Lily Allen's Hard Out Here mocks every stupid sexist pop video you've seen in the last five years

Also, Lily Allen's balloons are funnier than Robin Thicke's balloons.

There are five things you need to know about Lily Allen's video for Hard Out Here.
 
 
 
  1. Her balloons are definitely funnier than Robin Thicke’s balloons

According to the ancient language of balloonspeak, Robin Thicke has a big dick. But Lily Allen has a baggy pussy, because she’s had two babies, and she’s not going to lie about it. Which kind of means that they’d make a perfect pair.

 

 

  1. Growing a pair is the new growing a pair

Because it’s particularly ‘hard out there for a bitch’, Lily suggests that anyone contemplating bravery should ‘forget your balls and grow a pair of tits’. Of course, this sentiment was somewhat pre-empted by a person purporting to be Betty White, way back when we were all decorating our Facebook page with that notorious adage: ‘Why do people say ‘grow some balls’? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you want to be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.’ Betty White herself denied that these words had ever left her lips in a 2012 Guardian article that was disappointing for about five minutes – at least now we have Lily.

 

 

  1. Twerking in slow motion looks weirdly repulsive

As the camera zooms in on the twerking back-up dancers’ arses that Lily periodically spanks with dollar notes, you notice how compellingly strange a rapidly moving bum cheek looks when subjected to some fancy camera work.

 

 

  1. Blue lipstick is back

You had it in the mid-nineties, and now you can have it again. Lily’s scenes of liberation include partying among her balloons in a rain mac, and dancing around in trousers and a long-sleeved t-shirt: unheard-of womanly attire in pop videos for at least the last five years. The good news is that make-up which doesn’t even pretend to look natural is also back on the agenda (it graduates to blue lipstick after starting off at face glitter, something I’m delighted has been resurrected so close to Christmas.)

 

 

  1. YOU NEED ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES

Product placement became legal in 2010, but has kept itself fairly low key since the law changed. There’s no denying that electronic cigarettes E-Lites are after the demographic who know and love Lily Allen’s music videos. Proper bitches smoke electronic cigarettes. But are we supposed to want to be proper bitches? The jury’s out, and it may be twerking.

 

Lily Allen in Hard Out Here.
Holly Baxter is a freelance journalist who writes regularly for The Guardian and The New Statesman. She is also one half of The Vagenda and releases a book on the media in May 2014.
Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.