Women aren't funny. They're hilarious.

It’s tough being a white middle-class male. The main reason it’s tough is that you don’t have much to complain about. Middle-class white males are still the best paid and have the most opportunity. The fact that I have neither money or opportunity is entirely my own fault. Being a white middle-class male is also tough in comedy. White middle-class males still dominate the field. There’s a lot of us. To stand out from the crowd you either have to be really good (like Jack Whitehall) or absurdly well connected from birth (like Jack Whitehall). That said, you do at least start off at a comedy night on a level playing field. The crowd makes no particular judgement about what you might or might not talk about and the assumption is that there is a reasonable chance you’re going to be funny. There are lots of confident, white middle-class men on the TV being funny. So you might be one of them.

On a Friday night in front of a rowdy, drunken audience at the Chuckling Badger in Shitrag, Essex I’m very glad I’m not a woman. Because, even in this day and age, a fair percentage of the crowd will doubt if women are even funny. “She’s only going to come on and talk about her fackin period” will be going through more than one head, and not just male heads either. Weird that male comics can be expected to adopt any number of styles, and before a woman even hits the stage, it’s anticipated that she’s going to be Jo Brand circa 1988.

Unfunny man dressed as unfunny woman

But it’s not just above pubs in regional dives where misogyny dwells, even the national press aren’t altogether sure. Every six months or so, someone will write an article posing exactly that question, usually padded out with a cornflakes box psychologist saying that men have an evolutionary imperative to attract women, and so use humour. They will take a poll and most people will say that men are funnier than women, or humour isn’t seen as an attractive quality in a woman, or men have a certain curvature of the head which generates better quality jokes or other prejudicial fairytales. If men make more jokes in a social situation, it’s because they are expected to. If women make fewer jokes, it’s because they are expected to. Being funny isn't necessarily a gender thing.

The strange thing is that, on any given night on the UK circuit, female comedians are wildly more diverse than male comics. Ava Vidal is a sardonic doom monger, Lou Sanders is a surrealist loon, new act Saskia Preston does killer one-liners. Because there are usually so few female comics on a bill (partly because that’s how promoters book it, and partly because there are just fewer female comics) they are usually a breath of fresh air. Some people may dread that women will come on and talk about periods. I don’t. I dread that the next 20 something white middle class male will come on and do some inadvisable and ill-conceived material on rape or pedophilia or something being LITERALLY the funniest thing that ever happened, when it LITERALLY is not.

For me, the funniest comedy comes from the most desperate places. It isn’t the high status alpha males that make me laugh, it’s those people who are able to honestly and fearlessly show me something of their vulnerability, the fact that they aren’t always dealing with life as they should be, precariously skating the toilet seat of sanity. In that respect women have the jump on men. If emotional awareness and battling insecurities are the stuff of great comedy, women have it in the bag.

Park and Recreation's Leslie Knope

Two of the world’s greatest English-language comedic performers and writers of our times are women: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. Fey is best known for her adorable, oddball Liz Lemon character on Thirty Rock (using the words adorable and oddball make me squirm, but here we are). Poehler as the idealistic yet borderline maniacal Leslie Knope on Parks and Recreation. Australia gifts us with the brilliant Jane Turner and Gina Riley of the hilarious Kath and Kim and Britain scoops bronze with accident-prone Miranda Hart. The future for female comedians is bright and once we can put baseless old prejudices to bed the ‘weaker sex’ may inevitably prove themselves to be the stronger performers.

Louise Mensch tells us why-ne not...

Samantha Brick can fuck right off. Louise Mensch is
the photogenic idiot we've been waiting for.

Pro-Fox Hunting, Pro-Censorship, Ex-Tory MP Louise Mensch featured heavily in the papers last week. Why was that? Has she solved world hunger? Slashed the deficit? Invented self-removing socks? Nope, she’s come to the stunning realisation, in her blog, that not drinking is better for you than drinking a little bit. Now, hold on people. It may sound outlandish, but hear her out. Mensch claims that she was “self-medicating” for stress by having a glass of wine per day.

“ I relished that moment every night, after work, when I could get a large glass of white somewhere, and relax.”

Whilst the Sauvignon shakes can be savage, it’s not exactly Irvine Welsh, is it? "Self-medicating"? Really? My stomach is making strange rumbling noises. Do you think I should self-medicate with a sandwich, or is that just feeding the problem? True, she acknowledges that there are proper alcoholics with proper addictions, but Louise Mensch also suffers from a harrowing illness of which she can find little respite. Okay, it’s not Hodgkin's Disease, but it certainly has a cooler acronym:

“Moving to America finally coincided with my being treated for my ADD (type 2 inattentive).”

Coincided? To quote Jim Carrey in Ace Venture Pet Detective: "Re-he-he-heally". America loves disorders. It loves diagnosing things. It loves taking the massive, confusing, paradoxical thing that is life and simplifying it, treating it, putting YOU back in CONTROL! Most importantly it loves selling prescription drugs to people. America produces and consumes vast amounts of drugs which makes a few companies a hilarious amount of money. “Your child is behaving like a child? Unacceptable. Little Tyler must have Non-Grownup Juvenility Syndrome. Let’s dope the fucker back to the stone age!" 

How many children are put on Ritalin in the USA just because it is so readily available? How is it that the USA are plagued with these seriously ill children and yet the rest of the world, who don't have the drug, somehow seems to escape this epidemic? Weird, that.

“If, like I was, you are a woman who drinks "reasonably but regularly", it's not reasonable. Consider that you may have ADD. Ask your doctor.”

How's that going to work?

“Have I got attention deficit disorder?”

“Yes.”

“What?”

“Yes?”

“Sorry, I was miles away.”

Amazing how the human race has survived for millions of years without knowing that Ugg the Stone Arranger had OCD. Now, I’m no medical expert (but then neither is Mensch) but maybe she struggled with politics because of her advanced attention-deficient condition. Or maybe the business of reading and debating a new bill to make paperclips Euro-regulation is just bloody tedious. During my history degree, when I had to study parish records of 17^th century England, I seemed to suddenly and uncannily come down with severe bouts of ADD. The only cure seemed to be to retreat to the library toilets and playing Snake on my Nokia 3310. Simpler times. I’m quite sure that there are hyperactive children, some extremely so. I’m have no doubt that it felt to some 16^th century merchants that they were suffering from melancholia of the humours, and they could only relax at the end of the day with a good blood-letting. But am totally certain that there are as many quacks in the USA today as there were in Renaissance Venice.

"Dude!"

Mensch claims that ADD is “something a lot of creative people have.” Good old non-specific creativity. 'I’ve always had this special, intangible gift that makes me more special than the people around me. That’s right. It’s no particular skill or actual quality. I’m just CREATIVE!' Proclaiming oneself ‘creative’ whilst having ADD isn’t about being unable to pay attention. It’s about the feeling that people aren't giving you enough attention. 'Check me out! I’m creative and I have ADD. There’s a deficit of attention flowing in my direction! I’m a butterfly, fuckers!' And what title did this creative juggernaut chose for the blogpost in question? "WHY-NE O'CLOCK."

Seriously. She must have been out of her face on not drinking when she came up with that turd.

She makes a case for not drinking because you'll sleep better, you'll feel less awful the next morning and you'll have more energy. She's right of course. But you could achieve the same result by not working or having kids, and strangely if you do both those things, you'll probably find yourself less inclined to drink. So why give up a moderate amount of alcohol?

“It's how most American women live and they are happier and healthier for it.”

Who wants candy?

Then why is it Americans suffer from so many more disorders of the brain than Brits? Why are self-help snake oil salesman such a feature of the landscape if everyone is so blissfully content? Why are so many Americans popping down so much potentially lethal OxyContin and Vicodin? Why is it that they are rattling around on so many anti-depressants with names like Wellbutrin and Joybazole? (Okay, I made the last one up, but try typing ‘list of antidepressants’ into google. Terrifying.) If people in the USA are happier, it's because they're so egregiously high all the time. It's no wonder they can't find their own country on a map. I've been high, and have been unable to tell the time as a result. They're pilled up like comatosed rhinos. A glass of wine wouldn't touch the sides.

Of course, all Menschtown, Alabama is doing is thinking up some guff for her blog, but fascinating that most major papers think it newsworthy. ("That mouthy, saucy Mensch wench Tory totty is at it again! Front page, Guy! Front page!") What will this creative whirlwind come out with next? 

Louise Mensch’s Next Blogs:

·        Learning Flemish more beneficial than stabbing yourself in the eye with a pencil.

·        My dog keeps wanting me to perform the same throwing/ walking/ scratching tasks over and over again. Canine OCD?

·        If I write the L Ron Hubbard School of BrainLearnGood out a cheque for £500,000, I could become an OT8!

Britain should probably be a Republic...if the prospect wasn't quite so boring.

Having a king or a queen is obviously a very silly state of affairs. Particularly a powerless one. They say they work hard: opening things, visiting places, shaking hands. It probably is a hectic schedule, but it's not really work. It's like a wealthy housewife organising a cocktail party. It's not really about putting bread on the table, it's more about where the flowers go.

The second? More like Queen Elizabeth
the Phwoarth!

There's no danger for the monarchy any more. None of them will be killed in a cavalry charge, or beheaded by an angry parliament, they don't even seem set on abdication. They're turning into mild-mannered, media-savvy, perceptibly bored people who have to do a lot of standing around, congratulating people on growing vegetables. And they're getting older. So much older. The Queen is 87 and she could easily do another 15 years. Charles will be lucky to get a sniff of power before he's 80 and finally William might get in at 70! The days of pomp and circumstance and youthful regal splendor on coronation day are over. Now it'll be Stannah Stairlifts up to the throne as our new liege nods off during the ceremony, quietly unloading into a massive diamond-encrusted nappy. Some people want William to be the next king, to inject a bit of vigour into the proceedings, but frankly that's ridiculous. For one thing, the point about an absurd, anachronistic establishment is that you either do it properly or not at all. You can't just go chopping and changing as it suits you. For another thing, check out William's hair! Baldy! It's too late for him to be the dashing king. He has become another potato-headed royal. His pinup days are over. Centuries ago, the proud Clan O'Meara should have invaded England and taken the throne. Then my dynasty would be in power. Granted, there is a cruel whimsical streak in my family which would probably have morphed into despotism, but we do all have terrific, shiny hair.

Marrying Kate Middleton will not solve
the Windsor baldness problem.  He should
have married Macy Gray.

That's the problem though. You can't just go picking who you want to rule. Well, you can. It's called Elective Monarchy and in fact was quite big in the pre-Republic Rome, Serbia and a few other places, but it wouldn't work now. Now it would be called Britain's Got Monarchs or R-Factor and would be fronted by court jesters Ant and Dec and Simon Cowell would rig it to win anyway. Imagine that! King Simon I, the House of Cowell. Presumably he would take Davina McCall as his queen and they would buy the old BBC Television Centre and convert it into a mega-broadcasting palace where they would control all entertainment output, surrounded by guard dogs and laser towers and armour-plated ex-JLS members. And then we would get bored of his stupid face on our screens and yearn for repeats of Poirot and rise up, topple the mad king and have ourselves a good old fashioned beheading. 

Wow! I hope that happens. Yes, let's do that.

The thing about Britain is that we already have a fully-fledged democratic system which reshuffles every election. We've had it for ages. In a world which changes at a nausea-inducing pace, there's something reassuring in having the continuity of a Head of State. Even a ceremonial one. Certainly, the President of the USA has a certain amount of ceremony, they have a range of vehicles second only to International Rescue and their own sitcom-style intro music with 'Hail to the Chief' but the idea of a President Brown or a President Cameron is just depressing. The world probably doesn't need another post-industrial Western Republic. If Scotland were to gain its independence, even bolshie rabble-rouser Alex Salmond wouldn't rush for a republic. Tourists wouldn't flock to the gates of Number 10 to marvel at the changing of the policemen as one takes over whilst the other goes off to get a cup of tea and update their facebook status.

Look what Scottish independence could lead to!

Better to stick with our regal pot plants. Certainly, we water them with taxpayers money and place them in exquisitely grand greenhouses, but the fruits of tourism, royal branding and olde-worlde prestige means that they more than pay for themselves. They may be enthroned benefit scroungers, but they manage to put in far more than they withdraw. Even without tourism and business deals, The Crown Estates brought in £230.9m to the Treasury last year and Queen only received £32.1m from the state. Not too shabby. It also means that we can forgo the monumental costs of farcical Presidential elections.

The idea of someone inheriting position or wealth simply by virtue of birth is obviously a ludicrous idea, but the Western world is a celebrity-obsessed plutocracy. George W Bush is the perfect example of how the feudal model still thrives in modern democracy. The knuckle-dragging blockhead would have been lucky to make Assistant Manager at a Texan branch of Taco Bell if it weren't for the clout of his father. Queen Elizabeth's ancestors weren't always monarchs. It took one particularly ambitious Norman duke to make an aggressive takeover bid of England PLC and the rewards were passed to his offspring. And so it goes on.

So for now, let's keep rolling out the bunting, raise a toast and request that a probably non-existent god intercedes on the part of an impotent figurehead. As John Lydon said: "God save the Queen, cos tourists are money...and butter is surprisingly creamy."

Dead school children are a small price to pay for freedom...

President Obama may have been able to squeeze through watered down healthcare reform. After all, the idea that someone should live or die or live in very poor health without assistance because of their financial circumstances is grossly stupid. If people generally didn't believe in some kind of 'socialised' approached to health, then African famine charities would be a laughing stock. ('Socialised' is an American term. In the USA, anything which smells vaguely of community care or good use of tax revenues is hysterically branded socialism.) He has also had some success with the cause of Immigration Reform, allowing undocumented immigrants potential citizenship and is joining other Western nations by fiddling about with the deficit.

Take away credit cards, and this is what you get.

The Deficit Game is a great game! Basically, you pretend that the Western economic system is linked to real-term value. You ignore the fact that if our system wasn't run on millions of credit bubbles, we would all actually be living in thatched cottages - and not the desirable chocolate box ones in the Cotswolds. No, the ones with the rodent infestations and the outside latrines. But voters like the idea that the international economic system runs on exactly the same principle as their Post Office account. It helps them sleep at night. It's a simplistic, dinky toy, Barbie Dreamhouse world they can make sense of. The Conservative Party love The Deficit Game. It allows them to slowly do away with all those pesky things they are ideologically opposed to (the NHS, benefits for those out of work or unable to do so, social spending on the poor in general, contributions to the EU.) If anyone questions anything they do, all they need say is "Don't blame us, blaaaaaaame the deficit!" It's the most useful catchphrase ever. It's like saying "Come on mate! It's Christmas!" or "We were only following orders!" It's a splendid, jolly good wheeze, this government business.

This was least posey photo I could find. of someone with a gun.
These people have heard of self-awareness but aren't sure how it
applies to them.

If only Obama could think of some clever way to push through his hilariously limited gun control measures and then blame it on the deficit. "Gun ownership is increasing inflation", "Guns cause death...icits", "Communists LOVE guns." There has to be some way, some argument, some trick to ween Americans off their toys. Of course the idea that he can argue that gun ownership increases murders and high school shootings and gang-related activity and that it's just unbelievably irresponsible for Billy Skidmark to own an assault weapon is just plain naive. Gun owning Americans don't want to hear logic, or reason, or heartbreaking stories of children being mown down by nutcases who would find their slaughters rather limited if they only had access to kitchen knives. What they want is that lovely *BANG* noise as they fire off a few rounds over some beers. The heavy, cold, reassuring weight of a reloadable penis which makes them feel that, yes, they may live in a suburb and work in data entry and their man boobs are getting a bit out of hand, but they're basically still a cowboy. Now, if only someone would break into their house. Pleeeeease. *BANG* Take that commie! It's not guns that stop burglars breaking into houses. It's locks. Really good locks.

How about 'None of the above'?

Most Americans love the Bible. Most of it is self-contradictory, outdated nonsense of course but you can ignore those bits. It's old. It has words like 'ye' in it and transgressors get a good smiting. They also love the Constitution. It's all yellow and the corners are crumpled. It's old. That means it's true and will be true forever. Of course, owning guns isn't even in the constitution. It was one of the 'amendments' made in 1791 which was branded "The Bill of Rights." It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In those days, grammar wasn't very popular. Neither were standing armies. They hoovered up resources, slapped the local populace about and had to be paid for in increased taxes. The colonists were particularly iffy about plans for a permanent base of 10,000 British troops to be stationed in Nova Scotia. Objectively, this was a sound move. The French had been beaten in North America during the 1760s, but the threat of them and other ambitious European powers was never far off. The British Empire had suddenly almost doubled in size. It needed defending. The colonists thought they could handle it, but reports from the British Army about the performance of the colonials against the French made Parliament think differently.

If you're going to be kept in tyranny, you could do a lot
worse than these spiffy looking fellows.

The colonists, meanwhile, preferred militias. You could raise them, use them to give the French or Injuns a good drubbing, and then send them back home. Even at the time of signing the Constitution, most were dead against having a standing army in peacetime. Hadn't armed militias done the job of wearing down the mighty British Empire? Why not stick with those? Fine. Keep your guns for when you need them. In a matter of years, the new USA realised that they would need a professional standing army after all, even in times of peace. Who would pay for this? The American taxpayer. Post-revolutionary governments always come to resemble the former oppressor. But then, the American Revolution was less a revolution, more a change of management.

The Americans of the late eighteenth century had plenty of good reasons to stay armed. The Brits to the North, the Natives (and even the Russians) to the West, the French and Spanish to the South. The USA was a minor chip in a high-stakes world power struggle. They had good reason to feel paranoid. That's what the amendment was about. It had nothing to do with building compounds in the desert in attempt to resist government drone strikes or shooting beautiful animals in the name of team bonding. It was just a good, workable idea at the time which has since become some religious doctrine. The world has changed. The USA has nothing much to fear for the time being. It's the same reason that Jews don't eat pork. God has nothing personal against pigs, it's just at the time the laws of the Old Testament were being laid down, eating pathogen-crammed under cooked pig was incredibly dicey. Better give it a miss. Why? Err...God said so? Now that pork is safe again, God would totally endorse it. Unfortunately, he's not said much of late. I sympathise. It's been ages since I updated my website.

How do you stop guns? MORE GUNS!!!!

The idea that some wheezing old man sitting in a deckchair nursing a shot gun on a porch in Tennessee is the only thing keeping freedom alive is the stuff of farce. Most Western nations largely disarmed long ago and yet somehow they haven't got round to installing totalitarian dictatorships. Odd that. Could it be that 99.9% of people in democracy want democracy? Could it be that a majority of people still go into government because they rather like the principles of democracy?

We may take our liberties and democracy for granted, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Our rights to say and do largely what we want have become second nature. Try taking them away from us now, and see what would happen. We simply wouldn't stand for it. The new self-appointed dictator would find their situation untenable. Work would stop, taxes would go unpaid, civil disobedience would be rife. It doesn't take an M16 assault rifle to achieve that. At least, Gandhi didn't think so.

Dictators can't just exterminate everyone. Who would there be left to rule? But that's not what this is about. It's not the realities or practicalities of abstract concepts of 'freedom' or 'democracy' - terms which have been put to good use to invade foreign nations, kill innocents and seize resources. No. None of that really matters. Having a gun is cool. It's like owning an iPhone. If Apple had any sense (particularly with the serious danger of the ever-encroaching Samsung) they would have themselves written into The Constitution.

AMENDMENT XXVII
"The right of the people to keep and bear iPhones, shall not be infringed."

"But pa, I want the new Samsung Galaxy."
"What's wrong with you, boy? It's in the constitution. Why do you hate freedom?"

i-Phone have a dream.