This story from yesterday's London Paper is shocking and horrifying. One element of it that I am still spitting about is the time line. Police were "today" (i.e. yesterday) hunting for a rapist who attacked a woman on 3rd July last year.

This guy hid in a roof above a toilet and leaped down to rape a teenage. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who should be left to roam the streets for a year before being apprehended. How many other women have been attacked while the police did nothing? And how hard would it have been for the rapist to leave the country in the space of a year thus ensuring he never faces charges for his crimes.

Only a few months ago we were horrified to discover John Worboys had been left by police to roam the streets searching for new victims while outstanding cases against him were left to fester. When are police going to start taking rape seriously?

But of course The London Paper doesn't bother asking questions to chase up that angle (like when was the crime reported and why has it taken so long to chase up on it?), instead it focuses on the fact that Bono and Prince Harry sometimes went to the nightclub in question. Well whoopee - I wonder what they usually have to drink and what they think of the music... oh hold on didn't someone mention rape a minute ago? So question two: When is The London Paper - and other media - going to take rape seriously?

In case you have missed the story in question Ramsay is over in Australia at the moment promoting a new restaurant and took the time to appear on a TV chat show hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. While on air he said a few rather rude things to her about her appearance, making fun of a mole on her lip. She took it as a joke and laughed it off. Then at his live show he held up a really horrible picture of a woman on all fours with six breasts and a pig's head and said "This is Tracy Grimshaw". Some sources claim he also suggested she was a lesbian (cos that's an insult right?).

And brilliantly something happened. Grimshaw herself responded to the situation saying she had been very upset by it. She also said - and I love this quote - "Obviously Gordon thinks that any woman who doesn't find him attractive must be gay. For the record, I don't. And I'm not.". The Women's Forum Australia made a statement saying "Why should he get paid for depicting a woman as an animal and publicly deriding her looks? He shouldn't make money through the verbal abuse of women." and even the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd joined in saying Ramsay was "a new form of low life". After initially dismissing it as a joke Ramsay has now been forced to make a very public apology.

Well you know me readers - the last thing I would want to be considered is smug but I do think us feminists can smell a misogynist coming at 200 yards and I've known from day one that Ramsay has a bad attitude towards women. Firstly I remember in one of his early TV shows he had a special section in which he campaigned to "Get women back in the kitchen". The concept behind it was of course a perfectly reasonable one - to encourage people to make more home-cooked food - but he had to make it about women and about reviving antiquated Victorian ideals that have destroyed women's lives for centuries.

Secondly remember when he had three-year-olds going round in badges that said "I'm a vegetarian tart"? I even blogged about it.

So lashing of "Well Done Australia" served up with a sprinkling of "I Told You So".

*"Balanced" is very much a matter of opinion I think.

I have a real problem with "gendering" food at all. From the "women like chocolate more than sex" stereotype to the notion that certain products will sell better to men if you describe them as "not for girls". At best it's unnecessary and at worst it's directly promoting gender prejudice.

In particular what is a problem is that as soon as food is deemed suitable for women, it will almost certainly be a lower-calorie version of the original food. The inference that women are or should be dieting all the time is noxious in a world where eating disorders affect a huge proportion of teenage girls and adult women and are on the rise. At the same time the "real men don't diet" message makes it harder for men to choose to eat healthily and is certainly a contributory factor in the sky-high (relative to what it could be) levels of heart disease, stroke, etc seen among men in the UK. This imbalance also plays into the notion that men do or should do tougher physical jobs (fire-fighting, military roles, etc) and play sport in their free time while women are seen as weak and in need of a "strong" man to look after them. These are all notions which do nothing for our society except to act as drivers for sexism, stereotyping and discrimination.

If food manufacturers want to sell me their food - they should make better quality food. Organic, traditionally and locally farmed, free from additives and excessive packaging and without those kind of bulking-out products that have become so commonplace on the modern food shelf - "exotic" fruit juice that's mostly grape, "meat" pies that are mostly onion. Real food, real value, and real concern for the environment will appeal to me - not patronising out-dated gender stereotypes.

Members of Twitter (and there are loads) post up short messages about themselves or general stuff which appear next to their name. My name on the system is "Cruella1" so for instance I might "tweet" about what I'm doing:

(1) Cruella1 has just finished her lunch and is thinking about going to the park.

or about something I'm trying to draw attention to

(2) Cruella1 has just written a blog post http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/ #feminism

or I might reply to someone else's Tweet

(3) Cruella1 @jester thanks for the advice!

or I might join in a discussion already happening on Twitter

(4) Cruella1 #cornypickuplines do you work in subway? cos you've got me a foot long...

Now I need to explain a bit of etiquette - the @jester in (3) means I'm talking to someone (jester - that's Jess McCabe your lovely editor), and the #feminism in (2) and #cornypickuplines (4) are basically search terms. So I know people will go on Twitter looking for info about feminism and I want to direct them to my blog via (2). Also I notice other people I know are having a general chat about corny pick-up lines and I want to join in (4). You can click on these #-terms to see all "tweets" that mention them.

Anyway right now there is very popular #-search term with hundreds of "tweets" including it called #liesgirlstell. And I guess I should warn you that some of these comments might be triggering for some people. I won't name and shame who made these "tweets" but I was quite shocked at the level of disdain and hatred for women revealed...

#liesgirlstell: I'm not a slut, I juss like sex
#liesgirlstell "I don't f*ck on the first date"
#liesgirlstell im a virgin
#liesgirlstell I am low maintenance
#liesgirlstell I didn't get pregnant so you would marry me
#liesgirlstell "I'm strippin to pay for college" (b!tch you are 49!! Your turn is OVER!)
#liesgirlstell "i'm on my period"
#liesgirlstell i am capable of having an intellegent conversation with another human being
#liesgirlstell "i dont want your money"
#liesgirlstell I'm not a hoe
#liesgirlstell IVE NEVER DONE IT TRU THE ASS
#liesgirlstell Kobe raped me.

I don't know what I'm more horrified by - is it:

1) The fact that there are thousands of people happily joining in this debate as though it's normal and funny to make jokes about women being prone to dishonesty (look at all the politicians, most men, lying about everything from war to duck islands!),
2) The repeated suggestion that women who have and enjoy sex are bad/evil/disgusting
3) That bizarre comment in the middle about women not being able to hold intelligent conversations where the author himself can't even spell "intelligent"...!
or
4) The disgusting rape denier at the end.

But suffice as to say sadly that is the world we all live in. And to think some people think we don't need feminism!

Now that's not to say that there aren't some worthwhile things to be taught to expecting parents. To get the low-down I spoke to my sister (Lynda) who had a baby almost a year ago and attended both NHS and NCT (National Childbirth Trust) classes before the birth. She said neither even mentioned breathing techniques or relaxation as discussed in the Swedish report. But she did have some good points about several aspects of them. Here is what she had to say:

1) NHS classes: free but a total waste of time. Around 40 individuals and couples in a theatre-style auditorium. During question and answer sessions she couldn't really hear what other participants were saying and they ran out of handouts. Pain relief methods were discussed briefly as more or less a list of options.

2) NCT classes: £140 for 2 days and one evening, much more useful. Eight individuals and couples with practical opportunities to try things, etc. The most useful thing was the focus on the emotions around birth and new babies, for instance talking about how the mother's partner might feel coming home to find the house a mess and the mother exhausted and desperate to hand the baby over. Provided lots of useful advice for the birth itself - such as bringing along glucose sweets for energy and a kneeling cushion if you wanted to try a kneeling position. Probably much of this is available in books on maternity but also in this class friends were made and a support network accumulated.

As far as pain relief was concerned she was expecting there to be real pressure on women to reject pain relief. In the event there was a run-through of different options with participants asked to make a list of the pros and cons of each type. This might sound even-handed but in fact the "cons" is a long list of unlikely medical complications while the "pros" is one single item "reduces pain" which applies in most cases. Drawing the list like this gives the impression that one pro equals one con when in reality cons like "baby may be sleepy for first hour after birth" may well be pretty trivial against the pain thing.

Worryingly they were told that using the pain-reliever pethidine gives your child a greater risk of becoming a drug addict later in life. Both Lynda and I doubt this statement - though there may be a correlation between hospitals in underprivileged areas who dish out pethidine when they don't really have enough midwives around to cope with all the women in labour and the hospitals where kids turn up eighteen years later with a drug problem. In any case the information is nothing more than a scare tactic unless it says how much the risk increases and where the data is from.

3) Pain. No class can prepare you for the pain. To quote Lynda directly "The only way they could explain to you in a class what the pain is like is if they made you stand barefoot on upturned drawing pins while they loaded you with heavy sandbag after heavy sandbag to weight you down and the only way to make it stop was to shout 'EPIDURAL'!". ...and I am supposed to be the comedienne in the family!

4) Reality. The one thing no class really told despite asking repeatedly at the NHS one was what the most likely outcome was - what percentage of women manage without pain relief, etc and what percentage of pain relief interventions lead to problems, and what type of problems. In the end of five women Lynda is still in touch with, including herself, there were two without epidural and three with epidural. In all three of the latter cases there were complications associated with the epidural (one didn't work - the pain continued, one the needle kept coming out and having to be refitted and one woman was left on crutches for several months with a small baby to look after!). Of course without access to the relevant data we just can't know how much of that is to be expected from an epidural and how much is down to bad luck or overworked staff, etc.

5) Birth plans. Apparently the NCT went on and on about how important it was for women to write a "birth plan" to take with them to hospital. Now it's understandable that women would want to have a document in hand to tell nurses what they want in different scenarios, to avoid having procedures they didn't want forced upon them when they are in too much pain to discuss things. However of those in the group who made a "birth plan" (Lynda refused despite repeated demands by class instructors) 100% ended up not sticking to it and then feeling they had somehow "failed" to have the birth they wanted. In any case who would write a birth plan that says "experience extreme pain, demand an epidural, discover it's too late, baby's heart rate slows, rushed in for emergency cesarean". Everyone writes "no pain relief, baby slips out in 2 minutes, I look stunning", and then nobody lives up to it. So sure take in some notes about particular things you're worried about seems to be good advice, but stay open minded about what happens - don't make too many plans!

6) What they don't mention. There were a few things that didn't seem to get mentioned. Particularly some of the graphic details. Like for instance "you will definitely sh!t yourself at some point". Not to freak women out but so that when it happens they know not to be surprised or embarrassed. Maybe just reading out a few accounts from women who have had babies recently would help.

So in conclusion, there seem to be some real positives from a supportive class covering what to expect throughout maternity, birth and the first year or so of a child's life, although clearly such classes should be available freely (although the NCT does offer discounted classes if mothers have financial difficulties). Information on pain relief doesn't seem to be getting through so well. What is needed in this area is accurate information about all the options and how likely the various outcomes are both nationally and by hospital and clinic so that women can make a considered choice. What is not needed is a load of piffle about trying to relax while you're in excruciating pain.

Footnote: The moment I put this up someone messaged me on Facebook to say they read it. This friend of mine said she had a planned cesarean because of problems identified earlier in the pregnancy. When they told her this she felt ... relieved. What a shame that a woman can't just decide she wants a planned cesarean and discuss that with her antenatal teacher. What's so bad about not wanting to go through a lot of pain? Give women all the information and let them choose what they want for themselves.

This album's title track includes some interesting lyrics, like this one:

"he stuck the bitch with the pitchfork with the long prongs"

I wonder how this fits with Tesco's fancily worded policy on diversity and inclusion: gender?

But maybe lyrics about killing women pale into insignificance next to some of the other things he says in the very same song. Such as these:

"Slice you up and cook you after you`re murdered by strangulation
That`s bacon souffle you makin`, ain`t you? well, thank you jason
There goes one more coma
Due to blunt force trauma"

"The medication is making my hands a little shakier
Hand me the 18 month old baby, come shake `em up
It`ll only take me a second to choke his trachea
Breakin` his neck in eightysome places"

Maybe someone could print out the above stanza and put it in Tesco stores next to the nappies and baby food? Or maybe Kendra Banks should double check what is being sent out to Tesco customers with her name on the bottom!

*What a stupid term - I mean period products!

I've just finished watching the whole thing and I thought it was quite interesting, they do speak to a range of people on the subject. I had a few notes though.

They talk a lot about the extent to which having children holds women back but they never stop to ask whether that in itself is a result of sexism. I mean if having children made you a bad employee we would assume that the small number of women who do get to the top would all be women without children. Surprise - not true! Margaret Thatcher has two children, Segolene Royal four children, Hillary Clinton one child. And the most successful women in business: Dame Marjorie Scardino has three children, Dorothy Thompson two children, Linda Cook three children. There is no evidence to suggest mothers make less valuable employees. What we do know is that female bosses, regardless of the number of children they have, work an average three hours more per week than their male counterparts.

Later they gravely warn that one in four women with a degree is "childless at forty" - something they should probably mention to the noxious woman complaining she wouldn't hire a woman of child-bearing age. Note to any female readers currently navigating the credit crunch job market - why not consider a career-enhancing hysterectomy... oh that's right because it's totally screwed up and sickening.

Even so the one in four figure is useless information without telling us what percentage of men with degrees are childless at the same age - among my college friends most of the women have children but almost none of the guys. And anyway one in five women overall do not have children in their lifetimes so it seems like the degree might not be the main factor. Plus what percentage of these women wanted children in the first place? Maybe getting a degree opened them up to other things that they enjoy more. Maybe they're thrilled to be without children and able to focus their free time on travel and artistic pursuits (as a friend said to me the other day "Oh God Kate I wouldn't have had children if I'd know I was creative!"). Maybe they would prefer to be described with the term "child free".

They then said that 30% of mothers stay at home full time but that two-thirds of working mothers said they did so out of necessity. For me there's a gap there where they should be asking what can be done to support mothers who want to spend more time with kids and why the benefit system forces women back to work so quickly after they have children. There is a lot of talk about women making tough choices but the reality for many women is clearly that it's not a choice at all.

But also I'd like to know what percentage of stay at home mothers do so at least partly because their job prospects are so hampered by sexism - certainly true of all the stay-at-home mums I know.

As so often with these things they seem to get totally sidelined into the motherhood thing and away from the real issue - sexism. Amazing when you consider they actually interview guys who say "women shouldn't be allowed to work", "women aren't put on this earth to work". And then you're telling me it's my choices that are holding my career back? No - it's these a**holes!

So where is the documentary asking how so many men manage to "juggle" a career with playing golf and downloading internet porn? Whoops, forgot to make that one!

The notion that women having children explains everything from the pay gap to sexual harassment is totally sexist because only women can be "women having children"! I honestly believe if women rather than men grew the vast majority of beards the government would announce they were unhygienic and we wouldn't be allowed to work in the food industry which would overnight become the best paid industry in the country. And if men had the children they'd be automatically promoted every time they squeezed one out because they were demonstrating an ability to shoulder more responsibility...

We're not victims of biology - we're victims of misogyny.

I mean for instance I'm ticking a box to say that I agree that a priority should be to:

"4. Respond to the needs of at risk and marginalised women."

or

"3.Respond to the needs of children and young people experiencing violence."

or

"2. Clamping down on traffickers"

They are seriously asking me whether or not these issues should be a priority. Did anyone log on and tick "no - don't bother to help children", "no - leave the traffickers alone"?

And here's the thing - no-one would ever EVER do a survey asking Londoners what types of terrorism the Metropolitan police should be focusing on. Tick this box if you think we should try to prevent bombs on the tube, and this box if you're opposed to terrorists spreading anthrax. The strategy has always quite rightly been to do everything possible to prevent all types of terrorism.

Domestic violence kills two women in the UK every week. Rape is so poorly dealt with by police and in courts that it might as well be legal most of the time. What Boris Johnson's violence against women strategy should do is every single thing in its power to end violence against women. Obviously and immediately. A three month long "consultation" consisting of an online survey to find out whether or not Londoners think "at risk and marginalised women" should be protected is a waste of time and an insult to both the intelligence of people of London and more importantly the women suffering rape, violence, intimidation and harassment.

The first thing I found was that The Daily Telegraph had a feature encouragingly titled "Inspirational Women of the year awards". I've put the link there as exhibit A but if you'd like to save the bother here's what the article holds, this is the full list:

A picture of Sarah Brown in a large necklace.
Three paragraphs about Helen Mirren's hair.
One paragraph about Helen Mirren's outfit.
Two paragraphs about Sarah Brown's outfit.
A paragraph describing the event, it's location and sponsor.
A list of other female celebrities who attended.

And that's it. No mention is made or photograph shown of the women nominated for or winning the awards. In fact to the untrained eye it appears Helen Mirren won after the judges ruled she had better hair than Gordon Brown's wife!

Some more digging turned up a second article. No, not in The Times or The Guardian, in Hello Magazine. And they actually (not that it was hard) did a better job than The Telegraph.

The photos were of Helen Mirren and Rachel Stevens in glamourous outfits but the article's five paragraphs included only one about the outfits worn by the various celebs in attendance and a whole paragraph and a half naming the winner and describing her achievements.

The Daily Mail also ran a piece, which they really had to given that their readers were the ones who had been voting for the winners (before you ask - yes all the candidates were predictably white and able-bodied). They provided a very long piece which described in depth the achievements of the winner interspersed with a huge number of photos of the celebrity attendees in glamorous outfits.

I really fail to see how this is going to inspire young women to do anything other than buy fancy shoes.

But in case you were wondering... the winner was Sylvie Silver whose achievements we are told include:

"Serving as a wing commander in charge of 1,300 teen air cadets in the London Air Training Corps, working with children and adults with learning difficulties, helping in a nursing home and acting as a director of a charity for older people."

Well done Sylvie.

Now this riles me no end because not a week goes by that some idiot at a comedy club decides fourteen pints is about the right level of inebriation he needs to stumble over and treat me to a fifteen minute discourse on why women just aren't funny. On a good night he's just the member of the audience who loudly left announcing "It's a bird, good time to go to the bar" as I walked onstage. On a bad night, he's the promoter. Either way it feels to me as though that's my powers of reasoning being called into question on the basis of my gender.

Meanwhile in other news a Saudi Arabian Judge has just said women are partly to blame for domestic violence if they are rude to their husbands or frivolous when shopping for a full-length black abaya (which they are obliged to wear at all times under the draconian Saudi laws).

Maybe someone should mention to Andy McSmith, author of the piece in The Independent, that the battle for the vindication of the rights of women isn't actually over yet. In some places it has hardly begun.

A quick note before I get started though. The F-Word is a group blog and aims to provide a "safe" environment for feminist bloggers and blog-readers. That's great. It does mean that they're fairly strict on not allowing more aggressive commenting. I'm all in favour of that but over at my own blog I have a slightly different policy of letting almost any comments stay up - I figure give the idiots enough rope and they'll hang themselves...!

Anyway I always repost pieces I write for the F-Word on my blog so...

If you want to say something controversial and/or outrageous - come do it at my place.

If you want to feel "safe" from aggressive comments, stay here.

Just so you know.

Enjoy! And if you really enjoy it you could search for it by my name/Cruella/I HATE Anti Wrinkle Cream Adverts on the CurrentTV website and maybe, just maybe, it'll end up on TV. But that is rather shameless self-promotion so if you prefer just enjoy! And happy winterval everyone!

These subjects don't come round very often in parliament so the decisions made now could be with us and future generations for a long time. So it's vital that we do whatever we can now to make sure women's rights are protected.

Which is all a rather long-winded way of saying PLEASE COME TO THE PUBLIC MEETING AT 7pm ON 7th OCTOBER. Click here for more info. A really big turn-out will make sure MPs realise how important this issue is to us.

And if you should happen to be the owner or creator of a feminist blog/website/organisation/girl-gang please let your members know about the meeting and encourage them to attend. If you would like leaflets, an e-flyer, etc, I can provide, just give me a shout. See you there, do say hello if you're an F-word reader!

Clarkson is not just a car show presenter, he's the car show presenter. He defines the genre. For many years he's been the driving force behind the way the television-shows-about-cars industry works. When he first worked on Top Gear in 1988 it was a show that mostly reviewed different cars and advised would-be buyers on the advantages and disadvantages of different models. When it was re-modelled in 2002 he was the main presenter.

Now even when the show first started it had a mixture of male and female presenters. The new version has always been 100% male - and for that matter 100% white and British. And the standard of the banter went with it. Cars that Clarkson doesn't like are referred to as "gay" or "girly" - as though those were insults. Women are standardly referred to as "birds". The focus of the show shifted from reviewing cars to frivolously taking pointless journeys, racing sports cars against military vehicles and aircraft and sometimes even destroying perfectly roadworthy vehicles.

As the environmental movement raised awareness of the impact carbon emissions had on the climate, the show could have incorporated advice on reducing emissions, on lower emission vehicles and emphasised that high-speed low-efficiency sports cars were the sort of things to be driven occasionally as a treat if you enjoyed that sort of thing. But with Clarkson at the helm of course that didn't happen. We can only imagine that after all those years of being given privileged access to fancy cars and events he was so far in the pockets of the motor lobby that he couldn't see the wood for the burnt stumps where once there were trees. Instead he started making insulting remarks about environmentalists. He bragged about breaking speed limits and complained at length about fuel and congestion taxation, which aims to cut emissions.

Now that in itself would be enough reason for some people to hate the man. I am not so quick to use such strong terms. I can sympathise that there is a market for that sort of misogynist, homophobic* planet-murdering prattle and someone was always going to step up to the plate.

The trouble is he isn't just a (or the) car show presenter any more. He's gone to great lengths to present himself as a spokesman for the white middle-class male adrift in a sea of political correctness. His website (and I know, I know, it's a joke...) says "Jeremy Clarkson - Clarkson information, books, DVDs, forum, and news from Britains next prime minister?". And if that's just a joke, why have nearly 50,000 people have signed an online petition asking for him to become prime minister? He writes newspaper columns - and they appear in the political pages, not the motoring pages. His books include collections of poltical essays. The style may be "fun" and chatty to read but he's covering topics like Basque separatism and war in Iraq.

The first article on the Top Gear website is clearly a 100% political piece written by him and titled "CLARKSON: Soon the annual tax bill for a commuter will be £10k"

Firstly that is a straightforward lie. Road tax on even the most polluting vehicles is £400 a year. If your commute goes in to central London (and if so why the hell are you driving!) you'll pay £8 a day congestion charge (5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1960) and if your commute is 50 miles each way (then get the train! or at 8 miles per litre, 65p tax per litre, 5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1991) then that's £4351 a year - less than half the number he is suggesting.

Secondly the whole point of increasing tax on higher emissions vehicles on unnecessary routes is to encourage drivers to switch to other means of travel and lower emission cars. He grumbles the cost of a tax disc on a Lamborghini Gallardo could rise to nearly a thousand pounds. But given the car itself costs £133,000, I think owners can afford it. And given it emits at least 325g of CO2 per kilometer (more than twice that of, for example, a Renault Megane or a Vauxhall Astra) my feeling is great, lets put the tax up even higher. No-one needs to drive a car like that.

Thirdly - and for the sake of my mental health I'm trying to limit myself to only looking at one of his horrible articles - the thing is littered with offensive remarks. The first sentence refers to a woman as "some bird". He refers to a female politician as "some orange-haired old bat".

Then he gets on with denying climate change. Now of course he never says it's not happening, because it is. Instead he says certain events may not be a direct result of it. Sure, sometimes a freak wave gives you wet feet when the tide isn't actually coming in - but when it's up to your knees, best to fold up the deck-chairs just in case. People are already dying around the world as a direct result of climate change. There's no probability about whether or not it's happening, it is already happening, the uncertainty is how much worse is it going to get.

His conclusion on the cost of taxing so-called "super-cars" is this: "That's not taxation. That's rape.". I won't even say anything, I think it's pretty obvious that's not an appropriate thing to say.

And that's on his car show website. So it's not that he's been "spotted" on his car show and asked to branch out in to politics - he's actively choosing to use his car show as a platform for his political opinions. And here's the real rub: It's working! He's kind-of accepted on TV as some sort of lovable right-wing not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind pundit. He's on Have I Got News..., QI, even Who Do You Think You Are? as though he's an institution that we're all comfortable with in the UK.

But are we really all comfortable with vicious anti-environmentalism on the basis of lies? With misogyny and homophobia* from someone who is genuinely trying to influence policy-making in the UK? Personally I'd like to present the alternative point of view in a one-off BBC TV special called "Jeremy Clarkson: Who The F*** Does He Think He Is?"

* Actually he's been pretty racist too, I'll leave that for now, I think we've got enough to be getting on with!

That said, lets press on. Is anyone else uncomfortable about the runaway success of The Lady Boys of Bangkok? The only conversation I have heard about them all week is straight guys asking each other "Yeah but would you though? Would you?" and telling the uninitiated "They are so convincing, I have to be honest, I was nearly getting a stiffy there at one point". The show is as far as I can make out, an old-fashioned freakshow where the "exhibits" are 16 transexual women. I really refuse to believe that the dancing (and lip-syncing to pre-recorded music) is any part of the draw.

Further I have concerns about the well-being of the performers. Two shows a day, each close to two hours long is a lot of stage-time, especially in uncomfortable clothing (high heels, heavy make-up, etc). Add to that the economic imbalance between Thailand and the UK and you've got to wonder whether at least some of the performers aren't working - and potentially having medication and surgery - under some sort of financial duress.

I am sure that promoters would assure us that they are well looked after and willing and enthusiastic about performing. However the Lady Boys themselves don't seem to ever give interviews - to the point where I can only assume they are contractually forbidden to do so - or appear away from the rest of the group either at functions or just out and about at festivals (and I have been to a lot of festivals). To me those are some of the signs that abuse may be going on.

And yet the reaction of festival organisers is not to question the spirit in which the shows are staged or the working conditions for performers in the show, but to put up street signs (pictured) around Brighton to advise motorists how to find the show. And evidently the public are traveling in from around the area to see the show.

Am I the only one who doesn't quite feel comfortable about it?

Photo by kastakephoto, shared under a creative commons license.

I'm the last person who wants a big fuss made about one teeny little unscripted word. And a part of my head is warning me not to say anything on the subject in case I hear myself being quoted on Fox News in a special "International Reaction To Obama's Career-Ending Insult". First of all remember Mr Obama is likely to be standing for election against John McCain - a man whose election would undoubtedly see US gender equality sent packing back to the dark ages. This is a man who voted AGAINST the equal pay act. This is a man who has openly said he thinks Roe vs Wade should be overturned. Obama is undoubtedly the more woman-friendly candidate.

However it does really annoy me when guys I'm dealing with professionally call me sweetie or darling or love or pet or other patronising terms of endearment? Of course I don't mind, in fact I quite like some cute nick-names from my boyfriend or really close friends. But I often stop people and ask them not to use the term.

Of course I only make a fuss when it's not going to affect my career - it would be professional suicide not to be a bit thick-skinned from time to time. But I do object to it regularly from shop-keepers, tradesmen, taxi drivers, those kinds of people. And the reaction varies - of course every individual is different:

1) Some (very few, mostly shop-keepers while the money is still in my hand!) apologise. One even said "sorry darling"!?

2) Some try to engage with me in a discussion about feminism, usually with an opening gambit like "oh, so you're one of them are you". And usually end up going on about Heather Mills and women receiving large divorce payouts resulting in giving the rest of us "a bad name", and things having "gone too far", or potentially about how there's a "girl in our office who doesn't mind it at all".

3) Some argue it. I've been told - less politely than this - that I should put up with it because it's either (a) a traditional local term, (b) a traditional working class term. To which I can only respond that if we insisted on sticking to traditions at the expense of all else we'd have to bring back witch-dunking and burning heathens at the stake.

4) Some really make a fuss. I've been spat at, called "lesbian" and "dyke" (not of course insults in my world, but clearly intended as such) and "bitch", etc. One guy went out in to the street and loudly told his colleague that I was "one of those uptight cows".

On the other hand I was on a train the other day and they guy in front of me called the woman behind the buffet car counter "sweetheart" - she asked him not to to which he responded that women like being called sweetheart. So I unexpectedly chipped in and said "No they don't" and he skulked off looking miserable and she and I had a good laugh about it.

I consider correcting people who address women with these patronising terms a cumulative act of feminism. Each individual time makes very little difference but if we all do it whenever we reasonably can, we will make a difference. Please add a comment if you've corrected someone recently and let me know what happened!

Photo by Graciepoo, shared under a creative commons license.