You’re through to a feminist, how may I lecture you today?

An article on sexism, from the BBC:

Although you are likely to have dealt with both male and female call centre agents, the fact is that 71% of workers in the global call centre industry are female. Dubbed the “female ghetto” or, more positively, “female-friendly workplaces”, women are significantly over-represented in call centres.

My initial, gut-instinct response is that, with women now pouring into the workplace by the million, someone needed to find something for them to do. Hence the growth of HR departments, process-driven bureaucracies, NGOs, and – for the dimmer women out there – call centres.

With the closure of factories, automation, and a shrinking army the options for dim young men are narrowing, but they can still work as security guards or lug stuff around on a building site. But what are the dim women supposed to do, now they’ve been encouraged (or forced, due to house prices) to enter into the workforce? Cashiers are dwindling thanks to automation brought about in part by the minimum wage, leaving them with few options outside a call centre. The author has other ideas, though:

My research sheds light on this phenomenon. After extensive interviews with call centre managers and agents, as well as an investigation into the industry’s working culture and practices in Scotland and Denmark, it became clear that call centres are built on the sexist attitudes embedded in society.

Of course. What else could it be?

Call centres are intensely regulated and target-driven work places. Agents are instructed to speak to customers in certain ways. The extent to which they follow these instructions is monitored by managers, and their salaries and career advancement can depend upon it.

Agents may be told to use the customer’s name, create small talk and interject with prescribed “listening sounds” such as “aha”, “OK” and “I see”. The purpose is to ensure that agents keep the call on track and also give the impression of a personalised service.

Call centre employees need to be agreeable? I’m not sure this required much research to figure out, but okay.

When I compared male and female call centre agents’ compliance with the language prescriptions, an interesting pattern emerged: it was invariably the female agents who complied more. This was the case for both the Scottish and the Danish women.

Women are more agreeable than men, on average, so tend to do well in customer service roles. Who knew?

Why would female agents comply more than their male colleagues with the linguistic prescriptions?

Because their natural behaviours are more in line with what their managers are asking them to do? Apparently not:

There is evidence from child development and schooling research that girls are rewarded for complying with the rules and sanctioned more severely than boys for breaking them – such as messing around or shouting out in class.

Women working in call-centres are more agreeable than men because when they were at school they were cowed into submission by sexist teachers. Like many profound revelations, it’s obvious once pointed out.

It is conceivable that these socialised differences carry over into the workplace. These differences then show up particularly clearly in highly regimented workplaces, where following instructions and meeting targets is how your performance is measured.

Note that none of these differences are natural; they’re purely socialised.

Greater female rule keeping would explain both these phenomena. But while rule compliance is valued and rewarded in schools, by the time young women enter the professional arena it may start to work against them.

On the contrary, the plethora of process-driven corporate and government departments seems to have sprung up at precisely the time women entered the professional workplace en masse.

It keeps them in highly regimented jobs with low prestige and little influence.

This will come as a surprise to anyone who’s worked in a modern corporation.

Interviews with call centre managers and recruiters suggest that female workers are preferred over males because they stick to the rules.

Women being preferred over men is an example of revolting sexism against women, is it?

Of course, greater female rule compliance is just one among several explanations for why women are disproportionately represented in call centre jobs. Some women may choose themselves to work in call centres. Call centre work is often amenable to flexible working, which makes it attractive to women of child-rearing age. And, of course, there are deep-rooted beliefs in society about the different strengths of each gender. Service jobs require emotional labour, which women are believed to be particularly good at.

And just like that, the premise of the entire article disappears in a puff of smoke. But the author being a senior lecturer in English Language and applied linguistics, from the Open University no less, soldiers on:

Call centres have opened up new opportunities for women in the UK and across the world. However, in the longer term, the over-recruitment of women to the industry could be detrimental to gender equality.

Translation: women deserve better jobs than working in nasty call centres. Because, wimminz.

Call centre jobs are notorious worldwide for their high levels of turnover, absenteeism, employee burnout and emotional exhaustion. Agents are at constant risk of angry outbursts from customers, sexual harassment and outright abuse.

As if men don’t find themselves working dirty, dangerous, poorly-paid, and soul-destroying jobs.

If women are driven into these low-paid and stressful jobs, where they have little influence and low status, talent will be lost.

Just think of all those potential power-skirts wasting away in a cubicle under the colossal weight of a headset.

It also potentially discriminates against men who could and would want to do the job.

Heh! I like this: men shouldn’t be discriminated against for jobs we feminists think are beneath us. For the good jobs, we need quotas and diversity targets.

If we want to have a more diverse workforce and exploit everyone’s talent to its full potential, it is time to start challenging call centre recruitment practices.

And there’s the gender equality movement in a nutshell: we want women to have all the well-paid, cushy jobs in air-conditioned offices; the men can do all the shit we don’t want to.


Six things young women need to know

This is actually pretty good:

Here are 6 things young women need to know about their future lives

Go on.

1. By the time you hit 30, the likelihood of your deciding that marriage and family—not career—is the most important thing in your life is astronomically high.


2. Whom you choose to marry, not which career you choose, is the single most important decision you’ll ever make.


3. The quality of your marriage will have more effect on your happiness and well-being than anything else in life.


4. Divorce doesn’t solve problems—it creates new ones.

Probably true in many cases, possibly even most. There will be exceptions, though. If your husband is kicking the shit out of you, it’s probably best you don’t stick around. And this:

getting divorced will likely ruin you financially

If only that were true of women, we’d probably see a lot fewer divorces.

5. If you remarry, rest assured your new husband will have just as many warts as the first.

Yup. As someone wrote in a review of my book: “as you get older everyone has baggage. The key is whether people with different backgrounds can justify their decisions and create a compatible relationship”.

6. There are things you can do to strengthen your marriage so it doesn’t crash and burn.

A relationship takes work, particularly communication and compromise. A lot of people I’ve met don’t seem to understand this.

Trying to be a big shot powerhouse and still be a sane, loving and engaged wife and mother is futile. Those two worlds don’t intersect—they collide. They are in direct competition with one another, as Indra K. Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, courageously admitted in 2014.

I recently listened to a Freakonomics podcast with Indra Nooyi, and she came across very well. She appears, at least to me, to be a genuinely successful female CEO and deserving of the post, not one just parachuted in to please the diversity department. Whereas this:

Each to his own, but I’d be a lot prouder if my partner’s promotion didn’t come about as a result of a gender parity pledge. If I was a woman who genuinely deserved to be elevated to partner, I’d be absolutely livid at this.

Anyway, back to the list. Can you imagine what a list of 6 things young women need to know about their future lives would look like if it were compiled by the BBC, Guardian, or Laurie Penny? It would pretty much fisk itself. That’s why I found this lady’s post rather refreshing:

And finally, because at the end of the day it is our relationships, not our jobs, that matter most.

Well said.


Equal Pay for Unequal Work

I can’t see this being successful:

Tesco is facing Britain’s largest ever equal pay claim and a possible bill running to £4bn.
Thousands of women who work in Tesco stores could receive back pay totalling £20,000 if the legal challenge demanding parity with men who work in the company’s warehouses is successful.
Lawyers say hourly-paid female store staff earn less than men even though the value of the work is comparable.

That lawyers think warehouse work is comparable with that in the shop floor doesn’t surprise me: I doubt they have the slightest idea what either is like.  But doesn’t the law say the work must be the same, not merely “comparable” in a way defined by a lawyer?

Paula Lee, of Leigh Day solicitors, the firm acting for up to 1,000 women who are likely to take test cases, told the BBC it was time for Tesco to tackle the problem of equal pay for work of equal worth.
The most common rate for women is £8 an hour whereas for men the hourly rate can be as high as £11 an hour, she added.

I would imagine all Tesco need to is demonstrate there is equal pay between men and women working in the store, something which ought to be rather straightforward. What people – men or women – are paid in the warehouse, under different conditions which are easy to list, is irrelevant.

I suspect the lawyers know this, but have decided to leap on the equal pay bandwagon to give themselves publicity, further the narrative, and maybe shake down Tesco in the process, who might not want the adverse publicity.

That said, if the court ruling goes against Tesco, it may open the door for men working in warehouses to demand equal pay with the powerskirts loafing around in air-conditioned offices. But I think this will be thrown out long before then.


The Undoing of Rose McGowan

It was the New York Times interview with the actress Rose McGowan that first brought Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour to the attention of the general public last October (it was common knowledge in Hollywood circles). This is why I had a vague idea who she was when I saw the video below, filmed during a book signing at a Barnes & Noble in New York:

The person who yelled at her is a transsexual woman who appears to have a rather dubious history of her own. Naturally, this being 2018, the organisers of the women’s march, the event where deranged women turn up in DC wearing pussy hats to scream en masse at Trump, have denounced McGowan and she is now becoming persona non grata:

So last week McGowan was a feminist heroine, a survivor of sexual assault and leading the fight against the Patriarchy. But having not taken any shit from a bloke in women’s clothes who stood up and abused her at her book signing, she’s now an outcast.

Here’s my view: these people are fucking insane. I have some sympathy with McGowan – the lunatic who accosted her should have been turfed out on her ear – but look at her reaction and overall demeanor, best seen in this video shot shortly after the incident:

She’s turned up to a book signing wearing what looks like gym kit, or an outfit she loafs around her flat in. She’s slouched in her chair able only to express anger littered with profanity, coming across as a moody adolescent who’s decided to copy TV portrayals of ghetto thugs when telling her parents she doesn’t want to clean her room. And people actually turned up to listen to this?

People are tempted to point to Harvey Weinstein and say this is what is wrong with Hollywood. Alas, I think the problems go way deeper, and have spilled over into whole swathes of the media and even politics. It is quite something to watch whole swathes of an advanced country go collectively insane.


A brave WPC and two unknown colleagues

I’ve found that whenever you criticise the British police on Twitter, people – mostly serving or ex-policemen – leap to their defence. I think that’s what this chap is trying to do in this tweet:

Obviously he’s implying that the story on the right renders my skepticism (on the left) unwarranted. But something smells funny:

PC Laura Curnow was with two colleagues when they managed to disarm a highly volatile armed man…

So who were her two colleagues? If the intention of posting this story is to demonstrate that all-female police patrols can handle dangerous thugs, this detail is important, no?

Laura’s two colleagues received their award for the same incident last year.

A search on the Devon and Cornwall police website doesn’t mention anyone else receiving an award in relation to the incident. A cynic would say that PC Curnow’s two colleagues were male, and her award only reported because she is female. An even bigger cynic might say the decision to award Curnow came late, a political decision to puff-up the role of female PCs, while her male colleagues got the initial recommendation because they were the ones who actually did the heavy-lifting.

But I’ll not be cynical in this instance. For all I know PC Curnow kicked the shit out this chap while her colleagues stood idly by, and I’ll assume she is fully deserving of her award. What I will say, however, is that the story as presented doesn’t do the job this Twitterer thinks it does.


Class snobbery masquerading as feminism

Via Damian Counsell, this video:

What this tells me is that feminism in the UK is very much a class issue (as is pretty much everything in Britain). Here we have two women with northern accents doing a job which puts them neck-deep among Britain’s working class, a job they enjoy. Then we have Sally Howard with a home-counties accent who I expect has a university education in a pointless field and works a non-job surrounded by people who think exactly like her. Well, whaddya know?

Since leaving university, Howard has worked as a “charity publicist, copywriter and media consultant for Oxfam GB”, authored “a socio-sexual travelogue investigating Indian sexuality from the open carnality of ancient Hinduism, via the repressions of the Raj, to modern-day Delhi rape uprisings”, and freelances as a “travel and lifestyle journalist” and “investigative and social trends journalist.” Sadly Howard’s LinkedIn profile doesn’t tell us what school she went to, because I suspect it would be a posh private one: her whole profile reeks of upper-middle class privilege bankrolled by a wealthy father.

What strikes me about the hectoring, condescending, dismissive tone adopted by Howard towards the two walk-on girls is how old-fashioned she appears. For all her talk about “outdated” practices and her doubtless conceit that she exemplifies modern women, she sounds for all the world like the harridan wife of a hen-pecked vicar in the 1930s lecturing the lower-classes on morals and the virtues of good housekeeping.

There’s a reason for this: scrape away the virtue-signalling, underlying politics, and competition for sex, and we’re left with good, old-fashioned class snobbery. It’s always been there, and probably always will be. The only thing I don’t understand is how the two northern lasses remained so calm and polite.


In the Aftermath of the Presidents Club Party

On BBC this morning I caught the end of an interview with a vaguely attractive young British woman who was struggling to make a coherent point and seemed to be rambling. This might be because she was unused to doing live TV performances, or it might be because she was a bit dim, I don’t know. From what I could gather she was one of the hostesses working at the now-infamous Presidents Club dinner, or had worked at similar events, and was rather upset by what had happened to her.

So straight up, I have some sympathy. I don’t believe this girl was lying or hamming it up for the camera, I think she was genuinely upset at something and wanted things to change. Where I suspect we differ is what we would like to see changed.

I confess I’ve not delved too deeply into the story, but amid all the outrage there seems to be a distinct lack of actual complainants. I understand that the journalists who broke the story for the FT identified one girl, but the outrage seems to be coming almost exclusively from people who weren’t there. This ought to tell us something, which I’ll get to later.

For now, let’s focus on what people are complaining about. A bunch of rich men attend a dinner where they grope and sexually harass the women serving the food and drinks. There is nothing wrong with this per se, provided the women knew in advance what behaviour to expect (and acquiesce to), and they were paid the money they’d agreed to. The company doing the organising could have easily hired a bunch of out-and-out prostitutes who the men could shag silly all night, or they could have hired a bunch of nuns with wooden rulers to ensure the men didn’t do so much as tell a dirty joke. They’re the two extremes; what they actually tried to do was something in the middle.

They put on an event where some degree of sexual harassment was permissible – flirting, suggestive comments, ass-grabbing, etc. – but not sexual assault. (The difference between one and the other was quite obvious for generations, until recently when placing a hand upon a woman’s knee became synonymous with full-on gang rape. Thanks, feminists.) What should have happened is the people employing the women make it very clear to them what they are expected to put up with, and where behaviours cross the line and they have grounds to complain. The organisers of the function should in parallel have made it very clear to the attendees what behaviours were allowed and what were not. This, after all, is how any strip club works and the rules are so universally well-known they’ve become a cliché. If there is so much as one complaint from any of the women, this should be investigated properly and, if their complaint is valid, somebody ought to be disciplined. This really isn’t difficult.

So did the women get fair warning? I don’t know. Yes, they were told which knickers to wear, which suggests this wasn’t an ordinary party, and I suspect most of the women knew full well what would happen, but I’d not be surprised if this was not spelled out as well as it should have been and someone a bit slow on the uptake got an unpleasant surprise. I’m not prepared to dismiss a woman’s complaint as coming from a feminist harpy on the make, not if she was there wearing the clothes and being groped in person. The organisers could have ensured there were no nasty surprises by explaining things more clearly, or hiring actual sex-workers, but the former requires principled managers and the latter requires spending money. I can’t imagine those who run such businesses specialise in either.

What I don’t agree with is the ludicrous levels of moral posturing in the aftermath of this article. Nowhere amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is an acknowledgement that the women who worked that party had any agency whatsoever: according to the feminists now beating the anti-male drums, they were all poor, exploited women who thought they were turning up to a kids’ birthday party only to be sexually assaulted by a bunch of old, white men in dinner suits. A brief Google search one shouldn’t perform at work would tell you that London is absolutely chock-full of highly attractive Eastern European and other foreign women willing to do pretty much anything for a few hundred quid. They’ll even be a few Brits in there too. Unless we’re willing to believe the bullshit spouted by women’s groups and Theresa May that they are trafficked and there exists a thriving, multi-million pound market for men raping emaciated, weeping prisoners chained to beds, these women in the adverts are working of their own free will.

So who’s to say that none of the women at the Presidents Club dinner were also working of their own free will, and happy with the terms and conditions? I can imagine there is no shortage of women in London willing to earn a little extra cash for listening to lewd remarks and having their asses grabbed. The only question is how much extra cash and whether the women are well-informed in advance that sexual harassment will be on the menu.

But we’re back to the contradiction I mentioned yesterday: one minute feminists are telling us modern women are tough, strong, and independent and should be free to engage in one-night stands, orgies, polyamory, and any manner of other supposedly empowering acts of promiscuity; but at the same time they’re clutching their pearls because some women they’ve never met are working in a manner they believe is demeaning. By launching such moral crusades in a manner their Victorian ancestors would have endorsed, they are denying these women any agency whatsoever.

Of course, we already know the reason for this contradiction. Modern feminism is a political movement aimed at maximising the sexual capacity of women while eliminating it for men. Any woman who bucks the trend by cooperating with men in their quest for sexual gratification on mutually agreed terms – as opposed to the ever-changing terms of the woman only – is therefore deemed a problem, and their agency must be denied if they are to continue to demonise men.

There might have been problems with what went on at the Presidents Club, but they are not the ones being talked about. Those foaming at the mouth while attempting to reshape society on the basis of non-existent problems ought to be mocked or ignored.


Dating, New York Feminist Style

My research assistant sent me this article in Elle magazine, which asks a bunch of women who, to me, all seem the same about dating in a “post-Harvey Weinstein world”.

Here’s a flavour of the responses:

I don’t just march misogynists into my life. My screening process is intense. I ask a lot of questions and try my best to carefully analyze the photos of anyone I meet. A sampling of inquiries include: What do you do? Where do you live? Where are you from? Who did you vote for? Do you have tree nut allergies? Etc. Still, when I add up all the dates I’ve been on this year, including the good ones, what I remember is: The casual racism, the constant interruptions, the arrogance, the insistence that he knows best about literally anything and everything.

So screening men with questions like “Who did you vote for?” lands you on dates with racist, misogynistic assholes? Heh. Want to tell us how they answered?

A date recently asked me ‘where I was from’ after telling me I had ‘an exotic look.’ When this kind of nonsense happens I cut it off right at the head. In response to this dude, I just went silent, too angry to even engage.

You’ve just told us you filter men by asking where they’re from. A man asks you the same question and you seethe with rage. As for the “exotic” comment? Well, so what? Some women like being called exotic.

I’ve blocked more guys from more means of communication than I can count over the last 12 months.

Which speaks volumes.

Woke bae is out there somewhere … I remember things that my own father would say years ago that he would never say now and that’s because he’s got two razor-tongued daughters that continually check him at any opportunity … at the moment, I don’t have a concrete solution for this problem and I also don’t have a boyfriend either.

I can’t imagine why.

For example, I was talking on the phone with the guy I’ve been seeing for a few months…he was subjected to a long rant about how such reports often fall on deaf ears, how reporting often creates more conflict in the woman’s life than in the perpetrator’s, how shame is dealt unfairly in such situations.

Lucky him.

To him, I’m a whole person, my own universe, rather than simply a satellite in his universe—a first for me in a romantic relationship. But recently, I’ve often struggled to maintain composure and openness while explaining things to him that every woman I know understands intuitively.

Even luckier him.

My litmus test was simple: casually mention scandals in the media and gauge his reaction.

This is on a first date. Can you imagine an actual relationship with this person?

But above all, don’t, absolutely don’t go back with a guy to his apartment unless you want to engage in some sort of sexual activity—especially with the guy you only went on two dates with who said you would just watch a movie.

Finally someone’s said something sensible.

The article illustrates one of the most bewildering contradictions in modern times: the feminist idea that modern women should be carefree, promiscuous, powerful, go-girrrl high-flyers as portrayed in Sex and the City, while at the same time:

To be safe, you must follow the rules: Don’t leave your drink unattended or accept a drink from man, because he may roofie it. Don’t make eye contact with the guy who catcalls you on the street—he’ll just see it as an invitation to talk to you. Remember that creepy old doorman who tried to ask you out after seeing you pass his building on your way to the gym each morning? You haven’t forgotten how uncomfortable that made you feel, and it’s been months.

I’ve reached the conclusion most of them are barking mad.


Poisoned Chalice

I’ve written before about the state of the England woman’s football association, which is less known for any on-field success than the various parliamentary inquiries, investigations, grievances, and internal reviews related to a certain Nigerian-born lawyer who is doing a good job of shaking the organisation down. All the fuss concerned the previous manager Mark Sampson, who supposedly engaged in racial discrimination against Chelsea and England striker Eniola Aluko. He got the boot, and yesterday ex-Manchester United and Everton defender Phil Neville was appointed to the role. Predictably, within hours:

Phil Neville’s appointment as head coach of the England women’s football team has been overshadowed by allegations of sexism.

Shortly after the former Manchester United and England footballer was named as the Lionesses’ new boss, Twitter users began to share controversial tweets that the star wrote six years ago.

Controversial? So what did he do? Downplay FGM? Sing the virtues of Sharia law? Condone wife-beating? Not quite:

In 2012, he had posted: “Morning men couple of hours cricket be4 work sets me up nicely for the day.”

Asked why he only referred to men in his post, he replied: “When I said morning men I thought the women would of been busy preparing breakfast/getting kids ready/making the beds-sorry morning women!”

Sorry, but my pearls remain unclutched.

The 41-year-old deleted the posts and took down his Twitter account as criticism grew.

He’d have been better off tweeting “Fuck this for a game of soldiers!”, resigning on the spot, and doing something else in a field which contains the occasional adult. It’s not like he needs the money.


I Want, I Want, I Want

There was time when folks used to entertain themselves by visiting loony bins and laughing at the antics of the inmates. Nowadays we have TV programs like Geordie Shore and BBC articles like this one:

Ten months ago, thirty-something Jessica was eager to get pregnant. A series of relationships had failed so she tried a radically new approach – she posted an advert online.

The request was posted on Craigslist, a website better known for second-hand goods.

A decent editor would have deleted that wholly superfluous “better”.

The potential father needed to be over 5ft 9in, under 40 and prepared to take an STD test. He would also be required to have “a few days of frequent sex”.

This woman would prefer her offspring to be tall rather than smart.

“Our grandparents didn’t spend years and years cohabiting and watching boxsets,” she says.

No. No, they didn’t. Which is why they didn’t have to resort to advertising on Craigslist.

“Starting a family was very much the goal of their endeavour.”

Indeed, they wanted a family and so got on with the job of making one rather than suddenly realising it at 30.

She’d also watched many of her friends start families after falling “madly in love”, only to split up later in a cloud of angry recriminations.

So her friends are unable to maintain lasting relationships, kids be damned? Why aren’t I surprised?

“I decided I could sacrifice romantic fulfilment as long as my child had two parents who loved and cared for them,” she says.

Because the relationship between the parents has no effect whatsoever on the child; what matters is the woman has what she wants.

She posted her advert on Craigslist while on a bus from her home in the suburbs into central London – and by the time she arrived at Oxford Street, she already had a number of replies.

From men who are more used to seeing such adverts with prices attached.

A year earlier, Jessica had been in a long-term relationship with David. Like her, he wanted children… but he was in no rush.

“He was aimless. He wanted to wait until he felt better about his life and his career. You just think, ‘Come on!'” Jessica says.

So he couldn’t get his life together, probably didn’t want children with her, and all she could do was think things to herself? Hurrah for female empowerment!

She had wanted children since she turned 30 and was envious of friends who were starting families.

I used to be like that. The feeling wore off after lunch.

She was also shaken by a visit to her aunt in hospital. Her aunt didn’t have children, and Jessica believed she had been ignored by doctors as there had been no-one to insist on better care.

“I thought there was a risk of me ending up in a similar situation if I had no kids of my own. They can act as insurance for when you get older.”

Firstly this kid will learn that its mother didn’t care who its father was. Then it will learn its primary purpose for being brought into this world was to ensure its mother is looked after when she’s old. The BBC takes no issue with this.

She ended her relationship with David in March 2016 and almost immediately started dating her colleague, Scott. He was keen to have a baby, but after six months of trying they had nothing to show for it. So they went to a GP, who suggested blood tests – and while Jessica’s results were clear, Scott’s revealed a range of fertility issues.

I can’t think of a single person who is more fortunate to be infertile. Trust me Scott old chap, the Gods are smiling on you.

“He didn’t react well to the news and basically fell apart. I didn’t feel I had the ability to support him through it,” Jessica says.

Meaning, he was no longer useful to her so she abandoned him.

“She asked, ‘Why would you spend £700 for sperm when you could go down to Yates’s [wine bar] and find someone who would gladly give you it for free?'” Jessica says.

It’s all class with our Jess.

She then started chatting to a single man on the website, until an insurmountable barrier got in the way – Brexit.

“He voted to leave Europe and I’m very much for remain,” Jessica says. “I said, ‘I’m not really sure we can parent like this.'”

She desperately wants a baby with practically anyone who can get it up, but draws the line at men who voted to leave the EU? This woman is fucking insane.

Jessica quit the website, which charged a monthly fee, and considered dating apps. But as a teacher she didn’t want to post a photograph of herself.

This train-wreck of a woman is a teacher?

“I didn’t want to use a dating website or Tinder in case a student saw a picture of me. Plus I knew Craigslist got a lot of traffic and was free to use,” she says.

The avoidance of monthly website fees being of utmost importance when searching for the father of your child.

“God, it sounds completely crazy looking back,” Jessica says.

I daresay it looked that way at the time, too.

She received a flurry of replies, including the obligatory slew of penis pictures.

She advertised free sex on Craiglist with almost no conditions. What was she expecting, flowers and a poem?

A number of men wrote claiming they had helped several women, which turned Jessica off.

“The last thing I needed was for my child to end up at a party and snog their sibling without knowing,” Jessica says.

Just try to imagine the thought process that led to her making this statement.

Another young man wrote to say he was desperate for a baby after his previous partner had a miscarriage. Jessica felt he was too vulnerable.

In other words, he might need something from her.

Then she received an email from Ross.

“He was 33 and also lived in London. He said he’d had some disastrous relationships but he loved being an uncle and wanted children of his own,” Jessica says.

Because nothing makes for a better father than a man with a series of disastrous relationships behind him.

They discovered they were of different faiths

Uh-oh. Swarthy foreigner? What do you reckon?

but agreed they wanted a “London approach” to religion.

Any problems are just part and parcel of living in a big city?

“We agreed there was one God who loved pretty much everybody and we would want a child to be comfortable with people of any faith or no faith.”

Before the boy was circumcised at the father’s insistence. Jessica wanted to object, but didn’t want another black eye.

Ross was very involved during the pregnancy and accompanied Jessica to hospital appointments. It wasn’t all plain sailing, though.

They clashed about who got to keep the original ultrasound pictures and whether to spend money finding out the sex of the baby early.

“Ross” didn’t want a girl, only a boy?

The couple told their parents Jessica was expecting a baby after the pregnancy had lasted 12 weeks, but didn’t reveal how they had met.

I have a feeling they’ll find out soon enough, under less rosy circumstances.

The couple have now been together just under a year and parents for two months. They are still discovering new things about each other.

Two months. Right.

What annoys me about these articles is they are presented without any scrutiny of such issues as the effect this arrangement will have on the child, or the fact that the woman’s own disastrous life choices have forced her into this. And we never get to read of the aftermath, when the entire situation unravels in a manner which could have been easily predicted by anyone with a brain. All we get is positive puff-pieces like this, while the costs of such lunacy are foisted on the rest of society.

(H/T My Burning Ears in the comments and @wibble80 on Twitter)