Found this on the BBC news website's '10 things we didn't know before last week' page:

7. The White House asked if President Bush could address the European Parliament, Baroness Williams revealed on BBC One's This Week show on Thursday. But, she said, Euro-MPs were told there was a condition attached to him making the speech: a standing ovation should be guaranteed. The speech has never taken place.

What fucking muppet insisted that the US President had to have a standing ovation? How brown-tongued is that? If Bush came over to the European Parliament and gave a speech worthy of a standing ovation, he'd get one. If he came over expecting a standing ovation, he should have been punched in the face instead.

(Wow, I'm just visualising that. Hundreds of Euro-MPs queuing up by the podium with the Presidential Seal on the front, Bush standing behind it all mushed up. Hee hee hee hee...)

:-)

There is a reason for this smiley.

No, I'm not telling you, and it's probably not what you're thinking.

The FemSoc thing seems to be calming, now that at least a few of them have realised that the 'female supremacism' comment in my review was based on a comment that wasn't actually part of the script - just a poorly thought out in-joke, ridiculing the guy who changed a V-Day poster to read Dick Day.

If the audience didn't know what the hostess was referring to, they couldn't appreciate the meaning of the comment - hence it became anti-male, rather than anti-wanker.

FemSoc hate me.

Although at least one person seems to have not actually read the article. She was way off-base, as if someone had told her what my review said, and put down an opinion on an article I never wrote.

I noticed the webmaster put a copy of the article on the next post after the suspicious one.

They've also started a poll, determining how fair they thought the review was. There's actually more people on the indifferent/fair/very fair side of it than there are who actually view it negatively, so I take that as a good sign.

Also an interesting question complaining that a guy was deliberately chosen to do the review. I quote: "maybe in future the arts editior should give some more thought as to whome she asks to give a review of plays in future?"

More thought? Less thought, surely. Draw it out of a hat. The only other alternatives are a hermaphrodite reviewer or a female reviewer. You're not likely to find many hermaphrodites with journalistic ability on campus, so that leaves...

Shit...

It means deliberately picking a female reviewer, so that you get a more favourable review. Shit, isn't that a) sexist, and b) arrogant to assume that a female reviewer is incapable of spotting the same bits I took issue with?

A little modification to the site - a counter. No I get to see how few people are reading this.

Ah, good, now that bit about me being Aaron Sorkin has gone off the bottom of the page, I'm back to this lovely narrow window, rather than having to scroll sideways to be able to read what's going on on the site.

The first response has come in on the Vagina Monologue review, by someone who was involved in it, or at least on the Thank You page of the programme.

http://pub37.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3106302632

Go take a look, if you're interested, just beware of the worst possible shade of pink you will ever see.

(Laura, I may have commented on the pinkness of the site you wrote for Ruth, but this one makes your pink look positively tasteful.)

Smile If You Love Coochi Snorchers

From a foyer filled with artwork of vaginas, to a stage decorated with red roses (get it?) and red drapes drawn together in a rippled fashion (am I reading too much into this?), the subject of The Vagina Monologues is set out from the start. Vaginas. Apparently women don’t talk about them enough.

Performed in aid of the Lancaster & District Women’s Aid, the monologues were in turns informative and thought provoking, but most relied strongly on humour. A special mention goes to Megan LaMantia-Bishop, both for her My Angry Vagina performance and the, um… exhausting sound effects she provided for another monologue.

With comedy making up so much of the play, it was relatively easy to forget the real reason the monologues were written. Immediately after My Angry Vagina, the humour stopped dead with the devastating My Vagina Was My Village, about a Bosnian victim of war-rape.

There were occasional slips towards the kind of female-supremacist ideology that gives real feminism a bad name, and at times it was obvious that this wasn’t a professional production, but congratulations are due to the cast and crew for putting on a good performance, and for highlighting domestic violence in such an open manner.

One last reminder of how important the issue is: the audience was asked to stand if they’d ever experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Few women remained seated.

That was the review I wrote for Scan, about the Feminist Society's production of The Vagina Monologues. Okay, it wasn't the best bit of work I've ever done. Emilie only gave me a 200 word limit to write it in, so I had to leave out most of what I wanted to put in.

Apparently though, FemSoc weren't impressed, and the reasons I've been given so far are that a) what the hell was I talking about with the scenery, and b) what fucking idiot assigned a review of a feminist play to a male reviewer?

I've diplomatically left a message on the FemSoc message board, asking for feedback on the piece. Could be interesting (i.e. flame war), or maybe the FemSoc have been misrepresented by a generalisation of opinions.

Let's wait and see.