You’re wearing what?

21st century Britain. Where people are treated equally and people are judged on their achievements and how they behave in society. Bollocks. This week has reminded me how fucking low and bitchy people can be.

Last year Sarah Millican, a fine example of a comedian,went to the BAFTAs in a dress from John Lewis. Which won points from me in the first place. She’d been nominated for a non-gender specific award – still a rarity for female comedians – and was obviously thrilled. After the ceremony, was this mentioned in the media? Was it fuck. No, all eyes had been on what she was wearing and she was subjected to a barrage of abuse. She looked like someone’s grandma. Had she made the dress out of old curtains? She looked fat, she looked ugly. The worst thing in my view? Most of these comments were from other bloody women.

This whole situation has raised its head again after Millican recently published an article in the Radio Times about her experience. She explains how she had to buy her dress in John Lewis as, being a size 18, most designer shops just do not stock dresses in that size. She talks about how excited she had been, what a great night it was even though she didn’t win. Then she checked her Twitter account. And cried in the car.

The people who sent those messages should be fucking ashamed of themselves. Millican is a brilliant comedian, she is fantastic at her job. She is one of the few female comedians (some might say unfortunately) that is actually fucking funny. And, as far as I can remember, she is the only female comedian since Jo Brand who hasn’t relied on her looks in her career. Because that’s the sad thing: most female comedians in the UK are what you might call classically attractive. Meaning that they are what society deems attractive. Now I’m not saying you can’t be beautiful and funny. Of course you can. Dawn French, for example, although many may disagree with me. But if we’re talking about female comedians who are touring and appearing on panel shows regularly? The majority of them are annoying fuckers, gladly admitting they know nothing of what’s happening in the news and making ‘jokes’ about celebrities and pop culture and clothes, because obviously that’s all women are interested in. Tossers.

Saying that, the way Millican was treated after the BAFTAs does make it look like women are only interested in those things. After every fucking awards ceremony there’s some piece of shit section on daytime TV programmes about who was wearing what, which designer was it, was it nice, was it shit, did the shoes and accessories go with it. Who gives a flying fuck? Many people, by the looks of it. I’m obviously in a fucking minority when I think it’s up to Millican what she wears. Of course I have my own opinions on what she wore. But that’s irrelevant. If she was happy, then everyone else should be happy too. 

What the whole episode shows is that, even today, women can be incredibly talented and funny and intelligent and good at their jobs. And for most people it means fuck all. Because what you look like is what people care about. As Millican said in her article, no one asked her husband where he got his suit from (ASDA, by the way. More brownie points from me). Because men are allowed to be talented and funny and intelligent and good at their jobs without having to look good as well. Whereas women are supposed to look like goddesses all the fucking time. It’s probably why I’ve been so bloody unsuccessful in my life. I have shit dress sense, my hair has a life and mind of its own and I don’t exactly starve myself. Far from it, in fact. 

So, my point being? Basically, women are bitches and society is a fool. Millican says she will wear the dress to the BAFTAs again if she’s invited, just so she can say ‘Oh, it’s just last year’s, pet.’ I bloody hope she does. Give those fuckers the finger.  

Advertisements

Pornography the root of all sexual evil? Bullshit, stop blaming porn and start blaming knobheads

Sex education is a hot topic at the moment, both here in Poland and in the UK.  Tomorrow, a proposed change to the children and families bill will be discussed in the House of Lords, as to whether all English schools should have compulsory sex and relationships education.  No-brainer, in my opinion.  Of course there should be, regardless of whatever religious beliefs you hold.  The idea that you can withhold sex education based on religious grounds is fucking idiotic nowadays.  Churches don’t like it because apparently it encourages young people to have sex.  Bullshit.  Young people have sex because that’s what their bodies are designed to do.  And even if they are being taught about sex, this doesn’t necessarily mean they will have sex.  Even if they want to.  First you have to find someone who is willing to have sex with you.  Which can be difficult when you are an awkward teenager with greasy hair and a love of reading books (ummm, obviously not speaking from experience…).

I just read an article in The Guardian by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett who also agrees that this change in legislation needs to go through.  So far, we agree.  But reading further, her reasons for saying this worry me slightly.  Cosslett has spent the last couple of years talking to young women about their hopes and dreams, and also what makes them angry, sad and/or frustrated.  Pornography was an issue which came up again and again.  And, from reading the article, I have garnered that Cosslett believes that most men are obsessed with pornography and use it as kind of manual to base their real relationships on.  What absolute utter bollocks.

OK, yes, there are some tossers out there who can’t tell the difference between what happens in real-life relationships and what happens in pornland (yes, I’m very aware that I’m making it sound like a theme park, but it’s the best I could come up with) and that these knobheads ask women to do things which they aren’t necessarily comfortable with, think that a women saying no is part of foreplay and that if a women does flatly refuse to do something in the bedroom then it’s because she’s frigid/prudish/mentally ill.  Either that or they’re pissed off because they think women don’t have a right to say no to anything.  But they are in a minority.  The way Cossett goes on you’d think that all men are like this.  According to her, men asking for anal sex on a first date is a common occurrence.  As is expecting a woman to allow a guy to cum in her face or hair.  As is a woman being called a slut or whore.  Maybe it’s just the guys I associate with, but all my male friends seem to understand that these things generally exist in the realms of fantasy, and only form part of sexual shenanigans when both parties consent.  As I said before, of course there are some dickwads who do this, but they are, I believe, the exceptions.

The article seems to insinuate this: if men watch pornography, then they are incapable of maintaining a healthy relationship.  What fucking balls.  Let’s not forget that pornography isn’t the only way of seeing sex on screen.  Many films and TV shows have sex scenes, a lot of which show it to be a loving act between two consenting adults.  Even if you take some more risque sex scenes, for example in the film ‘Secretary’, which explores BDSM, it is shown as two people consenting to the acts.  To say that men only get their knowledge of relationships from watching pornography is completely fucking wrong and downright offensive to the majority of the male of the species.

Pornography isn’t the problem.  Most men can watch it with the understanding that some women won’t want to do those kind of things in the bedroom on a first date.  Men that do expect women to comply with all their sexual wants, regardless of how the woman feels about it, for me fall into two categories: one, they do genuinely believe that’s how relationships should be, and are therefore cocking morons; two, they do know they’re behaving in an ungentlemanly manner, but just don’t give a shit.  In which case, they are fucking cunts. 

Discrimination at its worst

Living in any country you come across discrimination.  Poland is no different.  In fact, there’s probably more discrimination here than in most European countries.  But the other night I was reminded of the worst kind of discrimination which affects all women in Poland.  Discrimination at work?  No.  Discrimination in the home?  No.  This discrimination takes place in pubs.  Every day.  And it’s a stain upon Poland’s good name.  Of course, you know what I’m talking about: when ordering beer in a pub, men get it given to them in tankards, while women only get ordinary pint glasses.

I first noticed this problem a couple of months after moving to Poland.  I was in a pub with a group of people, three guys and two girls, including myself.  We ordered our beers, the waitress brought them and put them down on the table.  Three tankards, in front of the guys.  Two regular pint glasses in front of myself and the other lass.  A little bit miffed, I asked my male friends (two of whom had lived in Koszalin for a while) why they’d received ‘proper’ glasses whereas I’d got a shitty, boring glass.  One which is much harder to hold than a fucking tankard.  I was told this was normal in Poland.  As tankards aren’t ‘lady-like’.  Fuck ‘lady-like’, I want a glass that I can bloody hold properly.

I once complained to a barman about being given a pint glass.  Well, maybe complain is a strong word.  But the guy had already poured a beer for my male friend.  In a tankard.  Then went to pour mine into a normal pint glass.  So, obviously, me being me, I had to say something.  I asked him why I couldn’t have one of the good glasses.  And the guy consented to my request.  But not without looking at me like I’d just asked him to eat shit.  Cockhead.  Why shouldn’t I get a tankard, just because I don’t have a penis?

I suppose the glass thing isn’t really what bothers me.  It’s what it represents.  Even in Kraków there still is an extremely old-fashioned view that men are the superior of the species, whereas women are these weak, feeble beings who don’t have the muscle strength to even lift a heavy glass, never mind deal with the heavier things in life.  It may be a small thing, but it’s symptomatic of an even bigger problem here.

Guess what? I’ve found a new dickhead

So, we live in free times where we shall not be judged on our appearance, but on our behaviour and opinions?  Like fuck we do.  As my new dickhead proves.  Tom Newton-Dunn, political editor of The Sun newspaper, has caused a backlash of Twitter comments when tweeting about Stella Creasy, a Labour Co-operative MP.  Yesterday, Newton-Dunn tweeted a message regarding Creasy speaking in the Commons chamber.  Here you go:

“Boldly, @stellacreasy has just asked the PM to justify Page 3 – while wearing a bright blue PVC skirt in the Commons chamber.”

What an absolute fucking cock, basically proving that as a species we have not evolved one pissing iota in the last hundred years or so.  What, so choosing to wear a certain material makes your opinions fucking obsolete?  Obviously he was trying to make a comparison between what she was wearing and Page 3 girls, and trying to make her look like a hypocrite.  Well, guess what, shitface, there’s quite a big difference: Creasy was fully-clothed, Page 3 girls have their tits out.

I’ve never actually had any problem with Page 3 myself.  As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t want to look at women with their knockers out while you eat your breakfast, don’t fucking buy the newspapers which have Page 3 girls in.  Personally, I don’t buy those newspapers, but for other reasons.  I’d rather read about what’s actually going on in the world rather than stories which wouldn’t seem out of place on ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ (although, admittedly, the problem pages can be quite humorous).  And for me, the idea that Page 3 degrades women is quite preposterous.  These women are not being forced into posing half-naked.  In fact, it degrades the men looking at them more than anything.  Of course, most men like looking at half-naked ladies, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s human nature, but the men who buy these newpapers specifically for that reason, wolf-whistle at random scantily-clad women and generally treat women as sex objects do so for one reason and one reason only: because that’s the nearest they can get to the real thing.  Unless they bash some poor, unsuspecting victim over the head and drag her back to their flat.  

And sorry, but don’t they have naked pictures of men in ‘Cosmopolitan’ magazine every month?  I don’t hear anyone fucking complaining about that.  I understand that it was more of a problem fifty years ago or so.  Women were treated like second class citizens, and it was presumed that their only purpose in life was to pander to the whims of men, sexual, domestic and otherwise.  Equality is what women were aiming for: having naked men in women’s magazines while at the same time complaining about naked women in newspapers is not equality.  Far from it, actually.  What is OK for one gender must be OK for the other aswell.

What Newton-Dunn said has nothing to do with the issues I’ve just raised.  Actually, it’s a far worse problem.  He’s a fucking ignorant arsehole that thinks that people can solely be judged on what they look like and what they choose to wear.  This is a problem which is still wide-spread in the UK.  And this is where feminism comes in: it is a problem which pretty much only affects women.  Men are not scrutinised half as much as women when it comes to their appearance.  I was thinking about this only the other day when I was thinking that I need to get my bikini line waxed (sorry for all of those that know me well, and probably didn’t need to know that much information).  Men get away with so fucking much.  Women, we have to shave, pluck eyebrows, wear make-up, have immaculate hair, etc, etc.  Men have so much less to worry about when it comes to their appearance.  And, honestly, I’m not complaining: I like men to be slightly unshaven, have hairy chests and to be more casually-dressed.  I’ve never gone for what you could call the metrosexual type.  But please, have a thought for the effort, time and money women spend on this kind of thing.  

Fortunately, Newton-Dunn’s opinions will not resonate with most men in the UK.  Most men respect women and their right to wear what they want and say what they want.  It will only influence the kind of people who already think the way he does.  The majority of us will think what I’ve already stated: that’s he’s a tosspot ignoramus who needs a good fucking slap.        

Get your fucking facts straight

India is in uproar.  Again.  This time, over a certain comment made by Indian police chief Ranjit Sinha.  Sinha was asked about the problem with unlicensed betting, to which he compared it to rape, saying that if it couldn’t be prevented, then it should be enjoyed.  His remarks have outraged people all over India, including politicians and activitists.  He has been accused of degrading and insulting women.  But were his words taken out of context?

Here’s the actual quote he came out with: (after being asked about whether sports betting should be legalised, as it is currently banned in the country) ‘Do we have the enforcement?  It is very easy to say that if you can’t enforce it, it’s like saying if you can’t prevent rape, you (should) enjoy it’.  

No, anyone reading this carefully will understand that he was not making a point of saying that women who get raped should enjoy it if they can’t stop it.  He was making an analogy, saying that they should enforce the ban on sports betting, as saying they can’t do it is an easy option, just as it’s an easy option to tell a woman to enjoy a rape.  Granted, it was a fucking stupid analogy, given his position, but that’s all it was.

As a result of a very fucking poor error of judgement, this guy is getting a rip-roasting in the media.  And not only in the media, but by the general public.  Reading through some comments at the bottom of the article I was reading, people were coming out with, to be honest, fucking uneducated statements.  Most of these people obviously hadn’t read the article fully, or properly.  They just took this one piece of information about him mentioning rape, and have blasted him for it.  Also, it seems that some morons have used this incident as an excuse to be racist against Indians as women-haters.  Yes, India has a problem with rape, especially with women coming forward to report them as they run the risk of being ostracised by their own communities.  But let’s not forget that this still happens in many other cultures, not just India.  In fact, didn’t the same thing happen in Ireland less than fifty years ago?  With rape victims (along with many other women whose ‘crimes’ were just as non-existent) being sent to the infamous Magdalene laundries?  And since the horrific rape case last year, India have stiffened their rape laws and have since had an increase in women reporting rape.  Sorry, how is this a bad thing, exactly?

It just goes to show how people don’t fucking read things properly.  They hear or read part of a story, then make their own minds up based on that.  Hey, I’m guilty of it myself sometimes.  But maybe we should stop and think about things, and make sure we have all the facts, before we make snap judgements.  Yeah, this guy kind of fucked up.  But not in the way most people think.  So let’s give him a break, shall we?         

Jesus, I should be suicidal…

Logging on to my Facebook this evening, a friend of mine had posted an old article from the Daily Mail from August last year, about how semen is good for women’s health and mood.  Yeah, thanks for that, mate.  If I ever want to be made depressed about my love life, or, more accurately, lack of it, I know exactly who to come to.

There is science behind the claim.  Research shows that seminal fluid (God, that’s a fucking awful phrase – ‘seminal fluid’ Bleurgh!!) contains a host of chemicals which are extremely good for you, including three anti-depressants, and ones which induce sleep, increase affection and elevate mood.  Apparently women who have regular sex also perform better on cognitive tests.  Oh great, fucking thanks, not only am I more likely to be depressed, sleep shittily and be a cold-hearted bitch who doesn’t like anyone to touch her, I’m also more likely to be a fucking retard.  Well, thank you very much, I feel so much fucking better now.

As the article says, women who abstain from sex or, in my case, can’t find anyone blind enough or drunk enough, are more likely to be depressed than women who regularly have sex without condoms.  Even if women have sex, but use condoms, they are likely to be just as depressed as the women who abstain.  Even more ‘good’ news for me then: in the unlikely event that I will ever get a boyfriend, my desire not to have children, at least while I am still young, will stop me from being happy.  Bollocking shitbags.  I at least have one thing to console myself: if I use condoms, I won’t have to think about getting HIV.  One thing which would definitely make someone depressed, regardless of whether they are full of depression-preventing cum or not.

Articles like this really don’t do any good.  All it does is make single women feel like shit, as though there is something wrong with them for not going out and shagging the first person they come into contact with.  It makes women who are having sex, but are using condoms, feel like shit and as though they should be using some other form of contraception.  It makes the women who are having sex without using condoms feel smug, and therefore deserving of a punch in the face, in my opinion.

I fucking hate articles about how sex is good for you.  I know sex is good for the mind and health, I don’t need it shoving down my fucking throat (no pun intended).  Finding a partner is hard, and it’s something which gets harder with age.  When you get older you start to become slightly more picky about who you sleep with, and when it comes to relationships you put up with a lot less shit than you did in the past.  It also doesn’t help that years of drinking beer have made you on the larger side of skinny and your face not as glowing as it used to be.  These things, along with the fact that next to Polish women I look like fucking Quasimodo, make finding a partner near impossible for me.  Still, I can live in hope.

So please, journalists, stop writing about how sex is good for us.  Maybe write about how painful childbirth is.  Or catching herpes.  At least I can take comfort in the fact that the women who have regular sex without condoms are more likely to suffer depression if/when they split up with their partners and stop having sex, and are also more likely to go on the rebound faster.  Serves them right, the smug fuckers.

Avoiding ‘Bridget Syndrome’

Today I rewatched one of my favourite films – ‘Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason’.  I also love the first film, and will definitely watch the third fim when it comes out.  But as much as I love the films, and relate with the main character, I really hope that my thirties do not turn out to be a situation where life imitates art.

Probably the reason why Bridget Jones resonates with me is because in many ways she IS me: she’s awkward in most social situations, she puts her foot in it constantly, she’s a little bit fat, she drinks too much, she has no talent that we can visibly see and she constantly goes for the wrong men.  Seriously, she is me, but with blonde hair.  I can think of no other character in literature or cinema who is more like me than Bridget Jones.

But one thing does bother me about her.  The fact that she is so desperate to find a man.  My brain tells me that women don’t need another half to make themselves complete.  I, personally, am perfectly happy being single.  I can do what I want, I can cook what I want, I can see who I want, etc, etc.  So the thing about the films which really pisses me off is that Bridget is constantly looking for a mate, and constantly thinking that by only having this will she be a whole person.  My logical mind tells me this is bullshit, my logical mind tells me that no man can ever make you feel whole, that that has to come from within yourself.  Unfortunately, my heart tells me otherwise.

I’ve always believed that relationships are more trouble than they’re worth.  And that anyone who thinks otherwise is co-dependent.  I’ve never been able to understand people who feel the need to be in a relationship just because it’s better than being on their own.  Well, my head thinks that, anyway.  However, when it comes to real life, I can’t help thinking that maybe nature wins over logical thinking.  It’s not that I go out looking for mates – I don’t (not consciously, anyway) – but as I have got older I have started to think more about being on my own in my thirties.  I do, after all, live on my own.  What happens if I have a heart attack?  Or fall in the bathroom and hit my head?  As I said in an earlier post, I read an article not so long ago about a woman around my age who died and was in her flat for about three years before anyone found her.  Is that what’s going to happen to me?  Die in my flat alone, and then get eaten by alsatians and be unrecognisable by the time anyone finds me?  (I don’t know where the alsatians will come from, but anything’s possible).  

I suppose it’s this fear of death which makes me start to think that I have to find some kind of mate as soon as possible (that, and possibly the fact I haven’t had sex in quite a long time).  But then that just starts a big struggle in my head.  Yes, my body tells me that it’s time to find a partner.  But another part of me thinks, no, fuck that, I don’t want to share my life with someone just so they can tell other people in the unlikely event of my early demise (and therefore not get eaten by alsatians.  Not that I would give a shit about being eaten by alsatians if I were dead.  I’d be dead and not worrying about it so much).  

It’s a strange thing that people are scared of dying alone, whereas actually in real life people SHOULD live on their own.  People are not cut out for living with other people.  I can’t stand living with other people, they annoy the fuck out of me.  They leave mess everywhere, they use the bathroom when you want to use it, they make noise (I do this too, but hey, that’s competely different).  People should just not live with other people.  That’s where problems begin and relationships break down.  But most people have this silly notion that we are social beings and need to be with other humans all the time.  Nonsense.  You can be a much better human when you don’t have to spend all your free time at home surrounded by other humans.

As much as my body tells me that I should find a mate as soon as possible, my head wins over every time.  I’m not going to get into a relationship just because society or biology tells me I should.  So as much as all women can relate to Bridget Jones in some way (and all women do.  If you don’t agree then you are deluding yourself), that’s no reason to become her.  So fuck society and biology.  And alsatians.