for non-medical reasons.

Tim Alford, of the Men Do Complain pressure group, said: “The question is whether children have human rights or if they are dependent on the culture and faith of the parents.”

While it is a criminal offence to perform FGM in the UK or overseas, “nobody really gets” the problem with circumcision, the mother said. She is 29 and lives in Nottingham but cannot be named so as to protect her son’s privacy.

“I have had to lay my son on a towel and not even been able to put him in a nappy because he is scratching away and he is in that much pain and somebody has inflicted that on my child,” she said.

“My little boy could have died on that [operating] table . . . and they could say it was an accident. Somebody needs to be held accountable for what they are doing to little boys.”

The CPS wrote to her to say: “Had it been the case that [the doctor] had performed the operation knowing that you did not consent, then potentially his actions would have amounted to assault.”

She conceived her child in a casual affair with a Muslim man and has sole parental responsibility. She said she did not put the father’s name on the birth certificate because it was “a fling that went wrong” and she knew nothing about him. She is white British and is not religious.

Nonetheless, she was willing for her son to go on occasional visits to his father’s family: “I wanted him to have a big family around him.”

The baby was with the family during the Eid festival when the grandmother took him to be circumcised with the consent of the father but not the mother.

The mother said it was done to make her son identify as Muslim: “His dad said he’s going to know he’s one of us and he’s going to hate you for the way you bring him up if I don’t bring him up a Muslim.”

She added: “I wanted him to appreciate his [father’s] culture and his family background but I didn’t want any strong influencing. I wanted to meet down the middle and there wasn’t a middle.”

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Russia vows to defy ban on grid girls for Sochi grand prix

Russian grid girls are the most beautiful, the country’s deputy prime minister said

Times caption: Russian grid girls are the most beautiful, the country’s deputy prime minister said

A piece in today’s Times:

Russia wants to bring back the custom of so-called grid girls to Formula One, the organiser of the country’s grand prix this year has said. One reason given was because “our girls are the most beautiful”.

Formula One stopped using female models for promotional purposes at races in January after complaints that it was outdated and sexist. They were replaced by “grid kids”: children, mainly boys, competing in junior categories of motor racing.

Dmitry Kozak, the Russian deputy prime minister who is chairman of the organising committee for the race in Sochi in September, said: “Of course it’s not right to bring out children, who are afraid of machines. There should be adults.

“Girls advertise cars in all motor sport, it looks harmonious and nice. And if we can agree it, then we will revive this tradition.”

The young women previously performed tasks such as holding driver name boards on the grid and lining the corridor through which drivers walked to the podium.

Liberty Media, the American owner of Formula One, decided to end the practice because it was “at odds with modern-day societal norms”. On Thursday Monaco said it also intended to defy the de facto ban at its grand prix next month. Michel Boeri, president of the Automobile Club de Monaco, said that “grid girls” would be on the starting line.

“Our American friends assume that it could hurt feminine feelings when employing young women to carry signs,” he told the newspaper Monaco-Matin. “Our hostesses complete model and PR schools. They perform during the grand prix at events that are in line with their training. And they are paid for it. They look pretty and are part of the Formula One landscape. Why in the world should I stop 30 girls from earning a living?”

Sebastian Vettel, the German four-time world champion, said this week he was “a bit sad that there are no more grid girls”.

You can subscribe to The Times here.